Mike

Rafael,

Regarding “private interpretation” and Earl Burton’s article you wrote:

“I have not seen the article. Could you summarize its relevant points?”

I haven’t read it in 20 years, but I see my copy has lots of notes in that one article, so I went at it, but it ALL leaked out. Use it or lose it.

I can xerox it and sent you a paper copy. OK? Are there any people down there who have copies? I heared you don’t have JCNG too. I might be able to help there.

Reluctantly,

the “official” minority voice

accepts the invitation back into the fray.

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

Rafael, you wrote:

“The problem is, not everyone on this thread can or will agree on what it means to be God-breathed. There is honest disagreement about what that term means.”

I’ll drink to that!

Rafael, HONEST! I’ve been trying to think of a way to say the same thing of me!!!

In my posts, I can’t remember how I myself defined “God-breathed” OR EVEN IF I DID give a formal solid definition.

I think my definition of it here at GS ...(I haven’t checked the record, MY record here at GS - yet)... I think my definition of it here was DEFINED FOR ME by Research Geek and Alfakat MONTHS before I started posting.

When I started posting, I think I avoided being detected as the mystery ghoul that RG and Alfa portrayed me as last fall. When, after a few days (I think) of posting suddenly and unceremoniously I was UNMASKED! ....I threw down my disguise mask and sword and cast myself on the mercy of the court.

.... (I fully expected the unmasking scene, I just didn’t know WHEN it would happen in the play)....

From then on I went along with your (and other GSers) supposed understanding of my exact definition of “God-breathed” and tried to smooth it out as we went. I didn’t really CARE if you all got it right and formal. I didn’t come here to formally define anything or prove anything.

My bag, my ADMITTED agenda is to make certain lost elements in Dr’s tape/print record come back to the center stage for PFAL grads where I think they belong, and where GS readers can pick and choose from the WHOLE spectrum of post TWI thought hee in these post progressive times.

I could be wrong on some of this, but I think I got sort of roped into my definition of “God-breathed,” and I just haven’t had the time, inspiration or open door to admit this clearly, and totally straighten it out. I’m still a student of PFAL and I haven’t really checked this topic out in detail. Maybe someday...

Thanks for the open door, Rafael. Maybe this will help us find a little more shared ground.

I think SOME of our disagreements are based on pure mis-communication.

Now there’s a little less.

So my main bag is the record, my sideline here is the logic. That’s all I have time for now. I know some of you want all logic, and rely on memory instead the record, but that’s not very efficient. My orientation is a little different, but I think we can respect each other’s chosen stances.

As for these things in the record, to some degree Dr hid things, and to some degree the adversary did some hiding too. The difference is Dr’s had a built in self-interpreter due to the hand of God upon Dr’s efforts, and God is now bringing these back to OUR attention and the logic is self contained for those who care to examine them carefully and respectfully. The adversary still tries to hide them, a kind of anti-interpreter.

There are lots more of these hidden items in the record, and I’ve sent a few samples to a FEW of you posters here. You have my permission to discuss here what I sent you, but I am incorporating your suggestions into a next draft. I would prefer if we post the UPDATED version of what I sent you two or three GSers.

I don’t mind talking about definitions or proofs, but I’m pretty much done with that approach after having exhausted its benefits years ago. It was not a wasted 27 year effort, it’s just DONE! I now have a five year adventure going with quite a few other grads scattered around the country (one or two post here) in finding these things Dr hid in the record. I’m just one of the first to start making them known publicly.

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

Many elements and implications of Dr’s record have direct application to MANY threads here, both in subject matter AND seeing that this record itself is on the center stage here as the main punching doll you all have propped up! That’s why I feel free to pop in at times, and soon should try another thread origination.

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

So hurrumph to you all! (On this one thing)

And now, please pardon my interruption, ladies, gentlemen, and persons.

The minority voice recedes.

Carry on!

.

.

.

