I don't know. It seems to me like a good part of the modern Christian faith is not so much based on Jesus but on what Paul said in the Epistles. At least that was the case in The Way.
You don't need me to point out there are many different "flavors" of Christianity. My experience of the modern Christian faith differs from what you state here. Namely, "...a good part...is not so much based on Jesus but on what Paul said in the Epistles." The type of faith I've experienced as of late is entirely based not just on what Jesus said, but on Jesus himself. I see Paul's writings as expounding upon the teachings and life of Jesus. I fully agree with you, however, that TWI vaunted the Apostle Paul above Jesus Christ.
It was as if VPW did not like Christ. I'm curious as to whether he did not like the fact that something or somebody besides him was Lord. He even referred to the "absent Christ" and spent a lot of time discussing who Jesus Christ is not. The Apostle Paul on the other hand was spoken of reverently. LCM vaunted him even higher with his false teaching on the "Rise and Expansion of the Christian Church". I understand the backlash against Paul that is being shown by some in this post since so many were injured by The Way's approach to Christianity. VPW pointed to Paul as the "Man of God for his day and time". With that he could name himself (VP) as the Man of God for his day and time. That gave him license for untold abuse against a group of mostly young people. He blatantly took a phrase spoken by Paul, "You have had many instructors but I have fathered you all...." and coined a phrase, "Father in The Word". I suppose we could launch into a very interesting discussion just as to what Paul meant when he spoke this in Corinthians. But he never said he was the MOG and he never said he was anybody's "father in the Word". Paul and his writings pointed to Christ. It can be hard to see that after someone has used certain scriptures and people to slap you around and control you. It's hard, at least for me, to read the Pauline epistles and not hear Way tapes playing in my head. I try to pretend I never heard of TWI and that I'm reading it with a different perspective...it's hard. But Paul's writings do provide a wonderful contribution to living the Christian faith.
I remember sitting in the Renewed Mind class. In that, Walter Cummins goes into a rather involved teaching that related to studying other men who exhibit the renewed mind. I recall him going into the life of Paul and quoting scripture from Paul's epistles. One of those was the one I referred to above. There were others and I can't recall them right now. Until right now I forgotten how my stomach turned when Cummins said something like, "study men like the Apostle Paul. Who in our generation exhibits the renewed mind? Men like, Dr. Wierwille!" I remember thinking, "You've gotta be kidding me! This really is Wierwille worship!" But, being the "cultie" that I was, I suppressed my doubt and my shock. Soon I was a Wierwille worshipper myself. That was in 1975 and I had entirely forgot that memory until just now. Wow! Sorry if my rambling was a bit boring, but I just had one of my own "moments" that is going to contribute to my own healing. Thanks for listening.
Erk - I don't think VPW liked Jesus because he demanded entirely too much from his followers. Paul's theology is far less radical in terms of expectations.
If you read anything written once the person that wrote it is "history" you can always say, That person never really existed. George Washington never really existed so he wasn't really the first American President, You can even say the Eiffel Tower doesn't exist or come up with your own theories about conspiracies.
Of course this is true. You can say anything. That might be why Love is so important, because we are so easy to hurt sometimes. when I think I have figured out something in the Bible,... like a promise, I go out and try it in my real life. Usually it does not work and I feel stupid about it, but I try and sometimes it works I learn a lot this way even though I fail a lot and people make fun of me for this. But if I fail, they were right and say I should have listrened to them. Thing is,... they aren't always right. Neither am I. But they talk while I "do".
I tried to raise a dead guy once near Basra, in 2007. Sorry to report he did not live nor was I successful to raise him. I was very mad at God for that time. which is silly and stupid, but I even tried to put his brains back in his head. Stupid, stupid, stupid. I know. I liked him, that guy. I killed a few people that day in return and it's a bad thing to feel in your heart later.
I will just do my best to learn from the writings Paul wrote. I think God inspired him and could always be wrong Love is better than argueing and killing
Nobody questions the existence of Paul, George Washington or the Eiffel Tower. They all exist or existed. What we are discussing is the possible difference between peoples' actual lives and how history paints them. George Washington is a good example. I learned in grade school that he existed and that he was a great man. Many years later I learned that he owned slaves from the time he was eleven until he died.
Nobody questions the existence of Paul, George Washington or the Eiffel Tower. They all exist or existed. What we are discussing is the possible difference between peoples' actual lives and how history paints them. George Washington is a good example. I learned in grade school that he existed and that he was a great man. Many years later I learned that he owned slaves from the time he was eleven until he died.
Yes. There's always an element of credibility. Paul said we should all speak in tongues so we all spoke in tongues. Why? Because we trusted his perceived credibility. And why have we concluded Paul was a credible source? Because we have accepted that "holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit"/ "All scripture is God-breathed"/ "The epistle were written directly to us as The Church of God"/ etc. And who was it who introduced us to Paul's criteria for scripture valuation? Well, what do you know? It was Paul. Of course, he must have been credible because the epistles depict him as a "holy man of God" who spoke to "The Church of God".
