Raf

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

quote:

---

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli

---

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.

Troubledwine gives us much to digest.

I have no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the verse in John 20 should be translated "he breathed on them." But is it actual error or a difference of opinion? I don't know.

Likewise, I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the definitions of dechomai and lambano were in some places oversimplified and in other places contorted. The fact that no one with an independent, non-Wierwille influenced knowledge of Greek can verify these definitions weighs heavily against the veracity of the definitions Wierwille provides.

Of course, when the counterargument is "God told him that's what those words mean," it's impossible to settle the point.

Grizz,

You're correct of course. Such counting could spark a rumor or two.

We do need to remember that betrothal is a lot stronger than what we think of as engagement. The only way to dissolve a betrothal was through divorce. Now, I could be wrong, but I suspect the first presumption would be that Mary and Joseph got together prematurely, because otherwise there would have been calls for punishing Mary, no?

I don't know. Fascinating discussion (and a good example of why I'm separating actual errors from interpretations).

What the Hay,

Welcome to our discussion. I'm honored that this thread inspired your first post.

I do believe you misunderstand the purpose of this thread, and that you will be surprised to learn that I disagree with little of what you have written. I think you make some very strong points.

Have you been reading along for long? Are you aware that this thread started because someone claims that the written works of VPW are God-breathed and therefore perfect? That PFAL (the book) is even MORE reliable than the Bible?

quote:

---

Originally posted by What The Hay:

I just read this from p3 of JCING by VPW.

I can't say I am in agreement with everything VPW wrote, only because I haven't read everything he wrote. So what if you agree or don't agree with what VPW wrote? And what if I agree where you don't agree, and you agree with him where I don't? It's only VPW, not God. Maybe he should have wrote a sequel to JCING and called it: "VPW Is NOT God!"? I got a feeling people wouldn't even agree with him on that one, and now wouldn't that be scary!!!

---

I TOTALLY agree with that. But if I were to tell you that VPW's written works are ALWAYS right and NEVER wrong, would you not challenge my presumption?

I have a reputation on these threads of not dismissing everything VPW wrote, nor accepting everything he wrote, but doing my best to compare it to the Bible in order to, as the Bible instructs, prove all things and hold fast to that which is good.

I don't always get it right. I sometimes change my mind about what I thought was right, or what I thought was wrong.

But I challenge the absurd argument that PFAL is always right. That is the purpose of this thread. If you have time, re-read the thread with that understanding, and you'll see that you and I are not as far apart as your post might initially indicate.

Wierwille's doctrine is our common denominator. It's fair game for discussion. The Bible teaches us to prove all things and hold fast to that which is good. We're simply applying that principle to PFAL: in this case, pointing out the negative ONLY BECAUSE of the assertion that there IS NO negative in PFAL, that it's ALWAYS right, and that it is more reliable as God's Word than the Bible itself.

Perhaps there's a separate thread that needs to be written to discuss the perfectly valid role of criticism in just about every walk of life. My math teacher was very critical of my work, but his criticism helped improve my math grades. My writing coaches are often critical, but it makes me a better writer. Movie critics help us all decide whether to spend our hard earned money at the theaters. But let someone "criticize" a presentation that purports to be God's Word, and all of a sudden the critic is criticized! How ironic.

Again, nice post, welcome to the cafe, and please don't hold back. Speak up. Your voice is welcome (although I caution you, it WILL be challenged).

Raf

Like I said, I've drawn no conclusions. I just find it interesting. The more evidence, the better.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more it makes sense that no one considered Jesus illegitimate.

Matthew teaches that Joseph intended to put her away "privily." That means, rather clearly in my opinion, that he COULD have done so. No one would have known what happened, unless someone blabbed.

Who would have done so? Long Gone is right: there's nothing in the Bible to indicate that anyone other than Mary, Joseph and Gabriel were privy to the knowledge of the Lord's conception.

Fascinating.

Goey, I see what you're saying. I don't know the implications. Like I keep saying - no conclusions.

This article seems to agree with Long Gone.

I, of course, haven't studied it in depth, but the argument is compelling. There's one part that resorts to Trinitarian gobbledygook that even the most devout Trinitarian will recognize as gobbledygook.

One VERY compelling point to make is that the stigma associated with illegitimacy would probably have precluded any respect in the synagogues for Jesus. Deuteronomy 23:2 would seem to preclude that. So it seems unlikely that Jesus was widely believed to be illegitimate.

No conclusions, but I am fascinated.

You know, I've so long taken for granted that Jesus was considered illegitimate that I never questioned it.

I always thought of John 8 as fairly convincing evidence of that. Luke 2 all but certainly is not.

Long Gone, how do you get around John 8? (At most this is going to be an error of interpretation, if it's an error at all).

Please, state your case. You got my attention.

Ok, now THAT's an actual error.

Wierwille left himself a little more wiggle room. But it's clear what official TWI THOUGHT he meant.

Not exactly relevant to claims that PFAL is God-breathed. But interesting nonetheless.

