Mike

Rafael,

My mistake: I misspelled his name. It?s Balaam.

Here?s his prophesy in Numbers 22:7-10

And he took up his parable, and said,

Balak the king of Moab hath brought me from Aram,

out of the mountains of the east,

saying, Come, curse me Jacob, and come, defy Israel.

How shall I curse, whom God hath not cursed?

or how shall I defy, whom the LORD hath not defied?

For from the top of the rocks I see him,

and from the hills I behold him:

lo, the people shall dwell alone,

and shall not be reckoned among the nations.

Who can count the dust of Jacob,

and the number of the fourth part of Israel?

Let me die the death of the righteous,

and let my last end be like his!

I'm thinking of the phrase "...holy men of God SPAKE..."

Baalam spoke one of the most beautiful prophesies of the coming Savior, while he was being paid by the enemy to prophesy AGAINST God's people.

Later it was put into written form.

Shazdancer,

From 1972 to 1983 I studied the Canon of Scripture. It was my favorite subject, and in those 11 years I accumulated a file that is almost 3 inches thick. I don?t see the need to delve into the subject of a canon at this point in time. I see the need to come back to the books Dr pointed out in his Last/Lost Teaching.

How the first century canon did develop and was finally recognized is a fascinating subject. I suggest some here could do well to think through some of the details as to how Paul?s epistles were first received, how Paul and the epistles were then rejected, and then MUCH later finally recognized as of God.

As to holy men, can you please tell me how Kings Saul, David, Solomon, and the ?prophet? Baalam fit into your official definition of ?holy? and who made you the paragon of virtue that you can call me evil? I?d also like to know how you, in this powerfully lofty position, avoid the corruption of power that the people under your scrutiny have succumbed to. Did you get this power while at TWI?

Here's my demanded explanation of that page.

In some previous posts I have mentioned page 83 in the PFAL book and a "Thus Saith the Lord" statement hidden in some slightly complex grammar. This is my attempt to explain that grammar, and thus reveal what's been on that page all this time.

My goal is to produce a paraphrase equivalent of a sentence on that page. Also, I am particularly focused on attempting to fully incorporate the use of the word ?necessarily? that appears in the original sentence. The sentence is:

?Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed.?

Just for simplicity, let?s temporarily remove the word "necessarily" and see what happens. Now we have:

?Not all that Wierwille writes will be God-breathed.?

The sentence almost seems to still say the same thing. It's almost like nothing was altered, but don't believe it. Soon we'll see why "necessarily" was in there.

Practically speaking, if I eat NOT ALL of a pie, then there?s SOME pie left for you. In the sentence under study the phrase "not all" implies "some." Mathematically speaking, the phrase ?not all? is equivalent to ?some or possibly none.? So, substituting the phrase ?some or none? for the phrase ?not all? in the sentence we then have:

?Some (or possibly none) that Wierwille writes will be God-breathed.?

This then can be separated out to two possible sentences:

?Some that Wierwille writes will be God-breathed.?

?None that Wierwille writes will be God-breathed.?

Now let?s restore the word "necessarily"

?Some that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed.?

?None that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed.?

The second sentence is rather strained grammar and logic. The word ?necessarily? seems out of place. The second sentence also radically contradicts what Dr. wrote on page 34 of the Green Book: ?...you will find that every word I have written to you is true.? I believe for these and other reasons it must be rejected in favor of the first sentence.

The first sentence fits (and the second does not) with all that we spiritually sensed when we first took the class. Likewise the first fits with the 1942 audible promise from God. And it fits with the last night of the class when Dr. said:

?...if you're in this class, you've heard the Word,

you've believed God's Word, God is always faithful.

And nobody ever misses, if you'll do exactly what I

tell you to do, right down to the minute detail. It's like,

in I Thessalonians, chapter 2, verse 13. Remember

where the Apostle Paul said: ?I thank my God, that,

when you received the Word of God which you heard

of us, you received it not as the word of man, but as it

is in truth, the Word of God.? Now, if you'll be as

honest with God as that Word of God says, you too

can walk into the greatness of the manifestation of the

power of God. But, if you think this is just V.P. Wierwille

talking, you'll never get it. But if you know that what I am

saying -- it's V.P. Wierwille saying it, but these are words

which the Holy Ghost has spoken and is utilizing and

speaking to you through my ministry and my life, then you

too will manifest forth the greatness of the power of God.?

So, in a nutshell: the use of the word ?necessarily? eliminates the possibility of ?none? of Dr?s writings being God-breathed. Recently I came up with a paraphrase of the original page 83 sentence that incorporates this perspective.

The context of page 83 is God-breathed words are trustworthy; man-breathed words are not. We know that Jesus Christ said that he did not speak forth HIS OWN untrustworthy, man-breathed words, although he was tempted to. He only spoke forth the words his Father told him to speak. He was the only one to achieve this TOTAL purity of all words issued.

Here's the paraphrase:

?Even MY own writings... (and I was commissioned by God?s

audible voice in 1942 to bring forth God-taught explanations

of the Bible, and because of that SOME of my writings are not

really my own, but are REALLY God-breathed)... but even MY own

writings, when they?re merely my own, are not trustworthy like

God's are.?

The word ?necessarily? implies the contents of the above parenthesis. The original sentence on page 83 says that even someone who is given the job, by God, to teach the Word ?like it hasn't been known since the first century? is going to have words, his own words, that fall short of the perfection of God.

Therefore, because not all, but just SOME of what Dr. Wierwille wrote is NECESSARILY God-breathed, a next step is identifying WHICH of his writings ARE God-breathed. I?ve mentioned that this next step is a lower priority, but is still on the list.

