What's kind of scratchy looking back - why these names to characterize those kinds of people in PFAL? Wonder what the connection was in VP's mind, if there was one, or if they just sounded good to him.
What's kind of scratchy looking back - why these names to characterize those kinds of people in PFAL? Wonder what the connection was in VP's mind, if there was one, or if they just sounded good to him.
Johnny Jump up represented the inquisitive mind, the guy who jumps out of his seat and confronts with quetions
Maggie Muggins represented the common sense, down to earth logic of every day living.
Henry Baloko represnted the hard fisted, ain't gonna take no crap from you, stubborness of a beer drinking man.
...All were discredited...shown to be buffoons. Vic used these charactors in such a way as to diminish them and humiliate them.
"Living the life of Riley" suggests an ideal life of prosperity and contentment, possibly living on someone else's money, time or work. Rather than a negative freeloading or golddigging aspect, it instead implies that someone is kept or advantaged.
I think I posted on here a couple of years ago, maybe less, of a night I was looking around at info on E Stanley Jones and came across something that sounded a lot like VPW's train story. Can't find it now, but at the time it was another, WTF, moment.
I love the parable about the guy who goes to a degree mill to get a fake Dr degree, but never finishes. Still somehow, by the grace of God I ssspose, he still becomes a "Dr" and then starts his own ministry using other people's work and so on. I forget the point being illustrated by the parable, but I'm sure it was good.
When I think of making sacrifices I think of E. Stanley Jones, perhaps United Methodism’s most famous foreign missionary. He authored over a dozen books and converted hundreds of Hindus in India to Christianity. He is the only person of which I am aware who was voted in abstentia to become a bishop. When he received the news, he turned it down. One day E. Stanley Jones came to Emory University and spoke to a Systematic Theology class. One of the students asked him why he turned down the episcopacy. He laughingly replied that if he became a bishop he would have to retire at age 70. "I am now 82," he said, "and I am still going strong."
Then someone asked him: what do you think of the Beatitudes? Several students picked up their pens expecting something profound and they got it. Here's what he said: "At first sight, you felt they turned everything upside down. At second sight, you understand that they turn everything right side up. The first time you read them they are impossible. The second time you read them, nothing else is possible. The beatitudes are not a chart for Christian duty. They are a charter for Christian liberty.”
Does that phrase sound familiar?
I think I posted on here a couple of years ago, maybe less, of a night I was looking around at info on E Stanley Jones and came across something that sounded a lot like VPW's train story. Can't find it now, but at the time it was another, WTF, moment.
I have seen that also but can't remember where either.
What's kind of scratchy looking back - why these names to characterize those kinds of people in PFAL? Wonder what the connection was in VP's mind, if there was one, or if they just sounded good to him.
THOSE names were all RIGHT out of BG Leonard's class "Gifts of the Spirit".
Henry Belloco, Maggie Muggins and Johnny Jumpup were all in the class that vpw took
in 1953, and then-a few months later- retaught entirely, telling the students it was HIS
class "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today." He told Leonard he was teaching Leonard's
class on a one-time basis, but-as we know-he continued to teach Leonard's class.
He added Bullinger's "How to Enjoy the Bible" and Stiles" "Gift of the Holy Spirit" book,
split one class into 3 classes, and called them all "Power for Abundant Living."
Snowball Pete, apparently, was NOT, but he was only mentioned ONCE in all 12 sessions.
the red drapes were removed from the book version.
Perhaps it was, but the red drapes story used in PFAL was only used to illustrate the 4th point of "How to Recieve from God" - i.e. getting your needs and wants parallel. Now I can't say for sure if that 4th point is mentioned in the book version or not as I no longer have the PFAL book.
