Everyone's going to have positives and negatives, strengths and weaknesses in their lives. Those character traits are going to affect not only what you do, but how you think. How you think will affect what you teach others. Filling your head full of knowledge is useless if your heart is filled with garbage.
Dr. Juedes made this comment in "Episode 8":Interesting counterpoint to the position that "it doesn't matter what his failings were, he taught us the Word".
Character flaws will come out in your ministry and do great damage if not controlled. One point that was made was that virtually all of the qualifications for a leader in Timothy & Titus are "character things"
Dr. Juedes also said: "and what you do"
AND I would add that if you look ONLY at the negatives and sins of an individual, your perception of that individual will be biased to say the least.
well - I learned as a child - its not what you say, but what you do....
I haven't had a chance to listen to Episode 8 yet – I downloaded it on my PC at home – looking forward to it…But I would like to comment about these posts – they remind me of something simple to remember whenever I step back and want to gauge what I think of someone:
Actions speak louder than words and reveal MUCH MORE about the person's character.
And people with particular character flaws should not be presenting themselves as examples or pastors of God's kids.
Character should speak for itself, but when it's white-washed, hidden behind a mask and others lie to keep up the charade we don't really have the information we deserve to make an informed decision.
Thanks be for people who do expose a person's character flaws when the organization has been set up to hide them.
I don't like that guy. I listened to a few minutes of part 1 and I've read several of his articles. He is a SERIOUS trinitarian, not casual. That alone is what has always fueled his venom toward VP. He said that he read the PFAL book and couldn't believe how much "deception" was in the book. He didn't elaborate on what constituted "deception".
I thought about that and the first thing that came to my mind was the part of PFAL where VP said that by sheer logic the first and great sin is to break the first and great commandment. So we're supposed to use logic when reading scripture. Trinitarians put logic in the shredder. That must be what Dr. Juedes calls "deception". IMO that was what convinced many of us to stay with TWI. That God's word is logical; it makes sense. VP sold it. That's not deception. The trinity misrepresents God. THAT'S deception.
He talked about how his name is pronounced. I worked with someone whose name is spelled like his without the 's'. She pronounced it yai-dee.
While I agree that a better biblical case can be made for a unitarian God rather than a trinitarian, Wierwille's arguments against the trinity generally involved misrepresentations of what trinitarians actually believed. There are enough "unclear verses" about the nature of Jesus Christ that either side has to concoct explanations that aren't all that logical to make them "fit like a hand in a glove". I disagree that a trinitarian is inherently illogical.
That being said, it's very possible that Juedes was initially spurred to speak out and write against TWI due to Wierwille's anti-trinitarianism; some of his positions are simple doctrinal disagreements. However the bulk of what he writes goes a lot deeper than that, addressing Wierwille's shoddy "research", including incorrect and shifting definitions of Greek words, and plagiarism.
Despite Wierwille's claim and our belief otherwise, TWI was very much a cult of personality and much of what we were taught in PFAL and in TWI in general was based on our willingness to take Wierwille at his word. Despite our pride in being "workmen of the Word", we, for example, took VPW's word that the definitions of allos and heteros, dechomai and lambano and others, on which so much doctrine was based, were right, when a little genuine research would have shown us otherwise. PFAL was based, not on the bible, but on what Wierwille said the bible said. What he said it said was that knowledge was more important than heart.
And you don't think he knows how to pronounce his own name either John?
I'm not much impressed with anyone who's convinced that The Bible is some sort of inerrant answer book, but at least Dr. Juedes was pretty thorough in documenting the Vickster's blatant plagiarism and poor scholarship. That's worth something, especially to those that have never questioned WayWorld dogma...
Speaking of "plagiarism" I noticed that in Genesis 5:1 it says this is the book of the generations of Adam and then in chapter 37 verse 2 says these are the generations of Jacob. There are 2500 years covered in the book of Genesis alone, none of which were contemporary with Moses, who is credited with writing it. Could it be...that Moses had to read much material written by other people and then decide which writings were the word of God and which weren't and then crank out a final product?
Yet Moses is the one who gets the credit with writing Genesis through Deuteronomy. If it was anything other than the word of God, then what VP did would be unethical, but from God's view, it's irrelevant.
Speaking of "plagiarism" I noticed that in Genesis 5:1 it says this is the book of the generations of Adam and then in chapter 37 verse 2 says these are the generations of Jacob. There are 2500 years covered in the book of Genesis alone, none of which were contemporary with Moses, who is credited with writing it. Could it be...that Moses had to read much material written by other people and then decide which writings were the word of God and which weren't and then crank out a final product?
