quote:...Come on Oldies, as great as your experiences were, and as much Word of God that you learned and applied, did you ever think that VP was claiming that his work was on par with the bible?
Oakspear,
I think the way you phrase the question is tough for me to answer. What does "on par with the bible" mean?
Do I think that TWI-1 and PFAL was "of God"? Yes definitely. I'm not sure if that equates with "on par with the bible" though. Perhaps you can explain in more detail what you mean.
Rafael, myself and others have made good points here that you can not possibly all address. You have purposely and deliberately placed blinders over your eyes regarding your devotion to Victor Wierwille. Many of us have checked Wierwille's teachings and have founded them to have a number of errors. Even more of us have seen the grave practical errors in his personal life and realize that this was influential in the corruption of the Christian doctrine that he taught.
In contrast you plainly want us to believe that he wrote and spoke Christian doctrine perfectly. Honestly, your devotion is so extreme, with the vast evidence to the contrary, that you (Mike) make Victor Wierwille look like a crack pot. I really don't want to see that happen, but if you feel you must, post on.
About a week ago I watched on educational TV a historical documentary on the Muslum religion. In the segment that I watched many of the historians that they interviewed or the historic people that they quoted from would constantly quote Mohammed as being God's prophet. In fact, they could scarcely invoke the name of God, who they refered to as Allah, without tacking on and invoking Mohammed as his prophet. Your devotion to Wierwille reminds me of them Mike. And to think you have a saviour that died for you and you rarely even mention his name.
[This message was edited by Mark Sanguinetti on December 29, 2002 at 21:45.]
quote:Oldiesman, I think you give TWI way too much credit. When I took the class I was hungering and thirsting for righteousness, like many others were. Yes, I am very thankful for many things I learned, saddened by others. But to say, if TWI wasn’t around, "... I might very well still be waiting, all these years and years" really doesn’t say much for God. I mean, He says if you hunger and thirst after righteousness you will be filled. There is no disclaimer attached saying, provided TWI is in existence. God is so much bigger than that.
JesseJoe,
Perhaps God works with all sorts of different folks in different ways, in a manner they will come to appreciate. For me, it was with TWI-1. They were there when I needed to hear things about God that made some sense.
I grew up Roman Catholic, and was taught from them a gospel of salvation by works, traditional paganistic rituals, and idolatry. It didn't help me in the slightest.
Do I think that TWI-1 and PFAL was "of God"? Yes definitely. I'm not sure if that equates with "on par with the bible" though. Perhaps you can explain in more detail what you mean.
Certainly.
One of the things that we were taught in PFAL was the the Word of God, as originally written, was God-breathed, and as such perfect, infallible, and every part "fit like a hand in a glove" with every other part.
We were also taught that due to a variety of things:
Errors in translation
Errors in transcription
Deliberate forgeries
Gaps in our understanding of the culture
and other things
The versions that we had were not the original Word of God.
Using "keys" taught in PFAL, we could get back to the original heart and intent of God (I don't recall if VP every claimed that we could reclaim the original 100%, or just get close - for the purpose of this discussuion, it's not important)
PFAL, as well as Wierwille's other writings and teachings, were a method to find out what the Word of God actually said and meant. I don't believe he ever claimed that PFAL was infallible, or perfect.
I'm going to assume for the sake of argument that PFAL was an effective way to learn God's Word and practice it. This does not make it God-breathed. No matter how well it worked, that does not make it given-by-inspiration-of-God.
Are VPW's works perfect, without error? Of course not! Even without getting into doctrinal areas, is PFAL perfect? In one session he mentions Psalm 119 and tells us that it is an acrostic psalm, i.e. each verse begins with a different letter of the Hebrew alphabet: the alpha, the beta, the gamma, the delta...except that the first four letters of the Hebrew alphabet are aleph, beth, gimel, daleth.
Minor error, mis-speaking, not worth quibbling over? I agree. But it still is an error isn't it? Could there be errors in the original Word of God? No.
If PFAL and the collaterals were perfect and God-breathed, why were corrections made in subsequent editions?
So...after those brief introductory remarks...
What I mean by "on par with" is that Mike is saying that VP's teachings and writings are as infallible, as perfect, as error free as the original Word of God.
Could PFAL be godly, could it be "of God", could VP have received revelation at times?, for the purposes of this discussion, I will say, yes, it's possible; but alongside that is the possibility that he made errors, something which God and his Word cannot do.
