Raf

This post is longer than intended, but so what. OLDIES: I don't know hot to set it up in columns. I'm not really that good on the Web, and I just used MS Word to create that document. As I learn more, I'll change the format. You're right about specific, page by page citations. With regard to error #9 (the gospels are addressed to us)... Wierwille's specific statement is, "To whom are the gospels addressed? To a period before or after Pentecost?" Well, since they were ALL written after Pentecost, then we know the answer to that question. They are addressed to a period after Pentecost. If they were addressed to a period BEFORE Pentecost, then it was a big waste waiting until AFTER Pentecost to write them. What Wierwille WANTED to say was, "ABOUT whom are the gospels written?" They were written ABOUT a period before Pentecost. Now, by HIS VERY OWN STANDARD, one preposition out of place diqualifies a document as "THE Word of God." Well, I found a preposition out of place. The introduction to Luke should make it absolutely clear that, at the very least, THAT gospel was written TO believers. I don't want to get into a dispensational debate: it's not my forte. But if you ARE a dispensationalist, there's no problem with this observation. You can put your mind at ease by recognizing that the gospels are ABOUT a time before Pentecost. Everything falls back into the dispensational framework after that. But I do encourage you to dig deeper into the so-called contradictions between the gospels and the epistles. It could be quite the education, and will enhance your appreciation of the Lord's key dissertation: the Sermon on the Mount. As or the "Jew and Judean" discussion, I've actually read enough to consider this an actual error. I read an old piece of literature that... OW! Sorry. Wierwille misrepresented Koestler, who himself was wrong about key findings. So Wierwille only compounded the error. The Khazars did convert to Judaism, but most Jews are not of Khazar background. Wierwille says that the majority of modern Jews are predominantly descendants of the Khazars. That statement is simply false. I should also say that you, Oldies, misinterpreted what I said about Koestler. Compare your critique to what I wrote and I think you’ll see what I mean. WORDWOLF: Wierwille specifically writes that there’s no record of angels singing in Jesus Christ Our Promised Seed. I don’t think he ever wrote that angels “don’t sing” or “can’t sing.” That’s a Way overreaction. STEVE LORTZ: I have tremendous respect for the observations you’ve made, and I think you’ve presented very strong cases. But I also think you will agree that they are doctrinal errors. The “actual errors” we’re compiling are mostly appetizers. The errors you’re presenting are the main course: once we establish that Wierwille can be mistaken about “all without distinction,” we can say, well, what other mistakes did he make? And that’s where your observations come in. But please, keep your clothes on. :)-->

You guys are so cool. I still need to hear from all of you on the issue of how to give you credit for your contributions. Names? Handles? Both? Let me know (privately, if you don't mind). TW: Thanks. "The" faith. That helps. I have no doubt that it's an actual error. I just couldn't figure out how to express it. Steve: Is it just me, or did you make a rock-solid case for the analysis of II Timothy 3:16 as an error of interpretation? Let me be clear that I totally agree with you, it's an error. The only quibble is what kind? Thoughts, anyone? Jerry: Laleo is a good one. Yes, it needs to be added. As for heteros and allos: I need examples that show exactly how and why the definitions provided were wrong. I remember you did have them. Please post. Zix: You are correct. I felt confident with the apistia v. apatheia, but not faith v. believing. It will be some time before I actually post the additions. A couple of days. A week. I don't know. I will say that I had no intention of posting so much in the past month (something like 400 times, maybe more). I absolutely need to slow down. I'm detecting a yellow light that's sort of ready to go red at a moment's notice, knowhatImean, Vern? Hello, my name is Rafael, and I'm a greasespotaholic. Myyyy preciousssss. Oh.... Here's the list!!!

Okay, I'm done. I've got 27 that I'm comfortable with, I left out a bunch that I believe are errors, but I'm not sure they rise (or sink) to "actual error" status. At the very least, my argument for them doesn't do the trick for me. The omitted "errors" are: 1. Wierwille's definition of faith vs. believing. I just don't know how to phrase this one. 2. The image of God. I think we can establish that Wierwille falls FAR SHORT of proving his case that the image of God is spirit. But can we actually say it's been refuted? I can't. That doesn't mean Wierwille is right. It just means that the error is interpretational. 3. Figures of speech I still think I'm right about this one, but it's interpretational. 4. The profit in scripture. While Steve made an excellent case for Wierwille's error, there's still one possible explanation that would validate Wierwille's theory that it should be doctrine, reproof and correction, summed up by the term "instruction in righteousness." The explanation would be a figure of speech. Is there a figure of speech in which a list is provided, and the end of the list is the culmination of everything preceding? I don't have Bullinger's book, so I can't check. I'm sure some of you do. I'd love to hear an answer. I'll post my list overnight and put a link on this thread (I'll also ask Pawtucket to place it as an article on the main page). Raf

I've got 25 errors listed so far, and I'm only up to page 8, and not done with Jerry Barrax's posts. Nine pages long so far (includes a one-page background sheet). This is going to be a long night.

You're right. Are the Dead Alive Now counts. I've included the addition of the word "than," the changing of the word "abundantly," and the changing fo the order of the words. "I am come that they might have life...more abundantly" becomes "Jesus came that we might have life more than abundant." The rest of that page is filled with interpretational errors.