I again, repsectfully disagree with you Rafael.

However, I'll back off after saying this what I have planned here.

We were taught HOW to handle difficulties in God's Word. I believe that IN THIS THREAD it is crucial for people to employ those same techniques for handling PFAL difficulties.

Why is that rude for me to beat that particular drum? Because it subverts your INTENDED message of this thread. My rudeness is solely in opposing your intentions.

Besides, haven't you noticed that, as much as I disagree with this, rudeness is the name of the game here at GS. EVERYONE EXERCISES THEIR RIGHT TO BE RUDE HERE!!! If you don't think so, why don't you join with EWB's thread and try to make this a less nasty place to place controversial ideas on the table? I'm all for lessons in manners, and the best teaching is a good examnple!

If I really wanted to be rude, I'd answer your de-railment charge by posting HERRE all the silly tangential meanderings that you have engaged in with others more of your own leanings here. THAT would be a rude derailment on my part, so I refrain.

It wont take any NEUTRAL reader of this thread long to see that you don't mind your own derailments, and you don't mind tangents that don't threaten your own theme here, but when an opposing voice points out flaws or ommissions of yours THEN it's a rude derailment.

As the "official" minority voice here I now will back off politely... for a while.

Have at it.

Now for another attempt at contributing here.

Regarding “private interpretation” has anyone recently seen Earl Burton’s article in the Festschrift gift book given to Dr in 1981 or 82?

The title of his article is “Scope and Structure in II Peter” and it seems to lend a lot of data to the discussion of this area.

Rafael,

I do not think it rude of me at all to ask GerryB that question!

I've been standing back in the wings and only lightly commenting on very pertinent places lately. My latest request of Gerry IMO is very much in line with this thread’s theme, whether you think so or not. That’s why I establish it here with this repetition.

As for you disappointment with how I handle your questions, I have VERY well thought out reasons for doing so in the style I did ON THIS THREAD only. As time goes by I will explain this strategy more voluminously and more clearly. By re-reading some of my earlier posts here any reader can see that I have been explaining myself at times, but you just don’t like the explanations.

So, Gerry, please do give us your philosophy (briefly) in how you handle BIBLE contradictions. Any differences in the way you handle PFAL contradictions? If so why?

I pose the same questions to you Rafeal, as well as to all the readers here. I think it’s good to be absolutely clear on strategy here. If PFAL is from God, then you’re painting yourself into a corner. Careful planning can prevent this POSSIBILITY. I suggest extreme clarity in strategy for dealing with apparent difficulties in BOTH the Bible remnants and PFAL.

[This message was edited by Mike on January 27, 2003 at 9:16.]

Hi JerryB,

I was wondering what your philosophy is in HOW one should handle Bible contradictions, apparent or actual.

I'm happy to see that this subject, that of Dr stating something in PFAL that's not in the Biblical record, is getting some fair treatment here.

Whether he "makes up" something that can be easily and legitimately inferred from the record, or whether he got a revelation that "such and such" was actually so, even though not in the record, either way I'm happy to have been taught.

I often stand back and ask myself, "What am I being taught here?"

What I got taught here on these pages of PFAL was that it's sometimes a good risk to stand with God in spite of the opposition. I tried to apply this as TWI-2 was slowly forming in 1982, but found it to be a VERY difficult lesson to apply.

Maybe if some of us older grads had learned this lesson better and sooner, maybe if ENOUGH of us had really HEARD what Dr was teaching regarding Nathan, maybe then we would be now discussing the great courage and inspiration that our modern "Nathans" displayed in facing down the oppressive TWI-2 garbage. Instead, none of us really learned this lesson of Nathan... not yet.

I'm also happy to see that there is sometimes a willingness to "give the preacher a break" because it's very easy for critics of PFAL with the opposite attitude to really lose it in the zeal to tear apart illegitimately.

Rafael,

Ok, thanks. I'm glad you gave that angle some consideration.

