Raf

Thanks Zix.

So at the very least there was ONE person who fit the description with LCM. It doesn't excuse LCM, but it makes it harder for that one person to claim victim status.

Now, is it so hard to believe that out of the God knows how many women who slept with Wierwille, MAYBE, just MAYBE, a handful also fit that description, even with Wierwille?

Not a majority. Not even a lot. Just SOME.

And it still doesn't excuse Wierwille, but it robs those very few possible people of "victim" status. Is that so unreasonable?

I appreciate that Zix dug up that page from Karl's site. And I appreciate that I've built the kind of record on these boards where people will know that I am no apologist for Wierwille.

I have found that Oldiesman is honest about his positions and will listen to reason when it comes to those who challenge him. I question some of his positions and opinions. I do not question his motive or heart.

excath:

I'm trying to be real delicate here. Let's put your experience aside. Okay? The following question has NOTHING to do with YOU or what YOU went through. It is not directed at YOU. Okay?

Would you agree that at least SOME PEOPLE might possibly fit the description oldies presented? SOME? Not all. Not even a majority. Let's say, four people. Would you agree that of the many many people who engaged in adultery with Wierwille, that it's possible about FOUR of them were Wierwille worshippers who were more than happy to shower their favor on him?

I think SOME people fit that description. I think that does NOT distract from VPW's responsibility as a Christian, and particularly as a Christian minister, to refrain from such behavior. So it doesn't absolve him, but it does lay the tiniest bit of blame on those women, however few they may have been, who looked at Wierwille's seduction as a blessing rather than a curse.

In any event, I think Oldies is a nice guy, and I know you're hurting when you call him the things you called him.

Sorry for butting in.

Ever try to pull a splinter out of the paw of a pit bull? Seriously dangerous work.

A lot of people here were wounded. Some physically. Many emotionally and intellectually. Pulling the splinter out can be really painful, but there's no real relief until that happens.

For some people here, the splinter is still in. Talking about the need for forgiveness is like trying to pull it out, and that really hurts. It takes work to convince them that the temporary pain of removing the splinter leads to a much greater healing. But it's easy for me to say, because I don't have a splinter in my paw.

The analogy only goes so far. Suffice it to say that if I were to try to remove a splinter from the paw of a pit bull, I'd try to be a little more careful rather than tell it to shut up and let me pull.

Also: in case you're not aware, this message board is for ex-Way members. It's not solely for Christians. There are many people here who reject the Bible and Christianity. There is no consensus on this board as to the need for and value of forgiveness. So when you come here talking about "deliverance" and other ideals, you can expect some hostility in return precisely because some people have no more interest in the Bible than they do in the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Words to consider.

How about, "I'm leaving TWI."

That should work wonders.

:D-->

Okay, I'll accept that I misread you.

Is it possible you've misread the people who post here? Is it possible you don't understand them nearly as much as you implied by offering such stern reproof? Is it possible that you have as much to learn about holding people accountable as others have to learn about forgiveness?

And is it possible that we reach our answers, and maybe at times a consensus, through exactly the kind of conversations that are the norm here at the Cafe?

The Living Epistles Society

You know what, Erick? You don't have to defend yourself to us, and we don't have to defend ourselves to you. This is an open forum message board and the people who are here, are here of their own free will.

If Mike wants to call Wierwille's work God-breathed and spent 32 years ferreting out its truths, that's his business and not ours. If he wants to TALK about it, then it's our business only insofar as he has MADE it our business.

If I want to go over the books Wierwille wrote and sort out the good from the bad, not only is that my RIGHT, but it's my BIBLICAL RESPONSIBILITY and I will NOT allow you to criticize me for exercising it (not without responding, anyway). "Prove all things, hold fast to that which is good." I choose to apply that to Wierwille's writings. Don't like it? Too bad.