Mike, I need to know if you consider the PFAL Foundational Syllabus, expanded for Advanced Class participants, is God-breathed, or if only the Orange Book enjoys that status. ------ Zix, Depending on how Mike answers the above question, I may not include your observation in my list. It's appropriate for this thread, which is about the class, the books, whatever. But my list is going to stick with the written books. PFAL RTHST The Blue Book The Green Book The Word's Way God's Magnified Word Order My Steps in Thy Word Christians Should Be Prosperous Jesus Christ is Not God Jesus Christ Our Promised Seed Jesus Christ Our Passover I am not counting Living Victoriously, or Take God At His Word, or any of the other books that Chris Geer edited from old teaching tapes after Wierwille died.

Thanks oldies. That's precisely what I'm doing. It will be much longer than the CES page, though. CES' list is more interpretational in nature. Their mission is different. I'm not attempting to list disagreements. I'm attempting to list mistakes. But the answer to your question is, yes, I intend to post this on my web page.

Mike's preceding post must be seen in light of his stated method of handling errors in hisssss preciousssss PFAL. "Needs and wants" was not mentioned in this thread. That's a straw man, and it does nothing to address any of the actual errors we've presented. I don't appreciate your deliberate attempt to distract us from the purpose of this thread. Your attack on my motives is, likewise, summarily dismissed. I won't bow before your idol, sign your green card, or sail on your ship (a ship so full of holes that you might as well launch it on the ocean floor to save time). I will acknowledge your dissent by either removing an error from the list or by discussing why I disagree with your attempted explanation. But if you think I'm going to write "this error evaporates when you change your perspective and become a meek master," you're sadly mistaken.

Oldiesman: I don't think I understand your question (so my answer would have to be no, for the moment). The list I am compiling will be in the same format as my opening post, along with a "discussion" after each one reflecting the various debates we've had on this thread. Is that what you meant? I also need to note that one can still greatly value PFAL while still acknowledging that these errors are, in fact, errors.

Folks, I'm compiling a master list and would like to include acknowledgements. If you want your name or handle acknowledged as a contributor, please let me know. Jerry Barrax and Karl Kahler will be included unless they specifically instruct me not to. Everyone else, please write to me so I know whether to use your name, handle, or neither. Anyone who has contributed to the thread may write in, regardless of what YOU think of the value of your contribution. Raf

Riiiiight.... There's still, what, 17 or 18 cracks in that precioussssss foundation? According to Wierwille, the existence of any ONE of those cracks sends your whole set of books crumbling to pieces. Oh, but that's right, you've learned how to make those cracks evaporate.

Jerry, you posted off topic, and that's rude. ;)--> Pawtucket: PLEASE TAKE THIS POST AND PUT IT ON THE MAIN GREASESPOT PAGE! THIS!!!!! is why we missed you so much Jerry.

Here's another one that was overlooked. I didn't want it to get lost in the shuffle... ... Jerry posted at about the same time I did, and I did not want people to miss his post, so I'm copying it...

Ex10: Please do. rafael@livingepistlessociety.org Steve: I'm not ignoring your post. I'm just overwhelmed by it. I'm not sure it's a derailment, but at the very least it is a fascinating discussion. Rafael

Dot, thank you so much for sharing that. I believe you. What hurts me is the knowledge that people will look at your story and casually dismiss it because it disagrees with their hero worship. For what it's worth, I believe you. Al, Sorry I got defensive. Raf

Whoah, Al, first of all, calm down. Did you miss the MULTIPLE times I said that a willing participant does not excuse the reprehensible behavior of VPW or LCM? Would you like me to point out the mutliple times I said that... and the time I came back and made sure I said it AGAIN on ANOTHER POST just to make sure the point was not lost? Before you accuse anyone of stubbornly swimming around in the swamp, make sure we are at least arguably guilty of committing the offense. In this case, we are provably innocent. I agree with you: it does not excuse LCM's behavior. It does not excuse Vic's behavior. Okay? Okay?

Excath: Thank you for replying to my post so promptly, and for sharing your heart with us so that we know these things really happened to real people. Oldies: No sweat. I remember we clashed quite famously, and I really respected the way you handled yourself throughout. Now, if only I could get you to understand where I'm coming from on the subject of giving... Oh well. One thing at a time. The Living Epistles Society

I didn't think you were requesting or expecting a response. There were too many people, too many, who were abused at the hands of two men (and their minions) who refused to heed the Bible's clear instructions on sex. They hurt God's people in God's name, twisting the scriptures to satisfy their lusts. They abused the trust of God's people, then spread vicious and hateful lies about those women when the women tried to reconcile the MOGs' behavior with the God they were told is all love. I have no sympathy for what they did, and hold them responsible for their behavior (as I hold myself responsible for my own). With that said, there were SOME (1? 3? 9? I don't know) women for whom the encounters were consensual. They didn't speak up because they aren't "victims." The existence of these women does not invalidate the existence of real victims, nor does it excuse the reprehensible and ungodly behavior of the MOGs. Does that count as a reply? I really meant no disrespect. Raf

Oh, and by the way: the fact that I believe such women did exist does not in any way invalidate the contemptible abuse of authority exhibited by VPW, LCM or anyone else in a position of leadership. What they did to God's people in God's name is utterly reprehensible and should be exposed for the same reason that Solomon's ridiculousness needs to be exposed. We cannot allow it to be repeated.

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