Raf

Ok, Mike brought the pretzels. Who brought the beer? Mike, you don't know what time of year Luke 2:42 takes place? Honest? Really? Are you literate? Can you show the Bible just a FRACTION of the devotion you're showing PFAL? Luke 2:42 takes place during Passover. It says so, right there in the context. Remember how PFAL taught us that in order to understand the BIBLE, we have to read VERSES in their context. Do you remember that in PFAL? It's about how to read the Bible you reject. I ask you for proof that Wierwille is right, and you SPECULATE that God must have told him to trust an "old piece of literature" that none of us gets to see or read? HOGWASH, sir. Do not pass Go, Do not collect 1/10 of my income. I told you, if you don't have an answer, don't write. This drivel you've provided is not an answer. By the way, didn't I specifically say you can't quote the PFAL book as proof? It's the only thing you quoted as proof. That's rich. The proof that Wierwille is right is that in other parts of the PFAL book he talks about related things. HUH? Your reply is logically, practically, scripturally and rationally flawed.

How about this. In PFAL, Wierwille states that in Luke 2, Jesus was taken to the temple for bar-mitzvah at age 12 instead of 13 because he was considered illegitimate. Wierwille made two statements that are without basis or proof. 1. That they were in town for bar-mitzvah. 2. That "illegitimate" children were treated differently than other children for the purpose of bar-mitvah. Prove it. You casually dismiss this as an "apparent" contradiction or error. I call it an actual error. It is flat out on its face wrong. Go ahead and show me that Wierwille was right (and no, you don't get to quote the PFAL book as "proof"). And don't tell me that you have the proof but you're waiting for the right time for me to step up to your telescope to see it. I'm not asking you to start another endless Mike thread. Just address one of the errors we've posted here. No more "I have the answers, trust me, I just haven't posted them yet." Just post already. It's hard to be patient when you always manage to find the time to post about how you have no time to post. You always find the time to post that you have the answers we're seeking from you, but you never have the time to post the answers. It's tiring, and it's wearing thin. Actually, it starting wearing thin weeks ago, but when I told you then to put up or shut up, you called me a cruel taskmaster. So I waited. And waited. You disappeared. You came back. And how much progress? Not an inch. Why? Because you're too busy to post anything other than that you're too busy to post. You know what? No one demands anything from you. But when you keep coming on, saying we're wrong, providing ZERO documentation to even STATE your case, much less back it up, it gets tiring. So I'll say it again. Put up or shut up. If you don't have time to type out the answer, then shut up until you do. I promise not to claim victory. But if you have the time to tell me you have the answer, then please have the decency to share it with the rest of the class. We're waiting.

Put up. You know the other option. -->

That's great, Mike. Now, if my calculations are right, you have about 12-15 other actual errors to address.

I don't know if Wierwille KNEW that Ouija boards are a recent invention. But if he did, I think it's a fair teaching tool. Yes, you got the word right - pedagogical. By the way, I wouldn't rely so heavily on Gamaliel if I were you. Wierwille's movement came to nought. But then, we already agreed on another thread that Gamaliel was wrong.

WordWolf, you disappoint me old friend. The word in Luke 14:33 is apotasso, not apostasia. It is therefore irrelevant to this discussion. Acts 21:21 contains the only other NT usage of this word (besides II Thessalonians). I see no evidence of positive usage. The Septuagint, while not necessarily authoritative, will offer help regarding the usage of this word. George, I did not know that. Very enlightening. In my opinion, it's fair game to use modern anachronisms to make a point (ie, the prophet Elisha doesn't come out to meet Naaman because he's having tea and chocolate chip cookies). It's a device. Maybe they didn't have Oija boards. But they had other stuff.

There is no Two Towers extended version, yet. The still photo you posted is from Return of the King.

WordWolf: You know better than anyone how long I've given thought to this subject, so I'm going to turn it around and place the burden on you: Can you find, historically, a single usage of apostasia that is positive or neutral. It's always a rebellion, far as my research has taken me. The question then becomes, if I'm right, what is the context of its usage in II Thessalonians? Is it a rebellion in God's favor? Or is it a rebellion against God? I don't know that the context is that clear, but I will say this: it does not mean "departure" any more than "overthrow" means to throw a basktball over the net. I think this is where Plots' discussion of ekklesia comes in handy: no one reading "apostasia" would break it into its composite words to come up with a technical meaning. Except, of course, Victor Paul Wierwille. Am I right? Am I wrong? Carry on.

