I thought "espoused" meant that they were already married and just haven't consumated the marriage. The time for that was supposed to be set by the priest or so we were taught.
If memory serves....
Deut 20:7 And what man is there that hath betrothed a wife, and hath not taken her? let him go and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man take her.
the only scripture I could find on it...
And that maybe that's how Joseph found out she was pregnant was when they were to come together. Then Joseph was considering what to do because he thought she was pregnant by someone else. Then the angel showed up.
[This message was edited by Vertical Limit on January 21, 2003 at 2:18.]
[This message was edited by Vertical Limit on January 21, 2003 at 2:20.]
Ooooh, oh-oh-oh, I thunk of a 'nuther error! I know, late in the game.
Wierwille claims, somewhere in da Klass, that the Old Testament contains over 900 laws. Completely unsubstantiated flip comment...a real misstatement meant to impress.
Perhaps he was referring to Rabinnical law, the Talmud. In which are appended many laws & rules. But still nowhere near 900. Rently I finished a careful reading of the Pentateuch. Off the cuff I would say there aren't nearly 100 laws & rules. If I had to guess, I'd say around 50.
I just read the latest few posts here and wanted to add a bit of information. It may help, don't know...
I remember during PFAL '77 we were put into twigs and one of our topics we were to research were these 900 promises. So each twig was given a certain chapter or section of the old testament to search. Then they recorded our findings and it was put into some computer.
I remember them coming out and showing us the print out of all the scriptures that mentioned a promise from God. I think VP said it was the very first time in history that this was ever done. -->
You ever notice how Wierwille would claim to have researched something, only to find out he was quoting, without attribution, some other book?
I'm paraphrasing: "Near as I can figure, there have been 220 figures of speech throughout history, and 212 of them were used in the Bible."
Umm. Ok. He's quoting Bullinger almost directly, but shhhh. Makes it sound like Wierwille did the figuring all by himself.
Does he mention Bullinger's figures of speech book in the class? He doesn't mention it in the PFAL book.
And now, ladies and gentlemen, an all new Actual Error.
In PFAL, Wierwille writes that a figure of speech is God's way of marking what's important in His Word.
In truth, the Bible itself makes no such claim regarding figures of speech, and even the most cursory analysis of the figures of speech used in the Bible will reveal that they are not revealing anything more important than that which is directly stated.
Okay, maybe it's an interpretation error. At the very least, its an indefensible statement.
quote:In PFAL, Wierwille writes that a figure of speech is God's way of marking what's important in His Word.
Ummm....yeah...I'm going to have to disagree with you there, Raf. Figures of speech are emphatic in all forms of communication. Now as to whether or not VPW's swiping of Bullinger's particular conclusions from those figures of speech are valid, that's quite a different story. The statement itself, however, is not an error, actual or interpretational.
Again, we need to take a look at the statement being made and compare it to the scope of scripture.
The statement is not whether figures of speech make an emphatic point. The question is whether God is using figures of speech to mark that which is important in His Word. What's the difference? Well, in my opinion, the vast majority of figures of speech employed in the Bible (go ahead, check Bullinger's list) declare nothing that is any more emphatic than things that are stated directly.
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten son..." is literal. There's no figure of speech employed there. But is there anything more important in scripture than that verse?
Analogies help. Metaphors help. But they are of no more importance than direct commandments.
Thou Shalt Not Murder loses no emphasis without the addition of a figure of speech.
That's why it is an error of interpretation at the least, and arguably an actual error (an oxymoron: if it's arguable, it's not an actual error).
A figure of speech is a writer's way of making a point more dramatically than he would by stating the same point literally. It does not distinguish the point being made from other points that are made literally.
"Present your bodies a living sacrifice" is a figure of speech (an oxymoron, for one, as sacrifices are, by definition, killed).
"Be ye holy, for I am holy," is not a figure of speech. It's a straightforward declaration that God is holy and desires for us to be holy too.
Which is more emphatic? Well, neither, to be honest.
------------------------------------------------
Are the Ten Commandments important in God's Word?
Are there figures of speech in each of the Ten Commandments?
Maybe the first one. Almost certainly the second. Nothing in the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth or tenth.
Does the absence of figures of speech mean that God does not consider those commandments important?
I agree with Rafael's assessment on figures. They do not necessarily point to what is more important and relegate the literal to less important. Actually, adding a figure can sometimes cause the loss of emphasis.
Rafael said, "Thou Shalt Not Murder loses no emphasis without the addition of a figure of speech."
Hmm? Let's add a figure and see..
"Thou shalt not quench the fountain of another mans soul." or...
"Thou shalt not cause another to fall asleep before his appointed time"
You be the judge as to which has more emphasis or more importance.
In any case, as a side note, I think TWI sometimes employed obscure figures of speech in order to torture scripture to fit into their preconceived beliefs.
Yes, Rafael, I see your point. You're specifically looking for scriptures which support your notion and presenting them as if they spoke for the whole Bible.