I?ve mentioned how Dr?s Last/Lost Teaching contains the MOST IMPORTANT thing he could want to tell us as he said so in Living Victoriously session #1 and in the Blue Book page 139. In that last teaching he twice tells us to master the PFAL written materials. As we obey this directive from our teacher, the boundaries on what?s worth mastering will become clear. As we come back to PFAL LOTS of things will become more clear.

Jesse Joe,

Should I count that as your first crack at PFAL page 83?

Jesse Joe,

It appears that you hold a higher regard for the traditions of men and the ways they handed down the Bible over the centuries, than you have for the pure revelations God gave to Dr and Dr gave to us.

I see tradition as contrary to God.

Jesse Joe,

You're showing many places where the Bible and the Word of God are very similar. They SHOULD be similar. But they do differ? How? Spelling! When the different spellings are employed, then different aspects are being emphasized.

The Word of God is bigger than the Bible.

Plus we lost the original Bible.

In Session Three of the class (segment 16, page 127 in the book) Dr. says:

"No translation, no translation, and I want you to listen

very carefully; for no translation, and by the way that's

all we have today at best are translations. No translation

may properly be called The Word Of God... ..no translation!"

Then a minute later he repeats:

"Now I said that no translation, no translation, let alone

a version, no translation may properly be called The Word

Of God..."

Then several minutes later he hits it again:

"And in this class on Power For Abundant Living, when I

refer to The Word Of God I may hold the King James Version

or I may hold some other version and point to it; I do not

mean that version. I mean that Word of God which was

originally given when holy men of God spake as they were

moved by the Holy Spirit."

Jesse Joe,

You WIN! You got the special word "necessarily" correct.

In all the posting flurry I missed that post of yours when you did it.

Since you won, you get first crack at why that word is in there and what's the difference if it weren't there.

Jesse Joe,

I mentioned Dr's Last Words at Emporia earlier, and I now want to get into some of their details.

Reconstructing past events is no where near as accurate as printed records or tapes, but some things can be brought out by memory and partial print/tape records, especially if it's multiple witness testimony.

An interesting example of such a reconstruction came to me by e-mail.

Several years ago I posted a small announcement on the www.eph320.com website about finding Dr's last teaching. It was posted there for about a year and I received about 40 inquiries. All of them were unaware of this teaching so I sent them copies. Like in my posting here, I also offered them other e-documents of VPW's material. A number of them developed into pen pals over time. Reproduced below is a letter I received from one such person regarding Dr's last words at Emporia. Your going to see a pattern developing.

**********************************************

Dear Mike,

Yes, we certainly would like more. Hey! My name is MB. I used to be MS and I was in the 15th Corps. I was wondering if you were in the Corps too or if by chance I might have met you? I just wanted you to know I certainly did enjoy reading "The Joy of Service" again.

The year that Dr. Wierwille died, I was in residence at the Way College of Emporia. I will never forget the last 10:30 Fellowship we had with him up in the Ambassador Room.

He said,

Kids, the Word is not going to go over the world

unless you and I take the collaterals and master

them to the point you can teach them at the drop

of a hat to someone you happen to run into.

He said,

Its not in how many classes you run, its in how much

of The Word of God you know and are able to teach

on the spur of the moment.

He said,

You've got to master it. And what I mean by mastering

it is you don't turn to the next page until you completely

understand and have committed to memory the first.

I have never forgotten those words and have shared them many times with believers that I know and with our fellowship that W and I ran for 9 years before we moved to XY. So it really blessed me to read your e-mail and see that someone else really caught on to the greatness of what Dr. was saying. God is great. We love you our brother and we will be anticipating more.

God Bless You,

MB

**********************************************

The twice repeated phrases regarding ?mastery? in Dr's very last teaching are AGAIN repetitions of his last teaching at Emporia.

I keep in mind that this ?record? of Dr?s at Emporia is anecdotal, from an attendee's memory, and not a tape or published transcript. However, stacked with the accumulating mountain of hard evidence, this soft evidence can be appreciated since it fits well with that mountain. It in no way contradicts it, and adds more supporting data. I feel confident in placing this in the category of secondary confirmation of the theme that Dr wanted us to master the PFAL books, NOT the principles in them. We aren?t qualified to say what all those principles ARE until we?ve finished mastering everything.

Just to enrich your appreciation of these Emporia words, let's look again at these near-quotes of Dr:

1. Kids, the Word is not going to go over the world unless

you and I take the collaterals and master them to the

point you can teach them at the drop of a hat to someone

you happen to run into.

2. Its not in how many classes you run, its in how much of

The Word of God you know and are able to teach on the

spur of the moment.

3. You've got to master it. And what I mean by mastering it

is you don't turn to the next page until you completely

understand and have committed to memory the first.

In the first paragraph (1) he instructs us to master the collaterals

...................to the degree of total impromptu teaching adeptness.

In the second paragraph (2) he instructs us to know "The Word of God"

...................to the degree of total impromptu teaching adeptness.

Does this seem to imply something? Did Dr say by implication that the collaterals are or reveal or give us The Word of God here?

It would seem that if he was talking in paragraph (2) about Bible mastery, then paragraph (3), if it too refers to Bible mastery, would be an impossible task.

But if he was talking about the collaterals in all three paragraphs, then it's a totally do-able mastery task for us all, and everything fits consistently here, as well as with the other hard evidence we have.

The collaterals CAN mastered. That's not an impossible task at all. Mastering the KJV/etc is not humanly possible. Just "Figures of Speech" can fully occupy a full-time scholar's entire life span.

If at Emporia Dr meant collaterals in paragraphs (3) and (2) then this last Emporia address would then be in complete harmony with "The Joy of Serving" where collateral mastery is explicitly mentioned.