In fact, in PFAL VPW states that there are only 3 things one really needs to know in order to receive anything from God. They are:
1. What's available.
2. How to recieve it.
3. What to do with it after you got it.
VPW then says (verbatim) in PFAL, basically these are the only 3 things one needs to know in order to recieve anything from God. Then he states: But I want to take you just a step further. That is when he goes on and addresses step #4 -- Needs and Wants parallel, and then step #5. God's ability equals Gods willingness.
The general concensus in TWI for many years was all 5 steps are needed for one to receive anything from God. But VPW stated himself in PFAL that only the first 3 steps were ever needed. Now many people in TWI took those steps and turned it into this - "5 step formula to receive anything from God" when the only reason VPW ever brought up and mentioned steps 4 and 5 was because those were possible hindrances to someone receiving from God. He just wanted to make sure his students understood what could possibly hinder their ability to receive from God.
The PFAL class was/is a whole lot simpler than what the majority of people made it out to be. Most people wanted this "5-step formula" that worked with a "mathmatical exactness and scientific precision" each and every time - but in the end only complicated the process. Why? Because we've got to show everyone just how smart and intelligent we are about the things of God.
Now people are discussing and wanting to know if whether or not "those stowries" that were told by VPW in PFAL are "fact or fiction" - complicating the process even further. There's a thread on GSC now discussing it. I guess some people still think they have to show everyone just how intelligent they are about the things of God and how to receive them. No thanks. I'll pass on discussing the issue further since most people here have already complicated the 3 initial steps that were taught to them in PFAL. (I'm having my own PFAL review before I take anybody's word here at GSC as being "the PFAL truth". Thanks Mike.)
Soooooo....PFAL has a non-essential step being expounded upon with an ambigious and somewhat trite storee about red drapes....
why was that in there again?
I agree with you though WTH - the 3 basic instructions can't be beat, they're beautiful in their simplicity in how they address getting to know God and the "abundant life" of John 10:10b. They're a little stiff in the shorts on #3 - "what to do with it, etc". but that does apply well to many areas of life. So yeah.
In fact, in PFAL VPW states that there are only 3 things one really needs to know in order to receive anything from God. They are:
1. What's available.
2. How to recieve it.
3. What to do with it after you got it.
VPW then says (verbatim) in PFAL, basically these are the only 3 things one needs to know in order to recieve anything from God. Then he states: But I want to take you just a step further. That is when he goes on and addresses step #4 -- Needs and Wants parallel, and then step #5. God's ability equals Gods willingness.
For some, this "3-step formula" is groundbreaking.......but really, could it be any MORE generic?
I mean........it's like THIS could apply for just about anything.
3 Things one needs to know about infectious diseases:
The PFAL class was/is a whole lot simpler than what the majority of people made it out to be. Most people wanted this "5-step formula" that worked with a "mathmatical exactness and scientific precision" each and every time - but in the end only complicated the process
Umm.. I thought that's how it was marketed. So simple a *fool* can't err therein.. easier than falling off a log backwards.
vic practically guaranteed answered prayer with his little five step "program".
He underscored the word "ANYTHING". Yes.. to receive ANYTHNG from God..
Here's my shopping list..
I want a polo pony, a mercedes.. a fifty million dollar mansion. Energy efficient, I am environmentally consious. a sixty inch new hd tv and computer in every room.. fifty acres of land, fenced in so my cats can run free..
I can get my "needs and wants" at the proper balance if need be.
So what's da big deal?
See.. I didn't say "anything", vic did.
Then we get what is supposed to be the "real deal".. "be thankful if you have a healty body, sound mind, food and clothes on your back..
kinda like.. "go away kid.. don't bother me. We'll never admit the scam doesn't really work.."
kinda like.. "go away kid.. don't bother me. We'll never admit the scam doesn't really work.."
Exactly!...Vic's formula for the abundant life was laden with catch 22's. It's not OUR fault... YOU didn't "believe".
What a sweetheart deal he cooked up for himself...and of course twi would never admit to being wrong...afterall, they carry the burden of being at the top of the waytree where revelation for the entire world is dispensed to these "spiritual giants" whose very edicts reflect God's will...how can they be wrong?