I understand where you're coming from. I really do. But if you have a problem with people discussing the works and impact of Victor Paul Wierwille and L. Craig Martindale, then this is the wrong Cafe for you. Not that I want you to leave. I think your perspective is as valuable as everyone else's. It's just, what are you doing here if it's not to discuss TWI doctrine, practice, history and influence?

The Living Epistles Society

You proved me right and I proved me wrong?

How rich! :)-->

Does anyone know why or how Shavuot got changed from always being on a Sunday to being on a specific date every year?

Actual Error?

Here's a great opportunity for a bit of research.

In Jesus Christ Our Passover, Wierwille writes that the Pentecost corresponds to the Feast of Weeks, and that the counting of the seven weeks begins on the Sunday following Passover (p. 388). He concludes that the 50th day will, naturally, always fall on a Sunday. Therefore, in his own words...

quote:

---

The Judeans would count seven weeks or forty-nine days; then the next day, the fiftieth (which would always be a Sunday in our time reckoning), was Pentecost.

---

According to Wierwille, Pentecost should ALWAYS fall on a Sunday. (It's logical to conclude from this definition that Wierwille believed the Pentecost in Acts 2 fell on a Sunday).

Here's the catch. The Jews (JEWS JEWS JEWS) call Pentecost "Shavuot." It does NOT always fall on a Sunday. Either Wierwille was wrong, or history changed.

Wierwille HAD to begin the counting the first Sunday after Passover in order to have Pentecost fall on a Sunday. Tradition places Pentecost on a Sunday every year, and Wierwille, for whatever reason, did not question it. But he ran into trouble trying to count only 50 days between the Thursday of Passover and the Sunday of Pentecost. So he began the counting the day after the weekly sabbath following Passover.

I submit that the counting did NOT begin on the Sunday after Passover, that it began the day AFTER Passover. I submit that NOT EVERY Pentecost (on the Jewish calendar) falls on a Sunday. And I submit that the first Pentecost did not necessarily fall on a Sunday.

Further, I question whether there were 10 days between the ascension and Pentecost. I see nothing in the scripture that declares this outright.

These are presented as challenges and questions, not conclusions. I await your replies.

------------------------------------------------

This is an edit. I thought of deleting this post entirely, but thought it would be better to just post the answer which I just found (and in the process, show that I'm not unwilling to state that Wierwille was right about something).

Lev. 23:16 makes it clear that the counting of the weeks is to end on the day after the Sabbath. So my basic questions are answered, and my submissions refuted.

I still wonder why Jews today celebrate Shavuot on a specific date every year, rather than on a Sunday as the Bible specifically designates. That's not a PFAL error issue, but I'd still be interested in the answer.

[This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on January 29, 2003 at 7:15.]

quote:

---

Yes, morning stars could be very well be refering to angels. I did not consider this verse as specifically saying or recording that angels sing because some believe that "morning stars" in this verse is literal, refering to the stars at creation and the singing is figurative.

The word for sing in this verse is the Hebrew 'ranan', which is also translated 'rejoice' and 'shout out'. It does not necesarily connote melodious singing.

Melodious singing is usually represented by the Hebrew words shiyr or zamar.

---

Goey,

I think you certainly established that this is not an actual error. It's an interesting discussion, however tangential.

Wierwille writes on p. 212 that there's no scripture that states angels sing. He does not say "sing melodiously." He simply says "sing." In context, one COULD suggest that he MEANT "sing melodiously," but the fact is that he doesn't.

Further, there IS a scripture that says angels sing. There's no scripture that says, specifically, that angels sing melodiously. But there is a scripture that says angels sing.

Finally, the song "Hark The Herald Angels Sing" could very easily be using the word "sing" in the same manner as the verse in Job. It certainly fits with the context of the song.

So I think there's a case for interpretational error, but it doesn't rule out the possibility that Wierwille was right about melodious singing, IF that's what he meant.

Rottiegrrl: This subject really fit on both threads. Thanks for bringing it here. :)-->

I don't think Wierwille ever wrote that angels CAN'T sing. Why, that'd be stoopid.

