Raf

CLEAR! (WHOOMP!) BEEP, BEEP, BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP We're losing it. All right everyone, we're going to try again... CLEAR! (WHOOMP!) BEEP BEEP BEEP BEEP BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP Dangit, it's not working. Let's give it another try. CLEAR! (WHOOMP!) BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP :(-->

My understanding is that the original version of Receiving the Holy Spirit Today was a lot shorter than the last edition. There would have had to have been significant additions and changes. This is not unusual in scholarship. As more details come to light, or new theories are propounded, or as mistakes are discovered, authors who know there will be a continued demand for their work will revisit it to make corrections, additions and deletions. The obvious example is dictionaries and encyclopedias. Happens with history books all the time. It's the norm for MANY textbooks. I don't think it's an unusual practice at all. It's my belief that Wierwille could have done one of two things: correct the plagiarism by saying what he wanted to say in his own words, or footnote the living daylights out of his books (at least, the ones where this was a problem). In the case of Receiving the Holy Spirit Today, what he seems to have done is rearrange a lot of the thoughts and concepts while mostly retaining the wording. The book definitely plagiarizes Stiles, but I don't have the books of the other authors, so for me to make the comparison would be unfair.

My only criticism of JJ (and God, forgive me for saying it here and not to him directly) is that he lists some things as plagiarism that, by themselves, are not. For example, Bullinger writes that the natural man cannot receive the things of God, that they are foolishness to him, because they need to be spiritually discerned. Wierwille writes a remarkably similar sentence. JJ cries plagiarism. Well, DUH, they're both quoting scripture! I think Oldiesman correctly notes that JJ is willing to see infractions where none exists because of his feelings of Wierwille's "heresy." I would encourage Oldiesman and others to do the same thing with JJ (and with myself) that I would have you do to the writings of VPW: Prove all things, hold fast to that which is good.

I hope Juedes doesn't mind me copying and pasting from his site (I could just as easliy waited until I got home and retyped it myself, using the later edition of RTHST)... Does anyone ever recall Wierwille ever calling someone a "faith blaster," ever? It's inconsistent with his vocabulary. Wierwille would use the term "believing blaster," if anything. Faith can't be blasted in Wierwillian theology. The word for word theft of that section is conclusive. As I've written before, many a time, the issue is not WHETHER Wierwille plagiarized. He did. Period. The issue is, what importance do we place on his plagiarism? In terms of our appreciation of Wierwille as a researcher, it is greatly diminished. But in terms of our appreciation for THAT WHICH WAS TAUGHT, it should not matter a single bit. The doctrine rises or falls on its own merits. I think arguing about WHETHER Wierwille plagiarized is a waste of time. If you don't believe he did, it's because you're not looking at the evidence. If you want to argue about the EXTENT of his plagiarism, that's another story. But for me, it only distracts from the true issue at hand: What do you think of what was taught? Not the source of it, but the actual doctrine? If it's right, it's right whether it was plagiarized or not. If it's wrong, it's wrong whether it was plagiarized or not. If you want to judge Wierwille, fine, go right ahead. He plagiarized. But that's about the man. If you're worshipping the man, it's necessary to confront this fact. But if you're not worshipping the man, then the doctrine is the issue. My nickel. Keep the change.

Checking in from my vacation... Rottigirl: How could you not remember the Sixth Sense? "I See Dead People," Haley Joel Osmet, Bruce Willis, of course you remember it. That movie scared the bejesus out of me. Really. I can't find my bejesus anymore. Halloween, for whatever reason, hasn't been listed. Yikes and a half.

"The Champ" (the original) "West Side Story."

Come on, Zix, that's too easy... Dr. Wierwille always wrote that the final contents of his books are his responsibility. Therefore, regardless of who was actually putting the words on the page, God told Wierwille that it was okay (just like God told Wierwille to trust, but not save, the old piece of literature that said Jesus was bar-mitzvahed a year too early for his own personal life, and 1370 years too early for history). Sigh.