Of course this is true. You can say anything. That might be why Love is so important, because we are so easy to hurt sometimes. when I think I have figured out something in the Bible,... like a promise, I go out and try it in my real life. Usually it does not work and I feel stupid about it, but I try and sometimes it works I learn a lot this way even though I fail a lot and people make fun of me for this. But if I fail, they were right and say I should have listrened to them. Thing is,... they aren't always right. Neither am I. But they talk while I "do".
I tried to raise a dead guy once near Basra, in 2007. Sorry to report he did not live nor was I successful to raise him. I was very mad at God for that time. which is silly and stupid, but I even tried to put his brains back in his head. Stupid, stupid, stupid. I know. I liked him, that guy. I killed a few people that day in return and it's a bad thing to feel in your heart later.
I will just do my best to learn from the writings Paul wrote. I think God inspired him and could always be wrong Love is better than argueing and killing
Hi Gen-2,
I'm very glad you shared this experience in the service with us. As a member of the armed forces you have faced some horrible things for sure, and thank you!
As a member of TWI you had some idea that you were capable of producing miracles by the Spirit of God. And it seems to me that many former Wayfers can relate to trying to heal people and trying to raise someone from the dead as you have because I have heard many similar types of sharings as your attempt to do such a thing, heck, it's what we were told we could do back in the day.
As these things pertain to this thread this is topical and not off track at all too me. It's about how we relate to the things TWI told us was true. I still believe I have the Spirit of God in me and I believe that the biblical stories of Paul's miracles are true, but he was the one to say nearly two thousand years ago that deievers would wax worse and worse and many other such things.
I think holding on too my beliefs and face the reality that TWI was founded by a perverted deciever who taught that he and we could produce genuine miracles by the Spirit is a very hard thing to face.
I don't look down on those who understandably think because of TWI leadership deceptions that even Paul lied. In one sense I believe it's easy to understand why somebody so badly brokenhearted and dissolusioned can feel that way after seeing the ugly side of TWI.
I now believe that according to biblical statements it's not a good idea to chase after these types of miracles and such.
I hope whatever you believe now that you are coming to terms with the events in your life that year outside of Basra. This one thing I'm sure of, you are not the only Wayfer to ever attempt to produce a life saving miracle and not have it work out as you hoped.
I never said Paul lied or that he was a con-man or perverse in a manner that resembles VPW's depravity. I said "what if."
What I alluded to is that we accept his credibility based on a criteria that he, himself, established. That doesn't necessarily make him a liar or a con-man or anything else. It certainly dilutes the value of his credibility, though.
Here is were it gets sticky. Using the aforementioned criteria, it became an accepted "given" that whatever Paul said in Ephesians, Corinthians, etc was the same thing as God saying it directly to us. Suppose for a moment, though, that Paul was, perhaps, the VPW of his day. (So often, people would put forth the inverse idea that VPW was the Apostle Paul of our day and time.) Even now, years after his death, with the advent of the internet and the plethora of information it puts at our fingertips, some people still aren't able to see that VPW was really a con-man.
What if Paul was really a forerunner of what we now call "con men"? What if Paul was the VPWFHDAT? (VPW for his day and time) It certainly shines a very different light on the importance and "inerrancy" of The Epistles.
I appreciate that you honestly explore a hard topic as this one concerning credibilty Waysider. Personally I feel that if my beliefs can not handle a hard question maybe they aren't everything I think they are in the first place.
You call Paul's credibility into question directly Waysider.
My view now is that Wierwille's actions are what causes people to call everybody that ever presented themself as a good man or a man of God into question, and I think causing people to question the goodness of God in our case will ultimately rest on Wierwille's head.
But personally speaking, I haven't heard a single thing that causes me to doubt the credibility of the scriptures or Paul, but as I already shared, I don't mind challenging my beliefs with hard questions. And Paul's credibility is what you called into question by comparing him to Wierwille.
(I added a bit for the sake of clarity in editing.)
If you read anything written once the person that wrote it is "history" you can always say, That person never really existed. George Washington never really existed so he wasn't really the first American President, You can even say the Eiffel Tower doesn't exist or come up with your own theories about conspiracies.
Of course this is true. You can say anything. That might be why Love is so important, because we are so easy to hurt sometimes. when I think I have figured out something in the Bible,... like a promise, I go out and try it in my real life. Usually it does not work and I feel stupid about it, but I try and sometimes it works I learn a lot this way even though I fail a lot and people make fun of me for this. But if I fail, they were right and say I should have listrened to them. Thing is,... they aren't always right. Neither am I. But they talk while I "do".
