Dr's Last Teaching - LOST for 17 Years!

[GarthP2000]

"You wing it in your criticisms, and then accuse Dr of winging it in his writing. Real rational!"

The difference is that Zixar isn't 'writing God breathed material' like you claim VPW did. Therefore VPW's writings must be held to a higher standard.

Zixar is looking in a spiritual gutter because he won't consider VPW's words to be 'God breathed'? --> ... Yeah! Right!

Move over Zix, there ought to be more room in that 'gutter' for the rest of us.

Prophet Emeritus of THE,

and Wandering CyberUU Hippie,

Garth P.

www.gapstudioweb.com

[Oakspear]

--> --> --> --> --> --> --> --> --> --> --> --> --> --> --> -->

Oakspear

"We...know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling"

Henri Poincare

[WordWolf]

"It's highly repugnant for you to insist I

return to something that I rationally rejected."

Mike! We agree on something!

Of course, I rationally rejected the nonsense

that any man's uncredited eclectic ripoff can

possibly equal the greatness of God's wonderful

matchless Word- as vpw often referred to the

book you so blithely spurn as "remnants".

I think nobody's responded to your question

about how we'd respond if you started solving

"the errors of PFAL" because we're sure you're

neither able nor willing to do so. I haven't

formulated a response to the question "what

will I do if Osama bin Laden moves next door

to me" either-I don't expect to see it in my

lifetime.

Honestly, if you TRIED to solve several and

FAILED each time, I'd have more respect for

you than I do know-it would at least show you

have the courage of your convictions. Solve even

one and I think the PFAL Nitpickers Guild will

be impressed. Personally, I expect them to

perfect that cold fusion thing and stem cell

regeneration before that, but, hey. I can be

surprised.

Anyway, we've documented-right under your nose-

plenty of reasons we logically conclude PFAL

is not worthy of being "mastered" any more than

DuelMonsters is worthy of being "mastered".

You've claimed to have logically concluded the

opposite-how about some evidence of the logic

process you used? I mean, stated in plain

English, not hinted at, alluded to and otherwise

obfuscated.

[shazdancer]

Aw, WordWolf, it's easy to explain away the apparent errors in PFAL. You just start with the premise that VPW can't be wrong, and take years to try and warp your understanding of his words around into something that fits....

Regards,

shaz

[rascal]

What is really sad Mike, is that you and the others in your fellowship had so much of your youth, devoured by twi...and now here it is 20 years later, even after twi/vp are DEAD...you folks STILL allow it to consume, control, and waste what is left of your precious lives.

Bad enough to waste the first half of our adult lives in that evil manipulation...it is a shame to live and promote the deception ...and waste what is left on such a worthless endeavor...

[Zixar]

From Rafael Olmeda's web site on the subject:

quote:

---

Error 1

In PFAL, Wierwille writes that David is called "a man after God’s own heart" only AFTER the events in II Samuel related to Bathsheba and Uriah. (page 88 of PFAL, see below--Z.)

In truth, David is called "a man after God’s own heart" in I Samuel (13:14--Z.), long before he is king, long before he met Bathsheba.(2Sam 11--Z.)

---

quote:

---

Then it says in the Word of God that David was

a man after God’s own heart. He was not after God’s

heart when he was out fooling around with Bathsheba

and having Uriah killed; no, but when he was back in

line, David was a man after God’s own heart.

---

PFAL, p. 88

So Dr. Wierwille goofed. Big deal. Buuuuuuut....

quote:

---

This is why if any other word had been used than the

preposition pros in John 1:1 and 2 the whole Bible

would fall to pieces because of imperfect usage of

words. To have a perfect Word, the words must be

perfect and the order of the words must be perfect.

---

PFAL, p. 104

Therefore, by Wierwille's own words, PFAL is not perfect, and it is therefore impossible for PFAL to be the perfect Word.

God does not fail referential integrity checks. PFAL does.

Mike, anyone who actually read your entire mirror thread knows that you don't know logic from a hole in the ground.

[Mike]

Zixar,

This use of the word “then” intrigues me.

After your two minutes with it, did you give it any more thought?

Did you see any more angles to view it from?

I did.

Does Dr’s useage of the word “then” indicate sequence in time or sequence on logic?

I’ll be interested in seeing why you latched onto time.

Did you notice that nothing is said about before David sinned?

Then it says in the Word of God that David was

a man after God’s own heart. He was not after God’s

heart when he was out fooling around with Bathsheba

and having Uriah killed; no, but when he was back in

line, David was a man after God’s own heart.