Oakspear
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is
[This message was edited by Oakspear on December 29, 2002 at 17:39.]
quote:Could PFAL be godly, could it be "of God", could VP have received revelation at times?, for the purposes of this discussion, I will say, yes, it's possible; but alongside that is the possibility that he made errors, something which God and his Word cannot do.
Oakspear, that's a good point and I agree. VPW never claimed he was infallible.
Mike, I tried to tell you, man. It just won't work here.
I do not know of even one other person on earth who holds your viewpoint including myself, as we discussed.
You seemed like a really nice person when we spoke, and rather intelligent. It is still puzzling to me that you pursue this. Maybe it will make you feel better now that you have posted it publicly. You can no longer say that this knowledge is "lost". You might consider creating a website with your content if you want to preserve its availability. Then instead of trying to explain it you can direct someone to the site. With your background, website development should be easy for you.
Call me again sometime if you want, But honestly, I am not sure if there is anything I can do except encourage you to greater endeavors as others here have already done.
I keep hearing Mike being blamed for not mentioning Jesus name more often.
Personally, I thought Jesus said quite clearly how he was beyond such flattery. In fact, he seemed to imply that the more you feel you have to evoke it to prove a point, the less likely you really know his thoughts on a subject.
Not to say anytime you use his name it is not genuine or valid. Just that NOT saying it an expected number of times has no bearing on someone else’s validity (or something like that).
You know I like you guys, but I disagree with your last point. I have not read all of Mike's posts. No offense Mike, but they are very long and there is just not enough time in the day. However, Mike to me is clearly talking about the importance of Christian doctrine and he is singing the praises of Victor Wierwille. He is not talking about sporting events or a new business venture here. What is the point in Christian doctrine if Jesus Christ is not exalted? Do we pray in the name of Jesus or not? When one of us has a problem whose name do we invoke for help?
I think implying the frequency of its mention as a yardstick seems mostly irrelevant.
And does our public exhaltation of Christ's name move Christ? Does it move us?
And if one is discussing Christian doctrine, wouldn't the name would have to be invoked LESS, seeing as you should not have to remind the Christian discussers as to whose school of thought you are discussing.
If one was speaking outside of Christian circles, or outside of the context of the Bible and Christ, maybe then the name would have to be used more often for clarification and exhaltation.
Besides, Mike is obviously not invoking help here. Nor is he praying. And when he is attempting to specifically plead the relevance of Wierwille's works, Wierwille's name would probbly come up more frequently than any other.
Thank you Sirguessalot! That saved me a lot of typing. I was tempted to copy and paste an entire page of "Jesus" vain repetions to parody the ridiculous demand to mention his "label." I resisted this temptation, but then you relieved me of it.
Actually one big reason I feel don't have to magnify what that perfect man did 2000 years ago is because you all already know THAT. In my attempt to serve some new data for consideration, I also decided to not mention anything I've learned in how to tie shoes. If there are any PFAL grads who don't know of the greatness of the Lord Jesus Christ, or any who can't tie their shoes, please e-mail me and I'll minister to you privately.
I say "label" because in Western culture that's all a name is: box number one on a driver's license, a mere string of ASCII characters. The spiritual name of Jesus Christ is much bigger than that, and if you do what Dr said to do, master the books, then you'll see the mind of Christ is what is in them. I'm CONSTANTLY pointing to his name (not so much his label) but it's veiled to those who got talked out of the Word and drifted into a counterfeit.
I am doing my best to DEMONSTRATE the name of Jesus Christ in my focus on God and His recent works to give us His Word again, in my attitude for service, and in my toleration of a host of insults.
Ok - Now you all that want to damn me for not mentioning the "Jesus" label enough can switch tactics and pile on me for identifying with him. Years ago I spent a lot of time witnessing to the SNL Church Lady types, but I never thought PFAL grads would sink to that level.
"Well now, isn't that SPAYshull! (smirk) Mike thinks he's Jesus Christ. He's just Sooo superior."
Well that is O.K. Mike. Craig Martindale did not mention Jesus Christ in his Athletes of the Spirit production either. After all who needs Jesus when you are Rainbow man?
Who said Jesus was perfect? In the sense of no mistakes. People do-god didn't-god just said he was without sin-they ain't the same. Must be partly that stupid in-out of fellowship crap teaching vp and others teach.