Mike:

You will be able to do all nine manifestations, but you will never know that fornication and adultery are wrong, even in this present administration.

Fine, take yourrr precioussss.

You won't sign Jerry's green card. How classic. And hypocritical.

Folks, before replying to Mike, remember his stated M.O. Bear it in mind at all times...

quote:

---

the right and proper procedure is to DODGE. Witness if possible, distract, challenge right back, but NEVER consider the error as an error.

---

Oh myyy precioussssssss

I stand corrected... for the moment.

From the book of Job:

quote:

---

38:4

Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

38:5

Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

38:6

Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

38:7

When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

---

Do I need to get into the fact that the "morning stars" is another term for angels?

The argument is not from silence. It's from a failure to research. But unless there's a written quote of Wierwille saying "Angels don't sing," "angels can't sing," or "there's no record in the Bible where angels sing," then it's not an actual error. Find the quote and I'll add it to the list.

RottieGrrrl...

If you have a copy of Jesus Christ Our Promised Seed, I'd start looking there for the quote. We know that in the Book of Job, God Himself declares that angels sing. But is there anywhere Wierwille states, in writing, that they do not?

I'm debating whether or not the thread has actually been derailed. For the past two days, it has certainly been about Mike. At least today he wrote specifically about his approach to resolving actual 2+2=5 errors in PFAL (deny that PFAL could ever be wrong, but don't call it denial, and dodge all questions). As unsatisfied as I am with that answer, it IS an answer.

Now, Mike, I'll agree with Mark on this: it's time to either apply your method to the errors we've identified, or stop interrupting the conversation.

In other words.... anyone? anyone?

First I'll drop dead of shock.

Then, after you've raised me, I will congratulate you on the resolutions. Of course, your viewpoint requires ALL errors to be resolved. So I would tell you that there's still at least 12 prepositions out of place, meaning yourrrr precioussssss PFAL is still not the Words of Gods's.

Good art by Garth.

quote:

---

You’ve got to either risk checking it out, or live with your perception of safety, but with no hope of ever raising the dead or doing all the other things Jesus did and greater.

---

Put up or shut up.

quote:

---

You’re trading the abundant life for a safe distancing from Craig and TWI-2.

---

Ah, but you forget, my friend, I do not associate PFAL with Craig Martindale or TWI 2. That's an arrogant presumption on your part. (Awful lot of Star Trek quotes I'm throwing around lately. Anyone picking up on them?)

quote:

---

You’re asking me to explain it in a way that transports you back to PFAL by answering all the questions you’ve run into first. That ain’t gonna happen. For one thing, it’s an ENDLESS process!

---

For another thing, you ain't got no answers.

Mike, I consider your method to be denial. The more you describe your methodology, the more assured I am of my definition.

Let's call it a draw. I continue to contend that you have failed to adequately address a single error. You continue to contend that in order to receive the answers I seek, I need to be meek enough to jump through the hoops leading to your telescope.

Deal?

[This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on January 28, 2003 at 17:06.]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike:

Rafael,

I firmly believe that Jesus would drive a Dodge Rambler, because he and all his apostles (except Judas) had a Brooklyn accent.

---

FINALLY!

Mike and I are in agreement.

quote:

---

You guys are trying to get me to re-enter the suspicion stage and you just can’t seem to hear me when I say “Been there done that.”

---

No, we're not trying to get you to re-enter the suspicion stage. We are trying to get you to explain how you got out of it. You've finally provided an answer. Abject denial. That's very nice. I'll take a pass.

Look, I won't say that PFAL lacks any value. That's not the point. If you lean on it and it helps you, more power to you, man. But it doesn't have to be the perfect Word of a perfect God in order to have that effect!

The FACT that there are ACTUAL ERRORS in PFAL, that those errors are both small and great, should convince you that it fails to meet its own definition of what it means to be God-breathed. So either its definition was wrong (in which case the PFAL book is in error) or it's not God-breathed (in which case PFAL is in error). The third option is that it really is error free. But if you're going to make that case, your answer has to be better than "Join me in my denial. We all float here."

