There was always an undercurrent of sentiment that if you were interested in the *milk* of the gospels, more so than the epistles, you weren't really ready for the *meat* of Ephesians.
There was always an undercurrent of sentiment that if you were interested in the *milk* of the gospels, more so than the epistles, you weren't really ready for the *meat* of Ephesians.
Exhibit A......pfal.
The class started in the book of John.
The class ended in Ephesians.....having done all, STAND.
Wierwille's "ministry" always seem to treat Jesus Christ as looking in the rear-view mirror.
The Church Epistles were the "big leagues" where true believers dared to tread.
"The Red Thread" was always one of my most favorite VPW teachings. It's on STS tape number 904, recorded in March 1978. Until I read this thread, I had no idea he stole it from Oral Roberts.
SkyRider is totally correct. Vic used to play Oral Roberts' "the Red Thread" at the AC. That's where I first heard it. Just like all of his other "great works", this one was plagiarized too.
SkyRider is totally correct. Vic used to play Oral Roberts' "the Red Thread" at the AC. That's where I first heard it. Just like all of his other "great works", this one was plagiarized too.
Sometime in 1987, Sue Pierce came through Indianapolis and hosted a viewing of Athletes of the Spirit. It wasn't any old viewing of Athletes of the Spirit! Sue used the pause and rewind buttons and asked the questions at specific points "what did he say? what does that mean? and how does that line up with other scriptures?" She also pointed out the action on the screen and the special effects and demonstrated how they contradicted the words that were being spoken at the very same time. Almost the very first and the very last words of the entire production were "We are PROUD!"
In the fall of 1987, I bought a 30 day Greyhound ticket and traveled around the country visiting people I knew, because I knew communications were being cut off at headquarters, and I wanted to report the things I had found out to my friends face to face.
One of the things I prepared for that trip was a brief teaching on Philippians 3:17-19...
17 Brethren, be followers together [imitators together] of me [Paul], and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample.
18 (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ:
19 Whose end is destruction, whose god is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.)
There is a figure of speech in verse 19 where the causal order is reversed... the consequences (the end) is put first, and the initial cause is put last.
Verse 19 could be properly translated "they pay attention to things upon the earth, which leads to being proud of things they ought to be ashamed of, which leads to their fleshly appetites replacing God in their thoughts and hearts, which leads in the end to utter worthlessness."
That was a pretty good description of Wierwille and the leaders of TWI. Paul calls them enemies of the cross of Christ. Paul explicitly points them out as people who are not imitating him, Paul.
But that HAS TO BE talking about somebody else! Surely it cannot be applied to the man of God of the world for this our day and time! Nor can it be talking about all the mini-mogs who continue to build their imitation towers of Babel.
At some point in time I learned that none of the gospels were confirmed eyewitness accounts. Then I learned they were written after the letters. I might have learned that sooner had I read something other than the bible and TWIT lit.
I don't know about anyone else, but those two tidbits and the fact that they weren't supplied by the greatest ministry since the first century made me wonder about ANYONE who does not use several angles when it comes to study. But I am going to assume that doing so might shed a light that might best be kept off (as in one might discover one was wrong about what one teaches). I don't know. What I find amazing is that the testimony and teaching of someone who never met the guy and who wasn't taught by anyone who had was given...well...more importance than the guy who was the reason for the whole movement.
" What I find amazing is that the testimony and teaching of someone who never met the guy and who wasn't taught by anyone who had was given...well...more importance than the guy who was the reason for the whole movement."
" What I find amazing is that the testimony and teaching of someone who never met the guy and who wasn't taught by anyone who had was given...well...more importance than the guy who was the reason for the whole movement."
THIS!!
:eusa_clap:/>
And what I find amazing is that all what we know about "the guy who was the reason for the whole movement" is based on what a few people say he did or say he said. And they do not all agree all the time. Or am I wrong about this?
If you realize the epistles were written first, some interesting patterns appear. I will not discuss them here, because it's doctrinal and off-topic. (That's a warning).
What's interesting is that as an educated man (doctorate or no) with a background in theology, Wierwille knew or should have known a lot about "how we got the Bible," and it's nothing like what he shared in PFAL. But he used just enough of what he knew (manuscripts, transcription errors, etc) to undermine people's faith in the book and set himself up as the authoritative voice in restoring faith.
He had to know, even in the 1950s, 60s and 70s, that the gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. But he advanced that myth because it served his purpose.