Yes the word perfect is used about jesus but it is also used to describe how everyone else can be too.
"jesus was the only perfect man" does not apply.
I'll bet he bent a few nails in his time. Hammered his thumb at least twice.
Relegating Jesus to a secondary position is basic to Wierwille's unfortunate "theology". In Wierwille's system, the Sermon on the Mount (perhaps the most profound of all Christian messages) becomes a curiosity of theoretical interest-not of critical applicable importance-because of his claim it is not wtitten to us. His teaching on "administrations" is patently wrong, it would be laughable were it not so harmful.
If your DAILY Christian experience is not filled with Jesus, you have nada to do with the Father either, despite protestations to the contrary.
Vertical, yours is a uniquely perceptive post. Wierwille's position on Jesus Christ can only lead to the kind of conclusion you jokingly offered. One shudders, eh?
For me Jesus the Christ's position is undeniably what the bible says it is. Just trying to point out that no human is without mistake or they wouldn't be human.
vpw was placed on a pedastal where everything he said or did was directly from god and vp was without mistake, with emphasis on vp's doctrine. I believe that thinking was helped along by the phrase I mentioned. If you are in fellowship over a period of time man you are really walking with god and can do or say no wrong is what was implied and even taught.
Of course I think vp did more than just make mistakes....a lot more.
Rafael, the reason I believe the first half of the 1942 promise ("I will teach you my Word like it hasn't been known since the first century...") is because I, myself, was a beneficiary of the second half of the promise("...if you will teach it to others.")
...
Even the CES people have put into some of their fundamental, charter-like documents that Dr DID in fact get more Word distributed around the world than any effort since the first century IN ONE PLACE.
Many other places over the centuries could offer some elements of this same truth, but Dr was the first, AND ONLY to get it all together in one place.
And there is your fundamental flaw, Mike.
Uniqueness of Wierwille's doctrine (all in one place) is NOT proof that there was a 1942 promise. The fact that he cobbled together an eclectic mix of doctrines does not prove that God spoke to him audibly in 1942.
I agree that he taught quite a bit. But I also believe that quite a bit of what he taught was wrong. That would be, to me, a HUGE indicator of the fact that the promise of 1942, if there WAS one, was not of God.
Think of all that Wierwille got wrong.
1. The Law of Believing.
2. Tithing.
3. The relevance of the gospels to Christians today.
4. dechomai and lambano (he BUTCHERED those words).
5. Adultery and fornication.
Those are not minor points. Those are MAJOR. Ok, so he may have a point on a lot of the things he taught. But if you expect me to think that God made a unique promise to this man, and all you have to prove it is that he collected other people's doctrines and put it together, then I understand why it took you 27 years to believe that stuff. Because if you spent 27 minutes THINKING about it, you would know how utterly absurd it is.
quote:One place will have SIT accurate, but they shove the idolatrous trinity down the throats of their adherents as a REQUIREMENT. The same is the case in ALL other places: some great truths with some total baloney mixed in their written doctrinal requirements.
And Wierwille had no baloney?
Baloney.
quote:I did this for 27 years, at the time often envying many of you, who believed and jumped in with both feet immediately, much quicker than I was able to. But I will say this: every single element of truth Dr taught passed my tests during those 27 years.
Well, OF COURSE! You dismiss the blatant dishonesty and sexual depravity that permeated his life and doctrine! That's right, it permeated his DOCTRINE. That's a big deal, man!
quote:I could never suggest or desire that any of you quickly believe everything I say either.
I don't think there's any danger of that happening.
quote:As I suggested to one of you privately yesterday, might I suggest taking things in the way the noble Bereans did with Paul in Acts 17? Now, I'm NOT comparing myself with the Apostle Paul! (Did I catch you thinking that way about what I just said?) The Bereans didn't know that Paul was going to go on to be a superstar. But they listened with an open mind, and THEN searched the scriptures DAILY whether they were true, and FINALLY they believed.
They searched the scriptures to find out whether what Paul said ABOUT CHRIST was true. They did not search the scriptures to find out whether what Paul said about HIMSELF was true. You're asking us to search the scriptures to see if the 1942 promise is true? Puh-lease.
quote: The noble Bereans ALSO did listen with open mind, and not a hostile, contrarian, investigative mind that’s already made up.