From that 1979 Advanced Class quote I posted, until his death in 1985, Dr explicitly hammered away at our need to master the collaterals. I understand now why he did this, after having attempted this mastery for over 5 years now. There's lots of surprises hidden in them. Lots of confirmation that it's the right track back to what we used to have, and more. Lots of AEs get cleared up as we go.

And now, just for review, let's compare these Emporia paragraphs with the "Masters of the Word" that I mentionjed above and posted elsewhere and discussed in detail. There are several sentences in "Masters of the Word" that I'd like to point out.

These sentences of Dr?s are:

1. We can only recondition ourselves to this as we

ourselves become masters of the Word.

2. And if you want to know about the head of the Body,

you've got to go to God's Word and read it.

3. This is why we have to be masters of the Word, we have

to gain a knowledge of God, and we have to get our

minds at peace with the Word so that our minds are no

longer warring against it.

4. You've got to get to that point that you quit disputing

with God's Word; just start believing it and then master it.

5. We just have to master the Word and let the Word have

mastery in our lives.

6. Mastery of God's Word is not just my pleasure and

responsibility because I am a preacher or a teacher.

It is as much yours as it is mine...

7. Let's become masters of God's Word and let it reign

supreme in our lives.

We see that in all of these sentences from that article, whenever Dr refers to God's Word he doesn't mean the KJV, he means the collaterals. The KJV is for beginners, but not for mastery. We have something much better in them and straight from God.

.

.

.

[This message was edited by Mike on April 11, 2003 at 12:40.]

Jesse Joe,

That thing about the Advanced Class not being "canonical" is not from me per se. I've not put half the energy into discerning the exact boundaries of what is God-breathed and what isn't, than some other posters here. It seems that this is high on others list, but not mine. The exact boundaries are low on my priority list, like AEs.

My priority list revolves around the contents of what Dr left us... receiving, retaining, and releasing.

As far as that Part II title, I've wondered about that for a while. I have seen abbreviated headers in other books, and mistakes, typos, in the headers of other books. I don't know about that.

The preponderance of clear textual evidence has me standing behind:

"... the Bible is the revealed Word of God."

"...the Bible gives God's Word."

When Dr uses "Bible" he is emphasizing the 5-senses realm, the material, the ink, the paper. He also means the originals, not translations nor versions.

Jesse Joe,

I've done extensive work researching as many places where Dr uses the word "master" so that I can have him tell me what he means by that word in his last teaching's final instructions to us OLGs.

If I have a choice between Dr's words in the record, and your opinions from memory, then my choice will be the record Dr left us.

I've reported on another thread the dual Way Magazine articles Dr did in 1979 titled ?Masters of the Word? and How the Word Works.? In both he uses the word master quite a bit, plus the two articles, one an ?Our Times? editorial, are linked in other ways I?ve pointed out. Plus in the 1979 Advanced Class Dr uses the word ?master? regarding ALL Advanced Class grads (now OLGs) having fallen behind in their mastery of the Holy Spirit book.

Here?s what he said: ?I have set for our people, and it's set in the book on "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today," and people, when you reach the Advanced Class, you ought to be able almost to quote this line for line. You should have mastered this book by the time you get to the Advanced Class. If you haven't, you better get busy and do it - work it to where you understand the Word of God in every facet, in every way of it's utilization regarding the holy spirit field - all of them, you must know this book, in and out. But I've discovered as I've worked among my people, and even all the grads of the Advanced Class, there still are areas where we got to push ourselves.? ....( 1979 Advanced Class segment #5)

Again in Sound Out?84 Dr brings up the subject of mastery.

In Dr?s last Limb Meeting, Kentucky he told the audience of the great importance of mastering the PFAL books.

In Dr?s last teaching at Emporia he taught the same thing.

Dr?s use of the word ?mastery? can be accurately discerned from the record. Some of which I?ve posted, and there is more to come.

[This message was edited by Mike on April 11, 2003 at 1:47.]

Zixar and Jesse Joe,

There is one word that you are missing that makes PFAL page 83 come alive, but I think you may have missed it. It?s in the quote you posted, though.

There?s one pivotal word that, if I removed it from the text you posted, few would be able to tell, especially with only one reading. With a careful slow search of a parallel column word processor file, the word could come fast. But one or two readings, or a verbal hearing or two, and few can detect the difference in meaning of the passages. That means the secret word is being totally ignored. What is that word?

Rafael,

Belittling condescension is not my attitude behind it my remarks about OLGs and risk..

I'm trying to do the opposite and show you some respect. Honest.

I know this theses sounds outlandish. I think a relatively smaller group of people were selected as being reckless enough to be the first to believe this outlandish thesis.

We OLGs used to talk about "renewed mind recklessness" among a bunch of reckless hippies. The entire decades of the 80's and 90's have sculpted a much less risk taking population when it comes to these kinds of matters. Somehow I don?t see Craig talking about ?renewed mind recklessness? in TWI-2. I could be wrong.

When we OLGs first took PFAL, the nuclear fears of the 50?s and Oct?62 had hardly worn off when we found that we were going to die in conventional fire anyway in Vietnam. This stimulated an entire sub-class of baby boomers to drop out of school, society, and life. We were trained by circumstances to take many wild risks of our own choosing, because we were subjected to some pretty nasty risks not of our own choosing. The draft then was more than a potential body snatcher, it took our very own school chums every month.

Things really changed bigtime around 1980 and risk became socially taboo. Few practiced risk confrontation like us OLGs.

I?m just saying we OLGs have, but historical accident, a higher threshold to think outside the bounds. Some of us even went to Canada.

I simply initially expect OLGs to be in a better position to see that this is a good risk and then take it.

I?ll be delighted to see if you, or any other grad who never saw our ministry flourishing and healthy, are an exception to my expectation. Honest! By believing my thesis you?ll prove it wrong for sure.