I have to admit I'm not following all this, but it's just a general principle to often go back to the beginning for reference, so I thought I’d suggest it. Lots of ACs clear up that way, by closely examining those originating details.

I just wanted to bring attention again back to what is actually printed, before bowing out. I'm way over budget in my consideration of this particular PFAL AC, so that's why I'm not trying too hard.

There's one particular Bible AC that nearly everyone has had lots of experience in bowing out of.

And by "bowing out" of a Bible AC or a PFAL AC I mean a procedure that is of utmost importance, to get it right. Getting one's withdrawal sequence mapped out beforehand is crucial in avoiding what is a common AC fate: becoming bogged down.

To avoid becoming "bogged down" there's one particular Bible AC that nearly everyone backs off and says: "I have to admit I'm not following all this"

The Bible AC I'm thinking of is radio carbon dating of manuscripts, shrouds, bones, etc.

I know this is not exactly a Bible AC as defined, but it’s similar.

I study physics, and I know how important it is for me to avoid becoming bogged down in that particular endless labyrinth. I'd never finish tracking down all the details, and so I back off chasing down ANY the physics of dating ancient materials. I'm not interested in BASING my life on that kind of foundation.

By backing off the distraction, the huge chunks of time that radio carbon dating (and other such tests) require of the serious student, there’s all the more time to come back and to enjoy reading the Word of God as it’s been delivered to us.

Has anyone yet addressed this one small angle I noticed, and posted?

It’s the angle of Dr’s admitted uncertainty on PFAL page 57.

Below is a collection together of four originally scattered paragraphs in my posts on this thread. I’ve collected them for repostation here, so that this issue of the uncertainty angle isn’t lost in the blizzard.

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

Dr is totally up front with this item being one in which he confused.

He uses the phrase "for many years I was not able to understand" to preface this issue.

Next Dr further itemizes his state of uncertainty thusly: "...I could not understand it... I looked in every... and checked every.... but I never found... Finally I came across an old piece of literature which explained..."

He's totally up front as to the uncertainty of this connection, from an official documentation point of view, and goes even STILL further to explain this in the video class soundtrack: "And then one day I ran across a piece of literature that I have since LOST I cannot find it but it was in an old text where I learned this that in ancient Jewish law when a boy was..."

On this page I see that Dr did some 5-senses research, couldn't find a simple documentable answer, DID find one hot clue, but lost it later, and then, in the midst of all Dr's 5-senses confusion .....(which. often. well. characterizes. behind-the-scenes. academia)........ God gave him a revelation.

Zixar,

Something you said caught my eye. You wrote:

“Yet, he still refuses to entertain the possibility that anything in the orange book is a factual error. I'm not talking about differences of opinion or interpretation questions, I'm talking Rafael's "actual" factual errors.”

The one thing I’m commenting on is your use of the word “factual.”

In my present state of non-mastery level understanding the PFAL writings, I know there’s a distinction made between facts and truths.

In the Green book p.34 Dr writes “...every word I have written to you is true.”

At this point in my present state of non-mastery level understanding the PFAL writings, I do not quite know if the PFAL writings are factually accurate on every point. Years ago I put a lot of time on assessing its accuracy and it passed my tests with a B+ to and A- grade. Maybe soon Ill understand this better, but as for now it’s part of the frontier of my knowledge. I’m not particularly interested in this particular area at the present time.

What I’ve keyed in lately are the spiritual truths available to us who spent a lot of time absorbing the basic 5-senses message in a positive and thorough manner.

If your exposure to PFAL and its application to everyday life occurred after 1985, the year Dr died, I can’t blame you one bit for refusing my offer to look for these truths God and Dr buried in the print.

My offer is to those older grads who once did see these bursts of “straight prophesy” abounding all over, not just from Dr, but from everyone and any one.