An open mind considers evidence. You've already shown yourself to be the one who has discarded evidence specifically because it detracts from your hero-worshipping stance. How DARE you insult the people here at GS, accusing us of not having an open mind to this lunacy? You give people NO CREDIT for having thought these things through over the years. Only you and your 27 years of open mindedness have been honest? How DARE you?
quote:Then the opposite tack is often employed here in how anti-VPW material is greeted with open arms and never investigated with the same scrutiny as the pro.'
Horse hit. As you VERY WELL know, there are plenty of people who are able to separate the good of VPW from the bad, who acknowledge his faults without dismissing absolutely everything he taught.
quote:Research Geek, who is well respected here, posted a spectacularly excellent page on rules of logic a few weeks ago where he complains that these rules are OFTEN being broken here. So, those of you who accepted what he said there, please don’t bug me about my complaint of the same. Double standards greatly diminish the credibility of those who hold them.
Mike, I want you to read that paragraph to yourself over and over again, especially the last sentence. It applies far more to you than it does to me. Just, trust me on this one, a'ight?
quote:So, Rafael, for me it does NOT all boil down to a blind belief in the 1942 promise.
Yes it does.
quote:There's such a fine balance between gullibility and skepticism.
What fine balance? They're polar opposites. You have shown yourself to be gullible when it comes to VPW's testimony of himself, and skeptical when it comes to any objective or subjective third person analysis of what anyone else has to say about him. That's not balance. That's Jonestown Kool-Aid.
quote:Let’s aspire to higher standards.
How's this for a higher standard? Study God's Word, learn it, pray to Him for guidance. Rely on Him, His Word and His Spirit/spirit to guide you to a full understanding of Him, through His Son, Jesus Christ.
I think ol' Mike has really hit on something that can actually make ALL of us agree in unison...even Garth and me!
Mike...
How long are you gonna keep beatin' that dead hoss before you realize it's just dust and bone?
Just curious.
Sudo...
I always thought you must have the most awesome tape and record collection in the entire universe, but now I'm afraid of it. It seems to be fraught with VPWisms. But, at least YOU know the hoss is dead LOL
******************************
In a real world and just society, lazy critters eat last.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
58
236
44
53
Popular Days
Dec 29
100
Mar 8
77
Jan 5
74
Dec 27
59
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 58 posts
Mike 236 posts
Tom Strange 44 posts
OldSkool 53 posts
Popular Days
Dec 29 2022
100 posts
Mar 8 2004
77 posts
Jan 5 2003
74 posts
Dec 27 2002
59 posts
Popular Posts
T-Bone
Great posts Rocky & Waysider ! Sometimes wierwille apologetics make me think of an Old Testament passage: 20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and
Bolshevik
He tells them to be joyful. Doesn't explain how. The Word says be joyful *POOF* you are now joyful. Like when claiming verses. Craftily disconnects the motive from the action. . . .
WordWolf
Yes. BTW, anyone who wants a quick summary of the main points of that entire transcript, it's simple. I said it before: "Serving people is important for Christians. Therefore, master
Posted Images
OCD #1
yer crackin me up (lmao)
thanks, you're not so bad....just don't try to convert me
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Oakspear,
I think the way you phrase the question is tough for me to answer. What does "on par with the bible" mean?
Do I think that TWI-1 and PFAL was "of God"? Yes definitely. I'm not sure if that equates with "on par with the bible" though. Perhaps you can explain in more detail what you mean.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Hi Mike:
Rafael, myself and others have made good points here that you can not possibly all address. You have purposely and deliberately placed blinders over your eyes regarding your devotion to Victor Wierwille. Many of us have checked Wierwille's teachings and have founded them to have a number of errors. Even more of us have seen the grave practical errors in his personal life and realize that this was influential in the corruption of the Christian doctrine that he taught.
In contrast you plainly want us to believe that he wrote and spoke Christian doctrine perfectly. Honestly, your devotion is so extreme, with the vast evidence to the contrary, that you (Mike) make Victor Wierwille look like a crack pot. I really don't want to see that happen, but if you feel you must, post on.
