Raf

It's not Jeff.

Do a whois search.

OneLove One God.

One post.

Welcome!

Jim,

He's heading to you in a couple of days. Sorry it took so long.

Raf

Thank you everyone.

I'm trying to think of something noble and heartfelt to say. I can't. Forgive me. But I thank you all so much.

If this Mal George "prophecy" is to be refuted, it must be done on TWI's terms.

Hypothesis: Mal George's prophecy proves nothing.

Evidence: Prophecy, assuming it to be real, can be interfered with by the understanding of the person speaking (which is why I Corinthians actually tells the prophets to check each other).

Evidence: The Intermediate Class not only taught, but SHOWED how a person's understanding can interfere with inspired utterances (remember the "muck and mire of the world"?)

THEORY BASED ON EVIDENCE: Mal George COULD have been speaking for God when he said what he did.

THEORY EQUALLY BASED ON THE EVIDENCE: Mal George's understanding, combined with grief and reverence for Wierwille, led him to (innocently and with sincerity) inject his opinion into this "prophecy."

Conclusion: Since the two theories are equally plausible, the statement Mal George made, in and of itself, proves NOTHING, and shame on anyone who suggests that refusal to accept Mal George's comment is a refusal to accept prophecy. It is no such thing.

I think the real question of dispensationalism comes in its end, so to speak.

The issue is not whether God dealt with different people in different ways throughout history. He did. Everyone knows that. And if we were to agree, say, that those different ways of dealing with man should not be called dispensations or administrations, the central controversy would be far from over.

Let's settle some things up front:

1. Before the fall of Adam, God dealt with man one way.

2. After the fall of Adam but before Noah, there didn't seem to be much of anything. "The Word in the stars" may be alluded to, but let's be honest, this time period was rather chaotic. Who was in charge, of anything, anywhere? Right. No one.

3. After Noah but before Moses, we see the concept of civil government instituted by God Himself. Seems to be His idea that men should actually have to answer to each other for the things they do. (2) and (3) are referred to by Wierwille as the "Patriarchal Administration," but even if that's wrong, I think we can all agree that there are differences in the Divine relationship with man between this period and period (1), not to mention the periods which follow. During these pre-Law periods, God can't very well accuse someone of, say, violating the Sabbath or failing to keep Passover, right? There's a distinction. The distinction is not defined by time, but it is marked by it.

4. The Law is given. We all agree that after the law was given, Israel was "under" the Law. Administration? Covenant? Ignore that question for now: it's irrelevant. It was the Law, either way, right? Even when Israel became a kingdom, the kingdom was under and subject to the Law, so the kingdom didn't affect the Law's pre-eminence in their society.

5. Christ is on earth. One year, three, whatever the length of time was. The Law, incidentally, is still in effect during this time period. Is it a separate "administration" or not. I don't know. I don't care. I know, and I think all will agree, that Christ was on earth and the Law was still in effect. At some point at or soon after Christ's crucifixion, the pre-eminence of the Law is gone. Was it when he said "It is finished?" Was it Pentecost? Don't know. But all will agree that the next time period, following the ascension, has different rules from the former. Is it a new dispensation/administration? A new covenant. Don't know. Don't care. We can all agree that it's a new something, because none of us are killing lambs on Nisan 14.

6. And now this post-Christ on earth period begins, and continues until...

WHAM! Here's our stumbling block. While most Christians will pretty much agree with everything that's been written thus far (save that which was intentionally left ambiguous), Christians vehemently disagree on what happens next. For many (not all) dispensationalists, this current time period ends with the rapture of the church. We're gone, bye-bye, seeya. Revelation, you may now begin.

But other dispensationalists, and covenant theologians, say "not so fast." There is no pre-Revelation (or pre-tribulation) rapture of the church (or "catching up," to use the proper Biblical term). No, we who live in this current age are an extension of what came before, not a "mystery" separate and apart from it. We are grafted onto Israel, not a different animal.

The pre-tribulation rapture rests squarely on the validity of dispensationalism. If dispensationalism should be disproven, there is no basis for a pre-tribulation rapture. And there's the conflict.

Never mind the thousands of years of common ground: the future is where the division is. The past is academic, almost, because we agree so much more often than not. But the possibility of being misled into accepting an anti-Christ doesn't exist for the pre-trib dispensationalist. The covenant believer is keenly aware of it (and is therefore vigilant, or paranoid, depending on your view. ;)--> ).

I'll say this: I don't know with absolute certainty whether dispensationalism is right or wrong. I don't know with absolute certainty whether there will be a pre-trib, post-trib, or mid-trib "catching up." I do know that I would rather be vigilant and wrong than be NOT vigilant and wrong.

I don't know if I've contributed to this discussion or needlessly prolonged it, but thanks for letting me say my peace.

