Raf

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

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

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

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

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

Me am sorry, Steve.

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

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

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

Oh, great, here we go with the anti-German slurs now. What are you, some kind of anti-German Nazi? My goodness, I can't believe your callous disregard for Germans. It disgusts me.

Happpeeeee birthday robeeeeee

Oh, great, now you have to get all racist in your posts. My God, people, why do we have to resort to such blatant racism in order to make our points? This is so wrong. Look, there are valid questions to be answered here, but once you start injecting racism into the equation, all bets are off. Dang, I'm so sick of racism. I'll bet you think the missing PFAL hours are ALIEN hours, don't you. In fact, it's probably a crime to possess them, so they're ILLEGAL ALIEN hours, aren't they? Don't you see how dehumanizing that is?

Larry: Rafaelian? I guess that's because first-year members of the Living Epistles Society used to go around talking about "Rafael in you!" Of course, if you had read my last/lost To Wit article, you would know that forgotten and unremembered are the same Greek word, and therefore, to say someone in the Old Testament could no have unremembrance, but they could have forgetfulness, is just plain silly. So the last teaching was not forgotten. It was just unremembered. Had we mastered the unremembered last teaching, we would have realized sooner that Clement was a lousy choice to succeed Peter as Pope, not to mention we would have been able to warn Van Halen about Sammy Hagar. By the way: I was kidding about voting incorrectly. The two yea votes are fair and square (as far as I know). The Living Epistles Society

Actually, the one vote for "I'd look at them" was from me. But I MEANT to vote for hell no.

Indiana Jones and the Metamucil Curse. Indiana Jones and the Mystery of Ally McBeal's Weight. Indiana Jones and the Viagra Bottle. Indiana Jones and the Thurmond Legacy. Indiana Jones and the Motorized Wheelchair.

Ok def, let me put it like this and see if you can see what I'm saying. I don't doubt your support of this thread. Do you agree that the subject of the Trinity is a huge theological debate, and that there's more than one point of view on the subject (regardless of how strongly you feel about your point of view)? Do you agree that the same is true for dispensationalism? Ok, good. Do you expect those issues to be resolved on this thread? Oooooof course not. You're not going to convert a single anti-trinitarian, and no one else is going to convert you. I'm looking for, and listing, errors that are indisputable. I have no interest in the grand arguments of Wierwillism because they are not necessary to accomplish the purpose of this thread (which is to show that Wierwille's books do not meet their own definition of what it means to be "God-breathed"). We won't all agree that Jesus Christ is/ain't God. But we can all agree that David was called a man after God's own heart BEFORE the Bathsheba incident, not after (as Wierwille said). There's simply no argument about that. I think the purpose of this thread, and the propriety of limiting its scope, became very clear once the "official minority voice" began posting and even ADMITTED that his method of dealing with the errors we've noted is to dodge, distract, change the subject and do ANYTHING except admit an error is an error. I hope the power of that confrontation, and the powerless response to it, can help others devoted to Wierwille see that the little orange book they hold in their hands does not deserve the devotion they pour into it. They will never question the larger issues that you and Steve present if they are not at least willing to acknowledge the smaller, more verifiable, 2+2=5 errors addressed on this thread. Besides, these are my rules. I make 'em up. :)--> Edit: Trinitarianism and dispensationalism are not actual errors. If they are errors at all, they are interpretational. HOWEVER: any of Wierwille's methods of proving his point of view on these issues may qualify as actual errors. I think one error, as implied by def, is Wierwille's insistence that people were considered Jews or Gentiles, but that the Church of God is distinct from them. I see Paul constantly referring to believing Christians as Gentiles, showing that he did not see the sharp division between the terms that Wierwille did. [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on February 04, 2003 at 5:44.]

Dot, thanks for clearing up Charlie's point. Charlie, thanks for verifying it. Forgive me for not getting it right away. I actually wrote a long response to your statement here, but it's so off-topic that I'm not going to bother. So I deleted it. I've made my feelings on Wierwille clear. That's what matters for the purpose of this thread. If you want to discuss it further, write to me privately.

Charlie, Maybe my reading comprehension ain't what it used to be, but rather than "privately interpret" what you just said, I'd rather just ask you what you mean. :)--> In other words... huh?

