troubledwine

powerful comments too gray --- good show

I would put money down that you could trace a streak as wide as a 8 lane LA freeway through the history of TWI showing all the little half truths and mostly trues that were told over the years. I know I have seen some of them.

The problem that I see is justifying it instead of correcting it. I don't see it as much of a stretch and it has been discussed here before that they think lying in the name of God is ok. I know for a fact because a top national leader was confronted for being dishonest and she EXPLAINED WHY IT WAS OK!!!!!!! Right before my very eyes. This was paid salary waycorps well before they went full time. I was too stupid to see it for what it was.

UUUUGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH -- yet another charlie brown miss at a field goal for me....

Would it be a stretch to document the following:

-they don't think underlings are mature enough to handle the "deeper" things of the ministry

- David acted crazy (lied) to escape the king - therefore we can lie too when needed

- the new testament minister is the ot king and has all the priveledges and "flexibility" the king had

-their thought that lying be revelation happened all the time in the ot

Strange strange strange positions for sure

2 cents: I think the appearance of evil comment has a lot of merit. I keep going back to the thought that I haven't EVER read or heard of a teaching that was done on adultery even after the stuff come out publicly. I mean the PR man RM couldn't even make a statement that the ministry does not condone it?? Your "answer in the face of accusation" is "we are not prepared to make a statement at this time... we will be releasing a statement in the near future..." ?!?!?!?! Where is the "clearing of yourselves"??

I can't fathom how some claim to be so "spiritual" and can not uphold the BASIC precepts of godly sorrow. For the sake of those in the ministry they should have done that if not for the principle itself.

Seriously, how many still in hang in doubt of them to this very day because they haven't really taken a stand against it?

weout1200

can you explain this "The "ministerial insurance" lie..." quote? I don't follow.

BTW I agree wholeheartedly about a lack of christ in TWI

Guys check this out!

Evan Posted:

quote:

---

The only place you see it is in The Way Living in Love, wherein Wierwille gives the account of meeting Leonard & taking his class but in the end dismisses him with "he was great with experiences but not with the Word". He claims to have gone home & "put it all together with the Word" Yeah right.

---

Wow, do i have a quote for you:

quote:

---

Mrs Wierwille writes: B.G. Leonard built people's believing by his tremendous, God given ability as a teacher. On top of that, he was truly a one man show. He was so full of life that it was exciting just being around him. The deliverance that people received was right in the middle of the action of his ministering. We were given A GIANT STEP IN KNOWLEDGE by Brother Leonard, as we sometimes refferd to him. He explained the manifestations of the spirit to us, particularly focusing on word of knowledge word of wisdom and discerning of spirits, faith miracles and healing. (I think it is interesting that she says HEALING not gifts of healings here btw) by demonstrating scriptual accounts such as numbers 22 with balaam and the talking donkey, 2 kings 5 with naaman and elisha (we know where VPW got his cookies and tea example now) and many other accounts from the Old and New testaments...

Dr. spoke of learning about revelation: "Most of what I learned experientially about revelation, I learned the hard way. And it was mostly a miracle. Many of my early experiences were phenomena. Before B.G. Leonard, I had nobody to teach me as I'm teaching you and going to teach you. But God was teachinmg me that he was God and revelation was available. I cannot tell you how thankful I am to God for His love, mercy and grace. After God taught me a great deal about how revelation is given, as I had studied His word B.G. showed me in the Word how it worked.

---

as written on page 92 Born again to serve Dorothea Kipp Wierwille copywrite 1996 american christian press

Wow, talk about VPW being FULL OF HIMSELF when Elena interviewed him !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

After reading the Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse book and particularly thinking about the last few chapters about how or when to make a break or stay for awhile to make a difference I decided not to be hasty and make an emotional decision. Not because emotions are wrong or anything like that but just because I wanted to do what I could to help (if that were even possible) and give myself time to process my options.

By staying in for a little while now, i have been able to listen to their teachings for once and actually be objective (like VPW said to be from day one btw) and was surpised at how milky they really were.

As far as it being hard to leave; it depends on your ties I guess. I have a family so that is part of the consideration.