I recall doing a home study session as a group, and when we got to that part I told the coordinator that this was a problem for a few reasons.

1. How were we supposed to trust "an old piece of literature" we never saw?

2. The verse is clearly and obviously not talking about bar mitzvah.

I was reproved, but I told him that even if he marked it wrong, it just showed his willingness to put PFAL above the Bible.

He relented.

[This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on January 17, 2003 at 16:06.]

That's it. The home studies questions. There is one specifically about the Bar-mitzvah, Luke 2:42 reference. If you can just quote that question, I'll be a happy camper.

Maybe I'm not remembering the name correctly, but it's the list of questions AFTER the main syllabus that took you through just about all of the book and the class. Completing it was one of the prerequisites of taking the Advanced Class.

On second thought, I'll drop it. I'll concede the point. Not that I'm convinced, but ok, let's move it into errors of interpretation (or, more accurately, speculation without evidence). Fine and dandy.

Nine to go from the original list, if anyone would care to bother trying.

(P.S. Does anyone still have a copy of the advanced studies questions or whatever they were called? I'm interested in the phrasing of the question that was asked about this section).

The Living Epistles Society

Hmm.

Reconsidering... Good information. A source that at least seems credible at this point.

Still, too many questions prevent this from being moved out of actual error.

1. There's still nothing anywhere to suggest Jesus' illegitimacy had anything to do with going at age 12 instead of 13. Remember, this is the whole point of Wierwille's reference here, as Mike himself noted.

2. One could argue that Wierwille is not talking about Bar-Mitzvah, but implying that the Bar-Mitzvah had already taken place. This still contradicts history, as there was no Bar-Mitzvah ceremony at that time.

3. If the purpose of Jesus' visit was specifically tied to his coming of age, as Karl Coke states, his parents would have known better than to leave him behind. Jesus staying behind, asking and answering questions of the rabbis, is depicted in the Bible as UNUSUAL and unexpected. Mary and Joseph didn't know where he was at first. Surely if the purpose of the trip was even partly to follow tradition following a young man's coming of age, then they would have known about his visit with the rabbis and, indeed, they would have accompanied him.

So with due respect to Mr. Coke (or is it Dr. Coke?) the most he can do is state that Jesus was considered to have come of age at his 12th birthday, a half-year prior to Passover. Bravo, it's possible.

Still unresolved is the actual error of illegitimacy having anything to do with it, the establishment of age 13 as the year of coming of age at the time of Christ, etc.

Sorry, I'm not convinced. But I will acknowledge that it's a lot closer than anything Mike didn't say.

Oldies,

That might have been a class coordinator's instruction. My memory is foggy on this point.

It's good advice, either way.

quote:

---

Has it occurred to you that PFAL doesn't have to be inerrant or God-breathed to be useful?

---

Problem is, guys, that Mike HAS considered this viewpoint, and rejected it. According to his view (and I SWEAR I'm not making this up) people who hold this position are fence sitters, and need to face up to the realization that either all of PFAL is true or none of it is true. There IS no middle ground, according to Mike. Wierwille's claims to "God-breathed" status invalidate any position except all or nothing.

Here's his EXACT WORDS...

quote:

---

Let me say first, though, that I REALIZE that Dr’s claims to having received and abundance of revelation do NOT prove that his claims are true. I don’t know why so many think I don’t see that.

What Dr’s claims do prove or demand is something different. His many, many claims like this do effectively eliminate all gray areas in how we should regard him.

Moderates and middle-of-the-roaders, people who think Dr’s material was in the gray area between good and evil, should be challenged by Dr’s extreme assertions. They need to get off the fence and decide which extreme he is in. His claims prove that he was either extremely right or extremely wrong. His claims force us to either totally reject his writings or totally accept them (in quality not quantity). His claims make dwelling in the gray area illogical.

If Dr’s writings fall into the totally evil category (with just enough good to hook people but not really bless them) then the ONLY proper response for one of his former disciples would be a TOTAL purge himself of everything Dr taught and then totally start over in some other camp. This would not only be a monumental task for some of the more entrenched grads, but WHERE to go to get their total re-education in Christianity (notice I didn’t say churchianity here) is even more arduous. This second task, in addition to purging, should severely challenge the wise seeker, because who’s to say he wouldn’t suffer from the “out of the frying pan and into the fire” syndrome.

If this possibility is true, that Dr’s claims were false, then the best response is to throw away BOTH the bathwater AND the baby, and start all over.

---

That's why EVERY ACTUAL ERROR matters. That's why ONE PREPOSITION out of place, and all of PFAL crumbles to pieces (because that is PFAL's standard for "God-breathed" accuracy).

Guys, you need to rightly divide the Word of Mike, or you would not ask these questions he has already answered, thereby taking away from him the time he needs to ignore posts by Goey, Garth and Georgio, and the time he needs to write about how he has no time to get bogged down resolving even one actual error in PFAL.

[This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on January 17, 2003 at 14:14.]

Oh please.

