A life of its own

[socks]

Maybe he did, unintentionally.

His references to cancer were of the physical disease. D.Spritizas playing a part. I'm sure he never meant it even implied "possession" in the sense of mental presence of control, so all the hacking at him being possessed of the very thing he taught doesn't stand up, to me anyway.

I suspect he meant some kind of physical attack or barrage by a D.Spiritza. It's legit to wonder how or why such an attack doesn't just happen all the time then. Most people have some kind of weaknesses physically. I really don't think it all works out from the way he taught it.

I think it's a logical conclusion from PFAL that words do have substance though, "power". The logos, in exousia. PFAL teaches clearly that positive and negative confessions effect outcomes. Use the words of the Word and God honors them.

Use the words of Satan and...?

It's really just a step away from religious incantations, spell casting, power-words, icons, and a lot of other things.

But to your question I would disagree that he meant, cancerous confessions or the like, that sort of line of thought, when he taught about this other cancer stuff. He was talking about the physical disease known as "cancer". To add - consider this 300 mllg's of aspirin. Glad we're back on a regular regimen now.

Edited October 22, 2007 by socks

[doojable]

I know I still need to learn, AND it's still fun. Do you want to deny Jesus this fun? Even the angels, and they're up there too, desired to look into (learn) things that weren't written yet. Remember?

A. You're not Jesus.

B.I don't want to deny Jesus Christ anything.

Do you want to deny God the right to quote the KJV and comment on it?

A. I couldn't deny God anything even if I wanted to.

B. Likewise I don't want to put words in His mouth.

C. A commentary is hardly a reformatting of the Scriptures.

You really do change the argument to suit your needs, don't you?

[Mike]

C. A commentary is hardly a reformatting of the Scriptures.

If it's GOD doing the commentary,

THEN it’s THE useful one,

and we should chuck all the man-breathed ones.

If God ADDS MANY WORDS,

like He did in Jeremiah 36,

THEN it's a format change.

What I mean by format change is that what God gave us is NOT in the format of a word for word translation of the traditional canon. God didn’t give Dr revelation to produce the ultimate translation, but He re-vamped it altogether.

I see Dr’s quoting the KJV (by revelation) a gentle touch by Father to help ease us into the new administration and new format of His Word.

Some of the “many words added” I see in PFAL is the detail on the Gathering and Return. In the KJV traditional canon that’s all a hush-hush secret, like the mystery was, for strategic purposes. Once the Gathering begins (and it’s a long slow process, not the twinkling of an eye, atom of time thing, that comes later) THEN there’s no more strategic reason for God to keep the Gathering details secret.

***

You really do change the argument to suit your needs, don't you?

Please be specific. Then I can comment.

I need to get this stuff out if I want to love and obey my Father,

but YOU need to HEAR it.

I don’t get paid for this.

I certainly don’t get salaams for it

***

Back to Jesus.

He is not God. He is man.

He is still subject to the Father.

The Father teaches him now,

just like before.

Edited October 22, 2007 by Mike

[Mike]

socks,

Thanks for taking this seriously.

Maybe he did, unintentionally.

Or ambivalently, like in my Gospel citations?

By ambivalent I mean the good kind, where there are two good meanings simultaneously. I think I need a better word here, but it's late.

His references to cancer were of the physical disease. D.Spritizas playing a part. I'm sure he never meant it even implied "possession" in the sense of mental presence of control, so all the hacking at him being possessed of the very thing he taught doesn't stand up, to me anyway.

YES! Playing a part, and sometimes even far removed in time. I remember this part well. This is also what I referred to when I brought up oppression part playing, as opposed to possession part playing.

Yes, as you said "His references to cancer were of the physical disease." However in my Gospel citations Jesus' references to water to the woman at the well were both physical and THEN later spiritual. Dr could have used the physical references as springboards for the under-layered spiritual reference, to be discovered later.

Isiah's references to a child being born had immediate physical references hundreds of years before Christ, but their ultimate fulfillment were in Jesus. IT had both meanings, but the people at Isiah's time saw the physical and could have argued that'ws all it was. But later the Gospels announce that Isiah was REALLY talking about something different.

