"Mike and Galen, if Power for Abundant Living is so great class, then take each section/chapter,
either live or video and then allow the group discuss what they saw or heard to get feedback, and don't correct them in front of others. Instead, say "that''s an interesting point or observation. I wonder why I didn't see that", then privately in love and tenderness, show them from scripture where they are wrong. But, remember that they are seekers and don't know
the Bible, and for heavens sake allow a variety of translations, not just King James. Thomas"
You are certainly welcome to do it anyway you desire.
:-)
As I have stated many many many times before, we usually like to have dinner. Then a round of prayer and manifestations, maybe some songs. A segment or two of the class [depending on how late it is], end with a prayer and then hanging out and sharing or whatever until each person has to go home [again assuming that they dont all live in the same home with us, as I have already explained most of the time we have had lots of boarders living with us].
Personally I do prefer the KJV, as do most of the Mennonites that we associate with. But not everyone carrys such, some prefer other versions.
You are certainly welcome to do things in your home, as you wish. I would thank you for not requiring that I do things in my home in the way that you think best. Thank you.
:-)
If I dont think something is 'interesting' then I prefer not to lie. I am fully capable of holding my tongue, and simply not saying anything. Personally I prefer that not say anything, rather than say something that I know to be err.
getting back to our original interchange, i think you totally misunderstood me, dear."
Yes, sorry.
Too many off-topics running to keep it straight. :-)
"It is a wonderful world out there. We rather like BG Leonard’s class, we like PFAL, we like doing Word-Studies, we like fellowshipping with others and ministering to them."
"We have dealt with a few churches, though so often we have found that they are businesses with bottom-lines that they must meet each month and they are often driven by that dollar amount."
"Overall we do prefer home-based Bible study groups and pastoring."
"It saddens me that so many were abused by TWI, as it saddens me that so many have been abused by the Baptists from which I find my roots. My wife’s roots are Catholic and we all know how many have been / and still are abused from within that fold."
"There is a great and wonderful world of Christians out there, but we must look for them and bless them, somehow even while we are on guard for tyrants and abusive systems."
May I be the first to dub you TLB? It's inevitable. Don't try and resist. :D-->
Before I respond to your latest post, please allow me to show you some respect. This is a rough playground, and people get into the habit of throwing disagreement about with great abandon. I do this too, even though I sometimes regret it. Sometimes I do it accidently without even knowing it. Sometimes I try to be respectful, and it's interpreted exactly the opposite.
I noticed you felt disrespected by me in a previous exchange. I meant none personally, seeing that I've hardly had a chance to get to know your personality. What I was criticizing was the content of the message you posted. That kind of thing happens a lot here. Posters grown thick skins here, because there's not enough time to constantly consider people's feelings. There is a huge volume of information that does get posted, and sometimes loss of personal respect is the price we all pay for that volume. Often times people make up later on in a thread, or via e-mail, when toes are stepped on extra hard.
That said, I want to respectfully extend the original criticism I had for the first post of yours that I responded to. In that first post you listed a bunch of chapter titles, when the context I was focusing on was a list of doctrinal errors. Then later, you posted a list of people's names, again avoiding the list of doctrinal errors common to denominational churches and that PFAL handled. I'm still interested in hearing how you and your ministry handle those items that PFAL identifies as common errors in christianity. It's still my contention that PFAL is of far greater value to us grads than anything else that's going on in the christian world.
All that said, let's get into your latest post.
You wrote: "...if Power for Abundant Living is so great class, then take each section/chapter,
either live or video and then allow the group discuss what they saw or heard to get feedback, and don't correct them in front of others. Instead, say "that''s an interesting point or observation. I wonder why I didn't see that", then privately in love and tenderness, show them from scripture where they are wrong. But, remember that they are seekers and don't know the Bible..."
In addition to the time such a procedure takes, it also exposes the other students to the error expressed by that one other student. I do believe in helping new students to save face, though, but not at the expense of having the others exposed to error uncorrected. The way Dr Wierwille set up the class is to not allow opinions expressed at all, just his.
This last statement of mine may sound like a most dictatorially harsh way of doing things. It would be if we lived in a world where the absolute truth were not available. In such a world with no Truth with a capital T, everyone (just about) has an equally valid truth with a small t to express, and Dr's way of doing things would suppress truths from circulating.
I do believe Truth (capital T) is available from God, but it's pretty rare. It looks to me that you and I disagree on this point. This may be why you avoided the list of errors that PFAL handled.
My whole message is that God did select a man to hear His Truth and distribute it. This process had not happened in such an intense way in 2000 years, and we were privileged to sit in on it when we took PFAL.
Opinion expression is a nice thing, but Truth distribution is much more important and needed. For that reason I'd resist your suggested method of running a class.
However, all this is moot, since I believe Dr reached all that were supposed to hear PFAL. My message is not "PFAL is the greatest, let's distribute it." There was once a time I believed that and did that.
My message now is to grads of that class and it is: "PFAL is the greatest; let us grads master the written form of it, the collaterals, and then see what God would have us to do."
If you still have your collateral books, I think you are sitting on a gold mine of Truth. We grads did not absorb all that God gave by revelation to Dr and he put into those books. We forgot much, and much slipped by us unnoticed when we first took that class, especially in the books.
Here is an example. You post ended with: "...and for heavens sake allow a variety of translations, not just King James."
If you look hard, you will find that many translations were utilized within those books that came with the class. It was only in the running of the video or tape that one version was used: the KJV. This was done for various reasons. As a result of my exposure to PFAL I have over 15 versions in my library. I've heard others complain that Dr constrained us to only the KJV, but many other versions appear in his books.
Your post on "first usage" was not totally lost on me, but it was somewhat. I'm nearly ot of time for just now, but I wanted to get into one point.
I always had a hard time with "first useage" because I knew the the order of the books in the KJV was largely of man and not God. I never knew whether Dr was referring to first chronologically written, or first chronologically happening, or first appearing in the KJV canon, or first appearing in the Hebrew canon (OT).
Acts could have been written much later than the epistles, even though it's story line occurs before.
Do you see my quandary?
Some things are easier, like in Genesis. But even there, I've heard that the book of job was written even earlier than Genesis. I don't know.
The idea of "first usage" becomes much easier to apply (for me) when we look at the PFAL writings. There we see all the dates each book was written clearly. Plus the sequence of when various chapters were assigned to new students provides us with another interesting sequence.
I just never have considered myself qualified to apply the idea of "first usage." Since I first started seriously believeing Dr wrote by revelation in 1998, I can FOLLOW a presentation of first usage there. But I currently refrain from applying that idea on my own.
***
That said, another subject I've not had time for is the area you apply "first usage" to: interpretation of tongues being properly in the second person. Again, this is an area I have had little time to look into deeply.
Since I start all my study nowadays assuming PFAL is correct, you know where I would steer the conversation if I had any decent knowledge on this, but I don't.
HOWEVER, if you go to the Cortright websight homepage you can find a book on this subject written by a grad named Ren Manetti titled "In the Church, Prophecy is Equal to Speaking in Tongues Plus Interpretation."
In other words, he supports what Dr taught and the iterptretation of tongues should NOT be in the second person as you argue.
Here is what is said about that book there at the Cortright websight:
"'In the Church, Prophecy is Equal to Speaking in Tongues Plus Interpretation' is a research based discussion of I Corinthians 12-14 that focuses on nine different logical arguments (mathematical proofs) supporting the conclusion that speaking in tongues with interpretation in the church equals the manifestation of prophecy."
Last time I talked with Ren Manetti he had sent a copy to CES, where second person interpretation has been taught for years, and where I suspect you got some of your information. Maybe you can read it and see who has the more convincing arguments.
I don't know what CES has to say about Ren's book. At the time we talked he had no response from them.
If you were serious in charging idolatry about my use of the phrase like "God bowing" might I remind you that the figure of speech condescencio brings in much the same imagery?
In context, I mentioned that in an argument between two people, if the core of the disagreement is merely two differing definitions of words, then it can be settled quickly by the more enlightened and loving person condescending or bowing to the other's definition temporarily.
In looking it up, I may have to retract some of my ways of expressing all I did on that post, but not too much. The easiest way, with the short time I have right now, is to go back to the the original.