Yet Moses is the one who gets the credit with writing Genesis through Deuteronomy. If it was anything other than the word of God, then what VP did would be unethical, but from God's view, it's irrelevant.
it's the content that's relevant
where he got it don't matter, vp that is
and the deception that it is inherently blatant
as for Moses-what happened to 'moved by the holy spirit'
'not by the will of man'
vp didn't write the book or have you forgotten
to assume that Moses collected different material from other people to write Genesis is illogical
Speaking of "plagiarism" I noticed that in Genesis 5:1 it says this is the book of the generations of Adam and then in chapter 37 verse 2 says these are the generations of Jacob. There are 2500 years covered in the book of Genesis alone, none of which were contemporary with Moses, who is credited with writing it. Could it be...that Moses had to read much material written by other people and then decide which writings were the word of God and which weren't and then crank out a final product?
Yet Moses is the one who gets the credit with writing Genesis through Deuteronomy. If it was anything other than the word of God, then what VP did would be unethical, but from God's view, it's irrelevant.
Fascinating.
See,
if Oakspear or George Aar said this, I wouldnt bat an eye. It is consistent with their
general positions- that the Bible is not THE Divine Book, direct from God.
However,
one who claims it IS is now suddenly trying to downgrade, to demote, parts of
Holy Scripture. Is he doing this because he no longer believes it is The Word
of God?
No, it seems he's demoting part of the Book of Genesis in an attempt to absolve the
plagiarizing fraud, vpw, of wrongdoing when he knowingly took the books of others,
moved some words around, and put his name on the cover, pretending they never
wrote THEIR books.
And while we're at it, "vpw's books" (the works of others rephrased or reprinted
with vpw's name on them) have now become
"the word of God."
Am I misunderstanding it? You tell me.
If it was anything other than the word of God, then what VP did was unethical, but from
God's view, it's irrelevant.
Looks like "vpw's" books have been pronounced "the word of God" when I wasn't looking.
Character flaws will come out in your ministry and do great damage if not controlled. One point that was made was that virtually all of the qualifications for a leader in Timothy & Titus are "character things".
You certainly are misrepresenting when you claim he copies whole books and put his name on the cover.
Who are you kidding? I mean even Dr. Juedes isn't THAT extreme.
That might sound like an exaggeration.
However,
A) RTHST was entirely a cut-and-paste of content from other authors-
primarily Stiles and Bullinger.
The driest section, I'm sure you can recognize, was the contents
of Bullinger's book now known as "Word Studies on the Holy Spirit",
the 385 references to "spirit" in the New Testament.
B) Some of Bullinger's books were pretty small.
Take all the content of ADAN,
remove the content of "the Rich Man and Lazarus..." by Bullinger,
and remove the content of "Saul and the Witch at Endor", by Bullinger,
neither of which is cited in ADAN,
and what you get is the cover, the intro and the acknowledgements page.
I could go on (like mention the Orange Book's contents), but everyone who is
able to get the point has already gotten the point.
He took large amounts of material from books, sometimes their entire contents,
and put them into "his" books, sometimes making up their entire contents.
That's what I said, the evidence supports it, and that's what he did.
And it was a crime each time, because he didn't cite his sources when he did that.
======
BTW,
you were fine with him demoting parts of Genesis, then?
You were conspicuously silent on that while trying to deny
aspects of vpw's plagiarism....
Character flaws will come out in your ministry and do great damage if not controlled. One point that was made was that virtually all of the qualifications for a leader in Timothy & Titus are "character things"
Some attempts to the contrary,
THIS is what this thread is about.
Amazing how there's been multiple attempts to change the subject-
accusing Moses of plagiarism, calling "vpw's books" "the word of God",
Speaking of "plagiarism" I noticed that in Genesis 5:1 it says this is the book of the generations of Adam and then in chapter 37 verse 2 says these are the generations of Jacob. There are 2500 years covered in the book of Genesis alone, none of which were contemporary with Moses, who is credited with writing it. Could it be...that Moses had to read much material written by other people and then decide which writings were the word of God and which weren't and then crank out a final product?
Yet Moses is the one who gets the credit with writing Genesis through Deuteronomy. If it was anything other than the word of God, then what VP did would be unethical, but from God's view, it's irrelevant.
A tricky little re-defining of terms yah got there – so according to your post:
Plagiarism is not plagiarism when the plagiarist is directed by God to plagiarize.
VPW's books are equal in status to the Bible.
…I appreciate you letting me know your viewpoint – that's a good thing to know on any doctrinal discussions.
And Jesus, that Jesus guy was throwing around quotes all over the place. NOT ONCE did he provide Chapter & Verse.