Rafael,

Then let me amend or supplant my post with this: you're not being there is just cause for you to not take the risk.

There may be other reasons to not make this risky bet, but I think even if those intellectual items lined up, without the feelings I described about OLGs and PFAL and frightful fliers at the runway's foot, jumping into this trajectory I'm on is the epitome leap of faith.

I think some OLGs can do it.

Mandii,

Here?s a mini-response to a mini-slice of your megapost. You wrote: ?VP said about Jesus Christ..he at the same time, states quite emphatically that the Word of God replaces the absent Christ in our lives.?

The way the Word ?replaces? him is by describing him while he?s invisible. God did SOMETHING in Acts Chapter One where a cloud hid him from their sight. GOD did that hiding, not TWI or Dr or PFAL. Now, while he?s hidden that way, God has a better way for us to see him.

If we saw him with our 5-senses now we?d never bother seeing him deeper, spiritually in the Word. This is the reason Jesus HID HIS OWN IDENTITY, temporarily from the two disciples on the road to Emmaus.

Notice the sequence: first he taught them all the OT scriptures on himself, THEN he showed them the flesh identity. He did not give them the experiences in the opposite order.

Had he first given them a non-Word explanation as to who he was like ?Surprise! It?s ME! Look at these scars!? then they would NEVER had had the heavenly heart burn they got from the Word. They?d have been too distracted and in too much enjoyment of the flesh 5-senses blessing to see the spiritual one.

This is the order God gave it to us: first the pure Word description of what GOD thinks is important for us to groove on about his Son, THEN we get to see him when he appears in the flesh and we can groove on all the individualistic things that the relationship means to each one of us as we differ in the flesh. Spiritually we don?t differ.

Now, just for accuracy, here?s the passage you referenced on pages 230-231 in the PFAL book.

************************************

PFAL p.230-31

If the Word of God is wrong, I am going to be wrong; but if the Word of God is right, then I have everything to gain by taking it as my sole center of reference. I believe that The Word takes the place of the absent Christ and that the holy spirit takes the place of Christ in us through God's Word. I believe that the Bible gives the truth regarding man's redemption, his dominion and authority and power over all God's creation. I believe that the Bible gives the truth regarding Jesus Christ, His coming, His death, His resurrection, His ascension, God's giving of the truth regarding the new heaven and the new earth which God is going to establish. I believe that the Bible gives truth, not facts. Anything man does, anything man makes, is a fact. I believe that the Word of God is Truth - Truth which is eternal, the same yesterday, today, and forever. I believe that the revelation of the Word of God is an absolute necessity for the natural man. If the senses man is going to be a complete man, he must have an accurate knowledge of God's Word.

.

.

.

Audios Mic,

However, you need to factor out the Pasted Portions I post from the record.

Oooh Oooh! Muldune... I mean Rafael, I just thought of something else, from the word ?experimenting" above in my post above. Here?s where I can explain my message being more addressed to OLGs, and hence I can understand why it?s not fitting for you right now.

It?s risk. There is a certain amount of experimenting involved with hearing what I?m saying and trying it on to see if it fits from the inside. It?s risky. I said earlier, in jail, I think, that if what I?m communicating is incorrect, then I?m in deep Tootey.

There is risk in experimenting with believing (which comes by hearing) in my mesaage. Those who didn?t see the good old days have less reason to risk in this direction, than the OLGs (older leader grads) that DID see the good times.

Here?s where JerryB is correct in labeling it a feeling that I?m shooting for, if only he means the complex feel that comes from the many other items I mentioned: miracles, cooperation, etc etc.

Because some of us OLGs have that feel, the STRONG conviction that something extremely pure pass right by us and was gone, then I can only reasonably appeal to those OLGs to risk all and get their spiritual assurance from God to start obeying Dr and come back to this Word in PFAL addressed to us.

In earlier posts I noted that it?s the FEELING I get sitting at the end of the runway, coupled with lots of head knowledge about how airplanes work, that helps me take the risk of flying.

I don?t think it?s reasonable of me to ask you to believe this thesis I?m presenting, Rafael.

I am thankful that I have the opportunity to discuss these things with you in a civil atmosphere, though. In fact, this discussion, for me, is a total application of Pawtucket?s Principle, enunciated a few days ago in court when he ascended to the Drivel Docket.

Rafael,

So THAT's your strateegery, drag me away to another thread. Well you'll need a bunker buster or 4 to get me out of here now!

I may send in Special Ops when the moon is dim to scout out your response, and it's time stamp is being fed into my GPS (God's Perfect Scope).

*******************

Mandii, let's just mega agree to disagree on some of that stuff. I'll put it into my backlog, but I owe sirguessalot a megasponse for days.

This TVT separation is not something I expect anyone to crank out overnight. After 5 years of concerted effort, I still accidentally merge the record with things I picked up on the fly from the rotten grapevine.

I just did that very thing a few days ago with Jesse Joe, where I merged the record with my POST meltdown anecdotal knowledge of splinter groups. The surety levels are much different. In other words, we may disagree less as you get the hang of it and separate more and more the errors in the TVT from the actual text.

As we see what?s written we can get blessed by PFAL again, and this time there?s no 5-senses TWI there to limit it and corrupt it. We?re all on our own, just you and God in Christ in you and the written Word.

It?s a lot like the unsupervised expansion of the USA population Westward (ho), where the pioneers on THAT frontier brought their Bibles, but not their organized religion. The West, which included Ohio in the 1850?s, was settled by all kinds of experimenting Bible readers and believers.

Gosh, I think I finished the recent backlog of posts. Now I can delve deeper into this thread for the older backlog. Thank you all for your patience.