In those good old days the mystery was exemplified by hippies and rednecks embracing each other as one body, jocks and nerds working on the same team. We let that agape love slip, but I have some good news TO THESE CERTAIN OLD GRADS, it’s not too late to do it right.

To those who were in leadership positions in 1985, I say the good news is that God has unearthed Dr’s Last/Lost Teaching, and there are grads scattered all around the country, NOT JUST ME, who are working these PFAL writings again.

As we more older, more appreciative PFAL grads finally obey Dr’s final instructions to master the collaterals again, and we come back to this Word we were taught, we will then be much better able to correct the damage we collectively did to grads who never had a chance to know Dr and see his grand successes.

Too shay.

As the "official" minority voice here, I'll back off and let the discussion continue.

Thank you for allowing me to say my piece here.

Nice count.

So let me get this straight.

You'll accept nothing less than me looking at what you consider completed research into PFAL ACs, and me reacting by throwing up my hands and declaring PFAL a fraud.

You demand nothing less than me saying “I’m stymied on this point, and there are SO many other points I’m stymied on, that I now must give up. I must have been wrong in my expectations that God was involved in producing the PFAL writings.” Is this is how I must perform in this GS religion to win approval by the elders?

Nothing less than me agreeing that the evidence you all have amassed on this thread (and elsewhere) is convincing will maintain the wide open ears you all have extended me so far? I hardly think of them as wide open to begin with.

Nothing less than my untangling one of these knots can convince you that I am even worthy to stay speak and be heard. How many knots would I be REQUIRED of fixing before youwould consider renouncing your current views?

Just suppose that on some fortuitous evening, I really DID conclusively answer even just ONE of your ACs, so conclusively that everyone says sheepishly in their best Emily Latella voices: “Oh! That’s different. Never mind.”

Just suppose that one of these ACs vanishes in its own vapours, what WOULD really happen? Would this thread shut down, due to the expectation that all the other ACs would fall?

I think NOT! I think there would be only a very momentary reshuffling of the deck, and the trounced AC would be quickly forgotten as all scramble all the more to find several replacement ACs. Soon the semi-official GS belief system would be repaired.

In Kuhn’s “Structure of Scientific Revolutions” he documents how group behavior like what I’m predicting is the norm. This is the book where “paradigm” was coined, sort of. In Kuhn’s scenario, your paradigm is too well invested in for you to toss it out, especially for only one AC loss.

Of course, you all can apply Kuhn’s paradigm on how paradigms work to me as well, and you are.

I’m demonstrating for those appreciative grads (few though they are) that they need not succumb to the pressure of the mob to rush to judgement, and they need not focus on apparent problems that are characteristically dredged up by those who want to not believe the heart or the details of what is written.

I think I’ve demonstrated that this swimming against the stream is possible and even recommended. I see great value in conserving what earned my respect over a lengthy critical examination period. I see great value in cherishing what seemed to work very well for a large disparate group of people for a good ten years, ESPECIALLY when the alternative offered to replace PFAL is nothing but a hodge-podge of quickly thrown together personal opinions.

I see the PFAL writings as withstanding these onslaughts. When the casual critics are gone or too tired to cry out, these writings will still be around demanding that SOMEBODY get serious about systematically mastering them.

Part of my system of mastering PFAL is to occasionally consider and look fairly deep into selected ACs. I refuse, however, to get bogged down in this kind of activity. I think it’s unreasonable for anyone to expect that I am willing to get my head turned and renounce my well thought through policies, simply because a few have spotted what they think are fatal snags. You all are just as dead set against having YOUR heads turned by me. I don’t get all huffy about it, so why should you? (smilie face here)

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

As the "official" minority voice on this thread,

I urge consideration of my demonstrated alternative method

for HOW to handle PFAL ACs, as well as handling Bible ACs.

[This message was edited by Mike on January 17, 2003 at 9:50.]

This post is to summarize my unconventional, unacceptable approach to PFAL ACs.

