JerryB, you wrote: “You speak of having a book that teaches all about the manifestations and "the power". People don't get spiritual power from books Mike. They receive it from God by Jesus Christ as someone ministers it to them.”
Jerry, how did Jesus Christ get the power? For the first 30 years of his life it was from the scrolls. THEN, after he was 30 it was from that foundation of writings, PLUS spirit, that he manifested God’s loving power.
I agree that people in general “receive it from God by Jesus Christ as someone ministers it to them.” But God CAN also minister to someone via the written words of one of his ministers as well. That’s what the whole idea of God’s written Word is all about.
I have a very well balanced life, most of which takes place outside the reach of a book. For every hour I’m at this computer screen I’m not in a book, so you need not fear for me imbalancing my life. I see the need to go beyond a book, and I do it LOTS, but I also see the crucial need for a written standard to guide through the minefield of counterfeits. I am greatly enriched by writings that God had His hand in producing, like He hasn’t been able to since the first century.
Yes, I Do SPEAK of a book, a set of books, that were addressed to a specific group of people, grads, and that are pretty special, because they are a God-provided foundation from which to build more power to help others live a comfortable and a spiritually abundant life.
Jerry, your pitch for me to sign your green card was just as I had predicted: NOT worth betting my life on. I’ve placed my bet.
Almost thou persuasdest me to abandon PFAL... NOT!
[This message was edited by Mike on January 30, 2003 at 22:26.]
There's still, what, 17 or 18 cracks in that precioussssss foundation? According to Wierwille, the existence of any ONE of those cracks sends your whole set of books crumbling to pieces. Oh, but that's right, you've learned how to make those cracks evaporate.
This paragraph is one of the most moving I have ever read here:
quote: That kind of elitism destroys one's integrity, corrodes relationships, and defeats success and prosperity by eroding one's sense of personal responsibility. Mine is being rebuilt with the loving help of God and of my Lord Jesus Christ. Am I now the perfect Christian? Heck no, but I'm moving in the right direction and I'm not deceiving myself anymore about it.
Jerry's response to Mike brought up some incredibly interesting insights. Since we are discussing "the image of God" and body soul spirit I would like to offer an interesting article that sheds light on the uniqueness of ALL humans. (I am not advocating any particular doctrine by posting such.) I think this relates to the topic of the idea that the image of God is more than just spirit and offers some scientific background as well. Sorry for the loooonnnnngggg post.
One angle that I am looking at a little more closely is that this "spirit of / from God" may be the icing on the cake / the catalyst that energizes the realationship / that which allows mankind to personally interract with God and works towards the purpose of revealing the image of God in man.
On a side note could the image of God also relate to the ever confusing "fruit of the spirit" topic? If we haven't menitoned that one I think that is a definite error as well. This is a huge topic and maybe deserves its own thread but here is the article that discusses this uniqueness:
quote: Man, Created in the Image of God: How Man is Unique Among All Other Creatures on Earth
The Bible makes the claim that humans alone are "created in the image of God."1 What exactly does this mean? Some have equated the image of God as being the physical characteristics of our bodies that make up the way we look. In fact, the Mormons have taken this interpretation to extreme by saying that God is just a glorified man, who has both flesh and blood. However, the Bible says that both males and females are created in the image of God.1 Unless God were a hermaphrodite (having both male and female sexual organs), this phrase could not refer to just physical characteristics. In addition, there are various verses in the Bible that describe God as having non-human physical characteristics, such as feathers and wings.2 Should we think of God as being an overgrown chicken? Certainly not! God is so unlike humans physically, that the Bible often paints word pictures to give us a glimpse of what God is like.
Creativity
So if the "image of God" does not refer to physical characteristics, what does it refer to? It is certainly likely that part of the "image of God" refers to the ability of humans to be creative. Anthropology tells us that sophisticated works of art first appeared in the fossil record about 40,000-50,000 years ago,3 at the time that moderns humans first appeared. No other species of animal, including the apes, are able to create and understand images of art and drawing.