Edited March 11, 2003 by Guest

[Mike]

Zixar,

Here's another angle for Two Minute Wonders to wonder about.

What's the difference between:

"Then it says in the Word of God"

and

"Then it is written in the Bible"

???

Did you include this in your two minute analysis?

Edited March 11, 2003 by Guest

[mj412]

mike is saying

"the word of God" is NOT "the bible".

oh man no wonder so few join your cult Mike...

so "the word is what Mike? what ever revelation you read into it???

man that is just dam scary...

powerful for YOU , I mean you can now understand Gods secret code written only to those with ears to hear it... what Power and arrogance.

Works for you right?

why is it the word JESUS CHRIST is NEVER ever used in your posts???

Maybe becuase He is the KING and the thinking head not you for real and that would hurt or confuse the plan of God hmm?

Mike how is your relationship with Jesus Christ are you as close to Him as you feel you are to vpw writings?? or well why waste what He says in your mind when all the revelation happens when you master pfal anyway.. nothing to do with Jesus Christ.

You hate to have to say or write that word dont you Mike kind of makes the throne a little shaky huh? Paul learned the hard way he was very serious in what he believed as well many would say he mastered his lessons.... he was wrong and Jesus brought him to his knees , what is Jesus Christ telling you?

oh thats right it is your god wih the secret code you listen too. not Jesus Christ.

[Raf]

quote:

---

The first and most basic key for power for abundant living is that the Bible is the revealed Word and Will of God....Most people do not believe that the Bible is the revealed Word and Will of God.... But to be logical and consistent, either the entire Bible is the Word of God from Genesis to Revelation or it is not the Word of God anywhere.

---

quote:

---

There is only one place where we can possibly go to find out what God has available to us and for us: we must go to the Word of God.

---

I submit that the "Word of God" here in p. 15 is the Bible, as clearly and repeatedly defined in p. 11.

quote:

---

In this book, Power for Abundant Living, let's be sure in our Biblical quest for the more abundant life that we first find out what is available...

---

quote:

---

People seldom read the Word of God by being told they have to read it.

---

This is still p. 15, and still a clear reference to the Bible.

quote:

---

I do not tell you that you ought to read the Bible; I teach you how to read it.

---

quote:

---

Part II

The Bible is the Word of God

---

That's all that is written on p. 63.

quote:

---

Many times a critic of the Bible comes along and says, "Well, the Bible is not true. I feel that there are too many contradictions...

---

quote:

---

When men come and say that they do not believe the Bible, we must remember that the Bible was never written for the unbeliever, the agnostic, or the infidel; the Bible was not written for the God-rejectors or the God-deniers. The Bible was written for men and women who want to find answers. The Word of God is given to men and women who want to tap resources for the more abundant life.

---

p. 82. Clearly, the Word of God and the Bible are used interchangeably in each of the above quotes. The examples of this are repeated and conclusive.

The Bible is the Word of God. The Bible does not say that David was a man after God's own heart at any time AFTER the incident with Bathsheba and Uriah.

You propose an answer that is circular in its reasoning: "Wierwille's writing IS God's Word: therefore, when Wierwille said it, that settled it." That's circular and false, just like your entire thesis.

But heaven forbid I should try to reason with someone who is so committed to his idolatry.

Come back to God's Word, Mike. That's the only way to truly master PFAL.

Edited March 11, 2003 by Guest

[Zixar]

quote:

---

The Bible was written so that you as a believer need not be blown about by every wind of doctrine or theory or ideology. This Word of God does not change. Men change, ideologies change, opinions change; but this Word of God lives and abides forever. It endures, it stands.

Let’s see this from John 5:39.

“Search the scriptures ...”

It does not say search Shakespeare or Kant or Plato or Aristotle or V.P.Wierwille’s writings or the writings of a denomination. No, it says, “Search the scriptures ..” because

all Scripture is God-breathed. Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed; not what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts; but the Scriptures – they are God-breathed.

---

PFAL. p.83

[Zixar]

quote:

---

The fleeting shadows of a few great names rather than the Word of God hold people spellbound. Far too many people believe what they have received from man and then endeavor to have their beliefs corroborated by going to the Bible and selecting Scriptures to substantiate their ideas.

---

PFAL p.95

Mike, Wierwille writes an example of what people like you who have their minds closed to God's Word do:

quote:

---

Several years ago I was teaching a class in a Southern state. After the second session a man came to me and said, “I think that this is the most logical Biblical teaching I have ever heard, but,” he said, “it is upset-ting me because I have always held other opinions and I do not want to change my mind. You are confusing me.” This gentleman did not finish the class because he already had his mind closed. That was his privilege, but God’s Word is still Truth whether or not we believe it.