We were taught this in PFAL pages 74-75:
"Do you know why there is such a difference between the books of Amos and Isaiah, between the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of John? Can you speak with any vocabulary other than the one you have? For instance, if you have never heard of the word “idiosyncrasy,” you can not use it. One can only use the vocabulary that he possesses. That is exactly what The Word declares in II Peter 1:21, that holy men of God spoke. They used their own vocabularies and their own modes of expression. The Gospel of Mark is short and choppy: “and immediately,” “and straightway,” “and forthwith.” These words are used because the writer of the Gospel of Mark was not a highly-educated man with a flowery vocabulary. But the Gospel of John is different. John wrote, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made.” How beautiful! Why? Because of John’s style of writing. Amos’ writing was terse; he was a herdsman. Isaiah used beautiful expressions. This accounts for the differences in writing styles that are found in the Bible. Holy men of God did the speaking and writing; they used their natural vocabularies. But they spoke 'as they were moved by the Holy Ghost [spirit] .'”
The essence of what I posted still stands. Dr was not wrong in what he wrote about the king technically owning all the women in the kingdom. He did NOT teach that this was right, just a part of human nature.
The tiny point I am yielding on is in regards to who exactly properly used the word "technically" in that other PFAL book passage: God or Dr.
"it's a tuff, tuff Christian world out there, galen."
I agree.
"After all, most Christians that I know believe in the golden rule. Maybe it doesn't apply here, though, if you know more than everybody else."
Did I present myself as knowing more than everyone else? I am sorry about that. Such was not my intent.
"Ps since I know you are the total exception to most of life, I don't expect you to take me very seriously."
I did not intend to sound like I was 'blowing you off', again not my intent. I 'think' that I do try to take your input seriously.
I do know that it is a big world out there. There most certainly are lots of denominations our there. A lot of them are social groups, some focus on their ministry; some push their classes, etc.
I fully understand that some were hurt by TWI [notice that I no longer 'follow' them], I bucked their system and I was thrown out by their leadership many times [well I don’t know, is 3 many?].
But I do like PFAL. I don’t see the 'law of believing' as an absolute, rain falls on saint and sinner alike. We do live on a world that is ruled by our adversary, who does really bad things. Taking all things with a grain of salt, I still 'like' PFAL. Sorry :-)
The 'law of gravity' is not an absolute. Birds fly and men fly. Men escape our gravity well and leave it to go out into space. Does that mean that for them our law of gravity does not apply? No it certainly does not. That law is still in place, but it is not a law entirely in isolation. There exist other laws, and other forces, which also effect things.
I don’t see many laws as being absolute.
'Death and taxes' are said to be absolute laws. Though I know men who legally avoid income-taxes [and I count my name among them], and I 'hope' that one day there will be believers who avoid death.
"that's ok. I do believe in alternate dimensions of life. Some people somehow live in an alternate universe. Yes, I do believe in life on other planets."
I how found that many people who live here on the same planet as us, also live in entirely different 'dimensions' :-)
Mike, I don't believe you're committing idolatry by believing that PFAL is God-breathed, but I still think you're wrong.
Dr. said there is no word lama in aramaic.
Saying there is no word "like" lama is the same darn thing, cause then he says there is a word lmana. Dr. wasn't so unequivocal as to what you believe he said. He usually said it with force and boldness. So he said there is no word like, or as, lama. Since there is, PFAL has an error.
So the PFAL class both video and written said there is no word "like" lama.
Dr. wrote in the Word's Way in "Cry of Triumph" chapter "there is no such Aramaic word as lama".
So what does that mean? The addition of the word "as" gives you doubt?
I suppose he just should have said that lmana fits and lama doesn't -- that would have settled the matter, rather than saying there is no word as lama.
But he said something else in PFAL that the words Taatani or Nashantani ARE in Psalms 22:1 translated to forsake, which if true, disproves the idea that Jesus was quoting Psalms 22:1. Matthew 27:46 forsake is sabachthani, and unless its sabachthani in Psalms 22:1 as well, I don't see how one can connect them.
Does anyone have an Aramaic interlinear to check this?
But he said something else in PFAL that the words Taatani or Nashantani ARE in Psalms 22:1 translated to forsake, which if true, disproves the idea that Jesus was quoting Psalms 22:1. Matthew 27:46 forsake is sabachthani, and unless its sabachthani in Psalms 22:1 as well, I don't see how one can connect them.
Umm, because one is Hebrew and the other Aramaic? Maybe?
Mike's attitude should not be surprising. It contains all the charecteristics of religious intolerance. Whenever I see someone who is absolutely resolute that THEY are right and anyone who disagrees with them is wrong, I know that I have found a religious zealot. Being right becomes the primary force in their lives, they become dependant upon it like a junkie is to his drug. On a subconscious level, WHAT he believes is really irrelevant, it is a matter of BEING RIGHT. Of course, this requires an extremely closed mind...which is what Mike has strived for. You see, Wierwille taught Mike to keep his mind closed...Otherwise, Mike might question, consider and doubt...and then Mike's mind would be OPEN to debbil spurts.
This mindset brings with it an attitude of superiority (how could it not, seeing he's right and everybody else is wrong)...which usually manifests itself with condescending and patronizing remarks. He's really not a bad fellow...he simply has a closed mind due to his codependance upon being the holder of absolute truth...quite comforting I suppose, but then again so is the junkies heroin.
You wrote: "Mike's attitude should not be surprising. It contains all the charecteristics of religious intolerance. Whenever I see someone who is absolutely resolute that THEY are right and anyone who disagrees with them is wrong, I know that I have found a religious zealot."
Get ready for a surprise: I agree with you that my "attitude contains all the characteristics of religious intolerance."
You just left out the fact that religious intolerance is not the ONLY way of thought that is characterized by attitudes like mine.
You could say the same thing of Jesus or Paul or Moses. And before you or anyone else resorts to the desperation technique of changing the subject to point out that my ego is too big in placing myself in the same category of Jesus, Paul, and Moses, please remember that I may think of my self as merely FOLLOWING them at a distance and still have their attitudes towards the truth.
In other words, my attitudes ALSO contain all the characteristics of an enlightened person, at least for the characteristics under discussion.
Most cult definitions I've ever seen, if applied to them, would brand Jesus or Paul or Moses as kooky zealots. If you think that way, at least you're being consistent. People who think that there is no Truth with a capital "T" to be had, or that it is totally inaccessible, will make the same logical mistake I pointed out opening this post.
Jesus accepted no criticism that he just may have it even a little wrong somewhere. Ditto for Paul, Moses, and every other Biblical person who tapped in to the Truth. Nowadays the most popular philosophy is that, at best, truth could only be found by someone in robes and sandals, with a beard, and a birth certificate that is dated at least 2000 years ago. I other words, truth died with the apostles, and we can only get scraps of it, and we never know which scraps are true and which are in error. This leads to the truth tolerance you decry as missing in me.
Jesus was intolerant with accepting ideas inferior to his, but he was VERY tolerant in accepting PEOPLE who were inferior to him. Ditto for all those who walk in love.
I can see modern Truth believers as still in rejection that I have found it, but they look at the content of my message to discredit it, instead of attacking the messenger's attitudes.
***
You wrote: " Being right becomes the primary force in their lives, they become dependant upon it like a junkie is to his drug. On a subconscious level, WHAT he believes is really irrelevant, it is a matter of BEING RIGHT. Of course, this requires an extremely closed mind...which is what Mike has strived for."
I've reported here the several long periods of my life when I had an open mind, and you either ignore that or are ignorant of it. I have reported here that an open mind has its benefits and it's liabilities, and likewise with a closed mind. That seems to have escaped your awareness and attention. It's YOU, sir, that has a closed mind.
***
You wrote: "This mindset brings with it an attitude of superiority (how could it not, seeing he's right and everybody else is wrong)...which usually manifests itself with condescending and patronizing remarks."
No again. I did FIRST recognize the superiority of the set of ideas which I now propound. I achieved this recognition while holding a set of ideas I had to eventually regard as wrong. I saw that I was wrong, and changed my mind to embrace a superior set of ideas.
When was the last time YOU determined that your deepest thoughts on life were totally wrong and needed to be changed? What were those old thoughts, what were the new thoughts, and when did the change occur... that is IF you ever did change. People who think they themselves are superior usually blame wrong on others. Kinda like the way you are doing with me.
***
You wrote: "He's really not a bad fellow...he simply has a closed mind due to his codependance upon being the holder of absolute truth...quite comforting I suppose, but then again so is the junkies heroin."