The existence of a handful of idolatrous, deluded people proves NOTHING. GOD has unearthed the last/lost teaching? I'll be darned. I've been reading it on and off for a decade. Dang thing was never EARTHED.

Try this one on for size, which you keep ignoring:

Wierwille drew vast distinctions between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Heaven. Jesus Christ drew none. Which one told the TRUTH?

And no, you don't have to answer, but I'm not going to start a thread of "truthful" errors in PFAL. One preposition out of place should be enough to discredit your idolatrous stance, but if you want to raise the stakes, bring it on!

[This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on January 17, 2003 at 12:40.]

It's an open forum. I neither allow nor forbid your participation. You choose to participate. You choose to withdraw (or decline from participating).

I hope I didn't sound snippy, Sudo.

Not long ago, there was a very active thread in the doctrinal section about agnosticism. I forgot the exact name, but it had pages and pages of replies.

If I replied ONCE, it's more than I can remember. I just chose not to participate in that conversation.

How would the people on that thread have felt if I parachuted in and declared them to be wrong, but then refused, with a GREAT number of words, to answer a single one of your doubts about the Bible?

So I stayed off the thread. Nothing personal. No arguments. You respect me. I respect you. C'est la vie.

Mike has presented a viewpoint that has implications. If PFAL is what he says it is (the God-breathed Word), then PFAL must fit with PFAL's definition of the God-breathed Word. This thread takes that view and puts it to the test. No one is forcing Mike to participate. If he wants to ignore it, that's just dandy with me. Just as no one forced me to partcipate in "The agnostic table in the corner" (I just remembered the name).

But Mike comes in here, mocking the magnitude of the errors we point out while promoting the divine inspiration of a book that declares with confidence that ONE PREPOSITION out of place disqualifies a book's claim to divine inspiration (PFAL, p. 104, first sentence).

Maybe the 10 items listed on my opening post don't rise to the level of "dispensationalism v. covenant theology." But they're a whole HAIL of a lot more significant than a misplaced preposition.

So again, I apologize if I got cocky, but I hope you really do see my point.

---

Meek Master Mike: the word count was from your original post, before you edited. I won't do a recount. I'm from Florida. We stop counting after a while.

Sudo,

If I chose to engage you on your religious beliefs, then I can't cry foul when you start pointing out inconsistencies in my own. Like I said, if you want to start an "Actual errors in the Bible" thread, be my guest.

Meek Master Mike,

CUE THE VIOLINS!

You still haven't made a single point, so I'm not going to respond to anything you wrote. 619 words without expressing a single relevant thought. Nice job.

Oh, but Hope, didn't you know?

The original notes are not God-breathed. The spoken class was not God-breathed. It's only the published book that's God-breathed. And not the published book on your shelf either. Only the original published book is the God-breathed Word. The one on your shelf has proofreaders oversights and errors that might result in apparent contradictions. Once we apply the principles of PFAL to the substance of PFAL, then we can get back to the original God-breathed PFAL.

My God, what a bunch of pseudo-faithful gibberish.

Mike, I'm not going to answer any more of your points until you actually make one.

The Living Epistles Society

Mike,

One of the reasons I called this thread "actual errors" is to differentiate between theological arguments and outright mistakes. The perfect word of a perfect God will, according to PFAL, have no errors or contradictions in it. The existence of ONE error, no matter how small, invalidates PFAL's claim to be God-breathed according to the standard ESTABLISHED IN PFAL. Wierwille himself said and wrote that if any word other than "pros" were used in John 1:1, the WHOLE BIBLE would fall to pieces.

This proves two things.

1. That even the tiniest word discrepancy matters.

2. That Wierwille, UNLIKE YOU, did not believe the Bible had fallen to pieces.

Now, if you're going to call these ACTUAL ERRORS unimportant, then you are contradicting Wierwille and PFAL.

On the other hand, if you would rather move this discussion on to LARGER matters, rather than little indisputable mistakes, I say BRING IT ON! Because Wierwille made some DOOZY errors throughout PFAL and the collaterals. DOOZIES. (Steve can probably do a better job of tackling these than I can).

But you can't even address the little ones. How can you even begin to address the big ones? The massive errors of interpretation.

Why did Wierwille say the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven were two different things when Jesus CLEARLY spoke of them as synonymous?

Is that big enough for you? It was on my original list. I noticed you didn't answer that one either.

Thanks Hope!

Do you have a link for that article so we can check the source?

Steve,

I'll make it easy. The complete phrase is "What we require now is a feat of linguistic legerdemain and a degree of intrepidity."

One of the all time great sentences.

Mike,

I left out an option.

I basically said answer now or answer later, but don't give a half answer or long non-answer and expect us to be satisfied with it.

I will be completely satisfied if you just say, "I'm not going to answer." No one's forcing you to answer anything. My only complaint is when you come here and say "I;ve already answered many of these, I just haven't posted my answers, yet you still don't post. I'm not going to read your mind. If you're going to answer, answer. If you're not, don't.

But enough with the "I have the answers I'm just not posting them" nonsense.