---

PFAL, p.96

quote:

---

So logically,if we want to know God’s will, where do we go? To the commentary, to the theologians, to the encyclo-pedia, or to last Sunday’s sermon? No. We go to the Word of God.

---

PFAL, p.97

quote:

---

The Word declares of itself in Psalms 12:6,

The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver

tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times;

If the Bible has the words of the Lord then these words must be undefiled and absolutely pure. They are “... as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.”

---

PFAL, p.98

PFAL is not "undefiled and absolutely pure" as Wierwille demands the true Word be. 99% brownie and 1% dog turd doesn't make a pure and undefiled dessert.

quote:

---

To get the Word of God out of any translation or out of any version, we have to compare one word with another word and one verse with another verse. We have to study the context of all the verses. If it is the Word of God, then it cannot have a contradiction for God cannot contradict Himself.

---

PFAL p.128

PFAL contradicts the Word in the Bible. Again, Wierwille himself proves that PFAL cannot be the Word of God.

[This message was edited by Zixar on March 11, 2003 at 10:23.]

Edited March 11, 2003 by Guest

[seaspray]

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When men come and say that they do not believe the Bible, we must remember that the Bible was never written for the unbeliever, the agnostic, or the infidel; the Bible was not written for the God-rejectors or the God-deniers. The Bible was written for men and women who want to find answers. The Word of God is given to men and women who want to tap resources for the more abundant life.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lets try this on for size. See how it feels.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When men come and say that they do not believe Power for Abundant Living, we must remember that Power for Abundant Living was never written for the unbeliever, the agnostic, or the infidel; Power for Abundant Living was not written for the God-rejectors or the God-deniers. Power for Abundant Living was written for men and women who want to find answers. Power for Abundant Living is given to men and women who want to tap resources for the more abundant life.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is that idolatrous?

[seaspray]

If a=c, and c=b, a=b.

[wow76-78]

"Is that idolatrous? "

YES !!!

Edited March 11, 2003 by Guest

[GarthP2000]

Seaspray,

Your formula of "If a=c, and c=b, a=b." presumes the following:

a = the Word of God

c = the Bible

b = PFAL writings

am I right?

If so, then it is *just* a presumption, as there have been no proof given that that 'formula' tests true. As a matter of fact, Rafael (and quite a few others) have shown where 'a NOT = b', ie., 'the Word of God NOT = PFAL writings'.

When a formula is presumed true, and there is clear and convincing evidence that there are serious flaws in that formula, ergo the formula becomes non-true.

Ie., a LIE!

Like they say, back to the drawing board. :D-->

Prophet Emeritus of THE,

and Wandering CyberUU Hippie,

Garth P.

www.gapstudioweb.com

[Zixar]

quote:

---

When men come and say that they do not believe the Koran, we must remember that the Koran was never written for the unbeliever, the agnostic, or the infidel; the Koran was not written for the God-rejectors or the God-deniers. The Koran was written for men and women who want to find answers. The Koran is given to men and women who want to tap resources for the more abundant life.

---

Well?

[seaspray]

Thanks partner. Quess I'll go jump off the roof now.

[seaspray]

Assume:

a=Power for Abundant Living

b=The Word of God

c=The Bible(not KJV)

Edited March 11, 2003 by Guest

[Larry P2]

Zixar and Rafael,

I still maintain Mike and Seaspray have the original and correct intent of Mr. Weirwille's spewings. THey are meant to be uncritically absorbed, without question, dissent or delay; so that the glassy-eyed followers will slavishly prostrate themselves in unconditional worship of his majesty.

I was surprised in the last week to see how much of that I still had in me. Lately, on Mike's advice, I had been studying the first chapter of JCING. I had always pretty much uncritially accepted Weirwille's rendition of the occurrances of the Council of Nicea and the possible pagan influences on the developing Trinitarian doctrine. However, this time I also read three well-regarded and well-researched histories of Nicea in conjunction with my study of JCING, and have pl0wed through many scholarly articles readily available on the internet. Two of the books were written by Jewish professors and one by a Unitarian academician. In addition, several of the original first hand recollections and original documents of Nicea are now available on academic databases.