Remember how he said after he got out of seminary, he got to the point where he no longer believed the words "holy bible" on the cover?
Couple that admission with what we know about his methods for forcing the Bible to fit like a hand in a blender. It's clear to me that he was selling a product -- not the accuracy of the Bible, but the consistency of his re-interpretation of it. As long as he could maintain the illusion of consistency, evidence to the contrary be damned, he could justify a following of like-minded believers (and the steady stream of income they provided).
I took a graduate level course on the history and literature of the New Testament last year. I completed the first semester, during which we focused on the Gospels and used a text by Bart Ehrman. Ehrman started out as a fundamentalist, but his studies led him to atheism. That's okay, though, because his scholarship on the history of the New Testament is the best there is, and is not slanted in either direction. It's just plainly stated scholarship.
I completed about two-thirds of the second semester before having to take a medical withdrawal. I intend to retake that semester this coming spring. During the second semester, we studied Acts, the letters of Paul, and the other letters. The main book we used as text for the course was Paul and the Faithfulness of God by N.T. Wright.
Wright's Paul is 1519 pages of text with an additional 139 pages of bibliography and indexes; parts I, II, III, and IV, in two volumes. Some of our correspondents have remarked "All we know about Paul is what Paul, himself, told us." N.T. Wright would beg to differ.
Part I is 347 pages long, detailing Paul's Jewish world, ancient philosophy, ancient religion and the first-century empire. Part II (218 pages) discusses what we can guess about Paul's mindset from what know about Paul's location in the Jewish and gentile cultures of his time. Part III (656 pages) considers the theology Paul developed in light of his participation in the thought-life of his time. Part IV (Paul in History, 250 pages) talks about Paul and empire, Paul and religion, Paul and philosophy, and Paul in his Jewish world.
Paul's letters are not the only source of information about Paul. It appears that the author of Acts had a personal acquaintance with Paul during certain parts of Paul's ministry, and the picture Acts presents of Paul is significantly different from the picture we gather of Paul from Paul's own writings.
Does that mean the Bible is truly God-breathed, and contains no contradictions? No indeed! But it does illustrate for us that we shouldn't make hasty decisions about what we believe or don't believe based on the caricatures we were all taught, both in the Way AND in Sunday school!
Technically, Ehrman prefers the term agnostic to atheist. But yeah.
I stand corrected, Raf. Thanks for keeping me on the straight and narrow. Sometimes I wander too far off of it!
By the by, for those of you who are interested, both Ehrman and Wright have websites, and the things they post there are vastly more enlightening and entertaining than anything TLFT posts on Youtube!
Some of our correspondents have remarked "All we know about Paul is what Paul, himself, told us." N.T. Wright would beg to differ.
Thank you, Steve. Not that my voice means much, but I'd also beg to differ. Evidently 2Pet.3:15-18 has quite a different meaning to most folks here.
Yeah, TWI had it's share of issues alright. Probably the least of which was the issue being alluded to in this thread. As mentioned in a post elsewhere, the way I see it, there was never a sufficient enough understanding of just how distinct and different Paul's gospel was from that of the apostles at Jerusalem. Which led to no end of problems.
I don't believe VP knew Christ. If he did not know Him, how could he possibly have taught him to others? He didn't. Christ was glossed over. He was reduced to an incantation at the end of a prayer. TWI was always about God and the Bible. God's heart - Christ - was missing. I have often thought over the years, the biggest disservice done to people who wanted to know God, who came to TWI, was that they were not taught who truly Christ is. I remember during my time in TWI hearing other Christians, not in TWI, talk about their relationship with Christ. I always wondered - what are they talking about? What am I missing? When I left TWI, the very first thing God taught me was who Christ is. I mulled over this idea, this strange thought for months. I had put my Bible down and also hadn't read it in months. One rainy day, in my little studio apartment on E. 95th Street in Manhattan I read the Gospel of John - fireworks went off in my mind - Oh, I see... I have heard, but now I see. Now, I understand when people talk about their relationship with Christ. He is God's heart, he is the mediator between God and Man. We had God, we had the "Word," but we didn't have the Heart - Christ.