Now, what were you saying about "condescending and patronizing remarks" again?
in an earleir post was that I do not have permission to quote those materials on the internet. Yes, with exception of Lamsa and Errico, all other authors do beleive in the trinity and the deity of Jesus Christ. However, if you would open yourself and likewise Galen, to exam these books, you might be surprised how much similarity there is to PFAL, and it is done in a nonintimidating manner. Almost storytelling and done before live audiences with
humor. We run these classes free of cost, free meals before these teachings, free childcare. No
pre-registration fees and In case of Alpha/Beginings, we allow new people to come in for the first 5 sessions before we close them off. We have had as manner as 60 and as few as 5
people(first timers), and run the class twice a year. WE also do Servant Evangelism events such
as free carwashses, free water bottles at busy
intersections with an attached note about our
congregation's ministries and gives directions to our church; and mowing lawns, cleanong out gutters, and shoveling snow off their driveways/
sidewalks. It is called charity/love/agape with
no intention of receiving money. Also, we have done PowerSurge from Lutheran pastor Mike Folley
of Prince of Peace Lutheran Church in Burnsville
MN(just south of St. Paul). Finally, I originally sold all the colaterals while I waS
living in Burlington,NC which I am sorry to say
got into the hands of J.L. Williams who wrote a
book on TWI and some of that information got to
John Judes. Only a year ago did I start buying over the "net" 2nd hand copies of Wierwille's books, including 4 out of the 5 edited posthumously by Chris Geer from UK. So it has been almost 12 years since I had seen the materials. So take a chance and see if I am wrong on my conclusions and if you detect major
errors, heresies, and blasphemies, then feel free to correct me either on this thread or do
private email. But step out of the boat of your prejudices and walk on the water of truth to the living Way, Jesus Christ(not the Ohio organization). Grace, mercy and peace to you all
My many hours at the Sherlock Holmes School of Singular Sleuthing say to me that you used a typewriter for a long time before getting into using computers. Am I right? Or should I ask them for my money back? :D-->
You wrote: "...please for give my earleir outburst against you. I know it was not very Christlike behavior."
Please be assured that your mild complaint didn't bother me, and I doubt if Christ lost any sleep over it either. I am very accustomed now to genuinely vicious attacks against me. Not only than, but almost every Internet conversationalist notices that these quickly typed, voluminous interchanges easily lend themselves to unintentionally harsh writing into messages, AND to harshness being read into messages by the reader that were unintended by the writer. This is the reason for the invention of those smiley face symbols.
***
You wrote: "The reason I gave books and chapters in an earleir post was that I do not have permission to quote those materials on the internet."
Paraphrasing or outline sketches is always permitted. Quoting small passages is almost impossible to forbid. Even quoting large passages can, at times, be legal and even appropriate. Plus, there are ways in which the Internet is like the "Wild West" in that laws that cover paper and printing are void here. That may change someday, though.
***
You wrote: "Yes, with exception of Lamsa and Errico, all other authors do beleive in the trinity and the deity of Jesus Christ."
Yes, this cripples many otherwise interesting ministries, especially when it gets into us becoming the "Word made flesh" as Jesus did. The trinity places Jesus Christ on an unreachable pedestal.
***
You wrote: " However, if you would open yourself and likewise Galen, to exam these books, you might be surprised how much similarity there is to PFAL, and it is done in a nonintimidating manner."
If you were to master PFAL, you might be surprised to see more distance emerge between those books and PFAL that is hidden right to you now with your present knowledge of it. I have found that all of us grads have forgotten or misplaced much of PFAL, and that much was never absorbed in our first exposure to it.
I don't doubt the non intimidating manner, though. Good manners have been learned by many churches. But pagans can learn that too, so it's not a halmark of truth. Truth itself, or even just one element of the truth can be intimidating to those who stand against it, consciously or accidently.
***
In describing your ministry's activities that require no exchange of money you wrote: "It is called charity/love/agape with no intention of receiving money."
Love can also be exhibited in charging a hefty fee for certain types of classes to prevent unready students from diluting the atmosphere of learning the otherwise serious and ready students deserve. Many Bible colleges operate this way, at least in part. The PFAL class was run this way to a degree, and I'm glad it was. We ran free twig fellowships and helped get students serious and ready for the more formal and rich atmosphere of learning the this class could offer. Many exceptions were made to the required donation to take PFAL, such as other grads fronting the money at times. When people fork over the dough they are in a better position to receive in many ways. Free isn't always good. Just look at inner city free housing and how it's been a colossal failure. People appreciate better and are more careful with those things they have to work for.
***
You wrote: "Only a year ago did I start buying over the "net" 2nd hand copies of Wierwille's books, including 4 out of the 5 edited posthumously by Chris Geer from UK. So it has been almost 12 years since I ha seen the materials."
We here in my San Diego fellowship have found that Geer's editing is not to be trusted. In fact, we trust no one's editing of his writings after Dr's death.
The Way International bookstore is now open to the general public again. With a phone call to New Knoxville I received a catalog by US mail in two days. They were very polite and accommodating. Of course, I didn't attempt to talk doctrine, or worse yet ministry soap operas, with them. That would have been totally inappropriate, so I totally refrained.
We have heard rumors that there has been some posthumous editing of Dr's writings by TWI, and that bothers us greatly. Time will tell. So will I.
***
You wrote: "So take a chance and see if I am wrong on my conclusions and if you detect major
errors, heresies, and blasphemies, then feel free to correct me either on this thread or do
private email. But step out of the boat of your prejudices and walk on the water of truth to the living Way, Jesus Christ..."
Since I firmly believe that Jesus Christ's Father was intimately involved in the writing of the PFAL collaterals, taking my eyes off them would be the equivalent of Peter taking his eyes off the Lord while he walked on water. That move will sink a man's walk.
In addition to PFAL correcting many cherished christian-world errors, it also teaches us the HOW of operating the power he learned and operated. Here we have, in my opinion, one of the situations in life where a CLOSED mind is what God recommends. After many years of searching I am convinced that, although it is not intended for everyone, it is unique and God's best for us grads by far.
You wrote: "Mike, I don't believe you're committing idolatry by believing that PFAL is God-breathed, but I still think you're wrong."
I am extremely grateful for your kind words in opening here. Few have been so tolerant. But this IS a debate of sorts, so I must press on.
Do you see that if you say PFAL is not God-breathed, then by the same reasoning, NOTHING IS?
***
You wrote: "Dr. said there is no word lama in aramaic. __ Saying there is no word "like" lama is the same darn thing, cause then he says there is a word lmana. Dr. wasn't so unequivocal as to what you believe he said. He usually said it with force and boldness. So he said there is no word like, or as, lama. Since there is, PFAL has an error."
I follow you and see the apparent discrepancy that bothers you, but it's in your last sentence above that I disagree.
To say "...since there is [an apparent error], PFAL has an error" halts the research, and prematurely arrives at a conclusion.
My stand in working PFAL, like our mutual stand in working the KJV or any other traditional Bible, is to say instead: "...since there is [an apparent error], this is an area we need to do additional work in our understanding."
I would then assign a priority rating to this AE (apparent error) based on how much it affects my other study. Since this is not a begging doctrinal area to me, and it has no effect on my walk with God, I assign it a relatively low level, put it in that old spiritual closet Gail Winegarner used to speak often of, and continue to be on the lookout for clues as I conduct more pressing study in PFAL.
***
I want to repeat something. Do you see that if PFAL is not God-breathed, then by the same reasoning, NOTHING IS? The type of disqualifying analysis you do with PFAL will disqualify all known Bibles too. They too have errors.
I know you want to believe that the original versions, in the original languages and cultures, WERE God-breathed. But that's an abstract idea. Why do you believe it without proof, the kind of proof you insist on with PFAL? The reason I want to believe, and do believe, that the traditional Bible's originals were God-breathed is because I once tok a class called "Power for Abundant Living" on video tape and taught by one Victor Paul Wierwille.
***
Can you point to a single book in your library that is God-breathed? I don't mean a book that's derived from something that was God-breathed 2000 years ago, I mean an actual, physical, errorless, God-breathed book.
You can NOT pick up a single book and say to me:
"This book is bigger than me. It's perfect. If I disagree with it, I must change ME, and not a single word in this book. No matter how much sense knowledge information comes my way saying such-and-such is in error in this book, I'm ignoring that sense knowledge because I know this book is straight from God. I dare not alter a single word, because it's God-breathed."
There once was a time that many people could say that of a letter they got by pony express from the Apostle Paul, or of a scroll they had in their synagog.
You could say that FIGURATIVELY with your KJV (and that's what Dr did in the class as he explained in segment 16, soon to come in this post), referring to the originals, but you can't do it literally. You can abstractly seek the originals with your KJV, but you don't actually have them, not totally. You can't even know for sure when your striving to attain the originals is done and it's the proper time to halt the search in any particular area.