That's the bottom line.

Mike,

...

Actually, this is addressed to everyone.

Did Mike actually say anything in that post?

:)-->

Hey, seriously, I don't see a single instance in God's Word where Jesus responded to a question by dodging it.

Correction: there is one. When he was asked by what authority he said and did the things he said and did, he responded by asking them to explain the authority behind John the Baptist.

In other places, however, Jesus clearly and openly answered the question concerning where he got his authority. The "dodge" was a challenge, not an excuse to avoid answering the question.

Mike,

I respect your right to dodge these questions.

I think your attitude toward the Bible is antithetical to Wierwille's attitude toward it. But you have convinced yourself otherwise and declared your mind closed on the subject. Fine. But don't come back here and have the gall to accuse us of being closed minded. I would consider it hypocrisy and I will call you on it.

The procedure you've described can be summed up in one word. Denial. It's your privilege to exercise it freely.

You think the errors we see here will evaporate as soon as we change our perspective. Well, you've made it clear that they have not evaporated for you. Rather, you admit you're dodging them. How can you dodge what has evaporated? The errors will still be there whenever you have the Biblical integrity to face them.

And yes, I do question your Biblical integrity.

Steve,

I agree. I believe you have pointed out and fully documented an actual error. The Bible lists four things. Wierwille lists three, and changes the Word to fit his list. That is the exact opposite of what he told us must be done.

Nice job.

I had a similar experience based on the Luke 2 discussion above. My fellowship coordinator was leading us through the Home Studies, and we got to the question about Jesus going to Jerusalem to go through bar-mitzvah, and I challenged him on it.

Funny thing was, this was taking place AFTER we had all left TWI. Still, it was VERY difficult to get him to agree that The Way was wrong about Jesus going through bar-mitzvah, that the verse in question had nothing to do with bar-mitzvah, and that an unnamed "old piece of literature" was not an acceptable standard for basing our understanding of the Bible.

I think a great many people in TWI were always willing to SAY that Wierwille wasn't perfect and that he could make mistakes. But egads, to actually point one out would have caused a riot!

From there to here.

And Zix, I must say, that was one excellent post. Thank you.

This thread has three basic premises.

1. That there are actual errors (not due to interpretation or "translation," middlement, proofreaders, etc.) in the PFAL book and Wierwille's other writings.

2. That those errors disqualify PFAL from its own definition of what it means to be "God-breathed."

3. That anyone who considers PFAL to BE God-breathed has to either explain the actual errors (ie, make them fit) or abandon PFAL's definition OF God-breathed in order to maintain that position.

Most of us would take 1 and 2 as self-evident, and this thread would not be as necessary (although Jerry proved years ago that it could be tons of fun).

But for those addressed in the third premise, the challenge could not be more grave. For if you cannot EXPLAIN the actual errors (and I contend you could not even if you tried), then you MUST admit VPW was wrong about "God-breathed" or abandon your position that PFAL IS God-breathed.

You may, as Mike did, choose to ignore the challenge. I never did a google search on Bible contradictions, as Mike suggested. Why not? Because I choose not to take the critics up on the challenge.

The difference between me and Mike is, I don't go to the other Web sites and tell them how wrong they are while refusing to address ANY of the contradictions they pose. I don't go there and ask them to explain how they approach difficulties in the theory of evolution to entrap them in an inconsistency. If I make the claim that the Bible has no errors or contradictions, then it is my job to address the errors and contradictions that are brought up. If I'm not going to do that (put up), then I will remain off their boards and silent (shut up).

I don't go there and tell them they are lousy researchers or unwilling to listen, without giving them any answers they seek. That's rude. And I'm not talking about "yo mama" rude. I'm talking about dishonest-and-disingenuous-debating-designed-to-cause-confusion-while-failing-to-address-the-very-purpose-of-this-discussion rude.