About a week ago I watched on educational TV a historical documentary on the Muslum religion. In the segment that I watched many of the historians that they interviewed or the historic people that they quoted from would constantly quote Mohammed as being God's prophet. In fact, they could scarcely invoke the name of God, who they refered to as Allah, without tacking on and invoking Mohammed as his prophet. Your devotion to Wierwille reminds me of them Mike. And to think you have a saviour that died for you and you rarely even mention his name.
[This message was edited by Mark Sanguinetti on December 29, 2002 at 21:45.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
fortunateone
Mike
You continue to dedicate your life to VPW's mentally and spiritually toxic waste called PFAL.
I wish I had never heard of it before or wasted
years of my life promoting it.
I quit in 2000 and so no more damgerous cult study material for me.
I read your post for the historical aspect only
and to warn others that the PFAL material is dangerous.
I can no longer recommend the study of anything
from TWI especially if it is written by
VPW.
Why would anybody in their right mind want to "master" this old toxic garbage?
FORTUNATEONE to be out of TWI
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
JesseJoe,
Perhaps God works with all sorts of different folks in different ways, in a manner they will come to appreciate. For me, it was with TWI-1. They were there when I needed to hear things about God that made some sense.
I grew up Roman Catholic, and was taught from them a gospel of salvation by works, traditional paganistic rituals, and idolatry. It didn't help me in the slightest.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Hi Oldiesman. Do you like Do-Wop? I do.
I've been wanting to talk with you for a while. I've often seen your posts over the months and was always rooting for you.
I looked for your e-mail address but found none. My e-address is listet at GS. Could you send me a note sometime. No rush.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
firebee
Mike
I e maied you yesterday.......did you get it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Certainly.
One of the things that we were taught in PFAL was the the Word of God, as originally written, was God-breathed, and as such perfect, infallible, and every part "fit like a hand in a glove" with every other part.
We were also taught that due to a variety of things:
The versions that we had were not the original Word of God.
Using "keys" taught in PFAL, we could get back to the original heart and intent of God (I don't recall if VP every claimed that we could reclaim the original 100%, or just get close - for the purpose of this discussuion, it's not important)
PFAL, as well as Wierwille's other writings and teachings, were a method to find out what the Word of God actually said and meant. I don't believe he ever claimed that PFAL was infallible, or perfect.
I'm going to assume for the sake of argument that PFAL was an effective way to learn God's Word and practice it. This does not make it God-breathed. No matter how well it worked, that does not make it given-by-inspiration-of-God.
Are VPW's works perfect, without error? Of course not! Even without getting into doctrinal areas, is PFAL perfect? In one session he mentions Psalm 119 and tells us that it is an acrostic psalm, i.e. each verse begins with a different letter of the Hebrew alphabet: the alpha, the beta, the gamma, the delta...except that the first four letters of the Hebrew alphabet are aleph, beth, gimel, daleth.
Minor error, mis-speaking, not worth quibbling over? I agree. But it still is an error isn't it? Could there be errors in the original Word of God? No.
If PFAL and the collaterals were perfect and God-breathed, why were corrections made in subsequent editions?
So...after those brief introductory remarks...
What I mean by "on par with" is that Mike is saying that VP's teachings and writings are as infallible, as perfect, as error free as the original Word of God.
Could PFAL be godly, could it be "of God", could VP have received revelation at times?, for the purposes of this discussion, I will say, yes, it's possible; but alongside that is the possibility that he made errors, something which God and his Word cannot do.
Oakspear
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is
[This message was edited by Oakspear on December 29, 2002 at 17:39.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Sudo
Yeah, guys..
But the question is.. what was "doctor" doing with it?? Click HERE!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Why Sudo, he was teaching some young thang, um, how to "love" with, you know, the "love of God".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Oakspear, that's a good point and I agree. VPW never claimed he was infallible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
igotout
Mike, I tried to tell you, man. It just won't work here.
I do not know of even one other person on earth who holds your viewpoint including myself, as we discussed.
You seemed like a really nice person when we spoke, and rather intelligent. It is still puzzling to me that you pursue this. Maybe it will make you feel better now that you have posted it publicly. You can no longer say that this knowledge is "lost". You might consider creating a website with your content if you want to preserve its availability. Then instead of trying to explain it you can direct someone to the site. With your background, website development should be easy for you.
Call me again sometime if you want, But honestly, I am not sure if there is anything I can do except encourage you to greater endeavors as others here have already done.
Happy holidays!