Consciousness
Human consciousness is a mystery that has evaded decades of intensive research by neurophysiologists. According to a recent article:
When an organism's neural pathways grow sufficiently complex, materialists insist, their firings are somehow accompanied by consciousness. But despite decades of effort by philosophers and neurophysiologists, no one has been able to come up with a remotely plausible explanation of how this happens--how the hunk of gray meat in our skull gives rise to private Technicolor experience. One distinguished commentator on the mind-body problem, Daniel Dennett, author of Consciousness Explained, has been driven to declare that there is really no such thing as consciousness--we are all zombies, though we're unaware of it.4
Personality
Another thing that makes humans unique is personality. According to Joseph LeDoux, a neuroscientist at New York University:
"We have no idea how our brains make us who we are. There is as yet no neuroscience of personality. We have little understanding of how art and history are experienced by the brain. The meltdown of mental life in psychosis is still a mystery. In short, we have yet to come up with a theory that can pull all this together."5
Abstract thinking
Is the human brain that much different from that of our closest "relatives," the chimpanzees? According to Daniel J. Povinelli, from the University of Louisiana's New Iberia Research Center
"Humans constantly invoke unobservable phenomena and variables to explain why certain things are happening. Chimps operate in the world of concrete, tangible things that can be seen. The content of their minds is about the observable world."6
Insight into how chimpanzees really think can be seen in some recent experiments performed by Dr. Povinelli. In these experiments, the researchers used the chimps' natural begging gesture to examine how they really think about their world. They confronted the chimps with two familiar experimenters, one offering a piece of food and the other holding out an undesirable block of wood. As expected, the chimps had no trouble distinguishing between the block and the food and immediately gestured to the experimenter offering the food. Next, the researchers wanted to see if the chimps would be able to choose between a person who could see them and a person who could not. If the chimpanzees understood how other animals see, they would gesture only to the person who could see them. The researchers achieved the "seeing/not-seeing" contrast by having the two experimenters adopt different postures. In one test, one experimenter wore a blindfold over her eyes while the other wore a blindfold over her mouth. In the other tests, one of the experimenters wore a bucket over her head, placed her hands over her eyes or sat with her back turned to the chimpanzee. All these postures were modeled after the behaviors that had been observed during the chimpanzees' spontaneous play. The results of the experiments were astonishing. In the tests involving blindfolds, buckets and hands over the eyes--the apes entered the lab and paused but then were just as likely to gesture to the person who could not see them as to the person who could. In several cases, the chimps gestured to the person who could not see them and then, when nothing happened, gestured again, as if puzzled by the fact that the experimenter did not respond. In the case of experimenters facing with their backs to the chimps, they performed as if they knew that those facing way from them could not see and offer them food. However, subsequent experiments proved that the chimps had merely responded to conditioning from the initial experiments, since they had only received food from those experimenters who faced them. This was proven by having experimenters facing away from the chimps, but then turning to look over their shoulders. The chimps were just as likely to gesture to the experimenters facing away as the one who turned to look at them. Chimpanzees have no clue that humans must face them in order to see. It is obvious from these experiments that chimpanzees lack even a simple understanding of how their world works, but merely react to conditioning from directly observable events.7
Body, soul, spirit
Besides the rather obvious differences in the way animals process information in their brains, the Bible (and science) confirm that there are major differences in the ways humans make moral judgments (animals don't make such judgments, as we shall see). Part of what is meant by the term "in the image of God" can be found in chapters immediately following its first usage (Genesis 1) in the Bible. Both Adam and Eve had a personal relationship with God in the Garden of Eden. Such a personal relationship is not described, nor seen, for any other animal species. It is the presence of a spirit that was instilled into humans8 that separates us from the animals. There are three kinds of life that God has created in this universe:
Creature: Examples:
Body only Lower life forms, including reptiles, amphibians, fish, and invertebrates
Body and soul From the Hebrew nephesh, or soulish creatures, including birds and mammals
Body, soul and spirit Humans9 and angels
The soul is best described as the characteristics that make up the advanced brain, including mind, will and emotion. Only birds and mammals exhibit these characteristics, which is why humans can form mutual relationships with birds and mammals.
Spirit
The spirit is that part of humans that is able to love and experience God directly.10 It is found in no other animal species, since no other species can experience God or form a relationship with Him.11 Is there any evidence that humans possess a spirit? Recent attempts have been aimed at trying to identify the part of the brain involved in "religious" experiences. Unfortunately, the current studies are restricted to an examination of meditative experiences,12 since the specific subjects used in the research were Tibetan Buddhist meditators. During meditation, the goal is to completely divorce oneself from external sensory stimulation. The ability to do so, apparently leads to some sense of "oneness with the universe", since the brain is deprived of sensory input while still remaining active.