Hmmm. Rastafari in you? Italy in you? Rael in you? Antidisestablishmentary in you? Trinity in you? The suffix "ian" means "follower of" or "subsrciber to a viewpoint or position." Wierwille's etymology of "Christian" is ludicrous. Excellent catch. ***** Christ in you is sonship. You in Christ is fellowship. This distinction is horse... never mind. Vertical Limit, I think you nailed that one right from the start: it's an interpretation error, not a "2+2=5" error. But I agree with you wholeheartedly that it IS an error. A few verses might persuade me otherwise. I'll study it if you will. I wouldn't worry about parroting the doctrinal threads, though. The point of this thread is to sort out actual errors in PFAL. Of necessity, there will be some overlap. WordWolf: I always chuckled at that observation. If only "the dead in Christ" will rise, then those who are NOT in fellowship at the time of their death will not rise, and that goes against a MAJOR TWI and PFAL doctrine. I don't think this is in PFAL, but it's in Are the Dead Alive Now: Wierwille's definition of "apostasia" ("a departure") is simply incorrect. As Inigo Montoya would say: you keep using that word. I do no sink it means what you sink it means. Apostasia means "rebellion." It is always a bad thing. It is NOT a reference to the rapture or the gathering together or the first resurrection or any other good time will be had by all Biblical prophecy. It's a BAD THING, and we don't want to be a part of it. Wierwille's definition is fictional.

Mike, According to you, PFAL is a more pure form of the Word of God. Therefore, it should have no contradictions at all, much less a long list that can be broken up into errors of interpretation and actual errors. Very nice try, but it contradicts your whole rationale that PFAL is needed because the Bible has been corrupted. Dang nice try, though.

Activity on this thread has pretty much stalled because... a. Mike has vanished? b. Raf gets too cocky whenever anyone else posts? c. We've pretty much nailed all the 2+2=5 errors? d. We have lives? In any event, I'll compile the list and post it at some point. Many thanks to all for the contributions. If you want to send more, post it here or e-mail me privately. Raf

We're distinguishing in this thread between "actual errors" and "doctrinal differences" (or, as I've called them previously, errors of interpretation). I think I understand what Wierwille was saying when he talked about Christ as being "absent." The Apostle Paul even said that while we are present in the body, we are absent from the Lord. How could we be absent from him if he is not absent from us? How are we to handle this statement? Point is, you may feel it's error, and I may feel it's error, but it's a stretch to call it "actual error" as defined in this thread. An actual error would be something like "Wierwille said Moses brought nine of each kind of animal on the ark, including great whales and fish."

A correction to something I said earlier: In the extended DVD edition, Gandalf does not reveal the origin of Gollum. He DOES say that Gollum used to be called Smeagol, but he reveals nothing substantive about Smeagol. This is in the scene where they're resting in Moria.

Have at it. Here's the basis of my question: What is the difference in meaning between "called out" and the actual definition of "ekklesia." I thought Wierwille's definition in the Green Book was pretty much the same as the article Plots quoted. So if you asked me to distinguish between Wierwille's meaning and the "true" meaning, in my own words, I couldn't do it. So what am I missing? Home that helps. ***** Steve, I think you can handle your observation the same way I handled the Kingdom of God/Heaven observation in my original post: In PFAL, Wierwille writes that the Gentiles in Romans 11:13 are unbelievers, not members of hte church of God. In truth, the Gentiles of Romans 11:13 are Christian believers. Paul never speaks of the Church of God as distinct from Jews and Gentiles. He speaks of the Church of God as COMPOSED OF Jews and Gentiles. Some may consider this an error of interpretation, but the evidence for it is so clear, it belongs in the actual error category. How's that? ***** Simon, In PFAL, Wierwille writes that Eve made a mistake by considering the question that the devil had propounded (p. 254). In truth, "considering" is not a mistake. One MUST, logically, consider something before rejecting it. We do not know whether something is in keeping with God's Word unless we consider it. If God says "Do not eat peanut butter," and someone comes along and says "God didn't say you couldn't have peanut butter and jelly," you need to consider that before rejecting it. Granted, that consideration may be brief. But consideration alone is not a mistake. Well done. [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on January 07, 2003 at 6:42.]

Mike, You've made it clear that you will not entertain any point of view that leads you away from your idolatrous course. That's fine with me. I am not going to entertain any point of view that leads me toward your idolatrous course. So, we're at an impasse. Keep the case closed. No amount of phone calls will change that. And "aloof?" Please, at least choose a word that reflects my thinking. Insistent. Adamant. Unwilling to bow before Baal. But aloof? Really, you can do better.

Ethelbert, I apologize for the length of my post. My post would have been MUCH shorter if not for the fact that I deliberately quote that which I am responding to (sorry to my grammar teacher for that last sentence). Mike, You worry me. You really do. Seek help.

Mighty convenient, leaving without addressing a single error in your God-breathed class.

"If no one else will." There's a safe bet.