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Oakspear and Oldiesman agree on something
Oakspear
...goin' down to Rosedale, got my rider by my side...and I'm standin' at the crossroads...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
In one point on Mike’s defense,
I keep hearing Mike being blamed for not mentioning Jesus name more often.
Personally, I thought Jesus said quite clearly how he was beyond such flattery. In fact, he seemed to imply that the more you feel you have to evoke it to prove a point, the less likely you really know his thoughts on a subject.
Not to say anytime you use his name it is not genuine or valid. Just that NOT saying it an expected number of times has no bearing on someone else’s validity (or something like that).
Anyway, that’s how I saw it.
Carry on
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Mike is making a point about what he thinks about VP Wierwille and his death bed advice. He is not making a comprehensive theological statement.
So why should he be expected to mention how great Jesus is? It's separate from the point he is making.
I mean, if the topic was about whether the original gospels were in Aramaic or Greek, would we be throwing Jesus into every paragraph?
Oakspear
...goin' down to Rosedale, got my rider by my side...and I'm standin' at the crossroads...
[This message was edited by Oakspear on December 30, 2002 at 21:11.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
You know I like you guys, but I disagree with your last point. I have not read all of Mike's posts. No offense Mike, but they are very long and there is just not enough time in the day. However, Mike to me is clearly talking about the importance of Christian doctrine and he is singing the praises of Victor Wierwille. He is not talking about sporting events or a new business venture here. What is the point in Christian doctrine if Jesus Christ is not exalted? Do we pray in the name of Jesus or not? When one of us has a problem whose name do we invoke for help?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
Mark, heerz what I was gettin at:
I think implying the frequency of its mention as a yardstick seems mostly irrelevant.
And does our public exhaltation of Christ's name move Christ? Does it move us?
And if one is discussing Christian doctrine, wouldn't the name would have to be invoked LESS, seeing as you should not have to remind the Christian discussers as to whose school of thought you are discussing.
If one was speaking outside of Christian circles, or outside of the context of the Bible and Christ, maybe then the name would have to be used more often for clarification and exhaltation.
Besides, Mike is obviously not invoking help here. Nor is he praying. And when he is attempting to specifically plead the relevance of Wierwille's works, Wierwille's name would probbly come up more frequently than any other.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Thank you Sirguessalot! That saved me a lot of typing. I was tempted to copy and paste an entire page of "Jesus" vain repetions to parody the ridiculous demand to mention his "label." I resisted this temptation, but then you relieved me of it.
Actually one big reason I feel don't have to magnify what that perfect man did 2000 years ago is because you all already know THAT. In my attempt to serve some new data for consideration, I also decided to not mention anything I've learned in how to tie shoes. If there are any PFAL grads who don't know of the greatness of the Lord Jesus Christ, or any who can't tie their shoes, please e-mail me and I'll minister to you privately.
I say "label" because in Western culture that's all a name is: box number one on a driver's license, a mere string of ASCII characters. The spiritual name of Jesus Christ is much bigger than that, and if you do what Dr said to do, master the books, then you'll see the mind of Christ is what is in them. I'm CONSTANTLY pointing to his name (not so much his label) but it's veiled to those who got talked out of the Word and drifted into a counterfeit.
I am doing my best to DEMONSTRATE the name of Jesus Christ in my focus on God and His recent works to give us His Word again, in my attitude for service, and in my toleration of a host of insults.
Ok - Now you all that want to damn me for not mentioning the "Jesus" label enough can switch tactics and pile on me for identifying with him. Years ago I spent a lot of time witnessing to the SNL Church Lady types, but I never thought PFAL grads would sink to that level.
"Well now, isn't that SPAYshull! (smirk) Mike thinks he's Jesus Christ. He's just Sooo superior."
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Well that is O.K. Mike. Craig Martindale did not mention Jesus Christ in his Athletes of the Spirit production either. After all who needs Jesus when you are Rainbow man?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vertical Limit
Who said Jesus was perfect? In the sense of no mistakes. People do-god didn't-god just said he was without sin-they ain't the same. Must be partly that stupid in-out of fellowship crap teaching vp and others teach.
Yes the word perfect is used about jesus but it is also used to describe how everyone else can be too.
"jesus was the only perfect man" does not apply.
I'll bet he bent a few nails in his time. Hammered his thumb at least twice.