I tried to raise a dead guy once near Basra, in 2007. Sorry to report he did not live nor was I successful to raise him. I was very mad at God for that time. which is silly and stupid, but I even tried to put his brains back in his head. Stupid, stupid, stupid. I know. I liked him, that guy. I killed a few people that day in return and it's a bad thing to feel in your heart later.
I will just do my best to learn from the writings Paul wrote. I think God inspired him and could always be wrong Love is better than argueing and killing
Sure you can say George Washington never existed, but that would not be a statement of fact. Nor would saying the Eiffel Tower doesn't exist. Please don't take this personally, but the kind of reasoning you just exhibited is rampant in cult-induced thinking processes. It is often used to confuse the mind and then fill it with whatever someone wants you to think and believe.
No one is saying that Paul didn't exist or that Jesus didn't exist. It is clear that Paul had a radical conversion, and it is also clear that he believed until the day he died that he had a miraculous encounter with the hs. Peter also had several radical encounters that brought about a clear break from the apocalyptic teaching of Jesus and a clear break from both the traditional teachings of Judaism and the more spirit of the law approach that Jesus lived by. What is not clear is whether these were actual occurrences, or figments of the imagination. What we do know is whatever those encounters were, that they had a profound and lasting effect on both of them. Can we say with any level of accuracy that Constantine's vision, which resulted in the conversion of an entire empire, was as a result of his encounter with hs, or him trying anyway he could to ensure a Roman victory? From a historical perspective, it can be said that his conversion dealt a huge blow to the overall integrity of Christianity (that's my opinion anyway).
The point I want to make is that I think it is OK to allow one's self to consider anything and everything. If one wishes to take the "reasoned" approach to scripture, then it stands to reason that revelation and "miracles" can (and perhaps should) be taken with a grain of salt.
Erk - I don't think VPW liked Jesus because he demanded entirely too much from his followers. Paul's theology is far less radical in terms of expectations.
Thanks for your reply. I simply don't see where Jesus is more demanding than Paul nor do I see 2 different theologies.
Thanks for your reply. I simply don't see where Jesus is more demanding than Paul nor do I see 2 different theologies.
When I read that, I thought Taz was saying VP expected entirely too much from his followers. Yeah, I know, "the closest pronoun" and all that stuff. But, that's how I interpreted it, none the less. I guess we'll have to wait for Taz to clarify.
I feel myself being pulled into the vortex of circular logic again.
The record of Paul was written by people that loved Paul. Just as VPW was described by us to others in the 70's, those records may not reflect the true Paul. We don't know. Or rather, I don't know. You are convinced that you know and that's ok, but I don't. Mohammad gained a huge following and is venerated amongst the Muslims at least as much as Paul is amongst Christians. Can we apply that as a standard of goodness or rightness or righteousness?
I'm not sure I can improve on the way I stated this previously. I don't believe that I'm being "circular". I know I know that is not my intention. I am not personally trying to make a statement as the right-ness or righteousness of the Apostle Paul. I am attempting to respond to those who are suggesting that Paul was a fraud, a womanizer, drunkard etc. I am saying there is no evidence to suggest that he was any of those things. The evidence would strongly suggest otherwise. Yes, the records were written by people who loved Paul. Those were people like the Apostle Peter and Luke. One a direct disciple of the Christ and recognized church leader during the same time period as Paul, and the other a respected believer.
There are other writings not directly about Paul per se but about Christians and their activities. There was no mention of Paul. I am not aware of any writings from other believers who accused Paul of any wrongdoings.
You're right, we don't know anything about much of anything. We only have evidence and I am pointing out that there is ample evidence as to the authenticity of Paul's character. There is none to suggest otherwise. Only those who say, "Well he could have been like Wierwille, we don't really know." Well, yeah, he could have been a lot of things I suppose but without any evidence it is speculation and only speculation.
As far as Paul's right-ness or wrong-ness, that's another issue for another time. I am not familiar with Mohammad. Are there people accusing him of raping and seducing young girls, being a drunkard, or a thief? If they are and there happens to be no evidence to support their claim, then my tendency would be to not accept their viewpoint. I appreciate your question.
When I read that, I thought Taz was saying VP expected entirely too much from his followers. Yeah, I know, "the closest pronoun" and all that stuff. But, that's how I interpreted it, none the less. I guess we'll have to wait for Taz to clarify.
Oh...you might be right. If that's the case, Taz...nevermind!
He was not taught by the master himself, or anyone who had a personal relationship with the master.
I believe there was the Apostle Peter, James, and the other 12 disciples. This is in addition to the 14 years he lived in Tarsus prior to Barnabas inviting him on his first missionary journey.
Everything he taught was revealed by the hs, which (to me) is something that is obviously flawed. It has come to Paul's word being as good as Jesus' when there is no evidence to suggest that he ever had any real authority other than what he bestowed on himself.