I have pasted below a bunch of the lines from clipboard copies of my posts from this evening above.

I'm not trying to prove my approach as correct, I'm merely announcing it as my established policy, and being specific in the details. I'm illustrating by example, how I've been handling Bible ACs for decades, AND how I've been recently learning to handle PFAL ACs. We all learned this whole approach in the class.

The way I handle PFAL ACs is to assume the "originals" were of God and therefore perfect, and that any ACs are due to any one of a list of many possible culprits.

If after a few hours of study, I still don't have an acceptable answer to an AC, then I file it away in my spiritual closet, and may return to it on another date to work it again. I'm willing to bet my life that they ALL fall into the "apparent" category if properly worked.

In fact, I believe many of you utilize the exact same approach when dealing with Bible ACs. ...........(Fight amongst yourselves.)

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

This summarizes my approach in general to ACs both Bible and PFAL, but there is one very huge specific that came up briefly in one of my posts this evening, and I want to bring it up again. It's the phrase "rush to judgement."

I could launch into an entire essay on this topic. I will soon, but not now.

The most important thing to do AFTER a searcher finally finds God's Word is to NOT get talked out of God's Word.

I've learned, first with the Bible, and lately with PFAL, that an unwise rush to judgement is to ALWAYS be resisted upon hearing or seeing an apparently CONCINVING argument against these two very familiar bodies of literature.

Both the PFAL writings and the common English versions of the Bible have proved themselves to me for years to be worthy of my devotion and time. The modern versions of the Bible had my total focus from 1971 to 1998, and I still fondly visit old friends there. Now I'm giving PFAL my primary focus. Both have earned that kind of magnitude of my attention. No single writer here on this thread can command that kind or respect from me, and there's not enough time left for any to try. That's why, in my mind PFAL is the rock, and these ACs are the roaring pounding surf. What a fun picture.

I am presented here with a PFAL AC conundrum at the beginning of the evening, and it is expected of me to drop my whole belief system, unless I could come up with the ultimate answer before everyone goes to bed? Hello? I sometimes allow ACs to sit unresolved and unexplained for DECADES! For me, anything less than a year's pondering is a RUSH TO JUDGEMENT.

Rafael, I sense your familiarity with court room scenes gives you an understanding of this when you wrote: "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." "

Well, I'd like to say I'm invoking the Rafael Clause at this point. Thank you for recognizing the "rush to judgement" method as hazardous.

I'm just not going to answer the open questions, not in the ways people insist. I'm not here to line up with popular expectations.

I still want to write more on "rush to judgement" especially as it applies to how quickly everyone rushed to one splinter or stump and stuck there in 1986-7. In just one or two years... Don't get me started!...

Rafael, you also wrote: "My only complaint is when you come here and say "I;ve already answered many of these, But enough with the "I have the answers I'm just not posting them" nonsense."

Complaint heard. I did refrain from dropping in until the thread had lots of time to run its course. I'll admit my insistence on answering things my way may be abrasive. I'll try to smooth it later.

Rephrasing some of what I've wanted to convey here

is NOT: "I've already answered many of these"

but more along the lines of: "I've already learned HOW to handle many of these, and how to not get bogged down in questions and doubts."

I also wanted to convey that some were familiar to me, I have some unresolved thoughts written and unwritten, I have some facts, and some techniques yet unapplied. I was saying I was FAMILIAR with then. I was NOT saying I was in command of them... all... yet...

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

Here are a few of the summary pastes that didn't blend together to form some of the opening of this post. These items occurred in my posts, and all of this constitutes what I call data.

normal routine of focusing on what DOES fit from PFAL, which is massive.

The ACs are the exceptions, the FITs are the rule.

for PFAL ACs. These things take some time, but they shouldn't get primary time.