I can't think of an example. A journalist who reads an article in one newspaper and "cribs" the idea for his own has not done anything wrong, provided that he does his own research, verifies the contents, writes in his own words, etc. In a case like that, it's only plagiarism if the reporter actually copies all or even part of the other article.

Example: I wrote about a man who killed a cop. I learned that the killer was once head of a minor political organization in Texas. I wrote about it. The following day, the Miami Herald wrote an article about the suspect and included the bit about the political organization, which was missing from their previous day's article. There's no question at all that they lifted the idea from my article. But it wasn't plagiarism. They called Texas, verified the fact, got their own quotes, and wrote about it in their own words. That's not only "not wrong," it's absolutely expected.

Two writers of Biblical issues discussing the same subject will write similar things. The CES book "One God and One Lord" was undeniably and irrefutably inspired by JCING and probably lifted many themes, but as a research work it was independent, and relied on sources well beyond Wierwille to make its case (in fact, if I recall correctly, JCING isn't even in the bibliography, which I consider a failing on the authors' part). Point is, One God and One Lord is not plagiarism, nor is the Herald's decision to verify what was in my article.

Scholars have been reprimanded publicly for lifting as little as one line without attribution (Doris Kearns Goodwin, for example). Wierwille did far more than that. But when we think about plagiarism, we should not be thinking along the lines of "Bullinger wrote about four crucified and Wierwille stole that from him." We should be thinking, rather, "Bullinger wrote ABDFGTZ and Wierwille wrote ABDFGTZ without noting that he was quoting Bullinger."

As I said, Wierwille wrote plenty that was not plagiarism. He also wrote plenty that was. In terms of the content of what's written, it makes no difference to me. In terms of Wierwille's integrity, I put it, in my mind, where I think it belongs.

I've never contended with anyone who doesn't care that Wierwille resorted to plagiarism. I only contend with those who deny it. It's not deniable.

It's posts she wants...

It's posts she shall have...

That's a great tale, Oak.

"Brought a tear to me eye" ("Oh shut up").

:)-->

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cindy!:

Way to Go, Reiki!!!! Time to play now!!!

hey raf..what'd you use to teach grammar? I'd like to look at it if I could

---

The only grammar book you'll ever need is called...

The Only Grammar Book You'll Ever Need.

And every writer I know has at least one copy of The Elements of Style.

:D-->

I wrote that because I've seen plagiarism denied most often by those who have no idea what plagiarism is, then get criticized (indirectly) for believing that Wierwille was nothing but a plagiarist, which I have never, ever said. I think Wierwille wrote plenty that was not plagiarism, and he wrote some that was. He lifted ideas from others, but by itself, that's not plagiarism. Plagiarism is reserved for when he was so lazy he didn't even muster the energy to hide the fact that he was lifting someone else's work without credit.

In the end, the question for us is "so what?" And the answer varies according to the value you place on the CONTENT. Plagiarism does not affect the content of the plagiarized material. It only reflects on the integrity of the writer.

Def,

Your question is valid, and as someone who has criticized the plagiarism, I appreciate the opportunity to make some points a bit more clear (if they were not already).

quote:

---

And yet, by a crude and cunning strategy over the course of decades, we have seen them make the reverence for law the enemy of reverence for God.

---

THIS IS A FALSE ACCUSATION. Understand? A FALSE ACCUSATION. For the life of me, I can't figure out why Alan Keyes is so admired. He's a crackpot who uses false logic in favor of a predetermined conclusion.

YOU CAN REVERE GOD ALL YOU WANT. GOVERNMENT CAN'T.

Why is this so hard? I wonder if Keyes has the Ten Commandments up in HIS living room.

I should add that I have no idea how to handle the judge at the beginning of this thread. His reasoning is completely off base, and his support of Roy Moore, while within his rights, leads me to question his suitability for office. But no one would stop him from wearing a cross under his robes. What's the deal with judicial robes? Is it considered a uniform? Is there a code somewhere? What if he came in dressed as a rabbi one day, or an imam? Or a white hood? I mean, something's wrong here, no?

This thread is an awesome thread

Its themes run around in my head

I ponder it when I'm in bed

This thread is an awesome thread.

This thread (this thread) is an awesome thread

Its themes (its themes)run around in my head

I pon- (pon)der it when I'm in bed

This thread is an awesome thread.

That was last year's resolution, Hairy. What's this year's?

quote:

---

Originally posted by OnionEater:

My resolution is,"I shall make no resolutions".

---

Well, I guess you already broke that one. :)-->

JCOPS is heavily footnoted, right there in the book, so I think it would be hard to accuse him of plagiarism for it (and even if there was plagiarism in that book, I'd argue it's a minor, minor quibble). Same goes for the Passover book.

