Raf

I'm deleting these messages because, DUH, I missed Zix's joke. [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on January 23, 2003 at 14:14.]

A quibble on the definition of "emphasis," coming from the man who told us that having one preposition out of place will crush your Bible into a million itty bitty little pieces. I call that fair game. The problem, Zix, is that Wierwille makes a logical leap based on the information you provided, and you're not allowing us to call him on that leap. In point c, you remark that figurative language connotes emphasis by definition. While that is true, it only connotes emphasis using the literal statement as a base. It does not make reference, as Wierwille does, to other statements not covered by the figure. Hey, you started it. In other words, God may have been emphasizing the original points by using figures, but the emphasis was only in relation to the statement God would have had to make literally. It is NOT in relation to the rest of the Word. Example: Jesus could have said, "When you eat this bread, I want you to think of me. And when you drink this wine, I want you to remember my sacrifice." But to really drive the point home, he said "Take, eat, this is my body. Take, drink, this is my blood." The second way is an emphasis over the first way, but in no way is that statement an emphasis over "He is not here, for he is risen." That last statement contains no figure of speech, but it FAR surpasses the communion statement in terms of what God wants emphasized in His Word. There's nothing in the Bible that says an understanding of communion is required for salvation, but an understanding of the resurrection is required. Which does God emphasize in His Word? Well, according to Wierwille, mere mortals don't have the right to claim the resurrection is emphasized above communion, especially since a figure of speech is employed in describing communion, but no figure is employed in describing the resurrection. What you call "a quibble," Wierwille uses to prop himself up as some great one. Who else has taught you figures of speech, he asks, conveniently neglecting to cite the Trinitarian Bullinger as his source of that information. I have to ask again: does Wierwille mention Bullinger's book on figures of speech in the videotaped class? I know I heard about it when I took the class, but I do not remember if it was on the tape or if the coordinator tried to sell it.

why i outta...

Now don't get picky. get it? Fruit? Orange? Picky? Actually, you said this was neither interpretational NOR actual. As for my justification for "only," it's a literal interpretation according to usage, a perfectly valid construct that Wierwille himself used all the time. Based on the fact that no mortal has the right to decide for himself what needs to be emphasized, and the fact that God marked that which he wanted emphasized by using figures of speech, and that in the seminal book on the subject of how to understand God's Word, NO OTHER MEANS of discerning emphasis is provided, I think "only" is a perfectly valid word. To add another method of discerning that which deserves emphasis in God's Word would require me to claim immortality, as no mortal would DARE take such a matter upon himself.

After looking at all of this last night, there's a lot of ground to cover. I want to try to do it as quickly as possible. First off, here's the actual PFAL quote. Zix, tell me if you still feel the same way after reading it: Yeah, Doc, it took years for SOMEONE ELSE to ferret out and study. You just copied it. Anyway, Wierwille himself employs a figure of speech here, doesn't he? Yes, it's called "FullofitamI." Or to state it in more delicate terms: If God will not allow any mortal the privilege of deciding what should be emphasized in His Word, and the ONLY way God marked His emphases is by employing figures of speech, does it not follow logically that God doesn't want something emphasized if He did not employ a figure of speech? Notice that Wierwille does NOT say "figures of speech are ONE OF God's markings..." He says the ARE God's markings and never, in any other part of his writing, does Wierwille ever list anything else. I should note two things: Wierwille does not use the term "that which is important." That was my faulty memory. With the actual quote in front of us, I still stand by my categorization of this as, at the very least, an error of interpretation. Secondly, the figure of speech "FullofitamI" is a corruption of a stolen joke. I'd love to take credit for it, but that would be plagiarism. So I stand by my original comment. Oakspear: NICE JOB! I knew that chapter would be a gold mine of actual errors, and you proved me right. Well done.

To be a little more clear: My argument is that what you've called "The Inverse" is actually a part of what Wierwille is saying.

I need to quote the book to address your statement. Without the book in front of me, I cannot do that. Perhaps tonight, if I'm not busy, I'll post the relevant quotes. To summarize them, however: Wierwille writes quite plainly that we are not to decide for ourselves what is important in God's Word, but rather, He does so by employing figures of speech. That statement is false because there are many unimportant things (or lesser-important things) that employ figures of speech. Likewise, there are many important things that do not employ figures of speech. The importance of a scripture, a command, a statement, or a doctrine is NOT dependent on the presence of a figure of speech. You claim that I've only disproven the inverse of Wierwille's statement. I'll have to provide you the exact quotes to show that I've disproven the actual statement. What would the contrapositive be, by the way?