Many people can know the Bible, preach it and yet still not believe it, not really. False teachers come from within the body, not from without. The Bible can give the one preaching a nice moral framework to live by, nice things to think about and one can try and make his flesh live by it, but without Christ - God's heart and the Holy Spirit dwelling in us - the flesh and its sin nature will always win, in the end. You cannot change your nature, your will cannot change your nature, your flesh cannot change your nature, your cat cannot change its nature - its nature is cat - our nature is fallen. It is the Holy Spirit that Christ gave that transforms our flesh and nature and conforms us, regenerates us and reconstitutes in us the Image of God we were originally created in. It is Christ who gave us back our lost Holiness. It is the Holy Spirit, the Breath of God, dwelling in us, who gets down and dirty with us in the depths of our souls and transforms us into a new creature in ways our flesh cannot. We become a new creation. A masterpiece of God to be unveiled one day in Glory.
VP focused on Paul. His sin he could not keep hidden - not in the long run.
Rev. Oral Roberts' teaching on "The Fourth Man" schooled wierwille
on the full exhaustive, expansive and exalted Jesus Christ.
In Genesis, he is.........The seed of the woman
In Exodus, he is..........The Passover lamb
In Leviticus, he is.......Our High Priest
In Numbers, he is.........Pillar of Cloud by Day, Pillar of Fire by Night
In Deuteronomy, he is.....The Prophet like unto Moses
In Joshua, he is..........The Captain of our salvation
In Judges, he is..........The Lawgiver
In Ruth, he is............Our Kinsmen Redeemer
.............<snip>
In Revelation, he is......The King of kings and Lord of lords
Did Weirwille take any time at all to learn anything about the bible for himself or did he just plagiarize all the things he was ever taught? Roberts, Bullinger, Pillai, Peale, the list goes on and on
Recommended Posts
Rocky
Brilliant!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
There was always an undercurrent of sentiment that if you were interested in the *milk* of the gospels, more so than the epistles, you weren't really ready for the *meat* of Ephesians.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
Exhibit A......pfal.
The class started in the book of John.
The class ended in Ephesians.....having done all, STAND.
Wierwille's "ministry" always seem to treat Jesus Christ as looking in the rear-view mirror.
The Church Epistles were the "big leagues" where true believers dared to tread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
All because of the "to whom it's written" drivel.
PFAL: A class on accuracy.... built on a foundation of private interpretation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
Rev. Oral Roberts' teaching on "The Fourth Man" schooled wierwille
on the full exhaustive, expansive and exalted Jesus Christ.
In Genesis, he is.........The seed of the woman
In Exodus, he is..........The Passover lamb
In Leviticus, he is.......Our High Priest
In Numbers, he is.........Pillar of Cloud by Day, Pillar of Fire by Night
In Deuteronomy, he is.....The Prophet like unto Moses
In Joshua, he is..........The Captain of our salvation
In Judges, he is..........The Lawgiver
In Ruth, he is............Our Kinsmen Redeemer
.............<snip>
In Revelation, he is......The King of kings and Lord of lords
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
SkyRider is totally correct. Vic used to play Oral Roberts' "the Red Thread" at the AC. That's where I first heard it. Just like all of his other "great works", this one was plagiarized too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
The AC is where I heard it, as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Sometime in 1987, Sue Pierce came through Indianapolis and hosted a viewing of Athletes of the Spirit. It wasn't any old viewing of Athletes of the Spirit! Sue used the pause and rewind buttons and asked the questions at specific points "what did he say? what does that mean? and how does that line up with other scriptures?" She also pointed out the action on the screen and the special effects and demonstrated how they contradicted the words that were being spoken at the very same time. Almost the very first and the very last words of the entire production were "We are PROUD!"
In the fall of 1987, I bought a 30 day Greyhound ticket and traveled around the country visiting people I knew, because I knew communications were being cut off at headquarters, and I wanted to report the things I had found out to my friends face to face.
One of the things I prepared for that trip was a brief teaching on Philippians 3:17-19...
17 Brethren, be followers together [imitators together] of me [Paul], and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample.
18 (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ:
19 Whose end is destruction, whose god is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.)
There is a figure of speech in verse 19 where the causal order is reversed... the consequences (the end) is put first, and the initial cause is put last.
Verse 19 could be properly translated "they pay attention to things upon the earth, which leads to being proud of things they ought to be ashamed of, which leads to their fleshly appetites replacing God in their thoughts and hearts, which leads in the end to utter worthlessness."
That was a pretty good description of Wierwille and the leaders of TWI. Paul calls them enemies of the cross of Christ. Paul explicitly points them out as people who are not imitating him, Paul.
But that HAS TO BE talking about somebody else! Surely it cannot be applied to the man of God of the world for this our day and time! Nor can it be talking about all the mini-mogs who continue to build their imitation towers of Babel.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
"The Red Thread" was always one of my most favorite VPW teachings. It's on STS tape number 904,
recorded in March 1978. Until I read this thread, I had no idea he stole it from Oral Roberts."
