Raf

Oh, it's a great line in a great... but long... movie.

And BINGO was his name-o.

Hmm. Good guess. I've never seen that movie, but it does seem to describe the plot.

It's not what I had in mind, though.

Hint: put the emphasis on the last line.

Presumed Innocent

Brian Dennehy

First Blood

I heard that AOL comes with eight essential vitamins and minerals, but it won't save you any money on car insurance.

Seriously speaking, I haven't the slightest idea what a router is, or if I have one. I'll assume based on my ignorance that I do not have one.

No router. No AOL.

Thanks.

It appears to me that he got his Bullinger definitions reversed. A huge "so what" in my book, but honestly, my memory of the filmed class fails me (and thank God for that).

I

do

not

have

A

O

L

ok?

:)-->

quote:

As to the doctrinal forum, likewise, why bother? I have yet to see anybody's mind be changed through the debates on that forum. Arguing for arguing's sake is sometimes entertaining to read, but is a waste of time to prolong through my posts. There are trinitarians on this board, there are unitarians on this board, there are a-tarians on this board. I have yet to see one change their mind on their beliefs as the result of something posted on "doctrinal." So, again, why bother.

Then you're missing out.

There are fantastic discussions going on about Biblical Universalism and salvation. And the discussions on dispensationalism are fantastic, too. I don't know how many minds are being changed, if any, but these are some of the best doctrinal dialogues we've had here in a long time.

Paw, thanks for answering.

:)-->

Memory is gone

Those really are my children

Yes, I did grow up

Ok, since nobody else is jumping in...

Dirty Dancing

Absolutely certain.

"Because she's got a great foot!!! And you've got your head all the way up it! Ferocious, aren't I? When I think of an foot, a woman's foot... something comes out of me.

quote:

I DO, firmly, believe that whereas there may be SOME merit in reading the PFAL materials, the concept of mastering PFAL as presented here, in search of the goal as stated by Mike is a direct Satanic attack. Said attack is just another insideous attempt by our adversary the devil to STEAL, KILL and DESTROY.

Gee, there's a thought. :)-->

Oh sheesh, Garth, I got rid of AOL two years ago! Don't you remember? I'm on bellsouth.net now.

Thanks for the advice, all.

quote:

Raf, in the filmed PFAL class, Wierwille said that heteros was of the same kind and allos was of a different kind. Whether he departed from Bullinger's definitions or just misspoke, I don't know. Either way, I think that both of them were wrong.

Does anyone else remember this? I don't.

Either way, the article above has a citation (number 52) to a specific page in the PFAL book, which contradicts what the writer is saying (I'll say JM from now on, for Jueded-Morton). Unless there was an earlier edition that had these definitions, they goofed.

Ok, I just checked what I believe to be the references to allos and heteros above.

Reference 52 is flat out wrong.

quote:

Crucial to The Way's doctrine of four crucified with Jesus is a distinction between two Greek words, allos and heteros. Although both words are normally translated "other," he claims that allos means "other of varying kinds" while heteros means "other of the same kind."52

quote:

52. Wierwille, Power for Abundant Living, p. 167.

BUT...

quote:

PFAL, p. 167

One word is heteros, and the other Greek word is allos. Both heteros and allos are translated "other," but heteros means "other when only two may be involved," while allos means "other when more than two may be involved."

There's no mention whatsoever of the "same kind/different kind" distinction referenced by the writer.

He seems to have reference 53 right, and his refutation of it is on point. Allos and heteros simply don't mean what Wierwille said they mean. This is on the Actual (not merely apparent) Errors list.

See the Companion Bible, Appendix 124 for the definitions of heteros and allos (different kind/same kind). It also includes the other definition. I don't see any evidence that Wierwille ever deviated from these definitions. If someone can find it, please let me know. But the writer of this piece simply has it backward and ends up bolstering what he attempts to dismantle.

quote:

Wierwille's bizarre exegesis is incorrect on many points. He claims that "the word 'see' is anablepo, which means 'to look with one's eyes' or literally to see someone die.""' In no reputable Greek text of today, including the UBS, Nestle, and Westcott and Hort, and not even in the outdated Stephens' text of 1550 which The Way uses, is the word anablepo found in the verse; nor is it found in any of the critical notes.