My course of direction was to look at the doctrine. At first I approached it from a let's prove them wrong on one point but Goey advised me to just approach studying from a neutral point of view and then I would be able to see both sides and letthe research do the talking. That has been helpful. Part of the twisted scriptures thread I started is just some of the things they have taught that i noticed on this little quest. I am entertaining writing a research paper on my findings or at least a good thread.

Perhaps I am overly concerned about what some way believers may say about me or what not but I refuse to be labeled a heretic or possesed or let them push me into saying "i don't want the word anymore" -- this is their tactic so that they can wash their hands of you. I prefer to either just leave quietly or with a quiet discussion where I expose the biblical blindness on certain key issues.

But I frankly could care less about writing the "bod" about my "concerns". TWI has had 70 years now to clarify certain doctrines and they HAVE NOT DONE IT. What fool would actually think he could write them a research paper that they would give them credit for and implement??? Look what happened to hope and john and napklinlady and MANY MANY OTHERS.

I do care about people I have known for all these years and i would prefer to handle myself wisely to at least give myself an opportunity to discuss certain issues. Not with leadership (check out theemerson quotes about the paid preacher) mind you but with my friends.

I don't think I will put this off for long though. I already have no interest in their teaching direction of collateral rehash. My spouse has been giving them every opportunity to make a positive impact but they are coming up empty.

I guess, i am trying to proceed to the nearest emergency exit in a calm an orderly manner...

Isn't this a great thread? I just wanted to add another idea about the pleroo concept of taking something to the uttermost of its capacity.

It would be a fascinating study to contrast how Jesus Christ got to the intent behind the law BUT the religious leaders after Malachi corrupted away to the point where they wore book on the fingers and heads instead of keeping the word in their actions and heads / hearts. There are many such examples in the Gospels. The classic "strain out a gnat and swallow (gulp down whole) a camel" comes readily to mind.

I bring this up because of JBarrax insightful comments about standing approved before God. Dare I ask did Wierwille's teaching creep ever so close to this type of thinking / religion?

quote:

---

Why a Christian leader would seemingly go out of his way to imply that we aren't supposed to care about the community's assessment of us is troubling to say the least. This kind of teaching only furthered the Way belief that we were too spiritual to be concerned with stuffy, silly old

Church notions like eschewing boozing, illicit sex, and selfishness.

---

I agree with what Oldiesman said

quote:

---

(2) -- Error 9 -- I think this is a big big deal and much further discussion is needed. If its true that the gospels are also written TO us, just as much as the epistles, then I think apparent contradictions between the two need to be explained.

---

Was it Steve Lortz who pointed out how Wierwille clearly states that Rom 9,10,11 are a parenthetical statement? But he makes one hell of a case that they are absolutely not. I bring this up because the part several parts:

quote:

---

Luk 1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,

Luk 1:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

Luk 1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

Luk 1:4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

Act 1:1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,

---

So is this to say that Acts is not written to us either? Even if you held this position you would have to admit it is the one and same theophilis -- beloved of god I believe is the interpretation. VPW taught that acts was a transtion book from the Old to New testaments. I would like to put forward the idea that the Gospels are the transition books that most fundamentally teach HOW to get your mind from the letter of the law to the intent / spirit behind the law - namely walking in the love of God. We know that Jesus Christ came to fufill the law It seems pleroo does not just indicate to just keep those laws because the example of JC was so much more than just keeping but fulfilling to the utermost or pushing something to the limits of its capacity.

quote:

---

Mat 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

---

And also to reiterate the teaching that was done before:

quote:

---

Rom 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, [of] the tribe of Benjamin.

Rom 11:4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to [the image of] Baal.

Rom 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

Rom 11:7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded

Rom 11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

Rom 11:18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.

Rom 11:19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.

Rom 11:20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:

Rom 11:21 For if God spared not the natural branches, [take heed] lest he also spare not thee.