And remember, kiddos, it's okay to lie if God tells you to. Those women in Egypt who didn't kill Moses - remember they told the king's men that the women were giving birth faster than they could get there. Even craiggers taught that it was okay to lie when God said it was okay. He must have learned that from vee pee, so it must be true!
************
Seriously, though, Johniam, you're totally discounting anything JJ says merely because he's a trinitarian? :blink:
Do you think that PFAL is perfect and solid material? That there's no errors in PFAL at all?
Paul was the plagiarist. That was his thorn in the flesh, after all..
That would make sense, Hamm according to VPW teaching Paul's thorn in the flesh was people hounding him - - over plagiarizing their stuff…Now we know the rest of the story.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
8
14
8
11
Popular Days
Jan 18
18
Jan 17
15
Jan 19
14
Jan 22
13
Top Posters In This Topic
WordWolf 8 posts
Oakspear 14 posts
Ham 8 posts
T-Bone 11 posts
Popular Days
Jan 18 2007
18 posts
Jan 17 2007
15 posts
Jan 19 2007
14 posts
Jan 22 2007
13 posts
oldiesman
Dr. Juedes also said: "and what you do"
AND I would add that if you look ONLY at the negatives and sins of an individual, your perception of that individual will be biased to say the least.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Maybe the "individual" shouldn't give me a REASON to be biased..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Everyone's going to have positives and negatives, strengths and weaknesses in their lives. Those character traits are going to affect not only what you do, but how you think. How you think will affect what you teach others. Filling your head full of knowledge is useless if your heart is filled with garbage.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
The amazing thing is how adept we humans are at calling our own garbage, treasure. And hanging onto it for dear life.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
washingtonweather
well - I learned as a child - its not what you say, but what you do....
How hard was that for them?? petty damn hard
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I haven't had a chance to listen to Episode 8 yet – I downloaded it on my PC at home – looking forward to it…But I would like to comment about these posts – they remind me of something simple to remember whenever I step back and want to gauge what I think of someone:
Actions speak louder than words and reveal MUCH MORE about the person's character.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
And people with particular character flaws should not be presenting themselves as examples or pastors of God's kids.
Character should speak for itself, but when it's white-washed, hidden behind a mask and others lie to keep up the charade we don't really have the information we deserve to make an informed decision.
Thanks be for people who do expose a person's character flaws when the organization has been set up to hide them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
amen, Belle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
I don't like that guy. I listened to a few minutes of part 1 and I've read several of his articles. He is a SERIOUS trinitarian, not casual. That alone is what has always fueled his venom toward VP. He said that he read the PFAL book and couldn't believe how much "deception" was in the book. He didn't elaborate on what constituted "deception".
I thought about that and the first thing that came to my mind was the part of PFAL where VP said that by sheer logic the first and great sin is to break the first and great commandment. So we're supposed to use logic when reading scripture. Trinitarians put logic in the shredder. That must be what Dr. Juedes calls "deception". IMO that was what convinced many of us to stay with TWI. That God's word is logical; it makes sense. VP sold it. That's not deception. The trinity misrepresents God. THAT'S deception.
He talked about how his name is pronounced. I worked with someone whose name is spelled like his without the 's'. She pronounced it yai-dee.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
While I agree that a better biblical case can be made for a unitarian God rather than a trinitarian, Wierwille's arguments against the trinity generally involved misrepresentations of what trinitarians actually believed. There are enough "unclear verses" about the nature of Jesus Christ that either side has to concoct explanations that aren't all that logical to make them "fit like a hand in a glove". I disagree that a trinitarian is inherently illogical.
That being said, it's very possible that Juedes was initially spurred to speak out and write against TWI due to Wierwille's anti-trinitarianism; some of his positions are simple doctrinal disagreements. However the bulk of what he writes goes a lot deeper than that, addressing Wierwille's shoddy "research", including incorrect and shifting definitions of Greek words, and plagiarism.
Despite Wierwille's claim and our belief otherwise, TWI was very much a cult of personality and much of what we were taught in PFAL and in TWI in general was based on our willingness to take Wierwille at his word. Despite our pride in being "workmen of the Word", we, for example, took VPW's word that the definitions of allos and heteros, dechomai and lambano and others, on which so much doctrine was based, were right, when a little genuine research would have shown us otherwise. PFAL was based, not on the bible, but on what Wierwille said the bible said. What he said it said was that knowledge was more important than heart.
Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
And you don't think he knows how to pronounce his own name either John?