In The Bible Tells Me So, Wierwille writes that Matthew 27:5 is a summary of Judas' life after the betrayal, and that it does not mean the things there happened in quick succession. He then writes that the term "hanged himself" refers to different types of suicide, and specifically says Judas impaled himself on a stake (mentioned in Acts 1). However, in Jesus Christ Our Passover Wierwille goes into detail about how "Judas hanged himself" really means that he went away choked with grief. In truth, if Wierwille was right the first time, then the events did not happen in quick succession. If Wierwille was right the second time, then the events DID happen in quick succession. If Wierwille was right the first time, then "hanged himself" was a clear reference to Judas' death. If Wierwille was right the second time, "Hanged himself" was clearly NOT a reference to Judas' death. One of the books has got to be wrong. They cannot both be right. How do I handle this error? Simple. Further research into Matthew 27:5 led Wierwille to change his mind. Perfectly acceptable. None of us should lose any sleep over it... UNLESS you hold that all of Wierwille's books are God-breathed and therefore free from error or contradiction. If that's your position, then the burden is on you to explain why and how Wierwille contradicted himself on these two occasions.

Two new actual errors... 1. In Jesus Christ is Not God, Wierwille writes (after quoting John 1:18): p. 116 and 117 The emphases in that last sentence are mine. Interestingly enough, that last sentence in flat-out wrong. In Hebrews 11, Isaac is called Abraham's "only begotten son," and we know for a fact that Abraham had more than one offspring. Wierwille's definition of the word is correct, but he failed to note that the word monogenes can and is used in a figure of speech in Hebrews 11:17. That figurative usage is NOT in the sense of one and only one offspring. The usage in Hebrews 11:17 is one of uniqueness. Hey, could it be that monos, meaning one, and genos, meaning "kind" (a definition Wierwille peculiarly omitted), were combined to form not only the literal term "only begotten," but the figurative term "unique," (ie, "one of a kind")? The next one's easier. 2. In Jesus Christ is Not God, Wierwille writes: page 135. Now, most of us can refute this one with our eyes closed. (There's a whole denomination devoted to an outrageous overemphasis of the correction of this error). God's name was both pronounceable and pronounced. Frequently. The name appears so many times in the Old Testament that your Young's Concordance won't quote each line: it merely lists all the verses for most of four columns. I mean, we are literally talking about, what, a couple of thousand usages in the Old Testament? Would you believe the answer is close to 7,000? The Hebrews pronounced this name. They did so frequently. Most people don't know that the term "thus saith the Lord" is not frequently found in the Bible. Nope. It's the name, not the word "Lord," which appears in those verses. Yahweh is a proper name. It was pronounceable and pronounced, many times. The original pronunciation may be lost to us, but to write, as Wierwille did, that there was no pronounceable name for God reflects a REMARKABLE ignorance of the Biblical usage of God's proper name, Yahweh. [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on February 16, 2003 at 13:41.]

No offense, but that Web site is horrific in its design. Almost like they don't WANT customers. Anyone besides me interested in ordering, be patient.

Oh my God. I'm just... Wow. Speechless. I had no idea. None. Where is this book?

John Juedes literally wrote the book on VPW's plagiarism. I suspect he's well aware of the Leonard connection.

Wow. That's a damning indictment of the 1942 promise, if Leonard knew all those things before Wierwille did. Did Leonard teach a law of believing?

Evan, You wrote earlier that Leonard's views on the Trinity were closer to the Oneness Pentecostals. If that's right, then he believed Jesus was God. But then you say he did not accept the pre-existence of Christ. If that's true, he did not believe Jesus was God. So which is it?

I'll agree with all your checks except one: denial of the trinity. And that's only because according to your explanation, Leonard denies the trinity differently from Wierwille. Bottom line: Leonard believed Jesus is God. Wierwille did not. That's a huge difference, and enough to convince the average Wierwille apologist that Wierwille got a teensy bit closer to first century church-ism than Leonard. Woah, hold it: Leonard denied the pre-existence of Christ? Freshair: I could be a pain in the neck and try to argue with you, but since I agree with you, I won't bother. :)-->