Rom 11:22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in [his] goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

Rom 11:23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again

Eph 3:5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

Eph 3:6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

Eph 3:9 And to make all [men] see what [is] the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things

Eph 3:11 According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:

---

It just does not hold up to scrutiny that we are some seperate body from the believers than Israel or that what God gave us is not the eternal purpose which he had in christ. Of course it wasn't fully revealed because Paul had to receive revelation to understand it. But it says we are grafted onto the same tree. Paul makes the case that the Israel of God is them that believe -- like the father of faith Abraham. We know that Paul cannot be referring to rejecting his gospel because ISRAEL was rejecting Jesus Christ's message even as he was giving it.

There are things in the gospels I don't understand like Oldiesman was saying as well. Perhaps they are yet future but that doesn't mean the book isn't written for "our learning" which is doctrine (I think Goey pointed that out).

And who did Jeses come for??? Was it all the sheep of Israel or the "lost" sheep? And the words he spoke -- were they for all of Israel or him that had ears to hear?

quote:

---

Deu 29:4 Yet the LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eze 12:2 Son of man, thou dwellest in the midst of a rebellious house, which have eyes to see, and see not; they have ears to hear, and hear not: for they [are] a rebellious house.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mat 11:15 He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mat 13:9 Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mat 13:43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mar 4:9 And he said unto them, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mar 4:23 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mar 7:16 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Luk 8:8 And other fell on good ground, and sprang up, and bare fruit an hundredfold. And when he had said these things, he cried, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Luk 14:35 It is neither fit for the land, nor yet for the dunghill; [but] men cast it out. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

---

And who continues to hear him today? We know we get the spirit by the "hearing of faith".

And who does it say we are builded on??

quote:

---

Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone];

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1Pe 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

Mat 21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mar 12:10 And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Luk 20:17 And he beheld them, and said, What is this then that is written, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Act 4:11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1Pe 2:7 Unto you therefore which believe [he is] precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head

---

Does it not seem like a continuation starting with Jesus Christ? Just a little more fuel for the fire of number 9 I guess.

[This message was edited by troubledwine on January 31, 2003 at 6:21.]

Rafael,

Pertaining to number one Faith vs. Believing I hope you at least include before THE faith came portion we all discussed because that is the ROOT of his problem. He doesn't believe there was faith in the old testament so he has to make up an advanced theology to cover. but the definite article is in the text -- it is not faith in the abstract.

Jerry's response to Mike brought up some incredibly interesting insights. Since we are discussing "the image of God" and body soul spirit I would like to offer an interesting article that sheds light on the uniqueness of ALL humans. (I am not advocating any particular doctrine by posting such.) I think this relates to the topic of the idea that the image of God is more than just spirit and offers some scientific background as well. Sorry for the loooonnnnngggg post.

One angle that I am looking at a little more closely is that this "spirit of / from God" may be the icing on the cake / the catalyst that energizes the realationship / that which allows mankind to personally interract with God and works towards the purpose of revealing the image of God in man.

On a side note could the image of God also relate to the ever confusing "fruit of the spirit" topic? If we haven't menitoned that one I think that is a definite error as well. This is a huge topic and maybe deserves its own thread but here is the article that discusses this uniqueness:

quote:

---

Man, Created in the Image of God: How Man is Unique Among All Other Creatures on Earth

The Bible makes the claim that humans alone are "created in the image of God."1 What exactly does this mean? Some have equated the image of God as being the physical characteristics of our bodies that make up the way we look. In fact, the Mormons have taken this interpretation to extreme by saying that God is just a glorified man, who has both flesh and blood. However, the Bible says that both males and females are created in the image of God.1 Unless God were a hermaphrodite (having both male and female sexual organs), this phrase could not refer to just physical characteristics. In addition, there are various verses in the Bible that describe God as having non-human physical characteristics, such as feathers and wings.2 Should we think of God as being an overgrown chicken? Certainly not! God is so unlike humans physically, that the Bible often paints word pictures to give us a glimpse of what God is like.

Creativity

So if the "image of God" does not refer to physical characteristics, what does it refer to? It is certainly likely that part of the "image of God" refers to the ability of humans to be creative. Anthropology tells us that sophisticated works of art first appeared in the fossil record about 40,000-50,000 years ago,3 at the time that moderns humans first appeared. No other species of animal, including the apes, are able to create and understand images of art and drawing.