Perhaps it was, but the red drapes story used in PFAL was only used to illustrate the 4th point of "How to Recieve from God" - i.e. getting your needs and wants parallel. Now I can't say for sure if that 4th point is mentioned in the book version or not as I no longer have the PFAL book.
In fact, in PFAL VPW states that there are only 3 things one really needs to know in order to receive anything from God. They are:
1. What's available.
2. How to recieve it.
3. What to do with it after you got it.
VPW then says (verbatim) in PFAL, basically these are the only 3 things one needs to know in order to recieve anything from God. Then he states: But I want to take you just a step further. That is when he goes on and addresses step #4 -- Needs and Wants parallel, and then step #5. God's ability equals Gods willingness.
The general concensus in TWI for many years was all 5 steps are needed for one to receive anything from God. But VPW stated himself in PFAL that only the first 3 steps were ever needed. Now many people in TWI took those steps and turned it into this - "5 step formula to receive anything from God" when the only reason VPW ever brought up and mentioned steps 4 and 5 was because those were possible hindrances to someone receiving from God. He just wanted to make sure his students understood what could possibly hinder their ability to receive from God.
The syllabus for Session 1, question 2:
"To receive ANYTHING from God, what FIVE things must we know?"
(Emphasis mine.)
The study guide for Session 1, page 1:
"To receive anything from God we must know:
1) What is available
(verses)
2) How to Receive
3) What to do with it after we have it.
4) Need and Want must be parallel
(verses)
5) God's Ability equals God's Willingness
(verses)
The Orange Book doesn't support WTH's claim either.
I don't know what he's quoting VERBATIM, but it's not any book I have here.
It's clearly a 5-step formula in BOTH Session I's syllabus and Study Guide.
vpw never demoted the last 2 steps into "possible hindrances", footnotes, or codicils.
The PFAL class was/is a whole lot simpler than what the majority of people made it out to be. Most people wanted this "5-step formula" that worked with a "mathmatical exactness and scientific precision" each and every time
vpw HIMSELF made the 5-step formula, and numbered the steps 1-5. I don't see how a logical approach can say otherwise.
As for wanting "mathematical exactness and scientific precision", those were vpw's own words, his own claims.
None of US certainly added them.
- but in the end only complicated the process. Why? Because we've got to show everyone just how smart and intelligent we are about the things of God.
Now people are discussing and wanting to know if whether or not "those stowries" that were told by VPW in PFAL are "fact or fiction" - complicating the process even further. There's a thread on GSC now discussing it. I guess some people still think they have to show everyone just how intelligent they are about the things of God and how to receive them. No thanks.
WTH,
I, for one, will NEVER accuse you of trying to be smart and intelligent about the things of God.
I will back this claim of yours up to the hilt.
I'll pass on discussing the issue further since most people here have already complicated the 3 initial steps that were taught to them in PFAL.
So far, the only people I've seen confuse the number 5 for the number 3 are: WTH, and King Arthur from
Yea Sky, I can just picture VP and his cohorts sittin' around the table figuring out how they were going to set up their own class.
First thing Vic says is well wer're going to make a killing off of BGs class. No one's doing anything like that here in the U.S.
We'll just change some terminology and spice it up a little with some charts and no one will know the difference.
Then the old Vicster says, I just read a book on how to get people motivated. It says you have to tell personal stories to get your message across. Anyone got one? Uncle Harry pipes up, I just bought some red drapes and got them for a steal.
Vic says yea and you'll probably make a suit for yourself out of the leftover material. (Some oldtimers will get this one).