I'm not sure that everything he taught was supposidely revealed by the Holy Spirit. The Jews and Gentiles being fellow heirs in the Kingdom was I think. But that was also coroborrated by other happenings like the veil of the temple being torn in half when Jesus was crucified and of course Peter's experience with the House of Cornelius.
We really don't know what the (supposed) "false" teachers and "false" prophets said
It depends on what situation is being referred to. A big problem the early church faced was those who wanted to add to the doctrine of being saved by grace. That is, they were teaching that men still needed to be circumsized. Another place these "false teachers" were saying there was no resurrection. In another place they were breaking off into factions. Some were preaching only to make money.
I do know that I'm moving further way from Paul's version of Christianity and trying to move closer to what Jesus actually taught. Jesus didn't demand worship of him and what he was doing.
I see things differently. I don't see the disparity between what the two of them taught. As far as Jesus not demanding worship, he said things like, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father but by me." I think Paul held the same belief regarding Jesus. Jesus also referred to himself as the "Bread from Heaven". I don't think Paul would have had a problem with that either. Maybe that's not requiring worship, but it would suggest at the very least that Jesus had a very high opinion of himself. Paul seemed to have a high regard as well. I don't see where Paul referred to himself in these ways. In fact, what I see is Paul point to Jesus, his teaching, and his person.
My view now is that Wierwille's actions are what causes people to call everybody that ever presented themself as a good man or a man of God into question, and I think causing people to question the goodness of God in our case will ultimately rest on Wierwille's head.
And I think you give VPW entirely too much credit.
When I read that, I thought Taz was saying VP expected entirely too much from his followers. Yeah, I know, "the closest pronoun" and all that stuff. But, that's how I interpreted it, none the less. I guess we'll have to wait for Taz to clarify.
No I think that VPW thought Jesus demanded too much from his followers. From a dispensational viewpoint, the grace administration is less "legalistic" and there was a great deal of emphasis on that in TWI-land.
I see things differently. I don't see the disparity between what the two of them taught. As far as Jesus not demanding worship, he said things like, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father but by me." I think Paul held the same belief regarding Jesus. Jesus also referred to himself as the "Bread from Heaven". I don't think Paul would have had a problem with that either. Maybe that's not requiring worship, but it would suggest at the very least that Jesus had a very high opinion of himself. Paul seemed to have a high regard as well. I don't see where Paul referred to himself in these ways. In fact, what I see is Paul point to Jesus, his teaching, and his person.
There is a huge difference between one thinking highly of one's self and demanding everyone do the same. My take is that Jesus commanded respect (among those who respected him) and demanded it from no one.
I never said Paul lied or that he was a con-man or perverse in a manner that resembles VPW's depravity. I said "what if."
What I alluded to is that we accept his credibility based on a criteria that he, himself, established. That doesn't necessarily make him a liar or a con-man or anything else. It certainly dilutes the value of his credibility, though.
The whole reason I jumped into this topic is because of what you stated in your original post. That is, "Suppose for a moment though, that Paul was the VP of his day...." and "What if Paul was really a forerunner of what we now call con men".
I just don't see it the way you do. I think there was more criteria to his credibility than what he alone established. I'm beginning to sound like a broken record. (Is that metaphor outdated? Should I say repititive CD now?) Paul himself and his writings were also accepted by his contemporaries. His writings were respected enough that many of them were preserved. In the 2nd century, you will find communications between churches in Phillipi and (I think) Galatia requesing for them to send them their copy of one of Paul's epistles. One sees Peter referring to Paul's writings as "scripture". These actions on the part of his contemporaries and other actions are testimony to Paul's credibility.
Some in this thread have refuted this argument by saying that people who spoke well of Paul were those who loved and respected him. The implication is that these assessments by his peers are irrelevant. But even this position refutes your claim that his credibility is "based on criteria that he himself established".
Let's not forget that we were taught Paul's teachings through the lens of VP Wierwille. What is more suspect, in my opinion, is the credibility of what we were taught. I regard as suspect some of the things I came to believe were taught by Paul such as some of the things you've mentioned. But as to the man himself I do not believe there is any comparison to him and VPW or any con man for that matter. I also believe his credibility is valid.
The point I want to make is that I think it is OK to allow one's self to consider anything and everything. If one wishes to take the "reasoned" approach to scripture, then it stands to reason that revelation and "miracles" can (and perhaps should) be taken with a grain of salt.
Well, why is that? Because the reasoned response to a text which deals with the transcendent nature of a creator God is to deny miracles?
Isn't it reasonable to consider at the very least, that if God has chosen a particular place and time to reveal Himself to mankind, that period in history could have witnessed miracles not seen today? Would that make it reasonable to begin with the supposition that miracles should be dismissed based on present day understanding?
On what basis do you begin with the supposition that miracles should actually be taken with a grain of salt? It would have to be the position that there is no God. . . . is that a reasonable conclusion to make in dealing with a text that has declared His existence?