I've just received, from Mike, Earl Burton's article on the meaning of "private interpretation." In it, he directly confronts Bullinger's explanation of that verse and tries to show how Wierwille was right and Bullinger was wrong. Let me state first, unequivocally, that I disagree with Burton. I think his analysis is simply incorrect, an attempt to validate Wierwille's position, not to objectively analyze the passage in question. Most of the proofs he employs actually prove Bullinger right. For example, he states that "cunningly devised fables" are the result of incorrect interpretations of the Bible. Misinterpreting the Bible is not "cunningly devising." Cunningly devising means making up something clever. In contrasting cunningly devised fables with the inspired Word of God, Peter is distinguishing between source: The source of God's Word is "moved by the Holy Ghost". The source of fables is "cunningly devised", ie, men. This lends support to Bullinger's contention that "private interpretation" refers to the source, not the meaning, of scripture. Nonetheless, Burton does make a valiant attempt to prove Wierwille right. I disagree with his conclusion, but the article convinces me that Wierwille's error concerning private interpretation is, itself, an error of interpretation. Maybe after a couple of Coronas, I'll feel differently. Raf

Excy was absolutely right to call me on my use of the word "horndog" in the other thread. I've called him adulterer, I've called him abuser. And as I've said over and over again, I find his actions reprehensible and indefensible. Using a word like "horndog" might be interpreted as minimizing my feelings about what Wierwille did. I hope not. I hope my record on this issue speaks louder than my casual use of a single word. Nonetheless, I apologize. It was thoughtless. I haven't said "rapist" in describing Wierwille. It's instinctual at this point: call it a job hazard. I tend not to call people criminals until after they are convicted, or at least tried. Osama's the exception. Violating that rule can get me sued. Incidentally, no one can sue for libel on behalf of a dead man. You can say whatever you want about a dead person, but a legacy cannot be libeled, legally. Isn't that fascinating? I know, not the point of this thread. Or this post for that matter. I simply and unreservedly apologize for anything I said that made light of Wierwille's behavior. I view his actions with the utmost gravity, and I have nothing but contempt for those who casually dismiss these stories while accepting Wierwille's snowstorms as divine revelation.

Excy.... Hey, you don't have to apologize to me for what you call Vic. Ever.

I've been thinking of this issue a lot lately. Dot, that post was awesome. So was Long Gone's. I hope the Wierwille worshipping skeptics (I don't include oldiesman in that bunch) can see the importance and relevance of these stories. They are heartbreaking. Between this and the yeah, but thread, I'm encouraged by the progress of this discussion. So as someone who should have stayed out of it ( ;)--> ), thank you.

The problem with pros... The problem with the pros error is, Wierwille's all over the map on this one. He's so insistent on its meaning in John 1:1 that the whole Bible falls apart if any other word is used. But in other places, he translates pros as "with a view toward..." So the meaning is A when convenient, and B when convenient. The fact that one word can have multiple meanings seems to have escaped him (which is amusing, considering that pistis has only one meaning, yet he gives it two). The statement that "The Bible would fall to pieces if any other word was used" is silly. I believe there's an error involved here. I'll jsut be darned if I know what it is. I can't narrow it down. Does he ever write that pros ALWAYS means together with yet distinctly independent? If he does, that settles it. If not, the error is in the statement that the Bible would fall to pieces etc. There's a lot of wiggle room for Wierwille's precioussss defenders on this one. I'm a tad uncertain.

Exy: I hope you don't think anyone here is questioning your integrity or your reasons for posting. I certainly am not. Your story needs to be told, repeatedly. I had a really long post here, but I'm deleting it because I've re-read oldies' posts and mine did not put it as well as his. Guys, listen to him. Talk to him. I assure you, he can, does and will listen to you. And Dot, please don't leave. Your input is far more important on this thread than mine. [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on February 03, 2003 at 6:19.]

Hey, I could be wrong too, but that's really up to oldies. I've been speaking about him like he's not in the room, for which I apologize. Bottom line for me is, I really think he's a nice guy and if you guys would communicate with him, rather than at him, it might help everyone involved. As a matter of fact, that's good advice all around (for myself included). I think I'll tape it to my keyboard. The Living Epistles Society