I'm going to open the subject up to all the written books of VPW, not including Life Lines or those that were edited posthumously. In Christians Should Be Prosperous, Wierwille writes that throughout the Bible, material prosperity ALWAYS hinges on tithing. In truth, plenty of Bible characters are described as being materially prosperous, and the vast majority of them never tithed. -------------------------------------------- This one is more of a question than a declaration of an actual error: In Are the Dead Alive Now, Wierwille goes into detail about the vast distinction between a "resurrection" and a "rising." I always thought he was absolutely torturing the language when he said this, but never cared enough to venture into it any further. Any comments? ------------------------------------------------ Anyone care to expound on Wierwille's explanation of modern Jewry in the "Jew and Judaen" chapter of Jesus Christ Our Passover?

I can quote the PFAL book at length to prove my point. I think HE is the one who stretched the importance of figures of speech awfully thin.

Zix, you're still missing my point. My point is this: Sometimes a figure of speech is used in a way consistent with Wierwille's description. Sometimes it does not. THE FACT that sometimes it does NOT proves Wierwille's statement false. Remember, Wierwille's statement is that figures of speech are the Holy Spirit's markings as to what is important in His Word. The fact is, there are many places in the Bible in which God communicates something of vital importance without employing a figure of speech. And there are many places in which figures of speech are employed where that which is being communicated is, let's face it, not all that important. I'll agree with you that this is quibbling over concepts and definitions. However, you need to recall that PFAL is the book that set the standard for this discussion. Wierwille wrote that ONE PREPOSITION, just ONE out of place, and the WHOLE BIBLE would fall to pieces. The extraordinary weight Wierwille placed on figures of speech, and his usage of that information in touting the importance of his work, ministry, class and book, makes it worthy of discussion. I'm not saying figures of speech are unimportant, or that they're unworthy of study. I do believe Wierwille inflated their importance and made claims about them that are not supportable, Biblically.

A figure of speech is a writer's way of making a point more dramatically than he would by stating the same point literally. It does not distinguish the point being made from other points that are made literally. "Present your bodies a living sacrifice" is a figure of speech (an oxymoron, for one, as sacrifices are, by definition, killed). "Be ye holy, for I am holy," is not a figure of speech. It's a straightforward declaration that God is holy and desires for us to be holy too. Which is more emphatic? Well, neither, to be honest. ------------------------------------------------ Are the Ten Commandments important in God's Word? Are there figures of speech in each of the Ten Commandments? Maybe the first one. Almost certainly the second. Nothing in the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth or tenth. Does the absence of figures of speech mean that God does not consider those commandments important? I could go on, but do you see my point?

Not so fast. Again, we need to take a look at the statement being made and compare it to the scope of scripture. The statement is not whether figures of speech make an emphatic point. The question is whether God is using figures of speech to mark that which is important in His Word. What's the difference? Well, in my opinion, the vast majority of figures of speech employed in the Bible (go ahead, check Bullinger's list) declare nothing that is any more emphatic than things that are stated directly. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten son..." is literal. There's no figure of speech employed there. But is there anything more important in scripture than that verse? Analogies help. Metaphors help. But they are of no more importance than direct commandments. Thou Shalt Not Murder loses no emphasis without the addition of a figure of speech. That's why it is an error of interpretation at the least, and arguably an actual error (an oxymoron: if it's arguable, it's not an actual error).

Oh goodness. You ever notice how Wierwille would claim to have researched something, only to find out he was quoting, without attribution, some other book? I'm paraphrasing: "Near as I can figure, there have been 220 figures of speech throughout history, and 212 of them were used in the Bible." Umm. Ok. He's quoting Bullinger almost directly, but shhhh. Makes it sound like Wierwille did the figuring all by himself. Does he mention Bullinger's figures of speech book in the class? He doesn't mention it in the PFAL book. And now, ladies and gentlemen, an all new Actual Error. In PFAL, Wierwille writes that a figure of speech is God's way of marking what's important in His Word. In truth, the Bible itself makes no such claim regarding figures of speech, and even the most cursory analysis of the figures of speech used in the Bible will reveal that they are not revealing anything more important than that which is directly stated. Okay, maybe it's an interpretation error. At the very least, its an indefensible statement.

Is it time to call for a moratorium on this subject? It's starting to feel like the THE thread. It seems the only thing we all really disagree about is whether the Pharisees said "Yo Mama!" to Jesus in John 8.