"The Problem of Miracles: A Historical and Philosophical Perspective." In Gospel Perspectives VI, pp. 9-40.
"In this way, the lack of an analogy to present experience says nothing for or against the historicity of an event. Troeltsch's formulation of the principle of analogy attempts to squeeze the past into the mold of the present without providing any warrant for doing so. As Richard Niebuhr has protested, Troeltsch's principle really destroys genuine historical reasoning, since the historian must be open to the uniqueness of the events of the past and cannot exclude a priori the possibility of events like the resurrection simply because they do not conform to his present experience.But Pannenberg's formulation of the principle preserves the analogous nature of the past to the present or to the known, thus making the investigation of history possible, without thereby sacrificing the integrity of the past or distorting it.This means that there seems to be no in principle philosophical objection to establishing the occurrence of a miracle by means of historical research. According to Pannenberg, a theological interpretation of history will be tested positively by 'its ability to take into account all known historical details' and negatively by 'the proof that without its specific assertions the accessible information would not be at all or would be only incompletely explicable"
Your premise is interesting but wrong I believe. Anyone could bring up similar arguments about any biblical author. The canon of scripture and the canon of the books refute your argument. Do some prayer and study aboutthose things and God will likely shed light on the matter.
The "nostalgia for research" article/thread prompted me to contemplate the significance of "inerrancy".
The Way Ministry focused primarily on study of The Pauline Epistles. This was a precedent that was established early in the PFAL class via the introduction of Biblical administrations (Dispensationalism), the concept of observing "To Whom It Is Written" and the idea behind all people belonging to three specific categories. ("Jew, Gentile or Church of God") In addition, it was established early in the PFAL class that what "Holy Men of God" spoke or wrote was tantamount to words directly from God, himself. Thus, we were to consider the contents of The Church Epistles to be equivalent to words from God (Holy Men Of God Spoke.), directly to us (To The Church of God), At one point during the course of the Fellow Laborer program, we were to read Ephesians a minimum of once a day. Then, we were to rehash it at our night twigs every night. Given the rigidness of the schedule we observed, this didn't last long nor were people very consistent in their diligence. That, however, is probably fodder for another topic.
Here is were it gets sticky. Using the aforementioned criteria, it became an accepted "given" that whatever Paul said in Ephesians, Corinthians, etc was the same thing as God saying it directly to us. Suppose for a moment, though, that Paul was, perhaps, the VPW of his day. (So often, people would put forth the inverse idea that VPW was the Apostle Paul of our day and time.) Even now, years after his death, with the advent of the internet and the plethora of information it puts at our fingertips, some people still aren't able to see that VPW was really a con-man. People in the first century did not have access to resources that could prove or disprove Paul's legitimacy.
We have heard people say that it's God's will we all speak in tongues (one example) because God said so in "His Word". Did He? Or, was it Paul who made that statement? Question five, of "listening with a purpose", in session eleven, poses the question, "Is it God's will that we all speak in tongues?" According to the answer key, the correct answer is "Yes". But think about it. Who really said "I would that ye all speak in tongues."? Wasn't it, in fact, Paul? Did he really say that "to us" or to a specific group of people two thousand years ago? There are many, many more examples of places where you could insert "Thus Saith Paul."
What if Paul was really a forerunner of what we now call "con men"? What if Paul was the VPWFHDAT? (VPW for his day and time) It certainly shines a very different light on the importance and "inerrancy" of The Epistles.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
73
31
47
76
Popular Days
Feb 3
25
Feb 21
21
Jul 16
21
May 15
21
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 73 posts
geisha779 31 posts
waysider 47 posts
TLC 76 posts
Popular Days
Feb 3 2010
25 posts
Feb 21 2010
21 posts
Jul 16 2018
21 posts
May 15 2019
21 posts
Popular Posts
Sunesis
Well, we do have over 30,000 Christian denominations, so I don't think you're going to see all Christians agreeing. I imagine that's why it is more important to God that we keep the unity of the Spir
Broken Arrow
I think I get what you're trying to do here as far as getting people to think through something that may have simply been accepted blindly. I'm not going to offer a lengthy defense as to the authenti
Raf
First, to DWBH, please, let's keep it about content and not about people. And in that vein...I for one don't care one whit about what TLCÂ might see or think on the matter. I only care about the actual
Posted Images
Broken Arrow
You don't need me to point out there are many different "flavors" of Christianity. My experience of the modern Christian faith differs from what you state here. Namely, "...a good part...is not so much based on Jesus but on what Paul said in the Epistles." The type of faith I've experienced as of late is entirely based not just on what Jesus said, but on Jesus himself. I see Paul's writings as expounding upon the teachings and life of Jesus. I fully agree with you, however, that TWI vaunted the Apostle Paul above Jesus Christ.