Rafael,

Thanks for the typo alert. I edited it. Looks like that post wasn't so God-breathed in it's first edition. But the revelation was.

Rafael,

As to the standard that Dr gave us for the perfection of God's Word, I think it?s the case that as we master that topic, in all its locations, then you may have to modify the standard of perfection you think Dr gave us. I think you have some error in your understanding of Dr?s teaching on this standard.

There are still some more subtleties in what constitutes an error to get on the table. Here?s one: would you count ink splotches or grain in the paper that look like punctuation? I guess that you wouldn?t, because you do come off as reasonable in your approach to these matters. This is not a subtle question, but here is one: where do you draw the line on printers errors, typesetting, proofreading, and even the editorial processes between Dr and all his editorial staff?

Here is one anecdote I?ve always carried with me, but hasn?t reached post until now. I once heard Dr at a staff meeting commenting on errors that crept into the materials and the effort to catch them all before publication. He said (paraphrasing): ???If the Way International waited for things to be 100% perfect before publication we?d never print a single book.?""

The important thing here is the revelation from God, and us finally getting a spiritual understanding of it. What Dr was saying is that physical perfection of the 5-senses product is desirable, but not achievable. The Psalm talks about ?words of earth? then later becoming perfect in what they convey: God?s pure Word where every word is pure. How do you get a word to go from earthy and imperfect to pure? God!

The important thing, the goal, is the spiritual understanding of the revelation, and the physical medium is wonderful, and as perfect AS IT NEEDS TO BE in order for us to get that spiritual understanding as we master it.

Yes, in SOME areas, one word out of place and the whole thing falls to pieces, but not all topics and words are so pivotal as pros in John 1:1. I?ve seen other places where Dr says that there are alternate renderings worth considering, and the exact rendering less crucial for the ultimate goal.

If your present understanding of Dr?s position on the perfection of the words is correct, then Dr would have to conclude that these other places have one and only one word in the perfect rendering.

I think you?re taking Dr too literally on this, and not seeing the overall truths he teaches here. It?s like the ants on the trees analogy presented by What The Hay on 4-7-03 in Drivel Court.

Language itself is not as exact as this supposed standard of Dr?s, and perfection in 5-senses understanding what is written may, even after study, elude us due to our language being slightly different from Dr?s. An idiosyncratic passage of his may look like a mistake in my language, and I may NEVER get the 5-senses understanding of this. However, if I apply all the principles I was taught, eventually I?ll have enough of a correlation on the ?mistaken? topic to see correctly in my language what Dr was writing there in his. OR, it may be that I NEVER get a perfect 5-senses understanding of that one passage, but since I did all my homework in other areas (key #4 again, of the 16) God can tell me this in my newly forming spiritual understanding of the revelation, which is the ultimate goal.

[This message was edited by Mike on April 10, 2003 at 15:19.]

Rafael,

You wrote, and very succinctly : ?I see two things being discussed here, simultaneously. First, whether Wierwille presented a coherent doctrine concerning our fellowship with Jesus Christ. Second, whether his presentation/doctrine was correct.?

I am assuming the latter, and attempting to prove the former. These two things do get confused, and I?m glad for the help in pointing this out.

I am less into proving the later (correctness), because I believe if we properly work with the former (presentation) then we will see the reality of the correctness. God?s Word speaks for itself better than I could ever speak for it. I assume the correctness up front and wide out in the open. Proving that we did have something better, and still do have something better, than the twi verbal tradition TVT is the major thrust of all my posts.

[This message was edited by Mike on April 10, 2003 at 15:09.]

Hi Mandii,

I?m back. In your next post you began with: ?SO.....if God didn't want a mental picture of Christ in his fleshly form...and didn't want people to be able to relate to Christ in human form..guess what...?

This statement, and all the previous ones are right on the money. However, not all of what I under stand on this has yet been posted (correcting that here some), plus not all posted has yet been fully understood. This is new stuff, in the sense that most of this ?ubiquitous? subject slipped past us, and thus the word ?hidden? in the title. Let?s see how much we can clear up right now.

In the Advanced Class we were taught the ?16 Keys To Walking in the Spirit? and key #4 is ?Study the Word much. What you can know by the five senses God expects you to know.?

We start out in the 5-senses natural factual realm with no spirit, and even when we get holy spirit, that doesn?t affect the mind, so we?re pretty stuck in the 5-senses realm. This is how the apostles and disciples got to know Jesus. Their 5-senses relationship with him was richer than rich, yet it was still only 5-senses. Once in a while they?d get a spiritual flash, but it wasn?t everyday, and it wasn?t when the pressure was on. When things were rosy, their 5-senses relationship with him must have been quite superb. It appears like they have a tremendous advantage being that close to the master.

However, we have a kind of advantage over them that makes up for it. We have the written Word on which to base our relationship with Jesus Christ. For years after Pentecost they only had memories.

For both groups, however, the 5-senses relationship is not all that God has made available. Starting at Pentecost, a spiritual relationship became available for those who desire. This is better than the 5-senses relationship, otherwise God would have had him stay here visible.

We must start in the 5-senses, but when it ends or ceases, then the only way is up. The Advanced Class key #4 teaches us that we should not only HAVE a 5-senses relationship with Christ, but that we should DEVELOP it, by study of the Word. Jesus was the Word made flesh, so studying the written Word, like the gospels, is part of the feeding-growth process.

Without the PFAL writings, I see that a spiritual relationship with him is nearly impossible. In the OT there were odd fellows who came along now and then who were somehow suited to receive spirit upon them. These people had the genetics, the upbringing, and the free will decisions to propel them into service as prophets. They were coincidentally tough enough in the right places and knowledgeable in the right places and willing to serve in the right places that qualified them to get the supernatural boost of spirit upon for God. They were rare.