Lightside is correct: it was promises, not laws.

If you believe I am correct, then you are more certain on this matter than I am. But I'm getting there. More certain than anything else is that Jesus was openly considered Joseph's son. Look at John 1, when one of the apostles goes to his brother and says "We've found the messiah. It's Jesus, the son of Joseph!" And John 6:42 reinforces that point. I don't know, Goey. I've seen things the way you're arguing them for a really long time. It will take me some time to shake that belief. But it is, at the very least, a fascinating observation. [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on January 20, 2003 at 16:09.]

What I said was the evidence for a self-defense argument in John 8 is more persuasive than the evidence for an accusatory argument. I wouldn't call that "cocked-sure." We're in agreement on the main substance of this issue. The argument has become a sidenote: what did they mean when they said "we be not born of fornication." Let's note a couple of things here: John 8 is NOT taking place in Nazareth. It's taking place in the area of the Mount of Olives (most likely Jerusalem). The presumption that these people knew anything about Jesus' background is just that - a presumption. The religious leaders were as likely to know the circumstances of his birth as we know the circumstances of Bernard Cardinal Law's. Right, that's my point. So Jesus says to them, "IF you were Abraham's children, you would follow his example." Ooh, sounds like he's challenging their insistence that they are Abraham's children. Actually, he was not. He was challenging their definition of "children." But they obviously missed that point. So rather than say, "What do you mean children?" They say, "We weren't born of fornication!" That doesn't sound defensive to you? Jesus challenged their heritage, and they defended it. Then they up the ante by saying their only Father is God! Well, sure they're going to say that. It's as relevant to the discussion as their lineage being traced to Abraham. These folks are defending themselves from the moment this conversation begins. "We're Abraham's children. We're not slaves." "Abraham is our father." (Oh yeah, well IF that were the case - a challenge - you would do the things Abraham does). "We are NOT born of fornication! Our Father is God!" Every sentence they utter in this exchange is defensive. Finally they unleash their accusation: YOU'RE A POSSESSED SAMARITAN! Nothing about the circumstances of his birth there. Why not? Because they don't know anything about the circumstances of his birth. The people who KNEW the circumstances of his birth considered him Joseph's son. No mention of any stigma attached to Jesus. These people in John 8 did not know the circumstances of Jesus' birth. They are not in his hometown. Their response is defensive until the point when Jesus says they are the devil's children. Then they lose it and lash out at Jesus. It's not that I'm cocked sure. It's just that the more I look at this record, the less I see to substantiate a claim that they were challenging Jesus' mother. The viewpoint I once held on this verse is steadily evaporating.

Ex10 beat me to the answer. The "we be not born of fornication" was a self-defense comment from the Pharisees, not an accusatory one. If I were to say, "Wait just a second there, I'm no illegal alien." That doesn't mean I'm accusing you of being one. As for the stigma to the child being relevant, it goes back to the purpose of this discussion: Jesus was supposedly bar mitzvahed a year earlier than other boys BECAUSE HE WAS CONSIDERED ILLEGITIMATE. The more we examine all the related verses, the clearer it becomes that Wierwille's statement on this subject is NOT TRUE. IE, FALSE. IE, WRONG. If there's no stigma attached to the child in cases where the parents got together before they were supposed to (and there's NOTHING in the Bible or culture to suggest that there was), then Wierwille was wrong. That's a thesis statement. I'm open to a presentation of evidence to the contrary. Unsubstantiated old pieces of literature need not apply.

Yes, it might. If the comment was directed at Jesus and not as a self-defense comment (and the weight of evidence, in my opinion, favors the self-defense interpretation), then they could be making an allegation that Joseph and Mary got together before they were supposed to. The problem is, I can't find any Biblical evidence of any stigma attached to a child conceived under such circumstances. Deuteronomy 22 states that the remedy for fornication is marriage (end of the chapter). It doesn't even raise the possibility of a child being conceived as a result of the premature union, indicating that it's simply not an issue. So even assuming the verse in John 8 is a reference to the conception of Christ (a point I am finding more and more difficult to concede as I consider these records), it still does nothing to substantiate the claim that there was a stigma attached to Jesus because of it. "Your parents sinned and corrected themselves" is hardly an insult. The evidence of stigma attached to Jesus by the community because of the circumstances surrounding his conception gets weaker and weaker the closer we look at scripture. Even presuming the worst, taking all the Biblical evidence into consideration, he was accused of being the son of parents who were betrothed and couldn't wait to get at each other. This is a FAR cry from "illegitimate," and there's nothing in the Bible or in Jewish culture to indicate that there's a stigma attached to the child in such circumstances. Of course, there's that old piece of literature God told Wierwille to trust... Yeah, right.