Let's look at the print record, NOT for proof of PFAL correctness, but to see more clearly the stated charge.

in the midst of all Dr's 5-senses ADMITTED confusion (which often well characterizes behind-the-scenes academia) God gave him a revelation

"Let's look at the print record, NOT for proof of PFAL correctness, but to see more clearly the stated charge. This brings us back..."

How DO you face Bible ACs of a huge magnitude like on a long list from a Google search?

many PFAL ACs stem from a GREAT familiarity with the tape record, and a VERY weak familiarity with the print record. This tape/book confusion is a very strong generators of misunderstandings.

I believe all these apparent contradictions in PFAL can easily be worked out by appreciative grads who COME BACK to this Word which we were taught in PFAL.

Hi, I've come back well rested. I thought I'd try and summarize some of what comprised my responses of the evening.

Sorry Garth, Zixar, Goey, Steve, Hope. I was NOT ingnoring you, just heavily preoccupied with an arm-wrestling. I dooooo hope this doesn't influence your vote on who is winning, me or Rafael.

I have to leave to get dinner. I'm going out to a real pub, hopefully with no arm wrestling challenges.

Later I'll try and read the posts I had little time to read while writing the above posts.

This has been fun. (to be continued)

Rafael wrote:

“You're the one who's going to have to explain why PFAL has ...errors."

Yes, but only in my posts on this thread.

To convince you of its inerrancey (sp?) is probably not going to happen.

In my private life I don't have to explain these PFAL ACs any more than I have to explain Googled Bible ACs.

I know they're there, but I'm willing to bet my life that they all fall into the "apparent" category if properly worked. After I place this bet, I continue reading for pleasure and enlightenment. Often while enjoying such reading, an old AC is suddenly taken care of. It’s a fun process.

So far what I’ve seen in your chosen AC is Dr making an excellent point on page 57, and also you looking in shadows for inaccuracies having nothing to do with the lesson at hand.

So far, there are many more keys I haven’t even started to think about employing in order to rightly divide page 57 in the shadow of your still unclear charges. Gads! We could be here all week on this one little ditty.

If I am to employ my new perspective of meek-mastering in dealing with PFAL, this approach I use here is legitimate for debate because I’m not arguing proof of “God-breathedness,” instead I’m arguing consistency within “God-breathedness.”

In other words, the way I handle PFAL ACs is to assume the originals were of God and therefore perfect, and that any ACs are due to any one of a list of possible culprits. The FIRST culprit of which is “Read what is Written” hence I quoted the passage.

I figured if we go back to the written record, as opposed to the spoken record, we could see if we really remembered what was written. I find that, with myself and any others, many PFAL ACs stem from a GREAT familiarity with the tape record, and a VERY weak familiarity with the print record. That’s another reason I broke your rule and quoted the whole page.

This tape/book confusion is a very strong generators of misunderstandings. This is why Dr often urged us to master the writings, especially in his Last/Lost Teaching.

But Rafael, you're side stepping my Bible AC comments.

How DO you face Bible ACs of a huge magnitude like on a long list from a Google search?

If the writer of a particular Bible AC on that list doesn't present a really convincing case, don't you tend to casually dismiss the sloppy charges and move on to the next Google AC on the list?

You haven't convinced me that there's a serious problem here.

Now if some of your case for this particular AC is buried up in the previous many posts of this thread, then direct me there, or better yet, paste it here.

So far all I see is the originally stated in my opening:

Rafael, you wrote:

"In PFAL, Wierwille states that in Luke 2, Jesus was taken to the temple for bar-mitzvah at age 12 instead of 13 because he was considered illegitimate.

Wierwille made two statements that are without basis or proof."

Rafael, just before defying your rule, I explained my justification for such defiance as follows:

"Let's look at the print record, NOT for proof of PFAL correctness, but to see more clearly the stated charge. This brings us back..."

I'm still not done with the “Clarification of Charges” phase of this trial.

I’m only challenging the clarity of your charges... so far.