Likewise, it?s rare that someone can develop this spiritual relationship with Christ, without many factors lining up just right. The Bible remnants are just not good enough to serve us well here. They help in other areas, but here they are not up to the standards of perfection (Rafael, please take note) that God knows are necessary for it to work.

Since these writings are from God for the specific purpose of teaching us His Word (and WHO is His Word? Jesus Christ) like it (he, Jesus) has not been known since the first century, then the principle kicks in: ?With the coming of the greater, the lesser is terminated.?

Now this isn?t law, it?s what?s available. God made something greater available, because the 5?senses relationship breaks down. Look how the apostles? relationship with him broke down when the heat was on after Jesus was being tortured. Look how OUR relationships broke down in the ministry meltdowns.

Now, God isn?t nasty about this and say to us ?Get in line!? He just makes it available and then waits for us to grow up to be ready. When my daddy gave me that crude electronics lesson by rolling a marble down a vacuum cleaner hose, it was the only relationship I could have with electronics until I grew a little more. That crud relationship was like a 5-senses one. Years later I learned the next level of accuracy in electronics, and I was able to do more and understand more. Same with the spiritual relationship with Christ.

Right now a spiritual relationship with Christ looks too abstract and unfulfilling emotionally. That?s a 5-senses impression, and is incorrect. As we grow in our understanding of this Natural/Factual versus Spiritually/True and the realms involved, then Dr?s promise of clarity on the bottom of page 24 in the Blue Book will come to pass.

God is our Daddy, and He is not impatient with us. He knows that we MUST start out in the 5-senses, and that only with great drive and learning can we arrive at the greater. He is there to help. He wants us to seek Jesus.

*********

The gospels were written for the generations after the apostles and for areas not local to Palestine and people who never saw Jesus physically. They were written last or after the epistles. They were written so that people could start out in the 5-senses and get to know the personality of Christ from a distance. Then, the epistles make more sense. The gospels are like a giant contextual frame for the epistles, and are very useful. They start us out, and then the epistles show us the newer relationship, where there?s no distance, he?s IN us, and we then become him. That?s the spiritual relationship in a nutshell.

The 4 gospels are very important. They serve a purpose.

************

Then Mandii, in your megapost you wrote: ?But I see here a familiar TWI theme of dissing the gospels, putting them as second rate and not revelant to the believer thereby again, cutting access to Jesus, (and to understand God better because who else would Jesus be declaring?) because they may form a mental picture of Jesus????

Let?s slightly change your sentence by substituting ?TVT? for TWI because TWO things went on in TWI: the corrupt verbal tradition and the writings by revelation. Then I can agree with it. I saw a lot of Corps bravado used here. In asserting themselves as more contrary than the other guy against ?Jesus is God? notions, some Corps jerks would put down relationships with Jesus Christ as trinitarian or dangerous. This accelerated as time went by. Reading the gospels was only for sissies, by this misguided leadership.

******************

You then wrote: ?I resent you lumping talking to Christ in the same context as being hysterical and receiving stigmatas.?

Please be assured that my lumping men together was in grammar only. I DID mention that stigmata was more extreme. They are VERY different in some aspects, yet different in other crucial aspects. I could lump God and the devil together in saying that they both are spiritual, but i still remember they are vastly different.

I see those things as tied together in that they are a 5-senses thing. Even stigmata may be a natural process related to grieving. In the garden, Jesus had something going on with his sweat that was not normal. Many Catholics are taught the empathy pain approach to relationships with Jesus. Maybe it?s not so extreme to sweat like blood from the hands. I don?t know. I Do KNOW that my including them in the same category is not to put down anyone who employs those 5-senses techniques for ?knowing? Jesus. If that?s all someone has to go on, I can?t see God blaming them and shunning them in any way. I can see Him yearning (John 4:23) and seeking ways to tell all that there?s more available.

I have used several of these methods in the past, not including stigmata, and I would never try to make someone feel bad about doing the best they can. I would simply look t see if they desire more. If I didn?t have this attitude, then your eloquent exposure of such hard heartedness would apply to me as well as those jerky Corps people who got overly enthusiastic in shutting down the 5-senses approach. If they had had the spiritual relationship cooking in their lives then they?d have been patient and gentle about it like God.

I have talked top Jesus lots and never got possessed. If I limited my relationship to him there, however, then I?d have less ability to wage war on the adversary, and if I went into the wrong battle with this spiritual immatuurity, THEN I might have a lot more trouble dealing with ds possession, ds oppression, and indirect satanic influences.

**********

Moving right along, you then wrote: ?First, let me assure you, if you played me in a play, no matter how pretty or exact the dark auburn wig you would have to wear was, you would not know ME or have a relationship with ME and Praise the Lord, it would not make you me.....I may think you can identify with me, or my feelings or my perspective and that ONLY at best but that would in no way shape or form qualify you to call yourself my friend or to say you had a real relationship with me, cause you wouldn't be having either, friendship or relationship. You would only have knowledge of me.and that is about it.?

Yes. This is the case for normal acting. However, if I have a spiritual hotline with YOUR Daddy, and your Daddy is MY Daddy too, then suitable equipped with a God-breathed text that details the essence of your personality, THEN it may be different. THEN I will not only get to know you BETTER than if I always only saw you at some distance however short, but I could do all the things you could do, in a limited sense. IF there was a job to be done that you usually performed, I could then step in and do it as well, since I mastered the Mandii Manuscript. As I?m doing your job, I get to know you even more, relating to how you see the job.

***********

Regarding alternate interpretations of II Cor.5 I might caution that we should really first master what we were taught IN THE BOOKS, and then we can better examine alternates. I am believing the PFAL books. Someday we can closely examine what they say about these matters.