It was as if VPW did not like Christ. I'm curious as to whether he did not like the fact that something or somebody besides him was Lord. He even referred to the "absent Christ" and spent a lot of time discussing who Jesus Christ is not. The Apostle Paul on the other hand was spoken of reverently. LCM vaunted him even higher with his false teaching on the "Rise and Expansion of the Christian Church". I understand the backlash against Paul that is being shown by some in this post since so many were injured by The Way's approach to Christianity. VPW pointed to Paul as the "Man of God for his day and time". With that he could name himself (VP) as the Man of God for his day and time. That gave him license for untold abuse against a group of mostly young people. He blatantly took a phrase spoken by Paul, "You have had many instructors but I have fathered you all...." and coined a phrase, "Father in The Word". I suppose we could launch into a very interesting discussion just as to what Paul meant when he spoke this in Corinthians. But he never said he was the MOG and he never said he was anybody's "father in the Word". Paul and his writings pointed to Christ. It can be hard to see that after someone has used certain scriptures and people to slap you around and control you. It's hard, at least for me, to read the Pauline epistles and not hear Way tapes playing in my head. I try to pretend I never heard of TWI and that I'm reading it with a different perspective...it's hard. But Paul's writings do provide a wonderful contribution to living the Christian faith.
I remember sitting in the Renewed Mind class. In that, Walter Cummins goes into a rather involved teaching that related to studying other men who exhibit the renewed mind. I recall him going into the life of Paul and quoting scripture from Paul's epistles. One of those was the one I referred to above. There were others and I can't recall them right now. Until right now I forgotten how my stomach turned when Cummins said something like, "study men like the Apostle Paul. Who in our generation exhibits the renewed mind? Men like, Dr. Wierwille!" I remember thinking, "You've gotta be kidding me! This really is Wierwille worship!" But, being the "cultie" that I was, I suppressed my doubt and my shock. Soon I was a Wierwille worshipper myself. That was in 1975 and I had entirely forgot that memory until just now. Wow! Sorry if my rambling was a bit boring, but I just had one of my own "moments" that is going to contribute to my own healing. Thanks for listening.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
Erk - I don't think VPW liked Jesus because he demanded entirely too much from his followers. Paul's theology is far less radical in terms of expectations.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gen-2
If you read anything written once the person that wrote it is "history" you can always say, That person never really existed. George Washington never really existed so he wasn't really the first American President, You can even say the Eiffel Tower doesn't exist or come up with your own theories about conspiracies.
Of course this is true. You can say anything. That might be why Love is so important, because we are so easy to hurt sometimes. when I think I have figured out something in the Bible,... like a promise, I go out and try it in my real life. Usually it does not work and I feel stupid about it, but I try and sometimes it works I learn a lot this way even though I fail a lot and people make fun of me for this. But if I fail, they were right and say I should have listrened to them. Thing is,... they aren't always right. Neither am I. But they talk while I "do".
I tried to raise a dead guy once near Basra, in 2007. Sorry to report he did not live nor was I successful to raise him. I was very mad at God for that time. which is silly and stupid, but I even tried to put his brains back in his head. Stupid, stupid, stupid. I know. I liked him, that guy. I killed a few people that day in return and it's a bad thing to feel in your heart later.
I will just do my best to learn from the writings Paul wrote. I think God inspired him and could always be wrong Love is better than argueing and killing
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jim
The train just jumped off the tracks.
Nobody questions the existence of Paul, George Washington or the Eiffel Tower. They all exist or existed. What we are discussing is the possible difference between peoples' actual lives and how history paints them. George Washington is a good example. I learned in grade school that he existed and that he was a great man. Many years later I learned that he owned slaves from the time he was eleven until he died.
Edited by JimLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Yes. There's always an element of credibility. Paul said we should all speak in tongues so we all spoke in tongues. Why? Because we trusted his perceived credibility. And why have we concluded Paul was a credible source? Because we have accepted that "holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit"/ "All scripture is God-breathed"/ "The epistle were written directly to us as The Church of God"/ etc. And who was it who introduced us to Paul's criteria for scripture valuation? Well, what do you know? It was Paul. Of course, he must have been credible because the epistles depict him as a "holy man of God" who spoke to "The Church of God".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Hi Gen-2,
I'm very glad you shared this experience in the service with us. As a member of the armed forces you have faced some horrible things for sure, and thank you!
As a member of TWI you had some idea that you were capable of producing miracles by the Spirit of God. And it seems to me that many former Wayfers can relate to trying to heal people and trying to raise someone from the dead as you have because I have heard many similar types of sharings as your attempt to do such a thing, heck, it's what we were told we could do back in the day.
As these things pertain to this thread this is topical and not off track at all too me. It's about how we relate to the things TWI told us was true. I still believe I have the Spirit of God in me and I believe that the biblical stories of Paul's miracles are true, but he was the one to say nearly two thousand years ago that deievers would wax worse and worse and many other such things.