The leaders of these studies, Andrew Newberg M.D., Eugene G. D'Aquili Ph.D., and Vince Rause, claim to have discovered the biological basis for belief in God.13 However, according to Daniel Batson, a University of Kansas psychologist:
"The brain is the hardware through which religion is experienced. To say the brain produces religion is like saying a piano produces music."12
The problem with the theory is that such "religious" experiences do not apply to Christianity, although Newberg tries to make the connection through the reported experiences of a few Christian mysticists. The plain fact is that Christianity does not teach any kind of meditation that leads to the kind of experiences taught in the Eastern religions. Even in prayer, I have never experienced the kind of things described as occurring during Buddhist meditation. God does answer my prayers, but the answer is in the form of fully formed, specific ideas - not any kind of "oneness with the universe". Any kind of non-specific feelings would be completely useless, since it does not provide advice that would be necessary to help one's spiritual walk with God.
Even if there were an area of the brain that might be involved in religious experiences, this idea does not prove that God is a creation of our brains. If God did create us, we would expect that He would provide a means by which we could experience Him. This area of the brain might be part of God's design to make us realize that we are more than just physical creatures. The Bible says that God has given us this knowledge of eternity, possibly involving some sort of "hard-wired" knowledge.14
Moral judgments
After Adam and Eve had sinned, they became like God in that they could distinguish good from evil.15 The ability to make moral judgments is also a characteristics that is found only in humans. Even the higher apes cannot make moral judgments about the behavior of other animals. As Dr. Jerome Kagan points out in Three Seductive Ideas, "Not even the cleverest ape could be conditioned to be angry upon seeing one animal steal food from another."16 In addition, there are no non-human animal models for human pride, shame, and guilt.17
Conclusions
In conclusion, it seems likely that "in the image of God" refers to the characteristics of the human spirit and the ability to make moral judgments - things that are not found in any animal species, even those to whom we are said to be closely related. Even evolutionists are beginning to recognize the uniqueness of human beings. Dr. Ian Tattersall, in Becoming Human - Evolution and Human Uniqueness, says humans represent a "totally unprecedented entity" on Earth, and "Homo sapiens is not simply an improved version of its ancestors - it's a new concept." It is the ability to make moral judgments that convinces us of our inability to "measure up" to the intended moral standards laid down by God.18 However, it is the spirit of man that allows us to communicate with God's Spirit through Jesus Christ19 so that we can once again be in fellowship with a Holy God20 and experience the ultimate relationship in the universe
Folks, I'm compiling a master list and would like to include acknowledgements. If you want your name or handle acknowledged as a contributor, please let me know. Jerry Barrax and Karl Kahler will be included unless they specifically instruct me not to.
Everyone else, please write to me so I know whether to use your name, handle, or neither.
Anyone who has contributed to the thread may write in, regardless of what YOU think of the value of your contribution.
I just want to add real quick to Goey and Rafael thanks for clearing up the stuff about the angels. It's good to know. On a side note I kind of remember that CES was looking into something in Revelation about them being able to sing..but I don't know anymore than that. But thank you both.
...It's hard to be humble when you own a Rottweiler...
Have you generated, or intend to generate, anything like a line-by-line comparison of TWI teachings vs. actual errors? Something in a list format?
I think it might be useful to folks like myself and others who still greatly value PFAL, but bearing in mind that not everything in PFAL necessarily agrees with the bible, or other quality biblical interpretations.
I don't think I understand your question (so my answer would have to be no, for the moment).
The list I am compiling will be in the same format as my opening post, along with a "discussion" after each one reflecting the various debates we've had on this thread. Is that what you meant?
I also need to note that one can still greatly value PFAL while still acknowledging that these errors are, in fact, errors.
Rafael, are you going to have a section for the dissenting minority?
Rafael wrote: “There's still, what, 17 or 18 cracks in that precioussssss foundation? According to Wierwille, the existence of any ONE of those cracks sends your whole set of books crumbling to pieces. Oh, but that's right, you've learned how to make those cracks evaporate.”
Rafael,
I’ve seen cracks LIKE these before, years ago, that turned out to be painted on the Good Ship Artios, like the fake stripes they paint on frozen barbecue TV dinners.
Evaporate is a good term to describe how quickly end effortlessly some took care of themselves as I read the material more, and with meekness, willingness to learn.
Give you an example: the “needs and wants” verse, Matt 18:19 that bothered a lot of people on page 20 of PFAL.
One day I was reading and noticed that Dr never says that this verse proves “needs and wants” in the teaching. It LOOKS like he’s doing that on many cursory readings, but after a while it becomes clear that something different is being said.
Dr’s citing of that verse is not to prove the origins of what he was teaching, but to ILLUSTRATE one aspect of what he was teaching.