You wrote on this subject: ?So if this is true, and if this verse is saying what TWI or VP said it meant, why is Paul telling people who are already reconciled and have that sonship right to be reconciled???

I see two things there. The first is that before Paul and Timothy and others came to Corinth, the were not born again. Rhetorically, Paul can sum up their history in verse 20, like a review of what happened and was happening. He and Timothy and others were reconciling them ?back to God? because they had become separated in Adam?s sin.

Another way to look at verse 20 is that even though many Corinthians had received holy sppirit, they were carnal in their minds, and separated from Godly thoughts and renewed mind and fellowship with the Father. When I get out of the fullness of fellowship with my Father that is available, I seek to be reconnected, reconciled in my mind. It looks like this is what you expounded upon, and quite well, I might add.

This is an example how one usage may have more than one meaning. God?s Word is rich. In the back of RHST we can see some verses where the useage of pneuma hagion may be multiple. These two meanings are in two realms. One is spiritual reconciliation; one is 5-senses. BOTH are part of God?s plan, but the 5-senses one got taken over by the adversary. He is now defeated.

Dr mentions double meanings in Vol. IV ?God?s Magnified Word? on page 14, and we?ve discussed it a bit here at GS.

**************

You then wrote: ?We don't need the Lord because we fill His shoes in the here and now.?

You then correctly identified this as part of the TVT error. When I saw this error being pulled out of some Corps butt I would resolve to read the gospels all the more to see what size those shoes were. And which way he walked in them. And with what kind of spring in his step. All these are necessary in our starting out with a 5-senses relationship with Christ. We NEED accurate information to relate to in order to have a relationship. We NEED oru lord and master. His 5-senses example is crucial. It?s not the endpoint in what?s available, it?s the beginning.

It?s always been my understanding, and I?ll always mean it here, that the phrase ?replacing Christ? means that he is MORE present. It doesn?t mean squeezing him out, just that he?s more visible to those who can?t see him otherwise. To someone who hasn?t yet believed, and hence can?t see him, I can show them Jesus Christ because in the SENSES REALM, he is not available, but I AM. That blind person can see me, and I can show them Christ, see them born again, and THEN the situation changes. Now THAT person has Christ in them too, and we are both members of the Body of Christ. We can both represent the 5-senses ?absent? Christ, but we?ve now beyond that stage. He?s our head, spiritually, and we function together. Of course TVE missed this altogether. It?s in the books, though.

Mandii, as we all go through our memories of the crap, the more we separate the TVT from the written materials, all these things will get much clearer. I think you?ve described the TVT errors in this matter accurately throughout your post. There was a lot of crap, but thank God we can see the pure good now. The reason we all had in the back of our heads that it was worth staying in spite of all the crap was GOD. We stayed because we could sense that mixed in with the crap was something good. Our awareness of this became dimmer as we drifted from the exact wording in the books. Eventually we all reached our breaking points and bailed. By coming back to the books we can reacquaint ourselves with that still small voice in the books that we originally heard telling us this was THE Way.

.

.

.

.

Hi Mandii,

Finally I'm getting to your first recent post here. As far as "What part does he take in our lives, NOW?" I partially addressed this earlier with a mention of the repeated teaching series of "Christ Formed In You" and soon I'll get into those details, but there's more. All these things will take time to sequentially lay out, but I'm into it, and just need time.

Some other things I already posted from the Zacheus "Climbing High..." chapter in Vol. V also address this subject. Dr urged us there to search for Jesus, to seek to SEE him. Dr wasn't suggesting we get real still in a dark room and look for visions to appear. He was talking about seeking him out in God's Word, because he IS the Word made flesh. That's the most logical first place to look for him to a graduate of PFAL.

This may seem a bit abstract, and it is, because it's headed out of the flesh realm. If we see Jesus in the Bible, that's one level, a 5-senses level of sight, because the Bible is in the 5-senses realm. Then, after that, if we continue in this pursuit and see him in the Word of God, we?ve graduated to a spiritual sight of him. This fits in to the category of a spiritual relationship with him.

I know you have more questions in a later post on these two, but one subject at a time. I?ll get there.

You then wrote: ?That was the point or points always missing from TWI. It was he did THAT and he will do THIS when he returns...but nothing in the middle.?

Here?s where I need to separate out the two concepts again, of the twi verbal tradition (TVT) on one end of the spectrum, and the written PFAL record on the other end. I think when you say ?missing from TWI? it?s accurate when aimed at the TVT. This APPROXIMATELY includes twig teachings and coffee discussions and ministering, plus branch teachings, and phone conversations, and letters, and teachings by reverends, on tape and even in the Way Magazine. SO this ?verbal? tradition, in my definition, really is and the non-PFAL written materials.

I agree that the TVT had some problems regarding the activity of Jesus Christ and they got worse as time went by. By meltdown time it was rampant. I do remember a Way Magazine article (not by Dr) that had the title ?What Is Jesus Christ Doing Up There?? It was a small article, and it went into his intercession activity.

I?ve found many interesting things in the record on knowing Christ that we missed. Here?s just one from the Blue Book. See how many ?between? type activities are mentioned in just this one passage. Then, things mentioned here may have additional details in related passages, thus enriching it further to the mastering student.

(There are some variations in this passage's text in earlier printings.)

**********************************

?The Bible Tells Me So? p.109

Wouldn?t you say that God certainly has engraved us upon the palms of His hands? He forgives and forgets our shortcomings while He remembers and cares for us constantly.

God gives us in Revelation a comparable truth.

Revelation 3:20:

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup [eat] with him, and he with me.