Four years later, 1982.......and wierwille was retiring at age 65. Think about that.
Wierwille was STILL plagiarizing from others and NOT grasping the fullness of Jesus Christ
throughout time and scripture. Why was the spirit within wierwille so dormant? Why did
it take an Oral Roberts to deliver one of the most inspirational teachings that wayfers
rejoiced in?
Why the emphasis on the apostle Paul consistently? Why the statue of Timothy?
In his striving to depart from denominational christianity and forge new territory,
wierwille fixated on the days after Pentecost and the "way tree" of the first century.
[Notice: the "way tree" jargon and analogy went down in flames.]
Gee, maybe contentions were building in twi just like in Corinthians:
Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos;
and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name
of Paul?
Imo, wierwille fell into the same contentious scenario.....and never sufficiently
clarified the divisions. Wierwille stated that "the apostle Paul was his favorite
in the Bible." Could it be that wierwille projected a bit of himself in this Paul,
a Pharisee of the pharisees, coming out of religious hierarchy to take a stand??
New light? Running the show against organized religion?
AND NOW, to this day.....because of wierwille teaching errors, there are still dozens
and dozens of men like JAL teaching and propounding the Paul, early church, walk in newness
of life doctrine.
What about keeping the faith on the son of the Living God, Jesus Christ?
We were not called to be Paulians.
We were not called to be Jesusans
What's wrong with being a Christian?
Christ...the anointed, exalted, raised on high, seated, the right hand of God.
How far off-kilter did twi go? And, is still going?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
At some point in time I learned that none of the gospels were confirmed eyewitness accounts. Then I learned they were written after the letters. I might have learned that sooner had I read something other than the bible and TWIT lit.
I don't know about anyone else, but those two tidbits and the fact that they weren't supplied by the greatest ministry since the first century made me wonder about ANYONE who does not use several angles when it comes to study. But I am going to assume that doing so might shed a light that might best be kept off (as in one might discover one was wrong about what one teaches). I don't know. What I find amazing is that the testimony and teaching of someone who never met the guy and who wasn't taught by anyone who had was given...well...more importance than the guy who was the reason for the whole movement.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
" What I find amazing is that the testimony and teaching of someone who never met the guy and who wasn't taught by anyone who had was given...well...more importance than the guy who was the reason for the whole movement."
THIS!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
And what I find amazing is that all what we know about "the guy who was the reason for the whole movement" is based on what a few people say he did or say he said. And they do not all agree all the time. Or am I wrong about this?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
All we know about Paul is what Paul, himself, told us.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
All we know about each other. is what we can infer from words we've left here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Exactly!
....and as BB King once sang, "Nobody loves me but my mother and she could be jiving me too."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
If you realize the epistles were written first, some interesting patterns appear. I will not discuss them here, because it's doctrinal and off-topic. (That's a warning).
What's interesting is that as an educated man (doctorate or no) with a background in theology, Wierwille knew or should have known a lot about "how we got the Bible," and it's nothing like what he shared in PFAL. But he used just enough of what he knew (manuscripts, transcription errors, etc) to undermine people's faith in the book and set himself up as the authoritative voice in restoring faith.
He had to know, even in the 1950s, 60s and 70s, that the gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. But he advanced that myth because it served his purpose.
Remember how he said after he got out of seminary, he got to the point where he no longer believed the words "holy bible" on the cover?
Couple that admission with what we know about his methods for forcing the Bible to fit like a hand in a blender. It's clear to me that he was selling a product -- not the accuracy of the Bible, but the consistency of his re-interpretation of it. As long as he could maintain the illusion of consistency, evidence to the contrary be damned, he could justify a following of like-minded believers (and the steady stream of income they provided).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I took a graduate level course on the history and literature of the New Testament last year. I completed the first semester, during which we focused on the Gospels and used a text by Bart Ehrman. Ehrman started out as a fundamentalist, but his studies led him to atheism. That's okay, though, because his scholarship on the history of the New Testament is the best there is, and is not slanted in either direction. It's just plainly stated scholarship.
I completed about two-thirds of the second semester before having to take a medical withdrawal. I intend to retake that semester this coming spring. During the second semester, we studied Acts, the letters of Paul, and the other letters. The main book we used as text for the course was Paul and the Faithfulness of God by N.T. Wright.