When you hold what you call a Bible, you really are holding a VERSION of the Bible. In Bible versions we have loads of errors and poor translations. You don't have a real Bible. Even if you did, you wouldn't have an authoritative translation of it. What you have of the original Bible is an approximation.
Approximations may be good for a start, but when you're face to face with the adversary, like Eve was and like Jesus was, then you can't be one word off and win. That's why no one operates the manifestations effectually, because we only worked real hard with approximations of God's written Word, versions, and not with the revelations God gave Dr to put into print for us.
Here's what Dr said word-for-word in the film class, segment 16, which was Session Three:
"No translation, no translation, and I want you to listen
very carefully; for no translation, and by the way that's
all we have today at best are translations. No translation
may properly be called The Word Of God... ..no translation!"
Then a minute later he repeats:
"Now I said that no translation, no translation, let alone
a version, no translation may properly be called The Word
Of God..."
That's eight times (new beginning) that he uses the phrase "no translation."
Then several minutes later he hits it again:
"And in this class on Power For Abundant Living, when I
refer to The Word Of God I may hold the King James Version
or I may hold some other version and point to it; I do not
mean that version. I mean that Word of God which was
originally given when holy men of God spake as they were
moved by the Holy Spirit."
From taking PFAL I learned to overlook the MANY MAJOR errors that crept into the traditional Bible, correct any apparent errors due solely to my own wrong dividing of it, and abstractly look to the original revelation as my only rule for faith and practice.
It is far easier for me now to overlook the FEW MINOR errors that have crept into written PFAL, correct any apparent errors due solely to my own wrong dividing of it, and concretely look to these books as my only rule for faith and practice, and look to PFAL as my book of books, my own "The Book," the newly defined Bible.
OK Mr enlightened one. Can you tell us how, if you're so right about PFAL, it's Godly perfection et. al., how many people have you converted to your position in your seven years of enlightenment?
If people were honestly searching after righteousness, would not God lead them to PFAL so they could be enlightened, as you?
You are using "inside-out" logic Mike. You start from your conclusions then build a path back to them.
Don't you know that when you hold your PFAL book you are holding a VERSION if IT?
Has your research told you that the "written PFAL" was NOT EVEN WRITTEN BY VPW?
Have you not learned in seven years of thorough study that the written PFAL book was complied by edotors from the film class? Then it was re-edited several times to correct errors from the TRANSLATION from spoken VPW English to more formal written english AND vpw had little to do with that?
quote:
Approximations may be good for a start, but when you're face to face with the adversary, like Eve was and like Jesus was, then you can't be one word off and win. That's why no one operates the manifestations effectually, because we only worked real hard with approximations of God's written Word, versions, and not with the revelations God gave Dr to put into print for us.
That statement is pure bull-dang Mike.
Before I say anything further, I'm going to point out, for the benefit of ALL, that you use this precely identical statement in effort to lure me & probably others into your endless and equally ludicrous "Public debate."
Not only is it not true, it is not even POSSIBLE that it COULD be true.
Why?
FIRST of all you don't even need a SINGLE word to defeat the adversary. He's already defeated by Jesus Christ 2000 years ago.
SECOND. You don't need a SINGLE word to resist the adversary. You can simply walk away from ANY temptation at any time, silently.
THIRD. We are both ALWAYS and NEVER "face to face" with the adversary. Always, in the sense that his temptation to sin is latent in society in things that are ever before our faces. NEVER in the sense that "we wrestle not against flesh & blood...."
FOURTH. You have NO right to say who does or more importantly who DOESN'T "operate the manifestations effectually." You simply aren't all knowing enough to know what happens anywhere you can't see, which is apprently not beyond the end of your own nose.
FIFTH. God only uses the written words on a page of scripture as a reference to His spiritual truth. The words of a particular Bible are in many ways irrelevant.
Your point of view reflects a specific ignorance on your part of the fact that there is ONE God, billions of people and thousands of LANGUAGES he uses to communicate and reveal His SINGLE truth to. The Bible refers to this process as "groanings that cannot be uttered."
In other words, God uses the Bible as a means to "dumb it down for us." We read it, and put our hearts in a position where He reveals His truth to us via His gift of Holy Spirit in us. It AINT the words on the page, otherwise any human with a capacity to think could recieve God's truth from reading the Bible.
The Bible clearly tells us that "the natural man cannot receive spiritual things, nor can he learn them with his mind because they are recieved directly through the spirit of God in him." You tell me, Mr. research man, where in the Bible is that? I guarantee you, it IS in there.
The same truth, in many different languages consists of many different words, amounts of words, etc. From a Godly perspective words in different languages ARE no more than groanings, sounds, utterances. Human "words" carry little to no significance to God.
He sees all humans as ONE - - MANKIND. From His POV there is ONE race, HUMAN. From His POV we all come from ONE guy ADAM (which literally means man) "he called her (EVE) WO-man because she came out from the man." The rest of us are a product of their union. Although there are a few peoles on the planet who are decendants of the union between women and some of Lucifer's fallen angels, which BTW was the specific reasoning to the flood of Genesis 6. It seems that it happened a few more times after the flood, but not to the extent as before, This also expleains why God said to Utterly destroy certain civilizations. (Oh seeing as we no longer need the Bible, How would we have found that through PFAL?)
It is NOT the words I use that defeats the adversary in a given situation, it is the POWER of God that I tap into via where my heart is in reference to what I say. "To recieve anything from God you must FIRST believe that He is then believe that He is a rewarder to them that diligently seek HIM."
You seek God via studying His word, NOT PFAL.
You do err, Mike because you don't know the scriptures and more importantly, you DON'T know the POWER of God. This worldly wisdom you act like you try to utilize is FOOLISHNESS to God.
For example:
Your statement
quote:
That's eight times (new beginning) that he uses the phrase "no translation."
... shows that you are either ignorant of ot you intentionally ignore the fact that any spiritual significance of numbers is limited to what GOD does, not ANY man.
Which of us, by taking thought can add one cubit to his height? No, not a single one. This is where you jump off into idolatry, Mike. You have elevated VPW to Godly status by ascribing Godly prowess to his though process in how many times HE chose to repeat something.
Hmmm... you expect us to believe that because he said "no translation" eight times it represents a GODLY new beginning to ALL mankind? Ok Mike. WE believe. I believe he cruised right pas spiritual perfection to a new beginning because VPW had the Godly insight to do so.
Oh no, That's right.... He was a holy man who spake as he was moved by Holy Spirit. I temporarily forgot the God Breathed thing.
What about the thing VPW said....Didn't he say something to the effect that you had to be bigger than something to explain it or speak for it? Why don't you clarify that statement, O thou master of PFAL, Its in the class somewhere, give me a segment & verse on it, if you would....
Yes I am insinuating that your cause in this whole PFAL thing is partly to elevate yourself as the one who saved the world via saving PFAL.
If it isn't that tell us all what it is. Don't forget the list of your converts, OK?
And finally, don't play your usual "you're being mean to me" card. I'm actually being quite nice, compared to what you deserve, this is full of mercy and grace.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
42
42
104
94
Popular Days
Feb 22
44
Feb 28
40
Mar 11
40
Mar 1
34
Top Posters In This Topic
WordWolf 42 posts
HCW 42 posts
Mike 104 posts
Ham 94 posts
Popular Days
Feb 22 2005
44 posts
Feb 28 2005
40 posts
Mar 11 2005
40 posts
Mar 1 2005
34 posts
Popular Posts
Bolshevik
Remember the ROA everyone smiling stupid all day? Zombies. Just zombies. With snack tents.
Rocky
Not that I necessarily disagree with you two, but returning to the topic of the PFLAP class... it's all about removing uncertainty from us and replacing it with Victor Wierwille. He had ONE freak
Bolshevik
I can't say what Christian practices are. Any quote by LCM should be read as if he is yelling or at a low rumble leading up to the yelling . . . Certainly sounds like an inner conflict
Galen
Thomas Loy Bumgarner:
"Mike and Galen, if Power for Abundant Living is so great class, then take each section/chapter,
either live or video and then allow the group discuss what they saw or heard to get feedback, and don't correct them in front of others. Instead, say "that''s an interesting point or observation. I wonder why I didn't see that", then privately in love and tenderness, show them from scripture where they are wrong. But, remember that they are seekers and don't know
the Bible, and for heavens sake allow a variety of translations, not just King James. Thomas"
You are certainly welcome to do it anyway you desire.