"At the next stop a man came to our compartment in the train saying that he was representing his master who wanted to come and meet the man of God. He said his master was so-and-so, a member of Parliament in New Delhi, who was also riding on the train. The member of Parliament then came to our compartment to tell Mrs. Wierwille and me that what he had seen in *Jubbulpore was the most tremendous Christian event he had ever witnessed-that a man of God would bless all God's people irrespective of whether they were Christian or Hindi. He offered us the keys to his city and said that any time we wanted to minister in India, the doors of India and the Far East would be open to us to teach the accuracy and the greatness of God's Word."
*************************
Wierwille finds himself in a part of the world that is decidedly non-Christian and heals a man in an event that couldn't possibly have been witnessed by more than a handful of people in the close proximity. Then, news of the event spreads so quickly, in an era when the flow of information was decidedly slow, that a member of Parliament in New Delhi gave him the coveted key to his city.
*New Delhi is the 8th largest city in the world, with a population of about 12,000,000.
1. Wierwille seemed to offer no objection to being addressed as a man of God.
2. He offered no objection to non-Christians being refered to as "God's people", a direct contradiction of his PFAL lessons.
3. The name of Mr.So-and-So, the member of Parliament, is conspicuously omitted.
4. The man supposedly gave Wierwille the authority to teach anywhere in the entirety of India and The Far East, as if one member of Parliament has that much singular authority.
5. The man didn't marvel at the healing, he marveled that "a man of God would bless all God's people, irrespective of whether they were Christian or Hindi." In other words, he marveled at-----Wierwille.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
6
16
9
13
Popular Days
Mar 1
29
Mar 2
19
Sep 5
11
Feb 29
10
Top Posters In This Topic
skyrider 6 posts
Ham 16 posts
doojable 9 posts
waysider 13 posts
Popular Days
Mar 1 2008
29 posts
Mar 2 2008
19 posts
Sep 5 2009
11 posts
Feb 29 2008
10 posts
Popular Posts
frank123lol
If you refer to "the same freakin stuff"to herr wierwille and pfal,I get that,Now the bible? Well,that is a horse of another color,I think a man can "miss it"and get the religious cult,stuff a life t
Ham
Umm.. I thought that's how it was marketed. So simple a *fool* can't err therein.. easier than falling off a log backwards. vic practically guaranteed answered prayer with his little five step "pr
waysider
Does this make sense? ************************* PFAL--page 30,31 "At the next stop a man came to our compartment in the train saying that he was representing his master who wanted to come and meet
socks
Sorry cman - scratch 'em out. :)
I know, EXc. We were talking about this back here at the shack earlier. When ya gotta go, ya gotta go.
Snowball Pete
Maggie Muggins
Mary Grannon - creative force behind...
What's kind of scratchy looking back - why these names to characterize those kinds of people in PFAL? Wonder what the connection was in VP's mind, if there was one, or if they just sounded good to him.
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Johnny Jump up represented the inquisitive mind, the guy who jumps out of his seat and confronts with quetions
Maggie Muggins represented the common sense, down to earth logic of every day living.
Henry Baloko represnted the hard fisted, ain't gonna take no crap from you, stubborness of a beer drinking man.
...All were discredited...shown to be buffoons. Vic used these charactors in such a way as to diminish them and humiliate them.
He was preparing to put us all in our place.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
.
Well hmmm......can I get the green ones then?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
And let's not forget Digger O'Dell.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Life_of_Riley
"Living the life of Riley" suggests an ideal life of prosperity and contentment, possibly living on someone else's money, time or work. Rather than a negative freeloading or golddigging aspect, it instead implies that someone is kept or advantaged.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
I think I posted on here a couple of years ago, maybe less, of a night I was looking around at info on E Stanley Jones and came across something that sounded a lot like VPW's train story. Can't find it now, but at the time it was another, WTF, moment.