Which brings me back to the point:

Any discussion that fits into one of the three premises above should be considered on-topic.

Identifying actual errors is on-topic.

Challenging a posed "actual error" is on-topic.

Resolving an error is on-topic.

Explaining how you identify, challenge or resolve an error is on-topic.

The clever thing Mike tried to do yesterday was establish for US a consistency he demands of himself. That was getting us off-topic, and it explains my harshness yesterday.

Calling on us to apply the same principles to PFAL as we apply to the Bible assumes we all have the same principles in how to resolve errors in the Bible. We do not. Some of us try very hard to resolve difficulties in the Bible.

Some of us happily accept their existence as evidence that God worked with men. That discussion is fascinating, but it's not the subject of this thread. If we were to engage in that discussion, then the thread would simply be derailed.

Now, if Mike wants to attempt to re-define Wierwille's definition of God-breathed, I'm all ears. But I think we're all well aware that Wierwille did not allow for a view of the Word of God that allowed it to contradict itself.

What galls me about Mike, and I've said this repeatedly, is that he comes onto these threads declaring to all the world that he will NOT consider any viewpoint that shakes him from the belief that PFAL is God-breathed, then considers US "unfit researchers" who "don't WANT to see it fit." In other words, the man who has declared his mind closed for business accuses us of having closed minds. That's hypocrisy, and I'm tired of arguing with it.

On the other hand, you've got to appreciate a thread that brings back Karl Kahler AND Jerry Barrax.

Steve:

Regarding my citation of the scriptures being profitable for doctrine, reproof and correction (along with my decision to leave out "instruction in righteousness") I must inform you that my decision was deliberate. I left out "instruction in righteousness precisely because of how Wierwille interpreted that verse. In order for a debate to have meaning, the debaters must agree to certain premises. Mike's premises are easy to discern. They simply parrot Wierwille's written works. So in order for a debate to have meaning, the terms must be set by Wierwille. My contention all along has been that following that standard will prove that Wierwille's written works do not fit his very own definition of what it means to be God-breathed. So effective was this approach that Mike is pretending, either to himself or to us (or both) that he may not necessarily agree with Wierwille's definition of "God-breathed."

A lie?

A choice.

So, I agree with you that Wierwille was in error when he tried to say that "instruction in righteousness" was nothing more than a summary of "doctrine, reproof and correction." But I would put that squarely under error of interpretation. Maybe someday I will be convinced that it is an actual error. If you'd care to make a more detailed argument, I'm all ears.

Oakspear: Yeah, I know, sorry. The potential was always there for this to become a "Mike Wars" thread. That it happened should surprise no one. I saw Mike setting a trap in his questions to Jerry, and I knew that if Jerry answered, the result would be a huge thread derailment. Troubledwine's posts kept everything on track.

Jerry: Your posts are stellar. I have a minor quibble. I'm almost certain we've passed 15 by now. :P-->

The Living Epistles Society

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike:

No, NO, NO! This is what I tried to explain earlier, I DON”T “agree” with Dr on the meaning of God-breathed, in the sense that I have not STUDIED that particular subject out exactly. I have a rough feel only.

---

You almost had me going there. The only reason you don't agree with Wierwille on his definition of "God-breathed" is that you haven't finished rationalizing it to yourself yet. The bottom line remains is that if he was right about the meaning of God breathed, then PFAL FAILS to meet that standard. Period.

quote:

---

I resist this temptation to rush to judgement, and that’s why I dodge SOME of what your saying, or ignore it.

---

You've dodged some. You've ignored others. You've addressed none.

quote:

---

I don’t HAVE to untangle even one on these difficulties on this thread to proceed with my PFAL mastery any more than a Bible student would have to clear up all of Google’s Bible difficulties before proceeding with their studies.