Waaaaah Waah waaaaah waaaaaaaaah. Sorry for whining.

Mike, you're delusional. Wierwille did not tell us to read the Epistles every day for three months. He told us to read The Word. And the thought that he would want us to abandon the King James in its entirety, focusing only on the verses he quotes in the collaterals, runs counter to the very content of those collaterals. I'm going to ask at this time that you do not call me. Your assertion that we would save time in a phone conversation misses the point that you are making absurd claims in a public setting, and that those claims must be addresses publicly. You say you do not seek to change my mind. I call that a lie. What is it you seek, if not to persuade us all to your point of view? If you do not seek to change our minds, then you are failing in your missionary task. No, Mike, this conversation, if it continues at all, stays public. I will not be drawn into an endless telephone conversation in order to have you skillfully avoid answering the points we're all raising here. No. Save your quarter. Do not call. I reject your idolatry, Mike. I will not be persuaded otherwise, not by you, not by the false god you worship. I do not need 27 years to bow down to your idol. You have disgraced your teacher, and become a caricature of those who loved him. By recognizing his faults without rejecting everything he taught, I submit that I have far more respect for the legacy of Victor Paul Wierwille than you do. I continue to pray for you.

Okay, two things. One: Steve, on the one hand, I think you've pointed to some actual errors. On the other hand, you need to articulate them a bit more succinctly. :)--> If I have more time, I'll try to sum up your paragraphs into something that's a bit more self-evident. If you'd like to do it first, feel free. Second: Come on, people, don't make me play threadcop! The issue of whether we should pay for the class or not is SO not the topic. Neither is the issue of whether we were "forced" to take it. I think we can all agree that there was intense peer pressure to take the class, and that the spiritual nature of our participation made taking the class more compelling than other endeavors of life. But no one got strapped to a chair. Either way, it's not an actual error in PFAL, so can we get back to it? Please? Thanks.

Mike, I reject any quotations of Scripture from you: they lack authority in your eyes, and therefore cannot be used by you to prove your point. Further, please stop trying to convince me. I've made up my mind and unless you are going to be meek to my position, I need to save my energy for people who will be meek to it. It's one thing if you want to listen, but if you're going to try to convince ME to change MY mind, you've got another thing coming.