I think holding on too my beliefs and face the reality that TWI was founded by a perverted deciever who taught that he and we could produce genuine miracles by the Spirit is a very hard thing to face.
I don't look down on those who understandably think because of TWI leadership deceptions that even Paul lied. In one sense I believe it's easy to understand why somebody so badly brokenhearted and dissolusioned can feel that way after seeing the ugly side of TWI.
I now believe that according to biblical statements it's not a good idea to chase after these types of miracles and such.
I hope whatever you believe now that you are coming to terms with the events in your life that year outside of Basra. This one thing I'm sure of, you are not the only Wayfer to ever attempt to produce a life saving miracle and not have it work out as you hoped.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Just for the record.
I never said Paul lied or that he was a con-man or perverse in a manner that resembles VPW's depravity. I said "what if."
What I alluded to is that we accept his credibility based on a criteria that he, himself, established. That doesn't necessarily make him a liar or a con-man or anything else. It certainly dilutes the value of his credibility, though.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
I appreciate that you honestly explore a hard topic as this one concerning credibilty Waysider. Personally I feel that if my beliefs can not handle a hard question maybe they aren't everything I think they are in the first place.
You call Paul's credibility into question directly Waysider.
My view now is that Wierwille's actions are what causes people to call everybody that ever presented themself as a good man or a man of God into question, and I think causing people to question the goodness of God in our case will ultimately rest on Wierwille's head.
But personally speaking, I haven't heard a single thing that causes me to doubt the credibility of the scriptures or Paul, but as I already shared, I don't mind challenging my beliefs with hard questions. And Paul's credibility is what you called into question by comparing him to Wierwille.
(I added a bit for the sake of clarity in editing.)
Edited by JeffSjoLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
Sure you can say George Washington never existed, but that would not be a statement of fact. Nor would saying the Eiffel Tower doesn't exist. Please don't take this personally, but the kind of reasoning you just exhibited is rampant in cult-induced thinking processes. It is often used to confuse the mind and then fill it with whatever someone wants you to think and believe.
No one is saying that Paul didn't exist or that Jesus didn't exist. It is clear that Paul had a radical conversion, and it is also clear that he believed until the day he died that he had a miraculous encounter with the hs. Peter also had several radical encounters that brought about a clear break from the apocalyptic teaching of Jesus and a clear break from both the traditional teachings of Judaism and the more spirit of the law approach that Jesus lived by. What is not clear is whether these were actual occurrences, or figments of the imagination. What we do know is whatever those encounters were, that they had a profound and lasting effect on both of them. Can we say with any level of accuracy that Constantine's vision, which resulted in the conversion of an entire empire, was as a result of his encounter with hs, or him trying anyway he could to ensure a Roman victory? From a historical perspective, it can be said that his conversion dealt a huge blow to the overall integrity of Christianity (that's my opinion anyway).
The point I want to make is that I think it is OK to allow one's self to consider anything and everything. If one wishes to take the "reasoned" approach to scripture, then it stands to reason that revelation and "miracles" can (and perhaps should) be taken with a grain of salt.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I dunno. Perhaps God inspires everybody..
its just that.. my *inspiration* might be quite real, but not very relevant to those next to me..
one finds out by opening one's mouth I guess..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I've learned to live with my own nuttiness..
too many "followers" would ruin it, anyway..
tun.. run dear friends, as far and as fast as you can..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
Thanks for your reply. I simply don't see where Jesus is more demanding than Paul nor do I see 2 different theologies.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
When I read that, I thought Taz was saying VP expected entirely too much from his followers. Yeah, I know, "the closest pronoun" and all that stuff. But, that's how I interpreted it, none the less. I guess we'll have to wait for Taz to clarify.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
I'm not sure I can improve on the way I stated this previously. I don't believe that I'm being "circular". I know I know that is not my intention. I am not personally trying to make a statement as the right-ness or righteousness of the Apostle Paul. I am attempting to respond to those who are suggesting that Paul was a fraud, a womanizer, drunkard etc. I am saying there is no evidence to suggest that he was any of those things. The evidence would strongly suggest otherwise. Yes, the records were written by people who loved Paul. Those were people like the Apostle Peter and Luke. One a direct disciple of the Christ and recognized church leader during the same time period as Paul, and the other a respected believer.
There are other writings not directly about Paul per se but about Christians and their activities. There was no mention of Paul. I am not aware of any writings from other believers who accused Paul of any wrongdoings.
You're right, we don't know anything about much of anything. We only have evidence and I am pointing out that there is ample evidence as to the authenticity of Paul's character. There is none to suggest otherwise. Only those who say, "Well he could have been like Wierwille, we don't really know." Well, yeah, he could have been a lot of things I suppose but without any evidence it is speculation and only speculation.