Mike, If you say something I'll respond to it. Once again, you didn't say anything. If you want to start an actual errors in the Bible thread, go ahead. But I keep seeing in you a willingness to tear down the Bible in order to save the reputation of yourrrrr preciousssss PFAL. Wierwille would have been appalled.

Oh boy, here we go again... Listen my children and you shall hear The origin of THE thread we all revere 'Twas late one night, years ago, three I remember it will, for it happened to me. Another forum once there was Two, in fact, and that's because One was Waydale, and many were blessed While the other was run by CES. But one dark night, the latter fell. And I came to Waydale, for all to tell. "THE CES THREAD IS GONE" was the subject line. "Well, it seems..." and the rest is lost to time. And something happened that fateful night. The computers hiccupped. It didn't come out right. For one word each, in subject and message Survived this bizarre rite of passage. THE was the subject, and none understood. WELL was the message. Read the rest? No one could. I tried to explain. Believe me, I tried. But to my astonishment, people replied. First one responded. Then two, then more. Next time I counted, they'd passed 94. Soon there were thousands. It's true, have no doubt. It got so bad Waydale's host was told "cut it out." So THE was shut down. No choice. They had to. But no, never fear, for then there was THE 2. With this reincarnation, a legend was born. But then, from Waydale, we all were torn. So we said farewell. Not much more to say. And THE was moved to the Greasespot Cafe. There, THE thrived, with a life of its own. Until the Cafe was moved to its present home. I'd laugh, read along, but mostly I'd sigh. Now and then I'd remark, "It ... just ... won't ... die..." But powerless I am, by now this you know. All I can do is watch, watch it grow. The rest you can learn on the preceding pages. I suspect that the THE will survive through the ages. So, glad that you asked, and now you can see The ballad of a thread, a thread called THE.

Let's address that, Mike. On p. 57 Wierwille says that for years he "WAS NOT" able to understand that section of scripture. BUT, prior to that, on p. 56, he says with NO uncertainty at all that "...the community would not hear enough to believe because they did not think He could know anything SINCE HE WAS ILLEGITIMATE..." There is a major problem with that statement, because as we see from scripture, the prevailing assumption among those who knew Jesus was that he was Joseph's son. This is the Bible's explicit teaching in at least two places. So they specifically believed him to be the son of a married couple, and thus, they did not believe him to be illegitimate. But let's continue with the original point, where Wierwille expressed what you call "uncertainty." The fact that Wierwille writes on p. 57 that for years he "WAS NOT" able to understand that verse indicates that he now is claiming to understand it. He uses the past tense (I WAS NOT able to understand) rather than the present (I have not been or still cannot understand). Further, he goes through this bar-mitzvah explanation which is both anachronistic and highly speculative. "An old piece of literature" that 40 years of research failed to reproduce cannot be relied upon, as we do not even know who wrote it. And then at the end of page 57 he writes WITH NO UNCERTAINTY AT ALL that "This explains why Jesus could not communicate with the people in His own hometown." That means he is NO LONGER calling himself uncertain on this matter. He doesn't write "This MAY explain..." He writes, "This explains..." indicating certainty. Now, your claim that he has received revelation here is interesting, but it is not a claim that Wierwille is making. You say he received revelation on this matter, but where does Wierwille say that? All he says is, I used to be uncertain about this. Now, based SOLELY on this old piece of literature that I can't or won't reproduce for you to verify independently, I am no longer uncertain. The reason they could not believe is that they thought Jesus was illegitimate." Well, they didn't think he was illegitimate. The Bible states clearly, TWICE, that Jesus was presumed to be the son of Joseph. Joseph was Mary's husband. The child of married parents is not considered illegitimate in the Bible, even if the conception took place before the marriage. So either the Bible was wrong, or Wierwille was wrong. I know what you're thinking: The Bible must be wrong. I disrespectfully disagree.