Consciousness

Human consciousness is a mystery that has evaded decades of intensive research by neurophysiologists. According to a recent article:

When an organism's neural pathways grow sufficiently complex, materialists insist, their firings are somehow accompanied by consciousness. But despite decades of effort by philosophers and neurophysiologists, no one has been able to come up with a remotely plausible explanation of how this happens--how the hunk of gray meat in our skull gives rise to private Technicolor experience. One distinguished commentator on the mind-body problem, Daniel Dennett, author of Consciousness Explained, has been driven to declare that there is really no such thing as consciousness--we are all zombies, though we're unaware of it.4

Personality

Another thing that makes humans unique is personality. According to Joseph LeDoux, a neuroscientist at New York University:

"We have no idea how our brains make us who we are. There is as yet no neuroscience of personality. We have little understanding of how art and history are experienced by the brain. The meltdown of mental life in psychosis is still a mystery. In short, we have yet to come up with a theory that can pull all this together."5

Abstract thinking

Is the human brain that much different from that of our closest "relatives," the chimpanzees? According to Daniel J. Povinelli, from the University of Louisiana's New Iberia Research Center

"Humans constantly invoke unobservable phenomena and variables to explain why certain things are happening. Chimps operate in the world of concrete, tangible things that can be seen. The content of their minds is about the observable world."6

Insight into how chimpanzees really think can be seen in some recent experiments performed by Dr. Povinelli. In these experiments, the researchers used the chimps' natural begging gesture to examine how they really think about their world. They confronted the chimps with two familiar experimenters, one offering a piece of food and the other holding out an undesirable block of wood. As expected, the chimps had no trouble distinguishing between the block and the food and immediately gestured to the experimenter offering the food. Next, the researchers wanted to see if the chimps would be able to choose between a person who could see them and a person who could not. If the chimpanzees understood how other animals see, they would gesture only to the person who could see them. The researchers achieved the "seeing/not-seeing" contrast by having the two experimenters adopt different postures. In one test, one experimenter wore a blindfold over her eyes while the other wore a blindfold over her mouth. In the other tests, one of the experimenters wore a bucket over her head, placed her hands over her eyes or sat with her back turned to the chimpanzee. All these postures were modeled after the behaviors that had been observed during the chimpanzees' spontaneous play. The results of the experiments were astonishing. In the tests involving blindfolds, buckets and hands over the eyes--the apes entered the lab and paused but then were just as likely to gesture to the person who could not see them as to the person who could. In several cases, the chimps gestured to the person who could not see them and then, when nothing happened, gestured again, as if puzzled by the fact that the experimenter did not respond. In the case of experimenters facing with their backs to the chimps, they performed as if they knew that those facing way from them could not see and offer them food. However, subsequent experiments proved that the chimps had merely responded to conditioning from the initial experiments, since they had only received food from those experimenters who faced them. This was proven by having experimenters facing away from the chimps, but then turning to look over their shoulders. The chimps were just as likely to gesture to the experimenters facing away as the one who turned to look at them. Chimpanzees have no clue that humans must face them in order to see. It is obvious from these experiments that chimpanzees lack even a simple understanding of how their world works, but merely react to conditioning from directly observable events.7

Body, soul, spirit

Besides the rather obvious differences in the way animals process information in their brains, the Bible (and science) confirm that there are major differences in the ways humans make moral judgments (animals don't make such judgments, as we shall see). Part of what is meant by the term "in the image of God" can be found in chapters immediately following its first usage (Genesis 1) in the Bible. Both Adam and Eve had a personal relationship with God in the Garden of Eden. Such a personal relationship is not described, nor seen, for any other animal species. It is the presence of a spirit that was instilled into humans8 that separates us from the animals. There are three kinds of life that God has created in this universe:

Creature: Examples:

Body only Lower life forms, including reptiles, amphibians, fish, and invertebrates

Body and soul From the Hebrew nephesh, or soulish creatures, including birds and mammals

Body, soul and spirit Humans9 and angels

The soul is best described as the characteristics that make up the advanced brain, including mind, will and emotion. Only birds and mammals exhibit these characteristics, which is why humans can form mutual relationships with birds and mammals.