The verse, if taken as a derivative proof of Dr’s statements, appears as an error.
The verse, if taken as an illustration of Dr’s statements, the error evaporates.
The surety of the cracks you speak of is in the eyes of the painters of the “cracks.”
Before I mothball this ship, I’d get a team of inspectors who have no paint or brushes in their motivations.
Mike's preceding post must be seen in light of his stated method of handling errors in hisssss preciousssss PFAL.
quote:the right and proper procedure is to DODGE. Witness if possible, distract, challenge right back, but NEVER consider the error as an error.
"Needs and wants" was not mentioned in this thread. That's a straw man, and it does nothing to address any of the actual errors we've presented. I don't appreciate your deliberate attempt to distract us from the purpose of this thread.
Your attack on my motives is, likewise, summarily dismissed. I won't bow before your idol, sign your green card, or sail on your ship (a ship so full of holes that you might as well launch it on the ocean floor to save time).
I will acknowledge your dissent by either removing an error from the list or by discussing why I disagree with your attempted explanation. But if you think I'm going to write "this error evaporates when you change your perspective and become a meek master," you're sadly mistaken.
Just like a kid who covers his eyes and says "You can't see me!", ... so is Mike's ((cough)) 'research' principle in determining the "God Breathed perfection" of PFAL.
"Let's all ride on Mike's PFAL submarine, hisss precioussss submarine, his sinking submarine, ...."
I don't think I understand your question (so my answer would have to be no, for the moment).
The list I am compiling will be in the same format as my opening post, along with a "discussion" after each one reflecting the various debates we've had on this thread. Is that what you meant?
Rafael,
What I meant was actually something like the TWI vs. CES website page. Something on the internet that is listed, like a concise comparitive summary, of the actual errors in PFAL according to yours and others biblical research. I think something like that would be useful.
Thanks oldies. That's precisely what I'm doing. It will be much longer than the CES page, though. CES' list is more interpretational in nature. Their mission is different. I'm not attempting to list disagreements. I'm attempting to list mistakes.
But the answer to your question is, yes, I intend to post this on my web page.
Mike: There's another thing that's bothered me about your ability to glean new things from VPW's books.
On this page alone, I counted 13 times where Mr. Barrax' name is spelled correctly, nine of them before you posted the first time.
Honestly, can a person who cannot even get To Whom It Is Addressed right ever be expected to be spiritually mature enough to throughly extract Doctor's Last Secret Message From God?
You can add this to the list, too. (probably only deserves a footnote, but if we're being precise...)
On page 8 of the complete PFAL Foundational Syllabus, the word "enarthrosis" is defined by VPW as the "study of type of joints". This is one of his "artios" examples, but it is incorrect. "Enarthrosis" is a ball-and-socket joint itself, not the study of types of joints.
I need to know if you consider the PFAL Foundational Syllabus, expanded for Advanced Class participants, is God-breathed, or if only the Orange Book enjoys that status.
------
Zix,
Depending on how Mike answers the above question, I may not include your observation in my list. It's appropriate for this thread, which is about the class, the books, whatever. But my list is going to stick with the written books.
PFAL
RTHST
The Blue Book
The Green Book
The Word's Way
God's Magnified Word
Order My Steps in Thy Word
Christians Should Be Prosperous
Jesus Christ is Not God
Jesus Christ Our Promised Seed
Jesus Christ Our Passover
I am not counting Living Victoriously, or Take God At His Word, or any of the other books that Chris Geer edited from old teaching tapes after Wierwille died.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
208
62
95
53
Popular Days
Jan 3
56
Jan 28
53
Jan 17
52
Jan 27
46
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 208 posts
Jbarrax 62 posts
Zixar 95 posts
Mike 53 posts
Popular Days
Jan 3 2003
56 posts
Jan 28 2003
53 posts
Jan 17 2003
52 posts
Jan 27 2003
46 posts
Popular Posts
Raf
Clear as the difference between all with a distinction and all without distinction. See, to those unaware of the circumstances that brought about this thread, I look like I'm nitpicking to prove Wier
Raf
I'm not talking about errors that are subject to interpretation. Whether you believe the dead are alive now, for example, really depends on your worldview and your interpretation of scripture. Whether
Larry P2
And let's not forget the one about "All the women in the Kingdom belong to the King." Which proves that he was a lecherous piece of sh!t communicating his desire for a steady stream of young, gullibl
Mark Sanguinetti
Jerry, I read and enjoyed your long winded post. Chuckle, chuckle, chuckle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Orange Cat
Jerry that was beautiful. Absolutely beautiful. I'm glad you posted it.
