Raf

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.

I can see it now.

Anakin, on the bow of a Star Destroyer...

"I'm the King of the Universe!!!! Wooohoo!!!"

Will I have to move if you move? Or is that unrelated?

Ooh, guilty as charged.

quote:

On Waydale and later at Gspot there was a tactic that some people employed to get attention. It was basically something like "if this forum doesn't stop being so mean then I'm leaving".

Although it wasn't the whole board, for me, just a certain poster. But I got over myself. (allegedly).

I guess.

Thanks for taking my comments in their intended spirit, CM.

quote:

I wouldn't have had a bit of curiosity, or even a comment, if John had said something along the lines of: "You heard correctly. I'm divorced, and have resigned from CES, although I still support their valuable ministry. However, I don't wish to talk about this publicly. Questions? Email me privately."

That would have been a lot more diplomatic, wouldn't it.

If not for the potshot line, it is pretty much exactly what he said, though, isn't it?

Any advice?

If there's a pineapple on it, it's not a sport.

And I think it's a bit presumptuous to say he wants the glory to go to himself. That's all.

If Jerry Barrax can honestly look at the scriptures and honestly come to this conclusion, why can't VF? Why do his motives have to be questioned, or worse, automatically impugned? It's a ruse? Why? Was it a ruse when he decided there was no "law" of believing? Would it be a "ruse" if he adopted the trinity? Why is it a ruse, rather than coming to a different conclusion from what he previously believed? If Jerry Barrax can do it, why can't VF?

What I see here is a lot of people who have problems with the VF they knew in TWI and imposing those perceptions on decisions he made years after they lost contact with him (with the apparent exception of sunesis).

I'm obviously biased, because I've seen the tears that have come out of that man's eyes when he talks about some of the things he did in the past. To see people who have not heard a word from him since the 1980s declare with certainty that his change of doctrine is self-serving strikes me as unfair. If you want to challenge the doctrine, go ahead. But to read into his motives when you haven't seen anything about the man for more than 15 years...?

I'm not saying "I'm right and you're wrong." I am saying that there's no way you can, with certainty, say some of the things that have been said here. It's not right, IMO.

Heavens, no, George. That's something the old TWI would do. Not the new, kinder, gentler TWI.

quote:

For him to admit that he was not the man he knew to be was a huge thing... but it was not an unprecedented thing.

It was a platitude that proves nothing.

The "gathering together" is indistinguishable from the first resurrection, aka the resurrection of the just.

quote:

When Jesus returns, the resurrection of the just will take place in which all the believers who have died will be raised again. The believers who are alive at his coming will be transformed simultaneously with the resurrected ones (Matthew 24:31; I Corinthians 15:23; I Thessalonians 4:16 and 17). At this time all the believers, both living and dead, will receive new immortal bodies. He will establish the millennial Kingdom on earth (Revelations 20:1-6) and bring about the restoration of the earth which was promised by the prophets and apostles (Acts 1:6; 3:21; 26:6 and 7).

Dispensational theology was replaced with, apparently, covenant theology (Steve Lortz can correct me if I'm misusing either term):

quote:

Jesus fulfilled the old covenant (given at Mount Sinai) and thereby brought it to a close (Matthew 5:17-20; Romans 10:4). He began a new covenant which will be fulfilled when he returns. Man's responsibility to the covenant is to obey the words of our Lord recorded in the New Testament Scriptures (Hebrews 8:7-13; 10:15-39).

I don't know. It just seemed better than saying "an entire loaf of bread" or "a box of Ritz crackers."

I should have said Par juice instead of the wine, though. THAT would make me feel at one with the Almighty.

I really wanted to give someone else a shot, but now that it's been 26 hours...

Cast Away

quote:

You guys who think you have all the answers now about everything twi weren't around giving answers when we needed help....VPW and PFAL was around.

Well, I would have done it, except, you see,

I was 2.

Forgive my lateness.

quote:

Have any of you taken John up on his open invitation to e mail him with your curiosity on the subject of his marriage and involvement in CES ? Hmmm????

I have not.

John didn't ask me my opinion when he got married. I didn't live with them. I was not in their lives. I look at this as none of my business.

Yes.

One of these things is not like the others.

One of these things just doesn't belong...

Can you guess which thing is not like the others

Before I finish singing this song?

Exactly!

And soy hot dogs! Don't even get me started!

quote:

Under CG, VF became extremely legalistic for years. If you have repudiated God's grace and Christ's redemption in the here and now, the only place left is to go back to the law.

I didn't have this experience at all. I thought it was quite the opposite: one CG was out of the picture, and only when CG was out of the picture, VF began dropping TWI doctrines like hot potatoes: pre-trib rapture, dispensationalism, and "once saved always saved," for lack of a better term.