Spirit

The spirit is that part of humans that is able to love and experience God directly.10 It is found in no other animal species, since no other species can experience God or form a relationship with Him.11 Is there any evidence that humans possess a spirit? Recent attempts have been aimed at trying to identify the part of the brain involved in "religious" experiences. Unfortunately, the current studies are restricted to an examination of meditative experiences,12 since the specific subjects used in the research were Tibetan Buddhist meditators. During meditation, the goal is to completely divorce oneself from external sensory stimulation. The ability to do so, apparently leads to some sense of "oneness with the universe", since the brain is deprived of sensory input while still remaining active.

The leaders of these studies, Andrew Newberg M.D., Eugene G. D'Aquili Ph.D., and Vince Rause, claim to have discovered the biological basis for belief in God.13 However, according to Daniel Batson, a University of Kansas psychologist:

"The brain is the hardware through which religion is experienced. To say the brain produces religion is like saying a piano produces music."12

The problem with the theory is that such "religious" experiences do not apply to Christianity, although Newberg tries to make the connection through the reported experiences of a few Christian mysticists. The plain fact is that Christianity does not teach any kind of meditation that leads to the kind of experiences taught in the Eastern religions. Even in prayer, I have never experienced the kind of things described as occurring during Buddhist meditation. God does answer my prayers, but the answer is in the form of fully formed, specific ideas - not any kind of "oneness with the universe". Any kind of non-specific feelings would be completely useless, since it does not provide advice that would be necessary to help one's spiritual walk with God.

Even if there were an area of the brain that might be involved in religious experiences, this idea does not prove that God is a creation of our brains. If God did create us, we would expect that He would provide a means by which we could experience Him. This area of the brain might be part of God's design to make us realize that we are more than just physical creatures. The Bible says that God has given us this knowledge of eternity, possibly involving some sort of "hard-wired" knowledge.14

Moral judgments

After Adam and Eve had sinned, they became like God in that they could distinguish good from evil.15 The ability to make moral judgments is also a characteristics that is found only in humans. Even the higher apes cannot make moral judgments about the behavior of other animals. As Dr. Jerome Kagan points out in Three Seductive Ideas, "Not even the cleverest ape could be conditioned to be angry upon seeing one animal steal food from another."16 In addition, there are no non-human animal models for human pride, shame, and guilt.17

Conclusions

In conclusion, it seems likely that "in the image of God" refers to the characteristics of the human spirit and the ability to make moral judgments - things that are not found in any animal species, even those to whom we are said to be closely related. Even evolutionists are beginning to recognize the uniqueness of human beings. Dr. Ian Tattersall, in Becoming Human - Evolution and Human Uniqueness, says humans represent a "totally unprecedented entity" on Earth, and "Homo sapiens is not simply an improved version of its ancestors - it's a new concept." It is the ability to make moral judgments that convinces us of our inability to "measure up" to the intended moral standards laid down by God.18 However, it is the spirit of man that allows us to communicate with God's Spirit through Jesus Christ19 so that we can once again be in fellowship with a Holy God20 and experience the ultimate relationship in the universe

---------------------------------------------------

---

This paragraph is one of the most moving I have ever read here:

quote:

---

That kind of elitism destroys one's integrity, corrodes relationships, and defeats success and prosperity by eroding one's sense of personal responsibility. Mine is being rebuilt with the loving help of God and of my Lord Jesus Christ. Am I now the perfect Christian? Heck no, but I'm moving in the right direction and I'm not deceiving myself anymore about it.

---

Erick,

I admire you for stating your beliefs strongly. It takes balls to tell people how you feel and let it all hang out.