:-)
As I have stated many many many times before, we usually like to have dinner. Then a round of prayer and manifestations, maybe some songs. A segment or two of the class [depending on how late it is], end with a prayer and then hanging out and sharing or whatever until each person has to go home [again assuming that they dont all live in the same home with us, as I have already explained most of the time we have had lots of boarders living with us].
Personally I do prefer the KJV, as do most of the Mennonites that we associate with. But not everyone carrys such, some prefer other versions.
You are certainly welcome to do things in your home, as you wish. I would thank you for not requiring that I do things in my home in the way that you think best. Thank you.
:-)
If I dont think something is 'interesting' then I prefer not to lie. I am fully capable of holding my tongue, and simply not saying anything. Personally I prefer that not say anything, rather than say something that I know to be err.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
galen,
getting back to our original interchange, i think you totally misunderstood me, dear.
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
ex10:
"galen,
getting back to our original interchange, i think you totally misunderstood me, dear."
Yes, sorry.
Too many off-topics running to keep it straight. :-)
"It is a wonderful world out there. We rather like BG Leonard’s class, we like PFAL, we like doing Word-Studies, we like fellowshipping with others and ministering to them."
"We have dealt with a few churches, though so often we have found that they are businesses with bottom-lines that they must meet each month and they are often driven by that dollar amount."
"Overall we do prefer home-based Bible study groups and pastoring."
"It saddens me that so many were abused by TWI, as it saddens me that so many have been abused by the Baptists from which I find my roots. My wife’s roots are Catholic and we all know how many have been / and still are abused from within that fold."
"There is a great and wonderful world of Christians out there, but we must look for them and bless them, somehow even while we are on guard for tyrants and abusive systems."
Bless you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
it's a tuff, tuff christian world out there, galen.
After all, most christians that i know beleive in the golden rule. Maybe it doesn't apply here, though, if you know more than everybody else.
But somehow, I think you can probably handle it.
love you, dear.
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
ps since i know you are the total exception to most of life, I don't expect you to take me very seriously.
that's ok. I do believe in alternate dimensions of life. Some people somehow live in an alternate universe.
Yes, I do belive in life on other planets.
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Thomas Loy Bumgarner,
May I be the first to dub you TLB? It's inevitable. Don't try and resist.
:D-->
Before I respond to your latest post, please allow me to show you some respect. This is a rough playground, and people get into the habit of throwing disagreement about with great abandon. I do this too, even though I sometimes regret it. Sometimes I do it accidently without even knowing it. Sometimes I try to be respectful, and it's interpreted exactly the opposite.
I noticed you felt disrespected by me in a previous exchange. I meant none personally, seeing that I've hardly had a chance to get to know your personality. What I was criticizing was the content of the message you posted. That kind of thing happens a lot here. Posters grown thick skins here, because there's not enough time to constantly consider people's feelings. There is a huge volume of information that does get posted, and sometimes loss of personal respect is the price we all pay for that volume. Often times people make up later on in a thread, or via e-mail, when toes are stepped on extra hard.
That said, I want to respectfully extend the original criticism I had for the first post of yours that I responded to. In that first post you listed a bunch of chapter titles, when the context I was focusing on was a list of doctrinal errors. Then later, you posted a list of people's names, again avoiding the list of doctrinal errors common to denominational churches and that PFAL handled. I'm still interested in hearing how you and your ministry handle those items that PFAL identifies as common errors in christianity. It's still my contention that PFAL is of far greater value to us grads than anything else that's going on in the christian world.
All that said, let's get into your latest post.
You wrote: "...if Power for Abundant Living is so great class, then take each section/chapter,
either live or video and then allow the group discuss what they saw or heard to get feedback, and don't correct them in front of others. Instead, say "that''s an interesting point or observation. I wonder why I didn't see that", then privately in love and tenderness, show them from scripture where they are wrong. But, remember that they are seekers and don't know the Bible..."
In addition to the time such a procedure takes, it also exposes the other students to the error expressed by that one other student. I do believe in helping new students to save face, though, but not at the expense of having the others exposed to error uncorrected. The way Dr Wierwille set up the class is to not allow opinions expressed at all, just his.
This last statement of mine may sound like a most dictatorially harsh way of doing things. It would be if we lived in a world where the absolute truth were not available. In such a world with no Truth with a capital T, everyone (just about) has an equally valid truth with a small t to express, and Dr's way of doing things would suppress truths from circulating.
I do believe Truth (capital T) is available from God, but it's pretty rare. It looks to me that you and I disagree on this point. This may be why you avoided the list of errors that PFAL handled.
My whole message is that God did select a man to hear His Truth and distribute it. This process had not happened in such an intense way in 2000 years, and we were privileged to sit in on it when we took PFAL.
Opinion expression is a nice thing, but Truth distribution is much more important and needed. For that reason I'd resist your suggested method of running a class.
However, all this is moot, since I believe Dr reached all that were supposed to hear PFAL. My message is not "PFAL is the greatest, let's distribute it." There was once a time I believed that and did that.
My message now is to grads of that class and it is: "PFAL is the greatest; let us grads master the written form of it, the collaterals, and then see what God would have us to do."
If you still have your collateral books, I think you are sitting on a gold mine of Truth. We grads did not absorb all that God gave by revelation to Dr and he put into those books. We forgot much, and much slipped by us unnoticed when we first took that class, especially in the books.
Here is an example. You post ended with: "...and for heavens sake allow a variety of translations, not just King James."
If you look hard, you will find that many translations were utilized within those books that came with the class. It was only in the running of the video or tape that one version was used: the KJV. This was done for various reasons. As a result of my exposure to PFAL I have over 15 versions in my library. I've heard others complain that Dr constrained us to only the KJV, but many other versions appear in his books.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
dmiller,
Your post on "first usage" was not totally lost on me, but it was somewhat. I'm nearly ot of time for just now, but I wanted to get into one point.
I always had a hard time with "first useage" because I knew the the order of the books in the KJV was largely of man and not God. I never knew whether Dr was referring to first chronologically written, or first chronologically happening, or first appearing in the KJV canon, or first appearing in the Hebrew canon (OT).
Acts could have been written much later than the epistles, even though it's story line occurs before.
Do you see my quandary?
Some things are easier, like in Genesis. But even there, I've heard that the book of job was written even earlier than Genesis. I don't know.
The idea of "first usage" becomes much easier to apply (for me) when we look at the PFAL writings. There we see all the dates each book was written clearly. Plus the sequence of when various chapters were assigned to new students provides us with another interesting sequence.
I just never have considered myself qualified to apply the idea of "first usage." Since I first started seriously believeing Dr wrote by revelation in 1998, I can FOLLOW a presentation of first usage there. But I currently refrain from applying that idea on my own.
***
That said, another subject I've not had time for is the area you apply "first usage" to: interpretation of tongues being properly in the second person. Again, this is an area I have had little time to look into deeply.
Since I start all my study nowadays assuming PFAL is correct, you know where I would steer the conversation if I had any decent knowledge on this, but I don't.
HOWEVER, if you go to the Cortright websight homepage you can find a book on this subject written by a grad named Ren Manetti titled "In the Church, Prophecy is Equal to Speaking in Tongues Plus Interpretation."
In other words, he supports what Dr taught and the iterptretation of tongues should NOT be in the second person as you argue.
Here is what is said about that book there at the Cortright websight:
"'In the Church, Prophecy is Equal to Speaking in Tongues Plus Interpretation' is a research based discussion of I Corinthians 12-14 that focuses on nine different logical arguments (mathematical proofs) supporting the conclusion that speaking in tongues with interpretation in the church equals the manifestation of prophecy."
Here is the link: http://www.redbay.com/ekklesia/index.htm
Last time I talked with Ren Manetti he had sent a copy to CES, where second person interpretation has been taught for years, and where I suspect you got some of your information. Maybe you can read it and see who has the more convincing arguments.
I don't know what CES has to say about Ren's book. At the time we talked he had no response from them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Raf and Garth,
If you were serious in charging idolatry about my use of the phrase like "God bowing" might I remind you that the figure of speech condescencio brings in much the same imagery?
In context, I mentioned that in an argument between two people, if the core of the disagreement is merely two differing definitions of words, then it can be settled quickly by the more enlightened and loving person condescending or bowing to the other's definition temporarily.
In looking it up, I may have to retract some of my ways of expressing all I did on that post, but not too much. The easiest way, with the short time I have right now, is to go back to the the original.