As far as Paul's right-ness or wrong-ness, that's another issue for another time. I am not familiar with Mohammad. Are there people accusing him of raping and seducing young girls, being a drunkard, or a thief? If they are and there happens to be no evidence to support their claim, then my tendency would be to not accept their viewpoint. I appreciate your question.
Oh...you might be right. If that's the case, Taz...nevermind!
Edited by erkjohnLink to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
I see things differently. I don't see the disparity between what the two of them taught. As far as Jesus not demanding worship, he said things like, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father but by me." I think Paul held the same belief regarding Jesus. Jesus also referred to himself as the "Bread from Heaven". I don't think Paul would have had a problem with that either. Maybe that's not requiring worship, but it would suggest at the very least that Jesus had a very high opinion of himself. Paul seemed to have a high regard as well. I don't see where Paul referred to himself in these ways. In fact, what I see is Paul point to Jesus, his teaching, and his person.
Edited by erkjohnLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
And I think you give VPW entirely too much credit.
No I think that VPW thought Jesus demanded too much from his followers. From a dispensational viewpoint, the grace administration is less "legalistic" and there was a great deal of emphasis on that in TWI-land.
There is a huge difference between one thinking highly of one's self and demanding everyone do the same. My take is that Jesus commanded respect (among those who respected him) and demanded it from no one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
The whole reason I jumped into this topic is because of what you stated in your original post. That is, "Suppose for a moment though, that Paul was the VP of his day...." and "What if Paul was really a forerunner of what we now call con men".
I just don't see it the way you do. I think there was more criteria to his credibility than what he alone established. I'm beginning to sound like a broken record. (Is that metaphor outdated? Should I say repititive CD now?) Paul himself and his writings were also accepted by his contemporaries. His writings were respected enough that many of them were preserved. In the 2nd century, you will find communications between churches in Phillipi and (I think) Galatia requesing for them to send them their copy of one of Paul's epistles. One sees Peter referring to Paul's writings as "scripture". These actions on the part of his contemporaries and other actions are testimony to Paul's credibility.
Some in this thread have refuted this argument by saying that people who spoke well of Paul were those who loved and respected him. The implication is that these assessments by his peers are irrelevant. But even this position refutes your claim that his credibility is "based on criteria that he himself established".
Let's not forget that we were taught Paul's teachings through the lens of VP Wierwille. What is more suspect, in my opinion, is the credibility of what we were taught. I regard as suspect some of the things I came to believe were taught by Paul such as some of the things you've mentioned. But as to the man himself I do not believe there is any comparison to him and VPW or any con man for that matter. I also believe his credibility is valid.
Edited by erkjohnLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Well, why is that? Because the reasoned response to a text which deals with the transcendent nature of a creator God is to deny miracles?
Isn't it reasonable to consider at the very least, that if God has chosen a particular place and time to reveal Himself to mankind, that period in history could have witnessed miracles not seen today? Would that make it reasonable to begin with the supposition that miracles should be dismissed based on present day understanding?
On what basis do you begin with the supposition that miracles should actually be taken with a grain of salt? It would have to be the position that there is no God. . . . is that a reasonable conclusion to make in dealing with a text that has declared His existence?
http://www.leaderu.c...s/miracles.html
"The Problem of Miracles: A Historical and Philosophical Perspective." In Gospel Perspectives VI, pp. 9-40.
"In this way, the lack of an analogy to present experience says nothing for or against the historicity of an event. Troeltsch's formulation of the principle of analogy attempts to squeeze the past into the mold of the present without providing any warrant for doing so. As Richard Niebuhr has protested, Troeltsch's principle really destroys genuine historical reasoning, since the historian must be open to the uniqueness of the events of the past and cannot exclude a priori the possibility of events like the resurrection simply because they do not conform to his present experience.But Pannenberg's formulation of the principle preserves the analogous nature of the past to the present or to the known, thus making the investigation of history possible, without thereby sacrificing the integrity of the past or distorting it. This means that there seems to be no in principle philosophical objection to establishing the occurrence of a miracle by means of historical research. According to Pannenberg, a theological interpretation of history will be tested positively by 'its ability to take into account all known historical details' and negatively by 'the proof that without its specific assertions the accessible information would not be at all or would be only incompletely explicable"
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
The very nature of miracles is the inability to replicate them - miracles defy "reason". That's all I'm saying.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
nandon
Paul was a murderer. A Sociopathic religious murderer.
I always keep that in mind when reading anything he supposedly wrote.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Yeah, it's sorta convenient that all the good ones happened at a time and place that makes verification well beyond impossible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
caribousam
Your premise is interesting but wrong I believe. Anyone could bring up similar arguments about any biblical author. The canon of scripture and the canon of the books refute your argument. Do some prayer and study aboutthose things and God will likely shed light on the matter.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"The canon of scripture and the canon of the books refute your argument."
How so?
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.