---

I agree. You don't have to. But if you're going to keep coming onto this thread to tell me how wrong I am, the least I expect is the courtesy of a correction. The Word is profitable for doctrine, reproof and correction. You have reproved, but offered no correction, Do your Biblical duty or shut up.

quote:

---

Then you wrote:

“The most recently published one as of the time of VPW's death still contains errors, which you still have not addressed.”

I agree. That’s THE acceptable way of handling these kind of difficulties. I see them get cleared up in the reading with respect and mastery process, and you want me to engage in the direct confrontation with vast disrespects of the writings in question?

---

I'd settle for one. But you see, you accuse me of disrespecting PFAL. I do not. I respect PFAL for what it is. It is YOU who disrespects PFAL by dressing it in a quality Wierwille never intended for it. You have made it yourrrrrr preciousssss. I expect you to show me the answers to my questions, not to tell me the answers exist and leave me as an agent of Satan. More on that in a second...

quote:

---

The way I do OCCASIONALLY directly confront any of these difficulties, Bible or PFAL, is either alone with God, or with others who WANT to see it fit.

You guys DON’T want to see it fit.

---

And there you are wrong, sir. We repeatedly ask you to show us how it fits, you DENY us the information and have the unmitigated GALL to accuse us of not wanting it? How DARE you? You owe ME an apology, not to mention many other people who have been so danged patiently waiting for you to provide answers. It is YOU, sir, who have declared an outright refusal to listen to any opposing point of view. Don't you DARE try to accuse us of the same when we have been waiting for you to answer any of these questions.

If you don't want to answer them, fine, that's your privilege. But to come here and accuse us of not wanting the answers is an insult, and I will not stand for it. I expect an apology.

quote:

---

I see you as an unfit research team, and I teach readers of GS to not engage with such unfit teams.

---

And they all left you as soon as you said that, right?

Unfit, my butt. Address ONE ERROR. Put up or shut up, Mike. And if you're going to shut up, I won't hold it against you. It's your right. But that which thou doest, do quickly.

quote:

---

I'm not afraid of your taunts to “explain or be befuddled!”

---

I never accused you of being afraid. No one with that much unmitigated gall can have such fear.

quote:

---

I see many other options than the ones you challenge me to and I dodge with complete impunity. It’s my God given right.

---

You used an AWFUL lot of words to tell us you'd be dodging our questions. Fine, it is your right. I wholeheartedly agree. But I want you to know something: I think you're an unfit researcher, and I'm going to tell all my friends to ignore your posts.

Yeah, real mature there, Meek Master Mike.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike:

I corresponded briefly with Gerry when he first appeared on Waydale. I double checked his website just today. It does look like a fascinating read, but it also looks in skimming to solve the problem by cutting out James. That's why I asked Jerry to tell me plain.

---

I don't know if Jerry's views have changed in the last two years, but I can sum up his statements from way back when.

The conflicting statements in Galatians and James led him to believe first that James had no place in the canon of scripture, and later, that James has as much right to be in the canon as Galatians. Ultimately, he allowed that the Bible CAN contradict itself.

1. This leads to an important question: Can the Bible contradict itself and still be the Word of God? Some would say yes. Others would say no. I have no doubt whatsoever that Wierwille would say no.

Therefore, since this thread addresses the view that Wierwille's works are God-breathed, we are bound in this discussion by Wierwille's definition of God-breathed. If he was wrong about that, then we have to agree that his works are NOT on par with the Bible according to his own definition.

That's why I was trying to block your question to Jerry. It would have led to a derailment of the thread on a substantive issue deserving of its own thread. We've had some frivolous derailments before, but they were frivolous, and it was relatively easy to get back on topic. It would be VERY difficult to get back on topic once the issue of Bible contradictions became the subject of discussion. That's why I repeatedly insisted that if you want to discuss it, start another thread.

According to Wierwille, God-breathed means no errors or contradictions. Therefore, for his own work to be considered God-breathed, it would have to meet his own standard for it. If he was wrong about that, he could be wrong about anything.