I love the parable about the guy who goes to a degree mill to get a fake Dr degree, but never finishes. Still somehow, by the grace of God I ssspose, he still becomes a "Dr" and then starts his own ministry using other people's work and so on. I forget the point being illustrated by the parable, but I'm sure it was good.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
This is from esermons.com
When I think of making sacrifices I think of E. Stanley Jones, perhaps United Methodism’s most famous foreign missionary. He authored over a dozen books and converted hundreds of Hindus in India to Christianity. He is the only person of which I am aware who was voted in abstentia to become a bishop. When he received the news, he turned it down. One day E. Stanley Jones came to Emory University and spoke to a Systematic Theology class. One of the students asked him why he turned down the episcopacy. He laughingly replied that if he became a bishop he would have to retire at age 70. "I am now 82," he said, "and I am still going strong."
Then someone asked him: what do you think of the Beatitudes? Several students picked up their pens expecting something profound and they got it. Here's what he said: "At first sight, you felt they turned everything upside down. At second sight, you understand that they turn everything right side up. The first time you read them they are impossible. The second time you read them, nothing else is possible. The beatitudes are not a chart for Christian duty. They are a charter for Christian liberty.”
Does that phrase sound familiar?
I have seen that also but can't remember where either.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
THOSE names were all RIGHT out of BG Leonard's class "Gifts of the Spirit".
Henry Belloco, Maggie Muggins and Johnny Jumpup were all in the class that vpw took
in 1953, and then-a few months later- retaught entirely, telling the students it was HIS
class "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today." He told Leonard he was teaching Leonard's
class on a one-time basis, but-as we know-he continued to teach Leonard's class.
He added Bullinger's "How to Enjoy the Bible" and Stiles" "Gift of the Holy Spirit" book,
split one class into 3 classes, and called them all "Power for Abundant Living."
Snowball Pete, apparently, was NOT, but he was only mentioned ONCE in all 12 sessions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
Perhaps it was, but the red drapes story used in PFAL was only used to illustrate the 4th point of "How to Recieve from God" - i.e. getting your needs and wants parallel. Now I can't say for sure if that 4th point is mentioned in the book version or not as I no longer have the PFAL book.
In fact, in PFAL VPW states that there are only 3 things one really needs to know in order to receive anything from God. They are:
1. What's available.
2. How to recieve it.
3. What to do with it after you got it.
VPW then says (verbatim) in PFAL, basically these are the only 3 things one needs to know in order to recieve anything from God. Then he states: But I want to take you just a step further. That is when he goes on and addresses step #4 -- Needs and Wants parallel, and then step #5. God's ability equals Gods willingness.
The general concensus in TWI for many years was all 5 steps are needed for one to receive anything from God. But VPW stated himself in PFAL that only the first 3 steps were ever needed. Now many people in TWI took those steps and turned it into this - "5 step formula to receive anything from God" when the only reason VPW ever brought up and mentioned steps 4 and 5 was because those were possible hindrances to someone receiving from God. He just wanted to make sure his students understood what could possibly hinder their ability to receive from God.
The PFAL class was/is a whole lot simpler than what the majority of people made it out to be. Most people wanted this "5-step formula" that worked with a "mathmatical exactness and scientific precision" each and every time - but in the end only complicated the process. Why? Because we've got to show everyone just how smart and intelligent we are about the things of God.
Now people are discussing and wanting to know if whether or not "those stowries" that were told by VPW in PFAL are "fact or fiction" - complicating the process even further. There's a thread on GSC now discussing it. I guess some people still think they have to show everyone just how intelligent they are about the things of God and how to receive them. No thanks. I'll pass on discussing the issue further since most people here have already complicated the 3 initial steps that were taught to them in PFAL. (I'm having my own PFAL review before I take anybody's word here at GSC as being "the PFAL truth". Thanks Mike.)
Edited by What The HeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Soooooo....PFAL has a non-essential step being expounded upon with an ambigious and somewhat trite storee about red drapes....
why was that in there again?
I agree with you though WTH - the 3 basic instructions can't be beat, they're beautiful in their simplicity in how they address getting to know God and the "abundant life" of John 10:10b. They're a little stiff in the shorts on #3 - "what to do with it, etc". but that does apply well to many areas of life. So yeah.