There is one positive thing about the first chapter of JCING: It was clearly not plagiarized. It's definitely "original," in the sense that its contentions have no basis in history or fact, are on the approximate intellectual level of what a 5th grader might dream up, and its conclusions are utterly laughable in light of the contents of the original documents. The fact that so many so-called "researchers" formerly employed by TWI have never revisited Mr. Weirwille's "researCh" in JCING shows the endearing power of Mike's contention that Weirwille's writings should simply be uncritically absorbed. Even reviewing Mr. Wierwille's supporting footnotes demonstrates conclusively that the first chapter is a tissue of fraudulent innuendo. His footnotes in no way say what Weirwille claimed they said. It is self-evidently a colossal, deliberate fraud, designed with the intent to hoodwink the gullible prepubescent Weirwille ambitiously targeted for wholesale exploitation and slave labor.

Again, Mike is totally correct on the only way to approach MR. Weirwille's writings. He certainly has the authors original intent down pat.

[seaspray]

Or assume:

a=Galatians 1:11&12

b=II Peter 1:21

c=II Timothy 3:16

001:011

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

001:012

For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

001:021

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

003:016

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

[Zixar]

seaspray: Don't jump off the roof just yet. Your post about Galatians, 2 Peter, and 2 Timothy doesn't have anything to do with PFAL, they're talking about the Bible.

Wierwille never claimed everything he taught in PFAL was by direct revelation of God, a la Joseph Smith and the golden plates of Mormon legend. Rather, he claimed that it was via his research. You remember, the "Biblical Research, Teaching, and Fellowship Ministry"?

Like I said before, as a class or a set of researched teachings, you can do what you like about PFAL. But there is simply no basis in fact for believing that any of it was God-breathed like the Bible was. God magnified His Word above all His Name, and each successive book in the Bible shows its divine origin by its consistency and continuity with what has gone before. PFAL does not. Is PFAL a tool for Biblical research? Sure, if you like. Is PFAL itself equal to Holy Scripture? Absolutely not.

Is any of that sinking in? You don't have to give up believing what it said if you don't want to. But believing that it was written by God Himself is foolish idolatry.

I worship the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. I'm thankful for Paul, Peter, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but I don't worship them at all.

[Raf]

quote:

---

Originally posted by seaspray:

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When men come and say that they do not believe the Bible, we must remember that the Bible was never written for the unbeliever, the agnostic, or the infidel; the Bible was not written for the God-rejectors or the God-deniers. The Bible was written for men and women who want to find answers. The Word of God is given to men and women who want to tap resources for the more abundant life.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lets try this on for size. See how it feels.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When men come and say that they do not believe Power for Abundant Living, we must remember that Power for Abundant Living was never written for the unbeliever, the agnostic, or the infidel; Power for Abundant Living was not written for the God-rejectors or the God-deniers. Power for Abundant Living was written for men and women who want to find answers. Power for Abundant Living is given to men and women who want to tap resources for the more abundant life.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is that idolatrous?

---

Igor,

Yes.

Yes, it is.

For PFAL is NOT "The Word of God." How do we know this? Because PFAL fails to meet its VERY OWN definition of what it means to be THE Word of God.

Further, according to PFAL, it is a sin to CHANGE the Word of God. Substituting "Power For Abundant Living" instead of "The Bible" in the paragraph you quote CHANGES the word that's written. Changing the Word leaves you with (according to PFAL) Nothing. Men's Opinion. Exalting "nothing" and "men's opinion" to the status of "The Word of God" is idolatrous.

Wierwille frequently taught that PFAL was a means of leading people to God's Word. He NEVER taught that PFAL was God's Word itself (LarryP's enjoyable posts notwithstanding).

Mike can trot out a few isolated "verses" in which Wierwille seems to be claiming that his writings are the equivalent of scripture. But look at what Wierwille is really saying, for he does NOT elevate his own words to that level.

****

One more thing: enough with the accusations of King James worship already. It's a straw man. No one, not one person on this message board, has claimed that the King James Bible perfectly communicates the Word of God. You are striking at an opponent that does not exist, and it's getting tiresome.

PFAL Does NOT equal The Word of God and therefore does NOT equal The Bible (ie, the scriptres as originally given).

[Raf]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Igor:

1:11

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

1:12

For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

---

This quote establishes that Paul claimed his gospel was by revelation. It says NOTHING of PFAL or how the class and book came to be.

quote:

---

1:21

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

---

This verse makes it clear that Peter believed the Old Testament was God-breathed. It says nothing of PFAL or how the book and class came to be.

quote:

---

3:16

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

---

This scripture is a reference to the God-breathed Word, not to PFAL. It says nothing of how that class or book came to be.

PFAL is a useful class. It is not perfect. It is not the perfect work of a perfect God. It contains errors, great and small. It contains contradictions. It is possible to understand the Bible without PFAL. Many have done it before, many will do it again.

Edited March 11, 2003 by Guest

[excathedra]

who's igor ?