Wright's Paul is 1519 pages of text with an additional 139 pages of bibliography and indexes; parts I, II, III, and IV, in two volumes. Some of our correspondents have remarked "All we know about Paul is what Paul, himself, told us." N.T. Wright would beg to differ.
Part I is 347 pages long, detailing Paul's Jewish world, ancient philosophy, ancient religion and the first-century empire. Part II (218 pages) discusses what we can guess about Paul's mindset from what know about Paul's location in the Jewish and gentile cultures of his time. Part III (656 pages) considers the theology Paul developed in light of his participation in the thought-life of his time. Part IV (Paul in History, 250 pages) talks about Paul and empire, Paul and religion, Paul and philosophy, and Paul in his Jewish world.
Paul's letters are not the only source of information about Paul. It appears that the author of Acts had a personal acquaintance with Paul during certain parts of Paul's ministry, and the picture Acts presents of Paul is significantly different from the picture we gather of Paul from Paul's own writings.
Does that mean the Bible is truly God-breathed, and contains no contradictions? No indeed! But it does illustrate for us that we shouldn't make hasty decisions about what we believe or don't believe based on the caricatures we were all taught, both in the Way AND in Sunday school!
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Technically, Ehrman prefers the term agnostic to atheist. But yeah.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I stand corrected, Raf. Thanks for keeping me on the straight and narrow. Sometimes I wander too far off of it!
By the by, for those of you who are interested, both Ehrman and Wright have websites, and the things they post there are vastly more enlightening and entertaining than anything TLFT posts on Youtube!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
I about barfed when I read this first post in its entirety.
I'll try to read a bit further in the thread, but I'm not sure how far I'll make it without getting sick.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Thank you, Steve. Not that my voice means much, but I'd also beg to differ. Evidently 2Pet.3:15-18 has quite a different meaning to most folks here.
Yeah, TWI had it's share of issues alright. Probably the least of which was the issue being alluded to in this thread. As mentioned in a post elsewhere, the way I see it, there was never a sufficient enough understanding of just how distinct and different Paul's gospel was from that of the apostles at Jerusalem. Which led to no end of problems.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
What made you so ill poor fellow? Pray tell. I await with baited breath the interpretation of your vomitous reaction. Got an attitude? Got milk?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
Awesome post by DWBH.
I don't believe VP knew Christ. If he did not know Him, how could he possibly have taught him to others? He didn't. Christ was glossed over. He was reduced to an incantation at the end of a prayer. TWI was always about God and the Bible. God's heart - Christ - was missing. I have often thought over the years, the biggest disservice done to people who wanted to know God, who came to TWI, was that they were not taught who truly Christ is. I remember during my time in TWI hearing other Christians, not in TWI, talk about their relationship with Christ. I always wondered - what are they talking about? What am I missing? When I left TWI, the very first thing God taught me was who Christ is. I mulled over this idea, this strange thought for months. I had put my Bible down and also hadn't read it in months. One rainy day, in my little studio apartment on E. 95th Street in Manhattan I read the Gospel of John - fireworks went off in my mind - Oh, I see... I have heard, but now I see. Now, I understand when people talk about their relationship with Christ. He is God's heart, he is the mediator between God and Man. We had God, we had the "Word," but we didn't have the Heart - Christ.
Many people can know the Bible, preach it and yet still not believe it, not really. False teachers come from within the body, not from without. The Bible can give the one preaching a nice moral framework to live by, nice things to think about and one can try and make his flesh live by it, but without Christ - God's heart and the Holy Spirit dwelling in us - the flesh and its sin nature will always win, in the end. You cannot change your nature, your will cannot change your nature, your flesh cannot change your nature, your cat cannot change its nature - its nature is cat - our nature is fallen. It is the Holy Spirit that Christ gave that transforms our flesh and nature and conforms us, regenerates us and reconstitutes in us the Image of God we were originally created in. It is Christ who gave us back our lost Holiness. It is the Holy Spirit, the Breath of God, dwelling in us, who gets down and dirty with us in the depths of our souls and transforms us into a new creature in ways our flesh cannot. We become a new creation. A masterpiece of God to be unveiled one day in Glory.
VP focused on Paul. His sin he could not keep hidden - not in the long run.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Human without the bean
Did Weirwille take any time at all to learn anything about the bible for himself or did he just plagiarize all the things he was ever taught? Roberts, Bullinger, Pillai, Peale, the list goes on and on
Edited by Human without the beanLink 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.