But I think that most things in life are like a pendulum and most of us swing back and forth between extremes. Moderation is key. The Word you quote to reprove others and others quote to reprove you has elements of truth in it. But are all the words in this thread "fitly spoken" and in "due season" to each of the readers? What the proper season for some of these words is to one person may be the improper season to another. Words that you say to help may not have that effect and vice versa. This may be exactly why there is a verse that says "weep with them that weep and mourn with them that mourn."

Would anyone here say forgiveness is an invalid concept? Of course not, but people will differ as to who and when to forgive according to the Word (or not the Word if that is their postion). To set forth a biblical survey of how and when to give forgiveness to men in these extreme circumstances is quite an endeavor. Even God has requirements for His forgiveness (according to the Bible.) Are men to have NO requirements for their forgiveness?

I do not have a complete understanding of the Bible on this topic so I cannot say much else.

Part of your message is to seek God but also to "get over it". The seeking God can be very rewarding for many but the getting over it can be very difficult for just as many. If you study the human grieving process you will find that each person grieves in different ways. For some it may be writing or "typing" a message expressing the anger and hurt of betrayal. For some it is denial that the hurtful event even happened. It is a complex process that can be quite different for each individual. Encouraging people to discuss and talk about it has been shown to be one of the most KEY elements in recovery. If people can express their deepest feelings it may help them to make sense of what they are going through and perhaps find a way to cope / deal with / resolve / or perhaps even put behind them what has happened to them.

But allow me to put forward the position that even in the Bible the Tresspass offering has an element of restoration back to the wronged party which was typically 20% - so when a man tresspassed against some one and even though it was "in the holy things" of the Lord he still had to make it good. The point was the WRONGED party ended up not just being evened up with but getting MORE than they were tresspassed against. So to God (if I am reading my Bible correctly) forgiving the trespasser was not the only issue. An integral part of the process was SATISFYING the wronged or injured party. You could very well argue the forgiveness to the trespasser was not completed until the restoration happened to the wrong.

Perhaps these verses take on additional meaning:

quote:

---

Luk 17:3 Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.

Mat 5:23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;

Mat 5:24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift

---

I found great inspiration in your story of how you spoke out against the abuse and found yourself fighting though all the "spiritual lightning rod" propaganda in your mind. I would encourage you to keep speaking but also to remember both sides of this story.

The absurdity of all this is they just got done with last years theme of speaking (i.e. living) the truth in love. AKA Truthing It.

Well you are up against a lot. REv. R*pp just ended his last STS teaching with "And by our works we prove that we are Christ's."

This is where this things is headed. When they asked back in late december if every one attending was into doing a count they really weren't asking. Telling and asking how you feel about it is much different than dialogue.

The truth is I have witnessed to more people in the couple weeks since I started coming here than I have in the last 3 years. Once you start getting the funk out of your mind and get back to what does the Bible really say YOU WILL HAVE SOMETHING TO TALK ABOUT.

I don't give a darn about "getting someone to a fellowship". The point of getting "someone to a fellowship" is for them to hear the word. That can be done in a variety of contexts as proven by J.C. You can argue one way or the other about the "best" place to learn - and most would agree the best place to learn is where there is a willing student and a willing teacher --- (Philip and the Eunuch on the chariot ring a bell?)

You can try to go the legislating spirituality route but demanding works to prove you are spiritual to me is the equivalent of requiring me to be circumsized. Now believing without works is dead but works with out love are dead before they get off the ground also.

So which is it with TWI??? If they stress performance of works OVER the grace god gives to all of us and our response to god's love then it is wrong IMO.

[This message was edited by troubledwine on January 29, 2003 at 13:04.]

sounds all too familiar

Ok Mike, fair enough explanation.

I think that you fit into this little analogy

quote:

---

Politics, is "not answering direct questions", with a smile on your

face.

Religion, is "not answering direct questions", with seriousness on

your face.

Science, is "not answering direct questions", with inquisitiveness on

your face.

Art, is "not answering direct questions", with confusion on your face.

All questions fall into one or more of the above buckets from which

exudes all replies, which then fall into other buckets.