Ok off my soap box--continue.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Relegating Jesus to a secondary position is basic to Wierwille's unfortunate "theology". In Wierwille's system, the Sermon on the Mount (perhaps the most profound of all Christian messages) becomes a curiosity of theoretical interest-not of critical applicable importance-because of his claim it is not wtitten to us. His teaching on "administrations" is patently wrong, it would be laughable were it not so harmful.
If your DAILY Christian experience is not filled with Jesus, you have nada to do with the Father either, despite protestations to the contrary.
Vertical, yours is a uniquely perceptive post. Wierwille's position on Jesus Christ can only lead to the kind of conclusion you jokingly offered. One shudders, eh?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vertical Limit
For me Jesus the Christ's position is undeniably what the bible says it is. Just trying to point out that no human is without mistake or they wouldn't be human.
vpw was placed on a pedastal where everything he said or did was directly from god and vp was without mistake, with emphasis on vp's doctrine. I believe that thinking was helped along by the phrase I mentioned. If you are in fellowship over a period of time man you are really walking with god and can do or say no wrong is what was implied and even taught.
Of course I think vp did more than just make mistakes....a lot more.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
And there is your fundamental flaw, Mike.
Uniqueness of Wierwille's doctrine (all in one place) is NOT proof that there was a 1942 promise. The fact that he cobbled together an eclectic mix of doctrines does not prove that God spoke to him audibly in 1942.
I agree that he taught quite a bit. But I also believe that quite a bit of what he taught was wrong. That would be, to me, a HUGE indicator of the fact that the promise of 1942, if there WAS one, was not of God.
Think of all that Wierwille got wrong.
1. The Law of Believing.
2. Tithing.
3. The relevance of the gospels to Christians today.
4. dechomai and lambano (he BUTCHERED those words).
5. Adultery and fornication.
Those are not minor points. Those are MAJOR. Ok, so he may have a point on a lot of the things he taught. But if you expect me to think that God made a unique promise to this man, and all you have to prove it is that he collected other people's doctrines and put it together, then I understand why it took you 27 years to believe that stuff. Because if you spent 27 minutes THINKING about it, you would know how utterly absurd it is.
And Wierwille had no baloney?
Baloney.
Well, OF COURSE! You dismiss the blatant dishonesty and sexual depravity that permeated his life and doctrine! That's right, it permeated his DOCTRINE. That's a big deal, man!
I don't think there's any danger of that happening.
They searched the scriptures to find out whether what Paul said ABOUT CHRIST was true. They did not search the scriptures to find out whether what Paul said about HIMSELF was true. You're asking us to search the scriptures to see if the 1942 promise is true? Puh-lease.
An open mind considers evidence. You've already shown yourself to be the one who has discarded evidence specifically because it detracts from your hero-worshipping stance. How DARE you insult the people here at GS, accusing us of not having an open mind to this lunacy? You give people NO CREDIT for having thought these things through over the years. Only you and your 27 years of open mindedness have been honest? How DARE you?
Horse hit. As you VERY WELL know, there are plenty of people who are able to separate the good of VPW from the bad, who acknowledge his faults without dismissing absolutely everything he taught.
Mike, I want you to read that paragraph to yourself over and over again, especially the last sentence. It applies far more to you than it does to me. Just, trust me on this one, a'ight?
Yes it does.
What fine balance? They're polar opposites. You have shown yourself to be gullible when it comes to VPW's testimony of himself, and skeptical when it comes to any objective or subjective third person analysis of what anyone else has to say about him. That's not balance. That's Jonestown Kool-Aid.
How's this for a higher standard? Study God's Word, learn it, pray to Him for guidance. Rely on Him, His Word and His Spirit/spirit to guide you to a full understanding of Him, through His Son, Jesus Christ.
You need help, Mike. Your idolatry cannot stand.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ron G.
You say you and oldiesman agree on something!!
COOL!!
I think ol' Mike has really hit on something that can actually make ALL of us agree in unison...even Garth and me!
Mike...
How long are you gonna keep beatin' that dead hoss before you realize it's just dust and bone?
Just curious.
Sudo...
I always thought you must have the most awesome tape and record collection in the entire universe, but now I'm afraid of it. It seems to be fraught with VPWisms. But, at least YOU know the hoss is dead LOL
******************************
In a real world and just society, lazy critters eat last.
If any care to feed them.
DEO VINDICE!!
Ron G.
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.