Rafael,

Ok. I accept to put up, but on a temporary basis. I slightly injured my back, so I have a squeegee holiday today.

My established policy in performing PFAL mastery is to "put up" my focus to a high standard. My primary mastering activity is simply READING the books.

I do, however, alot a small percentage of my time and focus to deal with Apparent Contradictions, ACs. I will engage for a time in pondering this AC, and then go back

my more normal routine of focusing on what DOES fit from PFAL, which is massive. This is my policy, even if the AC is still unresolved.

When I came back to reading PFAL, again, my appreciation for the truths taught soared. ACs are but tiny specks in unwashed food scraps, while the Thanksgiving Meal of my main reading material is constantly nourishing to the growing body of knowledge that FITS. The ACs are the exceptions, the FITs are the rule.

Some ACs I've been wondering about for years, but they are minor in importance. Some ACs that used to bug me got worked out well as the years go by. This is my first "go" at this particular AC.

But, Rafael, please try and put yourself in my shoes, here.

For ME, visiting this thread is like Googling a thousand websites for "Bible Contradictions."

When YOU see an intractable AC of the Bible for the first time, how do you react? If you can't deal with it immediately, do you chuck out the whole Bible? Or do you view it as an interesting puzzle for the future, that may even yield a surprising bonus result if solved? THAT's how I view PFAL ACs. This challenge from you is like a friendly game of arm wrestling, a little match at a local pub. After it's over, we both go back to our business. Tomorrow's match is another day.

There were times when I young in the Word, and was hit with very tough ACs in the Bible. A few did shake me to a state of nausea. How's THAT for cognitive dissonance? But I gradually learned to resist that "rush to judgement" syndrome, and take Bible ACs in stride.

Ditto for PFAL ACs. These things take some time, but they shouldn't get primary time.

If after a few internet hours or so, I still don't have THE convincing answer to satisfy you, then I will file it away in my spiritual closet and may return to it on another date to work it again.

Rafael, you wrote:

"In PFAL, Wierwille states that in Luke 2, Jesus was taken to the temple for bar-mitzvah at age 12 instead of 13 because he was considered illegitimate.

Wierwille made two statements that are without basis or proof."

Let's look at the print record, NOT for proof of PFAL correctness, but to see more clearly the stated charge. This brings us back to page 57 of the PFAL book, where Dr writes:

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

"Luke 2 contains one verse of Scripture that for many years I was not able to understand.

Luke 2:42:

And when he [Jesus] was twelve years old, they went up

to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.

"I knew that according to Jewish law, a boy became a man, going through Bar Mitzvah, when he was thirteen. But Jesus was taken to the temple when He was twelve. I could not understand it so I considered that there might be a mistake in the text. I looked in every critical Greek text that I could find and checked every other source I could think of; but I never found Jesus to be thirteen when He went to the synagogue. Every text concurred on the age of twelve. Finally I came across an old piece of literature which explained that according to ancient Judean law when a boy was conceived illegitimately, this child was brought to the temple at the age of twelve instead of thirteen."

"This explains why Jesus could not communicate with the people in His own hometown. They thought that a child conceived illegitimately certainly could not have great knowledge or do wonderful works. They were offended by Him, would not listen to hear enough to believe when He spoke, and thus suffered from apistia, unbelief."

*****************************PFAL p.57************

The overall context of these paragraphs goes back as far as page 53, where a key verse was brought up and is being explained. The verse is Matthew 13:58 - "And he [Jesus] did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief."

It looks to me that the Luke 2 verse is only loosely brought in as confirmatory or illustrative. Dr is totally up front with this item being one in which he confused.

He uses the phrase "for many years I was not able to understand" to preface this issue. The Luke 2 verse can be thought of as just another reason Dr was confused.

I say the Luke 2 verse is only "loosely" brought in because it's not used to derive anything. Nothing in the main point is hanging on this.