Orange Cat color>
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hope R.
Jerry - if anyone doesn't "get it" after your post - they have no eyes to see or ears to hear... thanks.
Hope R. color>size>face>
I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints - the sinners are much more fun... Billy Joel size>
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Thanks Hope, OC, Mark, and Rafael. It was intended to be short, but, well, you know how I get. :)-->
I hope that kind of puts it all in perspective.
God bless youn's guys&gals!!
JerryB :D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
JerryB, you wrote: “You speak of having a book that teaches all about the manifestations and "the power". People don't get spiritual power from books Mike. They receive it from God by Jesus Christ as someone ministers it to them.”
Jerry, how did Jesus Christ get the power? For the first 30 years of his life it was from the scrolls. THEN, after he was 30 it was from that foundation of writings, PLUS spirit, that he manifested God’s loving power.
I agree that people in general “receive it from God by Jesus Christ as someone ministers it to them.” But God CAN also minister to someone via the written words of one of his ministers as well. That’s what the whole idea of God’s written Word is all about.
I have a very well balanced life, most of which takes place outside the reach of a book. For every hour I’m at this computer screen I’m not in a book, so you need not fear for me imbalancing my life. I see the need to go beyond a book, and I do it LOTS, but I also see the crucial need for a written standard to guide through the minefield of counterfeits. I am greatly enriched by writings that God had His hand in producing, like He hasn’t been able to since the first century.
Yes, I Do SPEAK of a book, a set of books, that were addressed to a specific group of people, grads, and that are pretty special, because they are a God-provided foundation from which to build more power to help others live a comfortable and a spiritually abundant life.
Jerry, your pitch for me to sign your green card was just as I had predicted: NOT worth betting my life on. I’ve placed my bet.
Almost thou persuasdest me to abandon PFAL... NOT!
[This message was edited by Mike on January 30, 2003 at 22:26.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Riiiiight....
There's still, what, 17 or 18 cracks in that precioussssss foundation? According to Wierwille, the existence of any ONE of those cracks sends your whole set of books crumbling to pieces. Oh, but that's right, you've learned how to make those cracks evaporate.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Good post, Jerry. That's genuine testimony, not claptrap TWI "witnessing".
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
troubledwine
This paragraph is one of the most moving I have ever read here:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
troubledwine
Jerry's response to Mike brought up some incredibly interesting insights. Since we are discussing "the image of God" and body soul spirit I would like to offer an interesting article that sheds light on the uniqueness of ALL humans. (I am not advocating any particular doctrine by posting such.) I think this relates to the topic of the idea that the image of God is more than just spirit and offers some scientific background as well. Sorry for the loooonnnnngggg post.
One angle that I am looking at a little more closely is that this "spirit of / from God" may be the icing on the cake / the catalyst that energizes the realationship / that which allows mankind to personally interract with God and works towards the purpose of revealing the image of God in man.
On a side note could the image of God also relate to the ever confusing "fruit of the spirit" topic? If we haven't menitoned that one I think that is a definite error as well. This is a huge topic and maybe deserves its own thread but here is the article that discusses this uniqueness:
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Folks, I'm compiling a master list and would like to include acknowledgements. If you want your name or handle acknowledged as a contributor, please let me know. Jerry Barrax and Karl Kahler will be included unless they specifically instruct me not to.
Everyone else, please write to me so I know whether to use your name, handle, or neither.
Anyone who has contributed to the thread may write in, regardless of what YOU think of the value of your contribution.
Raf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RottieGrrrl
I just want to add real quick to Goey and Rafael thanks for clearing up the stuff about the angels. It's good to know. On a side note I kind of remember that CES was looking into something in Revelation about them being able to sing..but I don't know anymore than that. But thank you both.
...It's hard to be humble when you own a Rottweiler...
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Rafael,
Have you generated, or intend to generate, anything like a line-by-line comparison of TWI teachings vs. actual errors? Something in a list format?
I think it might be useful to folks like myself and others who still greatly value PFAL, but bearing in mind that not everything in PFAL necessarily agrees with the bible, or other quality biblical interpretations.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Oldiesman:
I don't think I understand your question (so my answer would have to be no, for the moment).
The list I am compiling will be in the same format as my opening post, along with a "discussion" after each one reflecting the various debates we've had on this thread. Is that what you meant?
I also need to note that one can still greatly value PFAL while still acknowledging that these errors are, in fact, errors.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Rafael, are you going to have a section for the dissenting minority?