I want to make something clear, something that I don't think has been made clear before:

Getting your idea from somewhere else is not plagiarism. There's a big difference between, say, a. crediting Ernest Martin with coming up with the star information and the birthdate of Christ while writing your own book on the subject; b. Writing about the holy spirit and failing to mention you're lifting whole passages from someone else's book.

quote:

---

...removing them is just one more building block toward the day when someone might actually be able to tell you what you can and can't have on your walls in your own house. Raf apparently wants to keep his blinders on.

---

Ridiculous. The "slippery slope" argument works both ways: How would you like it if government REQUIRED you to put the Ten Commandments up in your own house, hmmm? Silly? Only as silly as your argument.

I have no blinders on regarding this subject, but it's okay that you think I do. (I do have the Ten Commandments up in my house).

I love how in the grace administration you want government (the law of the U.S.) to post the Ten Commandments (the Law of Israel), and those who oppose it are guilty of bigotry (!) when you don't even see the need to put it up in your own house?

Why do (we) Christians keep expecting government to do our job for us? We want a Nativity scene at City Hall, but won't put one up in front of our churches or homes. We want The Ten Commandments in a courthouse, but not in our living rooms. We want prayer in schools, but neglect it at the breakfast table (if, heaven forbid, we even eat breakfast together).

As for private businesses, I think it's hypocritical as all get out to commercialize the Christmas season while eliminating references to the first six letters. If you don't want to be a part of Christmas, then don't have a sale.

John,

That's just not true. With most of the cases we've debated here, government is NOT trying to tell you that you can't worship God. People are trying to tell GOVERNMENT that GOVERNMENT can't worship God. Don't you see the difference? The moment our government decides who God is, it can tell you who God isn't, and that's NOT government's role.

I don't want government telling me I have to accept the trinity to be a true Christian. I don't want government telling me that I can deny the trinity and still be a true Christian. I don't want government in the equation, period.

Has the government ever gone into your home and told you to take down the Ten Commandments from your wall? (You DO have the Ten Commandments on your wall at home, don't you?)

Has any liberal told you that you cannot listen to a teaching tape in your car, or put a "picture" of Christ up in your home?

No. And it won't happen.

You want a middle ground? Here's a middle ground. Put the Ten Commandments up in your home. Carry a Bible with you. Preach. Teach. Love. Go to church. Put a Ten Commandments monument up outside your church building, on church property.

Why does government have to do any of those things?

Perhaps Zix or someone else with formal logic training can chime in, but there's a serious flaw in your reasoning.

Government has no more right to tell you which God NOT to worship than it has to tell you which God TO worship. You want a middle ground? There it is: I won't compel government to tell you which God NOT to worship if you don't compel government to tell me which God TO worship. Do we have a deal?

Actually, since "an" is indefinite, whereas "the" is definite, I would think that would only serve to detract from Johniam's position, since "an" establishment of religion is for more flexible than "the" establishment of religion.

The bottom line is this: Government

does

not

get

to

tell

me

who

my

God

is

what

his

name

is

or

whether

I

can

erect

a

statue

to

another

God.

Please don't make me do this letter by letter.

I should have been a little more clear, although I appreciate the entries so far...

I'm trying to come up with movies you suspect others here have not seen. I might want to rent some of these based on your recommendations (the only ones I've seen, beginning to end, are Stand By Me, Amadeus and It's a Wonderful Life).

quote:

---

Originally posted by johniam:

Raf:

quote: The amendment is that Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion

Actually, it says "respecting AN establishment of religion", not THE establishment of religion. Don't tell me this is irrelevant. The means the and an means an. Are you the resident of Florida, or are you a resident of Florida.

The 10 commandments do not constitute AN establishment of religion. They constitute morality with a God behind them, but not AN establishment of religion.

---

I disagree with you on that, but we've been through that many times before.

quote:

---

Did you hear that news story about someplace in the Tampa area that had to remove Christmas trees from some public display because they supposedly were religious symbols. The insanity continues. Next, those of us who are born again will have to leave our holy spirit at the door when we enter a government building.

---

That would be prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Merry Christmas.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Biblefan Dave:

I think that the most beligerent Way bashers have accused VPW of plagarizing every known writer on earth. But who is JCING?

---

Simply not true.

Wierwille plagiarized Kenyon, Stiles, Leonard and Bullinger. I'm trying to remember if there are any other accusations, but none come to mind. If he plagiarized anyone else on his list of people he "learned" from, I'm unaware of it. After all, who has any of Glenn Clark's books?

I agree with you that there were numerous citations given in JCING, plus an extensive bibliography, which would by itself negate most charges of plagiarism.

Too true.

I suspect that denying a polling place because it is a church would be as much a violation of the First Amendment as requiring that polling places be at churches.

Recall that the First Amendment does not say "separation of church and state," so using that phrase to frame the law doesn't always work (although it sometimes does). The amendment is that Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. If a church building meets all the legal requirements of a polling place, then it cannot be denied simply because it is a church. (I don't know how polling places are selected, so please don't ask).