That must be why Wierwille never wrote it. As Mike would say, the written book and the taped class were not identical. I don't know if he misspoke in the class or if you could attribute dishonest motives to VPW for this mistake/error. But I do know that to criticize him for something he corrected (ie, the use of anablepo) is just downright mean, if not ignorant.

quote:

I argue not with Raf on doctrinal matters.

Why not? I'm not always right. I'm not even often right!

Only on a couple of items, OM. I didn't refute the entire paper. Just a couple of items.

85% of your income > 100% of your income, even on the first of the month.

quote:

Crucial to The Way's doctrine of four crucified with Jesus is a distinction between two Greek words, allos and heteros. Although both words are normally translated "other," he claims that allos means "other of varying kinds" while heteros means "other of the same kind."52

The many New Testament passages using these words show that Wierwille's definitions are incorrect. A host of passages using the word allos are made ridiculous if Wierwille's definition is used. Are a man's right and left cheeks of varying kinds (Matt. 5:39)? Was the seed of the sower of varying kinds (Matt. 13:5, 7, 8)? Were the talents the faithful servant gained of varying kinds (Matt. 25:20, 22)? Did the restored hand of a cripple vary in kind from his other hand (Mark 3:5)? Were the similar things that the Jews did actually things of varying kinds (Mark 7:8)? Obviously, Wierwille's attempted definition of allos was unknown to biblical writers.

The following pairs are described by biblical writers as heteros. Are these pairs "other of the same kind" as Wierwille insists? God and money (Matt. 6:24)? Pharisees and publicans (Luke 18:20)? Sadducees and Pharisees (Acts 23:6)? Contradictory spirits and gospels (11 Cor. 11-4; Gal. 1:6)? Ages of mystery and ages of the revealed (Eph. 3:5)? The Levitical priesthood and tribe versus the Melchizedekan priesthood and the tribe of Judah (Heb. 7:11, 13, 15)? Obviously, Wierwille fabricates distinctions not known to this wide range of New Testament writers.

Now, I need to double check this, but this writer has the definitions 100% backwards. Bullinger (and therefore Wierwille) taught that allos was another of the same kind, and that heteros was another of a different kind, the exact opposite of the claim made by this writer! Therefore, all of the evidence used to in this section to prove Wierwille wrong actually proves him right!

Again, I need to double check that. I don't recall Wierwille ever using the "same kind/different kind" argument in the context of four crucified. I recall allos being "more than two involved" and heteros being "only two involved."

This person wasted valuable cyberspace with that section.

Someone PLEASE correct me if I'm mistaken. Here's the writer's citation: Power for Abundant Living, p. 167.

quote:

Essential to his teaching on the crucifixion and Holy Week is Wierwille's concept of "narrative development." Wierwille's expositions using "narrative development" essentially set the Gospel accounts in opposition to each other. In the process, he concludes that four men were crucified with Jesus rather than two. Claiming that malefactors and robbers are two different classes of robbers, Wierwille demands that Matthew and Mark could not be talking about the same people. If he were consistent in applying this principle, there would also have to be two Barabbases, as John 18:40 terms him a robber while Luke 23:19 and Mark 15:7 call him an insurrectionist and murderer. Other examples could be given to prove that this method, carried to any extent, reaps absurdity.

Criticism by mischaracterization is what I'd call this. The fact that the word "malefactors" and the word "robbers" could refer to two different sets of people crucified with Jesus is not offered in PFAL as undeniable proof, but rather as opening the possibility. "All robbers are malefactors, but not all malefactors are robbers." Wierwille combined a number of matters to establish "four crucified" (I should say Bullinger did so, but that's not the point). Could robbers and malefactors be referring to the same people? Yes. Could those words be referring to different people? Yes. It was evidence for Wierwille's case, but it was not a smoking gun.

A lot to feed on there.

Some real mistakes this writer makes. Real serious mistakes.

I already have broadband.

How are the Dells? Tribune employees get a discount.

I detected an eyeroll.

Or maybe he said it like Whoopi Goldberg at the end of Sister Act. You know what I mean? Bless you! You could almost see her giving the guy the finger when she said it.

Saying that I've "worked" with him is a bit much. I observed him for about seven years or so. Liked what I saw, but later learned there were things I didn't see. Don't know how he'd respond if confronted on them, but not my place to do so.