Have you ever thought on the beauty of those words? In the Orient the host does not eat with his guest unless he is a most intimate friend. In this passage of Scripture Jesus is saying, ?I am your most intimate friend.? Jesus enters into our hearts upon our invitation. He never forces Himself on us. He is not just entering in, but He is supping with us. Jesus said, ?I want to be very intimate with my people; I will sup with them; I will eat with them if they will but ask Me.?

Hebrews 13:5 says ?...I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.? Also Matthew 28:20 says, ?...lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.?

The Lord is with us always. That is why He said as recorded in Matthew 11:28, ?Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.? It is God?s continuous remembrance whereby He can say to us, ?I have graven you upon the palms of my hands even though your walls, your palms, are continually before me.?

Christ died for all and thus He could say, ?Whosoever will may come.? Once Christ has offered the invitation, it is a matter of our accepting it. If you want to come to Christ you may. Man need not die in his sin because Christ died for sin and carried our sicknesses and our pains. We need not carry them. God has willingly and gladly engraved our names upon the palms of His hands.

There is no question about the call of Jesus Christ to man being clear. The only question is whether man is going to respond to that call.

**********************************

How odd, how this passage I?ve selected ends with ?no question? and ?clear? on a subject that we have questioned and are not clear on. There is a reason for this. It?s connected with the reason I often point out the differences between the record and the TVT.

When it comes to the TVT we can?t say these Blue Book pages were in the ?no question? and ?clear? category, because as the TVT grew the memory of the contents of the books faded, assuming they were read and absorbed. Not all details were absorbed.

The introduction to the Part IV in the Blue Book, in which this passage sits, mentions what these written materials were given to us for. On page 103 we see: ?...on the subjects in this Part IV, the clarity of God?s Word has been muddied by passage of time, translations and interpretations. So now we must again study the Word of God and look for clarity on subjects which have been relatively unstudied or on subjects which have been grossly misunderstood and thus inaccurately taught.?

Here, the 5-senses context is how things got ?questioned and unclear? in churchianity prior to God?s 1942 intervention. But, look how it also applies us! It BETTER applies to us, in fact. The reason the TVT got out of hand is because of the ?relatively unstudied? and ?inaccurately taught.? Now that we?re looking at the books, it can move towards the category of without question and clear.

You then wrote: ?Do you believe VP taught we can pray to Christ? Do you believe VP taught that Christ had an active hand in the pouring of the Holy Spirit, do you believe that VP taught that Christ IS active in guiding, leading, comforting, His body, His church here on earth??

There was one "pray to Jesus" reference in the above passage. Did you catch it?

My notes are misplaced on this, but I have found a few songs we would sing TO Jesus in the songbooks. As far as teaching on praying to Jesus in Dr?s writings, it?s about as prevalent there as it is in the New Testament. Just to be safe, I?d often say things like ?Thanks!? or ?HOW did you do it?? but I?d run out after a while.

The Bible does have a few people talking to Jesus post Pentecost, but it seems like those things happened when people were contacted.

I figured that if SIT was perfect it wouldn?t leave him out in any way.

This is no where near the sum total of what I have to post on this, but I do have one more item for this one response. It?s at the end of the Introduction to ?Jesus Christ Is Not God.? I mentioned about a hundred posts ago that often Dr put crucial things in out of the way places, like introductions, and we now have two examples of that here.

Dr often and urge book mastery to close the gap between the TVT and the written materials, but as the years went by, us OLGs felt more and more spiritual, and less and less need to obey his advice. Unfortunately, as we were getting bigger and bigger ego heads, our original exposure to the PFAL writings was leaking out. The need to refresh our memory, and get the exact wording in our heads, grew simultaneously with our ?perception? that we had no such need.

Here?s what Dr wrote there:

**********************************

JCNG p.8-9

Before closing, let me bare my soul. To say that Jesus Christ is not God does not in my mind degrade the importance and significance of Jesus Christ in any way. It simply elevates God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, to His unique, exalted and unparalleled position. He alone is God.

I do believe the Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is the Son of man because he had a human for a mother; and he is the Son of God because of his created conception by God. So on the basis of the parentage of God alone, besides his choosing to live a perfect life, Jesus Christ is by no means a run-of-the-mill, unmarked human being. Thus, to say that I do not elevate and respect the position of the Lord Jesus Christ simply because I do not believe the evidence designates Jesus Christ as God is to speak the judgment of a fool, for to the very depth of my being I love him with all my heart, soul, mind and strength.

It is he who sought me out from darkness.

It is he who gave me access to God; even now he is my mediator.

It is he who saved me when I was dead in trespasses and sin.

It is he who gave me the new birth of God?s eternal.

It is he who filled me to capacity by God?s presence in Christ in all the fullness of God?s gift of holy spirit.

It is he who was made unto me my wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption.

It is he who called me and set me in the heavenlies.

It is he who gave me his joy, peace and love.

It is he who appointed me as a spokesman of God?s accurate Word; may I be found faithful in that calling.

It is he who is all in all to me that I might give my all for him.

It is he who is God?s only begotten Son.

May I as a son of God live always to glorify the God whom men can only know from God?s written Word, the Bible, and from the declared Word, God?s Son, Jesus Christ.

In spite of all my human frailties and shortcomings, I endeavor to love him with all my being. I love him and the one and only God who sent him. May His mercy and grace continue to be yours as well as mine, and may God be magnified by our testimony of Him who gave His Son that we might have life and have it more abundantly? yes, that life which is eternal and therefore more than abundant.

**********************************

Did you see the answer to your "active hand in the pouring of the Holy Spirit" question above?

This is a start to bringing out our spiritual relationship with Jesus Christ. It?s late now, and I?m tired. Tomorrow?s another day.

.

.

.

[This message was edited by Mike on April 10, 2003 at 12:22.]

So many posts to do, but Sienfeld is on in a few minutes.