This is really long, but it mostly addresses specific things Mike wrote. I was under the impression from your earlier posts that Wierwille had finished his work and was ready to die. Yet now you make it clear that there was a major portion of his work that was left undone. So, which is it? Actually, not much of the Intermediate class exists in written form, at least not written by Victor Paul Wierwille. Most of which was written by other people, no? Are you now saying the Intermediate Class was God-breathed? I’m lost. They ditched Wierwille’s Intermediate Class for Earl Burton’s. Why would Wierwille permit the God-breathed Word to be replaced with a cheap carbon copy? Somehow, that does not surprise me. You’re on the right track. Now, take it to the next step… Holy cow. As others have eloquently noted, Wierwille was thinking of THE BIBLE, not his own writings, when he quoted “It Is Written” and made it the motto of his Way Corps. There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to suggest that he was thinking of his own writings. Proof positive that he did not consider it “God-breathed,” as he felt comfortable adding words, subtracting words and changing words. Well, DUHHHH! What’s he supposed to do, jump in a time machine and re-teach the Rock of Ages until he gets it right? It was the result of much thought and discussion. It was not a result of God breathing. It was a result of MAN’s thought and MAN’s discussion. God doesn’t give revelation by committee. Picky: meaning, of course, you are only meek to learn from the written works of Victor Paul Wierwille. And not even that: for Wierwille’s written words reject your thesis, and your dismissive attitude toward the Bible. Really? It took him far less time to “earn” his doctorate. I see you’re beginning to understand our reaction to you. Do you respect Wierwille as MORE than that? I believe your father in the Word was an error-prone, sexual predator who abused his position in the church in order to seduce women. I also think he was a plagiarist who dishonestly took credit for what others wrote. Will you leave me alone now? Earlier, you wrote that God told the same thing to Wierwille that he told men before him. I would be inclined to accept that if not for the uncontested evidence that Wierwille read and had access to the men’s works BEFORE he wrote his own. Wierwille learned to speak in tongues from Stiles, then suddenly, his book quotes Stiles as though the words are Wierwille’s. That’s plagiarism. Your explanation for it is pure head-in-the-sand denial. Be my guest, but my respect for you rapidly plummets depending on your refusal to see the simple truth in front of you. For once, we agree. Had you mastered what Dr. told you to master, you would be rejecting your theory, just as Wierwille did. I’ve got a list. AGAIN with the false dichotomy! Mike, it’s not ALL OR NOTHING. Prove all things. Hold fast to that which is good. That’s the Biblical mandate. Good, my job is safe. I think it was Abigail who nailed you on this one. Your master should be God, in Christ. Not Wierwille. You have chosen the works of a flawed man as your master. That’s idolatry. We’ve noticed. I will, henceforth, treat YOUR assessment of God’s Word with the same lack of respect with which you treat mine. Thanks kindly for your declaration. Most of us are taking this approach with EVERYTHING Wierwille said and taught. We’re supposed to be impressed because you’re not bowing before the Advanced Class? Yeah, right, whatever. Must… not… think… evil… of… Dr…. Mike, your foolishness in this statement has already been addressed, so I’m not going to repeat it. WOAH! The apostles NEVER claimed that they could stay alive by their believing, or that they would die only when they stopped believing. No one’s knocking Wierwille for getting cancer. What we’re saying is that he should have come clean and said he was WRONG to say cancer was a devil spirit, and apologize to the people he hurt by implying they were outside of the will of God because of their cancer. It was his HYPOCRISY we are criticizing, not his illness. (I’ll note that, along with Oldies, I never heard Wierwille say this. I’m only reacting to your comparison of Wierwille with the apostles). And in Mike’s more recent post… Where does God say to forget? Let me tell you something: if you sexually abuse me or someone close to me, I may forgive you, but I don’t think the Bible commands me to forget it. And as long as some Wierwille-worshipping idolater continues to laud him as God’s prophet, and his works as God-breathed, we need people who are willing to stand up and say THE MAN WAS A SEXUAL PREDATOR who ABUSED his position in the Body of Christ to HURT God’s people. How DARE you tell people to forget that? Look, it’s as much a part of his legacy as PFAL. It’s a reminder to us not to worship a man, but you are doing that anyway. What GALL! Show me where the Bible says to FORGET? Have you SEEN Wierwille? It wasn’t his looks. It was his abuse of his position of power. My goodness, after 27 years, you can’t see this? If you really feel that way, if you honestly think that of yourself, then do me a favor and lose my phone number. I will never pick up, and will never return your call. They had NOTHING on Wierwille. No one is claiming or requiring innocence. But I expect, no, I DEMAND that my pastors do not abuse their positions to seduce the flock, that they do not practice and excuse rampant adultery. My GOD, Mike, have you abandoned all reason? Psst. Come here. BULLSH!T. You think David’s sexual sin was not the real issue? Explain Nathan’s story. Nathan does not even MENTION the murder of Uriah! He mentions how someone took another man’s sheep. Nothing in Nathan’s story about killing anything or anyone. Nathan’s story was SPECIFICALLY about David’s adultery, and you come along, what 3,000 years later, and say David was reproved for murder, not for adultery? Fool! So the fact that the collaterals are published and distributed are proof that God’s hand was on it? Dude, the Satanic Bible has sold more copies than PFAL. That proves NOTHING. And what “widely distributed.” Less than 100,000 people have a complete set. On earth! Mike, you NUT, the Proverbs were written BEFORE that! Meek Master Mike is back. A lie is what the 1942 promise was and is. Wierwille said it. That settles it. You believe it. Again with the straw man. They don’t agree with you: they must be in favor of tradition. I reject your FALSE, LYING accusation. That’s rich. Ever hear of Charles Taze Russell? Tough, ornery contrarian, rejected the Trinity and rejected immediate life after death, founded a Christian sect people have actually HEARD of. Your Wierwille is a pathetic WANNABE compared to Charles Taze Russell. Until now I have accused you of worshipping Wierwille’s writings alone. I now assert that you worship Wierwille as well: not as perfect, but as above and beyond any other Christian. Your idolatry exceeds anything I thought it was. YOU HYPOCRITE! Wierwille did not treat the Bible with such disrespect as you have! Wierwille said, repeatedly, that the Bible CAN be trusted. His whole claim to understanding the Word came from (supposedly) taking thousands of books to the city dump and going straight to the Bible. YOU reject the Book Wierwille praised. You HYPOCRITE! If Wierwille heard you, his fingers would BLEED from slapping you so repeatedly. You’ve finally cracked. What was Wierwille’s saying: Chapter and Verse, please? That was HIS saying. HE expected us to take whatever was taught and compare it to THE BIBLE, not his own books. That you can study his works for three decades and come away with such a profound disrespect for God’s Word strikes me as the ultimate paradox. You disgrace the man you worship. Listen, Meek Master Mike, if Wierwille held the Bible with the same disregard as you, do tell, why did he spend so much time teaching us how to read it? Given a choice between never having PFAL again, and never having the Bible again, I’d lose PFAL in a heartbeat. Wanna know something scary? So would Wierwille. [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on January 06, 2003 at 12:21.]

Shall I?

No it's not. Carry on. Goey, you are correct.