We were taught this in PFAL pages 74-75:
"Do you know why there is such a difference between the books of Amos and Isaiah, between the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of John? Can you speak with any vocabulary other than the one you have? For instance, if you have never heard of the word “idiosyncrasy,” you can not use it. One can only use the vocabulary that he possesses. That is exactly what The Word declares in II Peter 1:21, that holy men of God spoke. They used their own vocabularies and their own modes of expression. The Gospel of Mark is short and choppy: “and immediately,” “and straightway,” “and forthwith.” These words are used because the writer of the Gospel of Mark was not a highly-educated man with a flowery vocabulary. But the Gospel of John is different. John wrote, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made.” How beautiful! Why? Because of John’s style of writing. Amos’ writing was terse; he was a herdsman. Isaiah used beautiful expressions. This accounts for the differences in writing styles that are found in the Bible. Holy men of God did the speaking and writing; they used their natural vocabularies. But they spoke 'as they were moved by the Holy Ghost [spirit] .'”
The essence of what I posted still stands. Dr was not wrong in what he wrote about the king technically owning all the women in the kingdom. He did NOT teach that this was right, just a part of human nature.
The tiny point I am yielding on is in regards to who exactly properly used the word "technically" in that other PFAL book passage: God or Dr.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
ex10:
"it's a tuff, tuff Christian world out there, galen."
I agree.
"After all, most Christians that I know believe in the golden rule. Maybe it doesn't apply here, though, if you know more than everybody else."
Did I present myself as knowing more than everyone else? I am sorry about that. Such was not my intent.
"Ps since I know you are the total exception to most of life, I don't expect you to take me very seriously."
I did not intend to sound like I was 'blowing you off', again not my intent. I 'think' that I do try to take your input seriously.
I do know that it is a big world out there. There most certainly are lots of denominations our there. A lot of them are social groups, some focus on their ministry; some push their classes, etc.
I fully understand that some were hurt by TWI [notice that I no longer 'follow' them], I bucked their system and I was thrown out by their leadership many times [well I don’t know, is 3 many?].
But I do like PFAL. I don’t see the 'law of believing' as an absolute, rain falls on saint and sinner alike. We do live on a world that is ruled by our adversary, who does really bad things. Taking all things with a grain of salt, I still 'like' PFAL. Sorry :-)
The 'law of gravity' is not an absolute. Birds fly and men fly. Men escape our gravity well and leave it to go out into space. Does that mean that for them our law of gravity does not apply? No it certainly does not. That law is still in place, but it is not a law entirely in isolation. There exist other laws, and other forces, which also effect things.
I don’t see many laws as being absolute.
'Death and taxes' are said to be absolute laws. Though I know men who legally avoid income-taxes [and I count my name among them], and I 'hope' that one day there will be believers who avoid death.
"that's ok. I do believe in alternate dimensions of life. Some people somehow live in an alternate universe. Yes, I do believe in life on other planets."
I how found that many people who live here on the same planet as us, also live in entirely different 'dimensions' :-)
Life on other planets? I have no idea.
"love you, dear."
And I you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Mike, I don't believe you're committing idolatry by believing that PFAL is God-breathed, but I still think you're wrong.
Dr. said there is no word lama in aramaic.
Saying there is no word "like" lama is the same darn thing, cause then he says there is a word lmana. Dr. wasn't so unequivocal as to what you believe he said. He usually said it with force and boldness. So he said there is no word like, or as, lama. Since there is, PFAL has an error.
So the PFAL class both video and written said there is no word "like" lama.
Dr. wrote in the Word's Way in "Cry of Triumph" chapter "there is no such Aramaic word as lama".
So what does that mean? The addition of the word "as" gives you doubt?
I suppose he just should have said that lmana fits and lama doesn't -- that would have settled the matter, rather than saying there is no word as lama.
But he said something else in PFAL that the words Taatani or Nashantani ARE in Psalms 22:1 translated to forsake, which if true, disproves the idea that Jesus was quoting Psalms 22:1. Matthew 27:46 forsake is sabachthani, and unless its sabachthani in Psalms 22:1 as well, I don't see how one can connect them.
Does anyone have an Aramaic interlinear to check this?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Umm, because one is Hebrew and the other Aramaic? Maybe?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Happy Weekend, one and all!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Mike's attitude should not be surprising. It contains all the charecteristics of religious intolerance. Whenever I see someone who is absolutely resolute that THEY are right and anyone who disagrees with them is wrong, I know that I have found a religious zealot. Being right becomes the primary force in their lives, they become dependant upon it like a junkie is to his drug. On a subconscious level, WHAT he believes is really irrelevant, it is a matter of BEING RIGHT. Of course, this requires an extremely closed mind...which is what Mike has strived for. You see, Wierwille taught Mike to keep his mind closed...Otherwise, Mike might question, consider and doubt...and then Mike's mind would be OPEN to debbil spurts.
This mindset brings with it an attitude of superiority (how could it not, seeing he's right and everybody else is wrong)...which usually manifests itself with condescending and patronizing remarks. He's really not a bad fellow...he simply has a closed mind due to his codependance upon being the holder of absolute truth...quite comforting I suppose, but then again so is the junkies heroin.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i don't really care
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
How many Astrology or Fung Shui classes are running?
(Hurrah!)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
karmicdebt
Not sure George, but I will be offering the Shambhala Tours this spring.... for a reasonable fee, of course...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
UncleHairy,
You wrote: "Mike's attitude should not be surprising. It contains all the charecteristics of religious intolerance. Whenever I see someone who is absolutely resolute that THEY are right and anyone who disagrees with them is wrong, I know that I have found a religious zealot."
Get ready for a surprise: I agree with you that my "attitude contains all the characteristics of religious intolerance."
You just left out the fact that religious intolerance is not the ONLY way of thought that is characterized by attitudes like mine.
You could say the same thing of Jesus or Paul or Moses. And before you or anyone else resorts to the desperation technique of changing the subject to point out that my ego is too big in placing myself in the same category of Jesus, Paul, and Moses, please remember that I may think of my self as merely FOLLOWING them at a distance and still have their attitudes towards the truth.
In other words, my attitudes ALSO contain all the characteristics of an enlightened person, at least for the characteristics under discussion.
Most cult definitions I've ever seen, if applied to them, would brand Jesus or Paul or Moses as kooky zealots. If you think that way, at least you're being consistent. People who think that there is no Truth with a capital "T" to be had, or that it is totally inaccessible, will make the same logical mistake I pointed out opening this post.
Jesus accepted no criticism that he just may have it even a little wrong somewhere. Ditto for Paul, Moses, and every other Biblical person who tapped in to the Truth. Nowadays the most popular philosophy is that, at best, truth could only be found by someone in robes and sandals, with a beard, and a birth certificate that is dated at least 2000 years ago. I other words, truth died with the apostles, and we can only get scraps of it, and we never know which scraps are true and which are in error. This leads to the truth tolerance you decry as missing in me.
Jesus was intolerant with accepting ideas inferior to his, but he was VERY tolerant in accepting PEOPLE who were inferior to him. Ditto for all those who walk in love.
I can see modern Truth believers as still in rejection that I have found it, but they look at the content of my message to discredit it, instead of attacking the messenger's attitudes.
***
You wrote: " Being right becomes the primary force in their lives, they become dependant upon it like a junkie is to his drug. On a subconscious level, WHAT he believes is really irrelevant, it is a matter of BEING RIGHT. Of course, this requires an extremely closed mind...which is what Mike has strived for."
I've reported here the several long periods of my life when I had an open mind, and you either ignore that or are ignorant of it. I have reported here that an open mind has its benefits and it's liabilities, and likewise with a closed mind. That seems to have escaped your awareness and attention. It's YOU, sir, that has a closed mind.
***
You wrote: "This mindset brings with it an attitude of superiority (how could it not, seeing he's right and everybody else is wrong)...which usually manifests itself with condescending and patronizing remarks."
No again. I did FIRST recognize the superiority of the set of ideas which I now propound. I achieved this recognition while holding a set of ideas I had to eventually regard as wrong. I saw that I was wrong, and changed my mind to embrace a superior set of ideas.
When was the last time YOU determined that your deepest thoughts on life were totally wrong and needed to be changed? What were those old thoughts, what were the new thoughts, and when did the change occur... that is IF you ever did change. People who think they themselves are superior usually blame wrong on others. Kinda like the way you are doing with me.
***
You wrote: "He's really not a bad fellow...he simply has a closed mind due to his codependance upon being the holder of absolute truth...quite comforting I suppose, but then again so is the junkies heroin."