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
For some, this "3-step formula" is groundbreaking.......but really, could it be any MORE generic?
I mean........it's like THIS could apply for just about anything.
3 Things one needs to know about infectious diseases:
...1) What's goin-round in your area
...2) How to get infected
...3) What do you do if you've got it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Umm.. I thought that's how it was marketed. So simple a *fool* can't err therein.. easier than falling off a log backwards.
vic practically guaranteed answered prayer with his little five step "program".
He underscored the word "ANYTHING". Yes.. to receive ANYTHNG from God..
Here's my shopping list..
I want a polo pony, a mercedes.. a fifty million dollar mansion. Energy efficient, I am environmentally consious. a sixty inch new hd tv and computer in every room.. fifty acres of land, fenced in so my cats can run free..
I can get my "needs and wants" at the proper balance if need be.
So what's da big deal?
See.. I didn't say "anything", vic did.
Then we get what is supposed to be the "real deal".. "be thankful if you have a healty body, sound mind, food and clothes on your back..
kinda like.. "go away kid.. don't bother me. We'll never admit the scam doesn't really work.."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
So...this is "the Word like it hasn't been known since the first Century"? Common sense?
Pfffffffffffffffffft!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Exactly!...Vic's formula for the abundant life was laden with catch 22's. It's not OUR fault... YOU didn't "believe".
What a sweetheart deal he cooked up for himself...and of course twi would never admit to being wrong...afterall, they carry the burden of being at the top of the waytree where revelation for the entire world is dispensed to these "spiritual giants" whose very edicts reflect God's will...how can they be wrong?
...in the meantime, the dollars keep rolling in.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
EXACTLY........just common sense
The 3 Step Guide to plowing a field in 1880
.....1) What is needed: A horse and a plow
.....2) How to get started: hook the two together
.....3) What to do now: try to plow straight furrows
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I hate to rain on anyone's parade, but here's what it says in my PLAF syllabus.
Page 1/ 1968 edition
---------------------------------------------------------------------
TO RECEIVE ANYTHING FROM GOD WE MUST KNOW:
1. What is Available
(various scriptures cited)
2. How to Receive
3. What to do with it after we have it
4. Need and Want must be parallel
(various scriptures cited)
5.God's Ability equals God's Willingness
(various scriptures cited)
------------------------------------------------------------------
There's no mention of steps #4 and 5 being optional in the event that steps #1--3 aren't cutting the mustard.
It says that this is what one MUST know to receive anything from God.
It lists 5 criteria that MUST be met to receive anything from God.
What's so "complicated"?
Either it says that or it doesn't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
How to receive a sandwich from the kitchen.
1) What's available.
Meats, cheeses, bread, and spreads in the refrigerator.
2) How to receive it.
Go to refrigerator, assemble the ingredients into a sandwich.
3) What to do with it after you got it.
Eat sandwich while humming the tune "Honkytonk Woman" by the Rolling Stones.
These were supposed to teach me something?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
The syllabus for Session 1, question 2:
"To receive ANYTHING from God, what FIVE things must we know?"
(Emphasis mine.)
The study guide for Session 1, page 1:
"To receive anything from God we must know:
1) What is available
(verses)
2) How to Receive
3) What to do with it after we have it.
4) Need and Want must be parallel
(verses)
5) God's Ability equals God's Willingness
(verses)
The Orange Book doesn't support WTH's claim either.
I don't know what he's quoting VERBATIM, but it's not any book I have here.
It's clearly a 5-step formula in BOTH Session I's syllabus and Study Guide.
vpw never demoted the last 2 steps into "possible hindrances", footnotes, or codicils.
vpw HIMSELF made the 5-step formula, and numbered the steps 1-5. I don't see how a logical approach can say otherwise.As for wanting "mathematical exactness and scientific precision", those were vpw's own words, his own claims.