I suspect he meant some kind of physical attack or barrage by a D.Spiritza. It's legit to wonder how or why such an attack doesn't just happen all the time then. Most people have some kind of weaknesses physically. I really don't think it all works out from the way he taught it.

Right, but SOME of it "works out from the way he taught it." That's the way I think a lot of this works, (like the law of believing): the immediate physical application SOMEWHAT works out well, but the ultimate SPIRITUAL application is the one that's shure fire and always accurate.

I think it's a logical conclusion from PFAL that words do have substance though, "power". The logos, in exousia. PFAL teaches clearly that positive and negative confessions effect outcomes. Use the words of the Word and God honors them.

Use the words of Satan and...?

It's really just a step away from religious incantations, spell casting, power-words, icons, and a lot of other things.

Yes. And that's the way it (the physical senses understandings and aplications of these thing) usually deteriorates, towards useless religious practices. If the senses understanding doesn't grow toward the spiritual understanding, and just sits on the fence, then it's a sitting duck for the adversary who is the god of the senses realm.

In the first century church they all got a senses understanding of how to operate spirit, but they didn't grow towards the ultimate spiritual understanding Paul was offering (Ga. 4:19) and were eventually picked off by the adversary.

But to your question I would disagree that he meant, cancerous confessions or the like, that sort of line of thought, when he taught about this other cancer stuff. He was talking about the physical disease known as "cancer".

Yes, again. Just add in the spiritual understanding underneath what "he meant" and that understanding that takes time for people to get. Jesus threw it out to his students even though his Father knew it wouldn't stick right. It was later He knew it would fall into place after Pentecost.

Edited October 22, 2007 by Mike

[socks]

Oh sure, I take it seriously. I just don't think that VPW spoke one thing and within the words was a deeper meaning that he wasn't aware of.

If we go that route here, it does classify what you propose as a second generation (or 3rd, 4th, whatever) of PFAL and not what VPW taught and "really meant" if only people had been listening or taking him seriously.

I would guess - and that's what we're doing - that he could have entertained what you suggest but as a separate point but it wouldn't be his, it would be yours.

In PFAL everything proceeds from believing "the Word". The gift takes no action of it's own. All results are a manifestaton of some kind of action taken by the person - with one exception, healing. "gifts of healing", and "all healing is a gift", were taught.

Healing can be a product of believing action, but in PFAL the root of healing is taught as self-generating, a result of life. Life corrects, regenerates, heals, within limits. Healing can occur, does occur, with or without believing action on our part, in other words because the human body is made to heal itself, within some limits.

So - cancer has "life of it's own"....? and is produced as a result of a daimonion? Hmmmm....there are 1000's of living organisms that invade our bodies all the time, and the natural healing process, with assistance, can fight them off. What makes cancer so damaging is evident but to track it as uniquely having a "life of it's own" would only indicate, at most, that it's a very strong form of attack within the body.

What causes it doesn't have to be anymore specific to a D. Spiritza's presence, anymore than any other kind of illness. All disease is bad for the body.

[waysider]

The way I see it, the cancer thing is not really a debuhl spurt issue at all, it's a credibility issue.

I don't personally believe cancer is possession or that Dr. Wierwille's cancer was proof he was "possessed".

What I do believe is that, if he was wrong on this stuff, he could have been wrong about anything, including some of the conclusions he reached in the piffle class.(Which he got from BG Leonard, not God)

Just my opinion ----Everybody has one.(opinion, that is.)

[Tom Strange]

Nandon, did you notice that you specifically asked Mike about two statements attributed to him and he spent all of those words in a post to you and did not answer?

see... that's how he is...

And Mike (and everyone else here who was involved in those threads) knows that what I posted as "the synopsis" is exactly what he has stated... yet when asked about, becuase the ideas are so far-fetched, will rarely if ever answer...

He (Mike) knows that all of those points in "the synopsis" are points that he has put forth as truth in the past.

[nandon]

Hi nandon,

Do you believe Jesus Christ is omniscient and therefore needs no learning? We got good at accepting the grammar of the sentence “Jesus Christ is not God” but we still retained many mental images of him AS IF HE WERE God. If Jesus Christ TRULY is omniscient, or truly needs no learning, THEN what I said could look crazy.

On the other hand, if he’s TRULY a man and not all-knowing, then it would be A LOT less crazy to think of him learning. Right?