Now, what were you saying about "condescending and patronizing remarks" again?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
Dear Mike, please for give my earleir outburst
against you. I know it was not very Christlike
behavior. The reason I gave books and chapters
in an earleir post was that I do not have permission to quote those materials on the internet. Yes, with exception of Lamsa and Errico, all other authors do beleive in the trinity and the deity of Jesus Christ. However, if you would open yourself and likewise Galen, to exam these books, you might be surprised how much similarity there is to PFAL, and it is done in a nonintimidating manner. Almost storytelling and done before live audiences with
humor. We run these classes free of cost, free meals before these teachings, free childcare. No
pre-registration fees and In case of Alpha/Beginings, we allow new people to come in for the first 5 sessions before we close them off. We have had as manner as 60 and as few as 5
people(first timers), and run the class twice a year. WE also do Servant Evangelism events such
as free carwashses, free water bottles at busy
intersections with an attached note about our
congregation's ministries and gives directions to our church; and mowing lawns, cleanong out gutters, and shoveling snow off their driveways/
sidewalks. It is called charity/love/agape with
no intention of receiving money. Also, we have done PowerSurge from Lutheran pastor Mike Folley
of Prince of Peace Lutheran Church in Burnsville
MN(just south of St. Paul). Finally, I originally sold all the colaterals while I waS
living in Burlington,NC which I am sorry to say
got into the hands of J.L. Williams who wrote a
book on TWI and some of that information got to
John Judes. Only a year ago did I start buying over the "net" 2nd hand copies of Wierwille's books, including 4 out of the 5 edited posthumously by Chris Geer from UK. So it has been almost 12 years since I had seen the materials. So take a chance and see if I am wrong on my conclusions and if you detect major
errors, heresies, and blasphemies, then feel free to correct me either on this thread or do
private email. But step out of the boat of your prejudices and walk on the water of truth to the living Way, Jesus Christ(not the Ohio organization). Grace, mercy and peace to you all
from God our Father and his Son, Christ Jesus.
In His Service. TLB PS check out MY Story
Thread under the poll about length involvement
in TWI
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
TLB,
My many hours at the Sherlock Holmes School of Singular Sleuthing say to me that you used a typewriter for a long time before getting into using computers. Am I right? Or should I ask them for my money back?
:D-->
You wrote: "...please for give my earleir outburst against you. I know it was not very Christlike behavior."
Please be assured that your mild complaint didn't bother me, and I doubt if Christ lost any sleep over it either. I am very accustomed now to genuinely vicious attacks against me. Not only than, but almost every Internet conversationalist notices that these quickly typed, voluminous interchanges easily lend themselves to unintentionally harsh writing into messages, AND to harshness being read into messages by the reader that were unintended by the writer. This is the reason for the invention of those smiley face symbols.
***
You wrote: "The reason I gave books and chapters in an earleir post was that I do not have permission to quote those materials on the internet."
Paraphrasing or outline sketches is always permitted. Quoting small passages is almost impossible to forbid. Even quoting large passages can, at times, be legal and even appropriate. Plus, there are ways in which the Internet is like the "Wild West" in that laws that cover paper and printing are void here. That may change someday, though.
***
You wrote: "Yes, with exception of Lamsa and Errico, all other authors do beleive in the trinity and the deity of Jesus Christ."
Yes, this cripples many otherwise interesting ministries, especially when it gets into us becoming the "Word made flesh" as Jesus did. The trinity places Jesus Christ on an unreachable pedestal.
***
You wrote: " However, if you would open yourself and likewise Galen, to exam these books, you might be surprised how much similarity there is to PFAL, and it is done in a nonintimidating manner."
If you were to master PFAL, you might be surprised to see more distance emerge between those books and PFAL that is hidden right to you now with your present knowledge of it. I have found that all of us grads have forgotten or misplaced much of PFAL, and that much was never absorbed in our first exposure to it.
I don't doubt the non intimidating manner, though. Good manners have been learned by many churches. But pagans can learn that too, so it's not a halmark of truth. Truth itself, or even just one element of the truth can be intimidating to those who stand against it, consciously or accidently.
***
In describing your ministry's activities that require no exchange of money you wrote: "It is called charity/love/agape with no intention of receiving money."
Love can also be exhibited in charging a hefty fee for certain types of classes to prevent unready students from diluting the atmosphere of learning the otherwise serious and ready students deserve. Many Bible colleges operate this way, at least in part. The PFAL class was run this way to a degree, and I'm glad it was. We ran free twig fellowships and helped get students serious and ready for the more formal and rich atmosphere of learning the this class could offer. Many exceptions were made to the required donation to take PFAL, such as other grads fronting the money at times. When people fork over the dough they are in a better position to receive in many ways. Free isn't always good. Just look at inner city free housing and how it's been a colossal failure. People appreciate better and are more careful with those things they have to work for.
***
You wrote: "Only a year ago did I start buying over the "net" 2nd hand copies of Wierwille's books, including 4 out of the 5 edited posthumously by Chris Geer from UK. So it has been almost 12 years since I ha seen the materials."
We here in my San Diego fellowship have found that Geer's editing is not to be trusted. In fact, we trust no one's editing of his writings after Dr's death.
The Way International bookstore is now open to the general public again. With a phone call to New Knoxville I received a catalog by US mail in two days. They were very polite and accommodating. Of course, I didn't attempt to talk doctrine, or worse yet ministry soap operas, with them. That would have been totally inappropriate, so I totally refrained.
We have heard rumors that there has been some posthumous editing of Dr's writings by TWI, and that bothers us greatly. Time will tell. So will I.
***
You wrote: "So take a chance and see if I am wrong on my conclusions and if you detect major
errors, heresies, and blasphemies, then feel free to correct me either on this thread or do
private email. But step out of the boat of your prejudices and walk on the water of truth to the living Way, Jesus Christ..."
Since I firmly believe that Jesus Christ's Father was intimately involved in the writing of the PFAL collaterals, taking my eyes off them would be the equivalent of Peter taking his eyes off the Lord while he walked on water. That move will sink a man's walk.
In addition to PFAL correcting many cherished christian-world errors, it also teaches us the HOW of operating the power he learned and operated. Here we have, in my opinion, one of the situations in life where a CLOSED mind is what God recommends. After many years of searching I am convinced that, although it is not intended for everyone, it is unique and God's best for us grads by far.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
oldiesman,
You wrote: "Mike, I don't believe you're committing idolatry by believing that PFAL is God-breathed, but I still think you're wrong."
I am extremely grateful for your kind words in opening here. Few have been so tolerant. But this IS a debate of sorts, so I must press on.
Do you see that if you say PFAL is not God-breathed, then by the same reasoning, NOTHING IS?
***
You wrote: "Dr. said there is no word lama in aramaic. __ Saying there is no word "like" lama is the same darn thing, cause then he says there is a word lmana. Dr. wasn't so unequivocal as to what you believe he said. He usually said it with force and boldness. So he said there is no word like, or as, lama. Since there is, PFAL has an error."
I follow you and see the apparent discrepancy that bothers you, but it's in your last sentence above that I disagree.
To say "...since there is [an apparent error], PFAL has an error" halts the research, and prematurely arrives at a conclusion.
My stand in working PFAL, like our mutual stand in working the KJV or any other traditional Bible, is to say instead: "...since there is [an apparent error], this is an area we need to do additional work in our understanding."
I would then assign a priority rating to this AE (apparent error) based on how much it affects my other study. Since this is not a begging doctrinal area to me, and it has no effect on my walk with God, I assign it a relatively low level, put it in that old spiritual closet Gail Winegarner used to speak often of, and continue to be on the lookout for clues as I conduct more pressing study in PFAL.
***
I want to repeat something. Do you see that if PFAL is not God-breathed, then by the same reasoning, NOTHING IS? The type of disqualifying analysis you do with PFAL will disqualify all known Bibles too. They too have errors.
I know you want to believe that the original versions, in the original languages and cultures, WERE God-breathed. But that's an abstract idea. Why do you believe it without proof, the kind of proof you insist on with PFAL? The reason I want to believe, and do believe, that the traditional Bible's originals were God-breathed is because I once tok a class called "Power for Abundant Living" on video tape and taught by one Victor Paul Wierwille.
***
Can you point to a single book in your library that is God-breathed? I don't mean a book that's derived from something that was God-breathed 2000 years ago, I mean an actual, physical, errorless, God-breathed book.
You can NOT pick up a single book and say to me:
"This book is bigger than me. It's perfect. If I disagree with it, I must change ME, and not a single word in this book. No matter how much sense knowledge information comes my way saying such-and-such is in error in this book, I'm ignoring that sense knowledge because I know this book is straight from God. I dare not alter a single word, because it's God-breathed."