None of US certainly added them.
WTH,
I, for one, will NEVER accuse you of trying to be smart and intelligent about the things of God.
I will back this claim of yours up to the hilt.
So far, the only people I've seen confuse the number 5 for the number 3 are: WTH, and King Arthur from
"Monty Python and the Holy Grail."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Were you parallel to the fridge?
Are you sure you got the BEST cheeses and meats that God had for you?
Are there red drapes in your kitchen?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Most of me was parallel to the fridge, but my arms were perpendicular to it.
(That's how I got the fixings out. I was following Step 2, "How to receive it.")
Well, I know I got GOOD cheeses and meats. The mustard WAS the BEST.
Sadly, I wasted too much of my appetite on GOOD fixings rather than God's BEST.
*hangs head*
The drapes only look red if I'm really, really hung over.
But if I get hung over, be certain it was on only the BEST alcoholic beverages that
were available.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Awwww...S'Okay....You're forgiven. (Opps! Wrong thread! ;))
Well - at least your priorities are straight.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
polar bear
Yea Sky, I can just picture VP and his cohorts sittin' around the table figuring out how they were going to set up their own class.
First thing Vic says is well wer're going to make a killing off of BGs class. No one's doing anything like that here in the U.S.
We'll just change some terminology and spice it up a little with some charts and no one will know the difference.
Then the old Vicster says, I just read a book on how to get people motivated. It says you have to tell personal stories to get your message across. Anyone got one? Uncle Harry pipes up, I just bought some red drapes and got them for a steal.
Vic says yea and you'll probably make a suit for yourself out of the leftover material. (Some oldtimers will get this one).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Does this make sense?
*************************
PFAL--page 30,31
"At the next stop a man came to our compartment in the train saying that he was representing his master who wanted to come and meet the man of God. He said his master was so-and-so, a member of Parliament in New Delhi, who was also riding on the train. The member of Parliament then came to our compartment to tell Mrs. Wierwille and me that what he had seen in *Jubbulpore was the most tremendous Christian event he had ever witnessed-that a man of God would bless all God's people irrespective of whether they were Christian or Hindi. He offered us the keys to his city and said that any time we wanted to minister in India, the doors of India and the Far East would be open to us to teach the accuracy and the greatness of God's Word."
*************************
Wierwille finds himself in a part of the world that is decidedly non-Christian and heals a man in an event that couldn't possibly have been witnessed by more than a handful of people in the close proximity. Then, news of the event spreads so quickly, in an era when the flow of information was decidedly slow, that a member of Parliament in New Delhi gave him the coveted key to his city.
*New Delhi is the 8th largest city in the world, with a population of about 12,000,000.
(Just a tad larger than New Knockwurst)
*New Delhi
*Jabalpur had a population of about 1,120,000 in 2001.
The population of *Allahabad, the city whose newspaper supposedly covered the key to the city event, is 1,215,348! (2008)
*Allahabad
************************
Several other things stand out in my mind.
1. Wierwille seemed to offer no objection to being addressed as a man of God.
2. He offered no objection to non-Christians being refered to as "God's people", a direct contradiction of his PFAL lessons.
3. The name of Mr.So-and-So, the member of Parliament, is conspicuously omitted.
4. The man supposedly gave Wierwille the authority to teach anywhere in the entirety of India and The Far East, as if one member of Parliament has that much singular authority.
5. The man didn't marvel at the healing, he marveled that "a man of God would bless all God's people, irrespective of whether they were Christian or Hindi." In other words, he marveled at-----Wierwille.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
apparently, his wet behind the ears not halfway yet around the block namesake of a grandkid doesn't offer much objection either..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
why didn't he NAME this supposed high ranking official?
maybe he couldn't remember the name..
"I've hob knobbed with the elite of Parliment in New Delhi.."
kinda vague..
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.