-exudes-

1: to cause to ooze or spread out in all directions

2: to display conspicuously or abundantly

As long as everyone speaks/writes/talks correctly, with appropriate

facial gestures, remains charming, society moves on without

hindrance. This is the squeaky wheel being greased - nothing could

move faster than that, under the circumstances.

It's the pretense, that works.

It's the squeaky wheel that gets greased with intelligence, thought.

Truth is failure, and stops everything.

Where do you find Truth?

---

Most people cannot answer direct questions because they really don't have the truth. They talk around it. That is why you talk around every issue and error that is presented.

Dear Mike,

I am sorry everyone but I just have to say...

Please just come out and say that PFAL is the "new" "last revelation" "forgotten epistles" or something like Joseph Smith did and all the rest.

You can summarize your complete position in this one sentence "God wrote PFAL therefore it cannot be wrong or contradictory and supercedes all previous written revelation even if at cross purposes with what has already been revealed."

Well, I for one am not going to commit to PFAL. I believe that Dr Wierwille was wrong to challenge people to master the collaterals. It's arrogant. Why would I want to MASTER writings that are trying to explain the Bible? The point of the collaterals is to help me understand the Word not replace the Word. I would rather MASTER the Bible not a set of loosely written materials that tend to be under researched , over plagiarized, and misdirected.

It appears, that you will never know subjects not written in the collaterals. You will never know about the spiritual significance of the sacrifices, the temple etc... because THEY AREN'T IN THE COLLATERALS.

ATTENTION EVERYONE!!! I HAVE AN ANNOUNCEMENT!!! THE REASON MIKE CANNOT PUT UP A DEFENSE FOR ANY OF THE ACTUAL ERRORS WE ARE DISCUSSING IS BECAUSE HE DOES NOT ACTUALLY READ THE BIBLE.

You are firing an empty gun Mike. Or blanks at best. I have been waiting for you to post one good explanation and (yawn) you bore me. You would at least be entertaining if you offered your own blend of shoot from the hip, charisma filled TEACHER spooge with some Bible verses. Have you ever even quoted a verse? We don't even get that from you.

Just a quick thought why this image idea is still fresh.

quote:

---

And also Genesis 9 puts an interesting spin on this:

Gen 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

This image of God in Genesis is the same phrasing.

---

I wanted to elaborate on this idea a little bit. This is a section where God is giving instruction to Noah after the flood.

Now if the image of God is just the spirit of God in a believing man (as Wierwille teaches in PFAL) then are we to interpret this verse as saying that God does not want us to murder people with the spirit but go ahead and murder freely those without the spirit?

But again, if the image of God is a much larger concept than just the spirit, then it would tie into the many clear verses. Thou shalt not murder immediately coming to mind.

The context supports this larger concept idea as well because this is God laying the foundational precepts for the eight souls that stepped off the ark.

-- grabs the remote away again and switches the channel back the 24 hr body soul spirit infomercial --

ughmmm -- An interesting word shift was pointed out by DD's thesis paper.

quote:

---

"Wierwille writes "God created man in His own image. What is the image of God? John 4:24 says that God is a spirit. Therefore God's image is spirit. God created, bara spirit WITHIN man."

Using the English rendering of Genesis is a very clever altering of prepositon takes place in Wierwille's argument in order to support his preconceived theology. Gen 1:27 says God created man IN His own image. The phrase "in His own image" refers to the HOW of creatio and not to WHAT was created. The phrase means to "fashion after ro to resemble, whatever the term "image" may mean in its most full implication. However, Wierwille, uses the preposition "WITHIN" instead of "IN" thus CHANGING THE MEANING OF THE ENTIRE PHRASE. (emphasis mine) By using the word within Wierwille shifts the emphasis of the phrase from HOW man was created to WHAT the image of God is and WHERE it was created. To Wierwille "within" has to do with location therefore he writes "God created within man His own image" meaning God created spirit within man because God's image in spirit.

Concerning the original Hebrew, Wierwille violates the word order of the original language. The prefix "in" is attached to and modifies IMAGE and not MAN. By applying the preposition in or within to man WIERWILLE DISTORTS THE WORD ORDER OFTHE HEBREW LANGUAGE AND THEREFORE THE MEANING OF THE PASSAGE.