Oh, I see what you're saying, tw. Of course, the "official minority voice" on this thread would probably just say the method Wierwille used was direct revelation from God, so we're back at square one. Two more points on the "illegitimacy" issue. 1. Wierwille writes that Jesus got bar-mitvah'd early because he was considered illegitimate. Actually, Joseph and Mary, knowing that he was NOT illegitimate, would not have considered him so, and would not have brought him through the process a year early (assuming such a tradition did exist, for which there is no evidence except an old piece of literature in the imagination of a man who conjures up snowstorms for dramatic effect). 2. I have been liberally using the terms "illegitimate" and, less frequently, "bastard" to describe children born out of wedlock. I've said this before on another thread, long long ago, but it bears repeating: I generally do not use these terms. While they began as neutral terms to describe people, the term bastard degenerated into an epithet, while the term "illegitimate" stopped being a legal reference and started being a cultural one. All children are legitimate, regardless of their parents' sins. I use the term with its old, non-judgmental meaning. It's also the term Wierwille used in PFAL. There is no offense intended in my repeating it. [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on January 18, 2003 at 14:45.]

Long Gone, I think you made a couple of MAJOR, MAJOR points. The presumption surrounding Jesus WAS that he was the son of Joseph, not one who was conceived through fornication as John 8 would suggest. While an alternative explanation for John 8 exists (and has been presented on this thread), no alternative explanation exists for Matthew 13:53-58. COMPLETELY CONTRARY to Wierwille's so called "excellent point" in PFAL, Jesus was NOT rejected because his parenthood was questioned. It says right there in the verse that Joseph was presumed to be his father. Jesus was rejected precisely because they KNEW his family, not because they did not! Let's not forget the clear record of Luke 3:23 If Jesus was presumed to be the son of Joseph, as this verse CLEARLY STATES, then he was not presumed to be illegitimate. How did I fail to see this before? Thank you, Long Gone! Now, I am still way to early in this process to say that I've completely changed my mind on this subject, but it is DANGED compelling. What say ye, judges? Is this enough to move Wierwille's interpretation into "actual error?" --------- Troubledwine: I can fathom a lack of explanation. There's really only one explanation possible: further research caused him to change his mind. He doesn't have to completely change his theology just because he changed a capital to a lower case or a d to an l, does he?

ex10: I don't think you're beating a dead horse at all, but you are demonstrating why I wouldn't call the illegitimacy discussion one of PFAL's "actual errors." There's lots of room for discussion and debate on who knew what, where and when. Yes, people could have counted backward from his birth date and started scratching their heads. Yes, there COULD HAVE been rumors that Mary cheated on Joseph while betrothed to him. Yes, there COULD HAVE been rumors that Mary and Joseph got together before they were supposed to. It COULD BE that the record in Acts 8 was not referring at all to the circumstances of Jesus' conception. It could also be that the record WAS about it. In my opinion, it CANNOT BE that Luke 2:41 ff has anything whatsoever to do with the circumstances of Jesus' conception. 40 years of failure to produce the "old piece of literature" convinces me that this was simply an error. There's OODLES of information to indicate that young men went through a coming of age (NOT a Bar-mitzvah, but a predecessor of what that ceremony came to commemorate) at age 12 at various times. Personally, I think the reason the record refers to Jesus being 12 years old is, that's the year he was left behind yapping with the rabbis in the Temple. There's no evidence that younger children weren't around. Those who speculate that this verse makes any reference to Jesus' Bar-mitzvah (or equivalent) are 100% speculating. There's nothing in the text to justify it. But this thread isn't about "Blind speculation in PFAL," or I would have made fun of the silly insistence that Judas was present in Acts 1. This is about "Actual Errors," which is why I conceded to Goey's evidence and agreed to remove it from the list. --------------------------------------------- Troubledwine: For the purpose of the larger discussion at hand, all I will say is this: Wierwille's comfort at going back over what he wrote and adding words, subtracting words, and changing words is, to me, proof positive that he did NOT consider his own writings to be "The Word of God," else he would not have had the audacity to tamper with it. What the Hay's post made it clear, by quoting Wierwille himself, that Wierwille AT THE VERY LEAST considered it possible that his research is a wrong dividing of God's Word. "Either way, I accept full responsibility," Wierwille writes. I believe Wierwille was trying to be three things when it comes to dechomai and lambano, Holy Spirit and holy spirit. He was trying to be simple, exhaustive and consistent. So as he considered his words more, he edited. Writers do that all the time. I've won PRIZES for writing I'd love to go back and fix. Problem is, once you commit something to writing, it's there. You can't escape it. It's right there in black and white. In short, the answer to your question is, Wierwille's writing wasn't perfect and he knew it. No one was claiming that his writing WAS perfect. Well, not until recently, anyway.