Rafael wrote: “There's still, what, 17 or 18 cracks in that precioussssss foundation? According to Wierwille, the existence of any ONE of those cracks sends your whole set of books crumbling to pieces. Oh, but that's right, you've learned how to make those cracks evaporate.”
Rafael,
I’ve seen cracks LIKE these before, years ago, that turned out to be painted on the Good Ship Artios, like the fake stripes they paint on frozen barbecue TV dinners.
Evaporate is a good term to describe how quickly end effortlessly some took care of themselves as I read the material more, and with meekness, willingness to learn.
Give you an example: the “needs and wants” verse, Matt 18:19 that bothered a lot of people on page 20 of PFAL.
One day I was reading and noticed that Dr never says that this verse proves “needs and wants” in the teaching. It LOOKS like he’s doing that on many cursory readings, but after a while it becomes clear that something different is being said.
Dr’s citing of that verse is not to prove the origins of what he was teaching, but to ILLUSTRATE one aspect of what he was teaching.
The verse, if taken as a derivative proof of Dr’s statements, appears as an error.
The verse, if taken as an illustration of Dr’s statements, the error evaporates.
The surety of the cracks you speak of is in the eyes of the painters of the “cracks.”
Before I mothball this ship, I’d get a team of inspectors who have no paint or brushes in their motivations.
Come sail away with me!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Mike's preceding post must be seen in light of his stated method of handling errors in hisssss preciousssss PFAL.
"Needs and wants" was not mentioned in this thread. That's a straw man, and it does nothing to address any of the actual errors we've presented. I don't appreciate your deliberate attempt to distract us from the purpose of this thread.
Your attack on my motives is, likewise, summarily dismissed. I won't bow before your idol, sign your green card, or sail on your ship (a ship so full of holes that you might as well launch it on the ocean floor to save time).
I will acknowledge your dissent by either removing an error from the list or by discussing why I disagree with your attempted explanation. But if you think I'm going to write "this error evaporates when you change your perspective and become a meek master," you're sadly mistaken.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
......Blub!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Just like a kid who covers his eyes and says "You can't see me!", ... so is Mike's ((cough)) 'research' principle in determining the "God Breathed perfection" of PFAL.
"Let's all ride on Mike's PFAL submarine, hisss precioussss submarine, his sinking submarine, ...."
:D-->
Prophet Emeritus of THE,
and Wandering CyberUU Hippie,
Garth P.
www.gapstudioweb.com
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Rafael,
What I meant was actually something like the TWI vs. CES website page. Something on the internet that is listed, like a concise comparitive summary, of the actual errors in PFAL according to yours and others biblical research. I think something like that would be useful.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Thanks oldies. That's precisely what I'm doing. It will be much longer than the CES page, though. CES' list is more interpretational in nature. Their mission is different. I'm not attempting to list disagreements. I'm attempting to list mistakes.
But the answer to your question is, yes, I intend to post this on my web page.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Thanks...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Mike: There's another thing that's bothered me about your ability to glean new things from VPW's books.
On this page alone, I counted 13 times where Mr. Barrax' name is spelled correctly, nine of them before you posted the first time.
Honestly, can a person who cannot even get To Whom It Is Addressed right ever be expected to be spiritually mature enough to throughly extract Doctor's Last Secret Message From God?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
You can add this to the list, too. (probably only deserves a footnote, but if we're being precise...)
On page 8 of the complete PFAL Foundational Syllabus, the word "enarthrosis" is defined by VPW as the "study of type of joints". This is one of his "artios" examples, but it is incorrect. "Enarthrosis" is a ball-and-socket joint itself, not the study of types of joints.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
I find it interesting that Mike only appears to use PFAL as his resource material, when in fact, his master used outside sources.
If true biblical research was his goal, why won't he use other sources.a
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Mike,
I need to know if you consider the PFAL Foundational Syllabus, expanded for Advanced Class participants, is God-breathed, or if only the Orange Book enjoys that status.
------
Zix,
Depending on how Mike answers the above question, I may not include your observation in my list. It's appropriate for this thread, which is about the class, the books, whatever. But my list is going to stick with the written books.
PFAL
RTHST
The Blue Book
The Green Book
The Word's Way
God's Magnified Word
Order My Steps in Thy Word
Christians Should Be Prosperous
Jesus Christ is Not God
Jesus Christ Our Promised Seed
Jesus Christ Our Passover
I am not counting Living Victoriously, or Take God At His Word, or any of the other books that Chris Geer edited from old teaching tapes after Wierwille died.
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.