I think jesus has more knowledge than any of us. He is over 2000 years old. So anything we think of, probably won't teach him much. In short it's highly unlikely that jesus is studying and learning stuff from PFAL.

***

Now as to your second question, let me ask again something of you.

Do you know where to find God’s Word in it’s exact form? I mean can you tell me where I can buy a copy of the AUTHORITATIVE Word of God? If you tell me something and I buy it, and then find that some passages are mis-translated then that wouldn’t count. I mean to ask can you find in the world today ANYTHING of the same status as the original manuscripts? I mean can you find anything in English that conveys EXACTLY what the original understanding was for Aramaic speaking believers 2000 years ago who were lucky enough to get their hands on an original?

So far, after two years or so of me asking posters here and elsewhere, no one here has been able to come up with an actual God-breathed document, especially one in English.

I ask them if they have a text that's BIGGER then them and all their theologian friends, a text that need never be altered and CAN never be altered, just believed and acted on.

Just the other day anotherdan admitted that he could find no such document. This means God’s writtenWord is gone, and all we have are approximations. God's written Word was lost several times in the OT. Did you know that? It was, or most of it was recovered, but for a time it WAS lost.

If there is no God-breathed text in existence at this point in time, then there would be a GREAT NEED for God to re-issue His Word, right?

Plus, there’s precedent for this. There were times when God’s Word was buried in various ways, and He re-issued it in various ways. He did that with His Word written in the stars when it reached a certain state of corruption after the Tower of Babel. This was not just a “reprint” type of re-issue, but it involved a MAJOR format change too.

Another re-issue of His Word can be seen in Jeremiah 36 where He did a “reprint” but then added many words as well, constituting another format change.

With this in mind, that God-reissuing His Word when He thinks it’s needed and would be believed, does it sound a little less crazy to hear that He did it again?

Do you see how this subject is a little deeper than Tom Strange was able to convey with his crazy sounding synopsis?

Ya, i know its deeper. I wasn't asking you to defend what you believe. Im fine with it, i was just curious if you really believe those things or not. It's now obviuos that you do, and you have many reasons to back up your beliefs. Thanks.

oh, and "no" to your second question.

[socks]

waysider, remember - the VPster never "taught this from the Word". It wasn't an interpretation of a verse or verses or anything that's said or written in the bible, or anywhere else really.

It was a conclusion he came to, based on a couple of points. And I was wrong in my declaration that VPW never meant it could be caused by "possession". So I need to correct that.

One point made in the AC was that spirit possession can effect or possess both the mind and/or body, but not the "spirit", holy spirit. It's in the AC so I don't want to give the impression it wasn't taught. It was, and not in connection to "oppression" - a "spirit of oppression" was taught as one of many "spirits affecting the mind". Mike, you've got the syllabi, so you know where this is written I'm sure.

Oppression as a result of hindrance, persecution, that's not hard to understand. A "spirit of oppression" is a specific form. It's not taught as directly related to anything like disease or cancer. Although cause and effect was, where a spirit could cause illness or disease and when the cause is removed the sickness is "cured". Cause removed, all better. That oppressive presence in the mind could certainly be a cause of illness in a person. But it's not taught so much as a general bad vibe kind of thing, as a type of spirit affecting the mind.

All of this adds up to what was actually taught - that spiritual possession could be the cause of an illness in a person. Possession isn't limited to the mind alone, it can effect or possess the mind and/or the body. The and/or is from the material, not me.

So there's at least two sides to this coin. But none of the definitions or descriptions come from a specific existing instance - they're all based on interpretations of verses. None of them say "this kind of illness in this kind of person is always going to be possession". In fact, the opposite - the bible indicates certain kinds of activity but there's no "5 senses" way to know if a specific illness in a person is caused by it. That's the point - you don't know. The bible just gives records of incidents and implications that can be looked at.

VPW may have very well meant that cancer was directly caused by spirit possession of the mind and/or the body. It didn't sound like he made that point to me as I remember it but he certainly printed it and covered it in the AC. His overall material would lead a person to believe it was possible. What I did was incorporate other statements he made into the mix over the years, none of which really clarified it.

So - correction made, and hopefully I haven't muddied the waters up to much.