There once was a time that many people could say that of a letter they got by pony express from the Apostle Paul, or of a scroll they had in their synagog.
You could say that FIGURATIVELY with your KJV (and that's what Dr did in the class as he explained in segment 16, soon to come in this post), referring to the originals, but you can't do it literally. You can abstractly seek the originals with your KJV, but you don't actually have them, not totally. You can't even know for sure when your striving to attain the originals is done and it's the proper time to halt the search in any particular area.
When you hold what you call a Bible, you really are holding a VERSION of the Bible. In Bible versions we have loads of errors and poor translations. You don't have a real Bible. Even if you did, you wouldn't have an authoritative translation of it. What you have of the original Bible is an approximation.
Approximations may be good for a start, but when you're face to face with the adversary, like Eve was and like Jesus was, then you can't be one word off and win. That's why no one operates the manifestations effectually, because we only worked real hard with approximations of God's written Word, versions, and not with the revelations God gave Dr to put into print for us.
Here's what Dr said word-for-word in the film class, segment 16, which was Session Three:
"No translation, no translation, and I want you to listen
very carefully; for no translation, and by the way that's
all we have today at best are translations. No translation
may properly be called The Word Of God... ..no translation!"
Then a minute later he repeats:
"Now I said that no translation, no translation, let alone
a version, no translation may properly be called The Word
Of God..."
That's eight times (new beginning) that he uses the phrase "no translation."
Then several minutes later he hits it again:
"And in this class on Power For Abundant Living, when I
refer to The Word Of God I may hold the King James Version
or I may hold some other version and point to it; I do not
mean that version. I mean that Word of God which was
originally given when holy men of God spake as they were
moved by the Holy Spirit."
From taking PFAL I learned to overlook the MANY MAJOR errors that crept into the traditional Bible, correct any apparent errors due solely to my own wrong dividing of it, and abstractly look to the original revelation as my only rule for faith and practice.
It is far easier for me now to overlook the FEW MINOR errors that have crept into written PFAL, correct any apparent errors due solely to my own wrong dividing of it, and concretely look to these books as my only rule for faith and practice, and look to PFAL as my book of books, my own "The Book," the newly defined Bible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
Hey Mike;
OK Mr enlightened one. Can you tell us how, if you're so right about PFAL, it's Godly perfection et. al., how many people have you converted to your position in your seven years of enlightenment?
If people were honestly searching after righteousness, would not God lead them to PFAL so they could be enlightened, as you?
You are using "inside-out" logic Mike. You start from your conclusions then build a path back to them.
Don't you know that when you hold your PFAL book you are holding a VERSION if IT?
Has your research told you that the "written PFAL" was NOT EVEN WRITTEN BY VPW?
Have you not learned in seven years of thorough study that the written PFAL book was complied by edotors from the film class? Then it was re-edited several times to correct errors from the TRANSLATION from spoken VPW English to more formal written english AND vpw had little to do with that?
That statement is pure bull-dang Mike.
Before I say anything further, I'm going to point out, for the benefit of ALL, that you use this precely identical statement in effort to lure me & probably others into your endless and equally ludicrous "Public debate."
Not only is it not true, it is not even POSSIBLE that it COULD be true.
Why?
FIRST of all you don't even need a SINGLE word to defeat the adversary. He's already defeated by Jesus Christ 2000 years ago.
SECOND. You don't need a SINGLE word to resist the adversary. You can simply walk away from ANY temptation at any time, silently.
THIRD. We are both ALWAYS and NEVER "face to face" with the adversary. Always, in the sense that his temptation to sin is latent in society in things that are ever before our faces. NEVER in the sense that "we wrestle not against flesh & blood...."
FOURTH. You have NO right to say who does or more importantly who DOESN'T "operate the manifestations effectually." You simply aren't all knowing enough to know what happens anywhere you can't see, which is apprently not beyond the end of your own nose.
FIFTH. God only uses the written words on a page of scripture as a reference to His spiritual truth. The words of a particular Bible are in many ways irrelevant.
Your point of view reflects a specific ignorance on your part of the fact that there is ONE God, billions of people and thousands of LANGUAGES he uses to communicate and reveal His SINGLE truth to. The Bible refers to this process as "groanings that cannot be uttered."
In other words, God uses the Bible as a means to "dumb it down for us." We read it, and put our hearts in a position where He reveals His truth to us via His gift of Holy Spirit in us. It AINT the words on the page, otherwise any human with a capacity to think could recieve God's truth from reading the Bible.
The Bible clearly tells us that "the natural man cannot receive spiritual things, nor can he learn them with his mind because they are recieved directly through the spirit of God in him." You tell me, Mr. research man, where in the Bible is that? I guarantee you, it IS in there.
The same truth, in many different languages consists of many different words, amounts of words, etc. From a Godly perspective words in different languages ARE no more than groanings, sounds, utterances. Human "words" carry little to no significance to God.
He sees all humans as ONE - - MANKIND. From His POV there is ONE race, HUMAN. From His POV we all come from ONE guy ADAM (which literally means man) "he called her (EVE) WO-man because she came out from the man." The rest of us are a product of their union. Although there are a few peoles on the planet who are decendants of the union between women and some of Lucifer's fallen angels, which BTW was the specific reasoning to the flood of Genesis 6. It seems that it happened a few more times after the flood, but not to the extent as before, This also expleains why God said to Utterly destroy certain civilizations. (Oh seeing as we no longer need the Bible, How would we have found that through PFAL?)
It is NOT the words I use that defeats the adversary in a given situation, it is the POWER of God that I tap into via where my heart is in reference to what I say. "To recieve anything from God you must FIRST believe that He is then believe that He is a rewarder to them that diligently seek HIM."
You seek God via studying His word, NOT PFAL.
You do err, Mike because you don't know the scriptures and more importantly, you DON'T know the POWER of God. This worldly wisdom you act like you try to utilize is FOOLISHNESS to God.
For example:
Your statement
... shows that you are either ignorant of ot you intentionally ignore the fact that any spiritual significance of numbers is limited to what GOD does, not ANY man.
Which of us, by taking thought can add one cubit to his height? No, not a single one. This is where you jump off into idolatry, Mike. You have elevated VPW to Godly status by ascribing Godly prowess to his though process in how many times HE chose to repeat something.
Hmmm... you expect us to believe that because he said "no translation" eight times it represents a GODLY new beginning to ALL mankind? Ok Mike. WE believe. I believe he cruised right pas spiritual perfection to a new beginning because VPW had the Godly insight to do so.
Oh no, That's right.... He was a holy man who spake as he was moved by Holy Spirit. I temporarily forgot the God Breathed thing.
What about the thing VPW said....Didn't he say something to the effect that you had to be bigger than something to explain it or speak for it? Why don't you clarify that statement, O thou master of PFAL, Its in the class somewhere, give me a segment & verse on it, if you would....
Yes I am insinuating that your cause in this whole PFAL thing is partly to elevate yourself as the one who saved the world via saving PFAL.
If it isn't that tell us all what it is. Don't forget the list of your converts, OK?
And finally, don't play your usual "you're being mean to me" card. I'm actually being quite nice, compared to what you deserve, this is full of mercy and grace.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Gads! Talk about a homework assignment!
This may TAKE a while!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Let's see, what shall his response be?
Judging from past performance
(which is no guarantee of future performance)
we could see the following:
A) A personal attack
"you're spiritually immature, HCW! Yo momma!"
or the ingenue version
"I'm spiritual enough to rise above your spiritual immaturity"
B) absolute ignoring of the post,
until it's brought up again
("I was busy and forgot")
C) singling out the smallest of HCW's comments,
going on for a page about it,
and pretending he answered all the charges
"Your mention of toothpicks was in error...."
D) a filibuster on an unrelated topic to change the subject
"Now I'm bringing up the 23rd edition of the Ochre Book, page 93..."
E) a claim that he already answered this and he's not going to do it
again (no proof cited)
I think that's all the usual responses. We've been thru them all over the
past few years.
=====
HCW,
thanks for your contributions to the discussion.
It helps make obvious what others already told him:
the claim that the books were edited by divine inspiration is purely Mike's,
and refuted more than once by those who edited them.
I understand why some people, wounded and bitter, avoid all mention
of pfal.
Me,
I think some of its contents have merit.
HOWEVER,
this refusal to acknowledge its strengths AND WEAKNESSES inflicts a
deficiency on the refuser. He is unable to go beyond what's written there.
Worse,
his search for "hidden meanings" blinds him to the actual contents of the
pages.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
How about we spin a wheel and whatever line comes up first, I respond to that line first?
;)-->
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.