Yeah, but the point is that Wierwille's apologists (all but Mike) don't care about the source of the individual teachings. The original work of Wierwille is putting it all together so that it fit. As long as they believe no one else combines grace, salvation by faith, denial of the trinity, denial of the pre-existence of Christ, manifestations not gifts, dispensationalism (with 7 administrations) and denial of immediate life after death, their minds are made up. Pointing out the real origin of any one of those components isn't going to impress them, because it's not the components that impressed them in the first place. It's the collection. Therefore, it is the ACCURACY of Wierwille's claims, not the origin of them, that must be discredited. Discrediting the origin is just gravy. It's worthwhile if the person you're arguing with thinks Wierwille is some great researcher. We all know how I feel about plagiarism. Think about how Smikeol responds to the plagiarism charge to understand where I'm coming from: God revealed it to Bullinger, who let his private interpretation get in the way. God revealed some of it to Leonard, Stiles, and these other men. They all let their PI get in the way. So when God revealed the same information to Wierwille, OF COURSE it looked like Wierwille was copying the other men. They were all copying God, the true author. The others just weren't as meek (HA!) as Wierwille. So when Wierwille writes it, it's pure Word of God. When the others write it, it's God's Word mixed with their own private interpretation. Don't laugh. He really believes that. What to do? Challenge the origin, but recognize that's only a small part of the job. Challenging the accuracy is far more important.

Wierwille defender response: The original work was not the individual teachings and doctrines. It was putting them all together so that it fit. Bullinger came close, but embraced the Trinity and rejected the manifestations. Leonard got the manifestations right, but called them gifts and accepted the Trinity too. The Jehovah's witnesses were right about the Trinity and death, but got a lot of other things wacky. Wierwille was the only one to combine rejection of the Trinity, dispensationalism, denial of immediate life after death and the operation of the manifestations together under one doctrinal framework.

While I wouldn't call this plagiarism, the parallels with Wierwille's writings are alarming.

Johnny Townsend was fired from the Board of Trustees. Just about the whole dang leadership of New York State was dismissed. The 1989 Rock of Ages was spirtually bankrupt. "God chose Doctor Wierwille and Doctor Wierwille chose Craig Martindale by revelation. Do you think God is stupid?" (note to John E. Rump: God chose King Saul directly). And my all time favorite Donna M quote: "I want to thank God for making Craig Martindale the spiritual head of this ministry."

Heh heh heh. Zixar, I don't think you've PROVEN your case. BAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Ok, ok, I'll stop. Sigh. Umm, I can't find this comment about walking in the PFAL book. Not that I've dissected every page, but I just don't see it. So unless someone finds it in writing, it's an interesting (on-topic) chat, but not one I'll seek to make a final decision on, and certainly not one for the list. Steve, I may write you privately if I can't make up my mind. Raf

I think it's a silly illustration. An actual error? Ahhh, more like a waste of ink. I don't know what to do with it. "Ministry of Reconciliation" sounds top me more like a sonship responsibility than a sonship right. And why are sonship rights limited to five? I think there are far more. Just my opinion. Haven't checked out either post enough to satisfy my concerns for this thread. I am leaning toward including Wierwille's treatment of Romans 11:13, 21 and 22 as an actual error, studying Steve's earlier post on the subject. Still working on it.

Me am sorry, Steve.

Just when I thought I was out, he dragggggs me back in. It's bad enough you rely on racist arguments to make your point. It's bad enough you're a xenophobic snowstorm worshipper. It's bad enough that you casually insult the people who rely on Section 8 just to have a place to sleep. But now, on top of all that, you're going to have the unmitigated gall to accuse Jerry and I of researching Sudo? He hasn't even posted on these threads, so why are you dragging him into this? I mean, how dare you, man? You're bats. I've had it. No more. Begone with you! Enough of your kickball gymnastic tactics designed to distract and dodge and challenge right back. When are you finally going to admit that an arrow is an arrow? Huh? Answer me Dam Nit!

All right, I swore I wasn't going to respond to you, but you forced me back in by referring to one of my previous posts and then continually refusing to answer a direct question. We all know that in the document you worship, Wierwille wrote "Jew put the Bomp in the Bomp shubomp-shubomp," when everyone knows that First Steve!(praise be his name) is the one who put the bomp in the bomp shubomp shubomp. One of them has got to be wrong. So answer me already, you coward. Answer me!!!!!!!!!!

Section 8? Now you're busting on the poor. Listen, you racist, German hating, race baiting, simulating, gyrating, stimulating, xenophobe. I've had it up to here with you. I am never going to respond to your rantings again ever ever ever until your next one.