The way "temple" comes up again in the main paragraph of p.57: "But Jesus was taken to the temple when He was twelve." This may, or may not be directly connected to the Luke 2 verse. It doesn't matter, though, because it's tangential to the main point. The main point is "Why did Jesus have a tough time in his home town?"

Next Dr further itemizes his state of uncertainty thusly: "...I could not understand it... I looked in every... and checked every.... but I never found... Finally I came across an old piece of literature which explained..."

He's totally up front as to the uncertainty of this connection, from an official documentation point of view, and goes even STILL further to explain this in the video class soundtrack: "And then one day I ran across a piece of literature that I have since lost I cannot find it but it was in an old text where I learned this that in ancient Jewish law when a boy was..."

Now, in applying my newly adopted (5 years now) perspective to these paragraphs of Dr's admitted 5-senses uncertainty, I proceed to the next paragraph.

What is this Newly adopted perspective? That, IN ADDITION to Dr's 5-senses research efforts, God is giving him revelation. This is a new principle for me to apply. I resisted it, vehemently at times, for may years in the past. Five years ago I gave it a try as I came back with meekness to reading PFAL.

Applying this new key to the next paragraph I meekly read: "This explains why Jesus could not communicate with the people in His own hometown."

Now, Rafael, are you going to ask me to leave this overall context and look at all the timing involved in exactly WHEN on the calendar Luke 2:42 occurred? I say, I don't care when it occurred. That's not germane to the story. Besides it could take a lot of time. I’m not good at tracking those kind of things. I’m happy with the verse being there loosely.

On this page I see that Dr did some 5-senses research, couldn't find a simple documentable answer, DID find one hot clue, but lost it later, and then, in the midst of all Dr's 5-senses confusion (which often well characterizes behind-the-scenes academia) God gave him a revelation "You can trust the lost, "old piece of literature" and the 12 year old shame deal."

The next sentence is "This explains why Jesus could not communicate with the people in His own hometown." I'm willing to accept this revelation, whether or not it's documentable in a way that satisfies other 5-senses researchers. I accept this and move on... with more reading, because I've come back... to PFAL.

[This message was edited by Mike on January 16, 2003 at 17:00.]

Put up WHAT? The thread? or the handling of one of these many listed AC's or AE's.

AC= Apparent (or Actual) Contradiction

AE= Apparent (or Actual) Error

Rafael,

Eventually, I think all of these items on this thread are legitimate for discusion and inquiry. Many in the past I already did so with, just not posted... yet.

I'm thinking of starting a thead for old grads who want to COME BACK to PFAL for a second close look. On this proposed thread, "Apparent PFAL Contradictions" would be fair game for many sub-discussions and side-discussions.

Lucky Lindy,

Just for you, I'll refrain from editing that one.

"Wierwille's movement came to nought..." in some, but nought in others! It ain't over till the fatted calf sings.

Gamiel was semi-wong. He certainly was appreciated by Petr and John. They accepted his intervention.

Dr knew that there were no machine guns in the OT, so he felt free to use them as teaching devices. For him to latch onto a factually innacurate device does not negate tht truth that the inaccuracy helps illustrate.

Ditto for the patent date on Milton Bradley's version of the hoochie coochie board.

In the older 1930's movie version of the

"Hunchback of Notre Dame" with Charles Laughton, a spinning knife is used as a crude polygraph.

Pendants answering "yes-no" questions were used long before the Magic Eight Ball or even modern bowling were invented.

A truth may be illustrated by words that are not true to fact. This is the definition of figure of speech we were given.

Ah! Rafael,

Something we can agree on. You wrote:

"I did not know that. Very enlightening.

In my opinion, it's fair game to use modern anachronisms to make a point (ie, the prophet Elisha doesn't come out to meet Naaman because he's having tea and chocolate chip cookies). It's a device. "

Another term is pedagogical (sp?) tool?

I've scolded for usuing things like this.

Where's Gamiel when we need him?