I'm not much impressed with anyone who's convinced that The Bible is some sort of inerrant answer book, but at least Dr. Juedes was pretty thorough in documenting the Vickster's blatant plagiarism and poor scholarship. That's worth something, especially to those that have never questioned WayWorld dogma...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Speaking of "plagiarism" I noticed that in Genesis 5:1 it says this is the book of the generations of Adam and then in chapter 37 verse 2 says these are the generations of Jacob. There are 2500 years covered in the book of Genesis alone, none of which were contemporary with Moses, who is credited with writing it. Could it be...that Moses had to read much material written by other people and then decide which writings were the word of God and which weren't and then crank out a final product?
Yet Moses is the one who gets the credit with writing Genesis through Deuteronomy. If it was anything other than the word of God, then what VP did would be unethical, but from God's view, it's irrelevant.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
it's the content that's relevant
where he got it don't matter, vp that is
and the deception that it is inherently blatant
as for Moses-what happened to 'moved by the holy spirit'
'not by the will of man'
vp didn't write the book or have you forgotten
to assume that Moses collected different material from other people to write Genesis is illogical
though other people helped him grow spiritually
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Fascinating.
See,
if Oakspear or George Aar said this, I wouldnt bat an eye. It is consistent with their
general positions- that the Bible is not THE Divine Book, direct from God.
However,
one who claims it IS is now suddenly trying to downgrade, to demote, parts of
Holy Scripture. Is he doing this because he no longer believes it is The Word
of God?
No, it seems he's demoting part of the Book of Genesis in an attempt to absolve the
plagiarizing fraud, vpw, of wrongdoing when he knowingly took the books of others,
moved some words around, and put his name on the cover, pretending they never
wrote THEIR books.
And while we're at it, "vpw's books" (the works of others rephrased or reprinted
with vpw's name on them) have now become
"the word of God."
Am I misunderstanding it? You tell me.
Looks like "vpw's" books have been pronounced "the word of God" when I wasn't looking.Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
You certainly are misrepresenting when you claim he copies whole books and put his name on the cover.
Who are you kidding? I mean even Dr. Juedes isn't THAT extreme.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
That might sound like an exaggeration.
However,
A) RTHST was entirely a cut-and-paste of content from other authors-
primarily Stiles and Bullinger.
The driest section, I'm sure you can recognize, was the contents
of Bullinger's book now known as "Word Studies on the Holy Spirit",
the 385 references to "spirit" in the New Testament.
B) Some of Bullinger's books were pretty small.
Take all the content of ADAN,
remove the content of "the Rich Man and Lazarus..." by Bullinger,
and remove the content of "Saul and the Witch at Endor", by Bullinger,
neither of which is cited in ADAN,
and what you get is the cover, the intro and the acknowledgements page.
I could go on (like mention the Orange Book's contents), but everyone who is
able to get the point has already gotten the point.
He took large amounts of material from books, sometimes their entire contents,
and put them into "his" books, sometimes making up their entire contents.
That's what I said, the evidence supports it, and that's what he did.
And it was a crime each time, because he didn't cite his sources when he did that.
======
BTW,
you were fine with him demoting parts of Genesis, then?
You were conspicuously silent on that while trying to deny
aspects of vpw's plagiarism....
Some attempts to the contrary,
THIS is what this thread is about.
Amazing how there's been multiple attempts to change the subject-
accusing Moses of plagiarism, calling "vpw's books" "the word of God",
denying the extent of his plagiarism....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
this has taken a turn to the absurd.
"MOSES was a plagiarist, so what vpw did wasn't wrong. he was da MOG!"
sounds a lot like:
"King David could have any woman in the kingdom, so what I did wasn't wrong. I was da MOG!"
sound familiar?
using men of God in the bible to excuse crimes is really pathetic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
A tricky little re-defining of terms yah got there – so according to your post:
Plagiarism is not plagiarism when the plagiarist is directed by God to plagiarize.
VPW's books are equal in status to the Bible.
…I appreciate you letting me know your viewpoint – that's a good thing to know on any doctrinal discussions.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Naw, it wasn't Moses.
Paul was the plagiarist. That was his thorn in the flesh, after all..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
And Jesus, that Jesus guy was throwing around quotes all over the place. NOT ONCE did he provide Chapter & Verse.
And remember, kiddos, it's okay to lie if God tells you to. Those women in Egypt who didn't kill Moses - remember they told the king's men that the women were giving birth faster than they could get there. Even craiggers taught that it was okay to lie when God said it was okay. He must have learned that from vee pee, so it must be true!
************
Seriously, though, Johniam, you're totally discounting anything JJ says merely because he's a trinitarian? :blink:
Do you think that PFAL is perfect and solid material? That there's no errors in PFAL at all?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Wow, Oak, I hope you weren't really expecting meaningful dialogue on your topic.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
That would make sense, Hamm according to VPW teaching Paul's thorn in the flesh was people hounding him - - over plagiarizing their stuff…Now we know the rest of the story.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.