---

Sounds like an actual error there. Now, man may be a three part being (not debating this one way or the other at this time) but I think you need to find a different verse to teach that.

Sorry to interupt. Ok I'm still on the image of God being spirit and formed made created.

It's also interesting that the word formed is also used regarding the spirit of man:

Zech 12:1 "The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth (yatsar) the spirit of man within him."

Yatsar is supposed to be what God did to the body of man not the soul or spirit...

Dr. Franz Delitzsch a renowned OT scholar had this to say about Isaiah 43:7

quote:

---

[Even] every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him.

The three synonyms bring out the might, the freeness, and the riches of grace, with which Jehovah called Israel into existence, to glorify Himself in it, and that he might be glofified by it. They form a climax, for (bara - created) signifies to produce as a new thing; (yatsar - formed) to shape what has been produced; and (asah - made) to make it perfect or complete...

---

From what I am studying here this section does not refer to the days of creation. A particular key to understanding the point God is making is just taking the time to back up a few verses to Isaiah 43:1:

"But now thus saith the LORD that created (BARA) thee, O Jacob, and he that formed (YATSAR) thee, O Israel, Fear not: for I have redeemed thee, I have called [thee] by thy name; thou [art] mine. "

As you can see ASAH is left out here. If you go back and read Isaiah 42 all the way through the end of 43 you will see the point God is making. As Dr. Delitzch summarized summarized "to glorify Himself in it, and that he might be glorified by it. They form a climax, " This is not a section that deals with creation. The point is ASAH! That is the big buildup in the context! God wanted them complete or perfected but most of the time they weren't living up to their side of the bargain!! Read the context and look for the buildup.

As I was saying earlier if you are going to teach the image of God is spirit and formed made created these aren't the verses to do it with.

edited to clean up spelling and repeat phrases

[This message was edited by troubledwine on January 27, 2003 at 18:32.]

Rafael you opened it up to discuss the PFAL image of God idea -- so here goes...

The image of God. Wierwille argues that God is spirit therefore his image is spirit. In reading different studies one point suggested that the phrases God is spirit, God is light, God is a consuming fire and God is love are regarding the nature of God not the image. I pondered that for awhile and looked up the definition of nature - here is what I found from Miriam Webster:

Main Entry: na·ture

Pronunciation: 'nA-ch&r

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin natura, from natus, past participle of nasci to be born -- more at NATION

Date: 14th century

1 a : the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing : ESSENCE b : DISPOSITION, TEMPERAMENT

Inherent character or constitution of a person or thing... food for thought. If God is not describing His image with these phrases - rather his character or constitution we would need to rethink the idea of the image of God. I am not saying this disproves body - soul - spirit but using the idea or wording of image = spirit might not be the right way to go to prove your theology.

In other words the "image of God" may be quite a bit bigger concept than what Wierwille understood. Speaking of which, Jesus Christ was the only perfect man - perhaps his life would shed insight into this concept.

-------------------------------------------------------

2Cr 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

And also Genesis 9 puts an interesting spin on this:

Gen 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

This image of God in Genesis is the same phrasing.

[This message was edited by troubledwine on January 27, 2003 at 8:47.]

On the PFAL Errors thread when Mike made a Biblical statement Rafael felt was incorrect he replied to Mike:

quote:

---

Do not pass go. Do not collect 1/10th of my income.

---

I thought there were 613 or so...

Rafael,

No I wouldn't say change of theology -- that is a little strong. But I would say that a change from uppercase Holy Spirit the giver to lower case holy spirit the gift warrants an explanation. This I think is the root of the problem -- he does not explain HOW he came to these conclusions so we cannot examine if his method was faulty.

Rafael,

Now you and I and most everyone on this thread seem to be able to approach his writing from a "prove all things and hold fast that which is good" point of view. By sheer logic that verse also means to not hold fast the things which are not good. Why can TWI not do the same? I'll give credit to VPW that he did debate his own research and change his interpretations in this holy spirit field but I still can't fathom the lack of explanation from him or the current BOD.