What about Jesus? He was quite fond of using parables, metaphors, etc., to emphasize and illustrate his important points, even going so far as to say that all the commandments you stated as well as the rest of the law and prophets "hung" on the first two.
I really think this is needless quibbling over concepts and definitions, rather than anything objectively falsifiable in PFAL. I think we need to move on to something else and not waste time on it.
Sometimes a figure of speech is used in a way consistent with Wierwille's description. Sometimes it does not. THE FACT that sometimes it does NOT proves Wierwille's statement false.
Remember, Wierwille's statement is that figures of speech are the Holy Spirit's markings as to what is important in His Word. The fact is, there are many places in the Bible in which God communicates something of vital importance without employing a figure of speech. And there are many places in which figures of speech are employed where that which is being communicated is, let's face it, not all that important.
I'll agree with you that this is quibbling over concepts and definitions. However, you need to recall that PFAL is the book that set the standard for this discussion. Wierwille wrote that ONE PREPOSITION, just ONE out of place, and the WHOLE BIBLE would fall to pieces. The extraordinary weight Wierwille placed on figures of speech, and his usage of that information in touting the importance of his work, ministry, class and book, makes it worthy of discussion.
I'm not saying figures of speech are unimportant, or that they're unworthy of study. I do believe Wierwille inflated their importance and made claims about them that are not supportable, Biblically.
Rafael: Whatever. I just think you're stretching this one awfully thin. I don't think Wierwille etched that figure of speech thing in stone as much as your thesis would require.
I feel the same way about Orientalisms. I think some of the explanations were made up. I'm no bible scholar - but I've seen a few books like "Manners and Customs of the Bible" that were much better at explaining some of the parables in the gospels than the K.C. Pillai "Orientalisms" teachings were at explaining them.
The "bottle in smoke" comes to mind... and a few others that were a bit "off" that were similar to that one.
I meant no offense. My point was that there is no reason for any of us to read Wierwille’s unfounded ideas into the Bible (or anything else, for that matter). Most of us did and many of us still do, at least to some extent. I include myself. I have found several of Wierwille’s so-called discrepancies in the Bible that have turned out not to be discrepancies at all, once I stopped reading Wierwille’s presumptions into them. What seemed difficult suddenly became easy to understand.
I hadn’t meant to post any more on this but I will address your points.
I didn’t say that “espoused” doesn’t mean “espoused.” I accepted both Luke and Matthew as true and offered an explanation that harmonizes them. In Luke 1:27, Mary is “a virgin espoused to a man named Joseph.” In Matthew 1:18, she is “espoused to Joseph.” In Luke 2:5 (after Joseph “took unto him his wife” in Matthew 1:24), she is “his [Joseph’s] espoused wife.” There are a couple of subtle differences in Luke 2. In addition to the addition of the word “wife,” there seems to be a difference in viewpoint. If Luke 1 and Matthew 1 are from a general viewpoint, including that of the community, and Luke 2 is from Joseph’s viewpoint, then everything fits nicely without changing any definitions or assuming a situation contrary to the culture.
Matthew 1:24,25 says that Joseph “took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son:” I assumed that he did that legally and considered the cultural implications. I don’t see how it is reading things into the Bible to assume, unless stated otherwise, that Jesus’ parents obeyed God’s laws and conformed to their culture. The Bible doesn’t mention Mary and Joseph’s marriage ceremony at all. That doesn’t mean that they never had one. It is reasonable to think that they did, just as it is reasonable to think that the other married couples in the Bible had ceremonies, in accordance with the law and culture, even though the Bible mentions very few marriage ceremonies. That people were married implies that they got married, which implies that they had a ceremony.
There was no “tokens of virginity” part to a wedding ceremony for Joseph and Mary to have faked or omitted. A woman’s “tokens of virginity” was a cloth with blood on it from her torn hymen, which was regarded as proof that she was a virgin until her first time with her husband. If that came into play at all, it was after the wedding. It would have been irrelevant in Joseph and Mary’s case because Joseph “knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son.” For her to still have an intact hymen after that would have been a miracle indeed!
I don’t know how what I wrote communicated the idea that Joseph and Mary “masqueraded around as if they were having sex.” I merely pointed out that people assume that newlyweds have sex and wouldn’t think otherwise unless the newlyweds told them.
Last words on this subject: Although I no longer believe the Bible to be revelation from God, I hold it in higher regard than any other literature. I do not wish to denigrate it and I have tried to treat it honestly here. If my thoughts are of any value to anyone, that’s great. If not, at least I’ve gotten a little typing practice. If I’ve offended, I apologize.
I was not offended in the least. I am just being stubborn in public.
We share a similar belief about the Bible and revelation. For me though, it mostly concerns the New Testament scriptures. I don't think that Matthew, Luke, Paul, etc knew that what they were writing would hundreds of years later become the "Word of God". But actually I have more respect for it now than I did when I considered it God-breathed.
Your thoughts are of great value, whether I happen to agree or not, and it is good having you in the discussion.
I just think you're stretching this one awfully thin. I don't think Wierwille etched that figure of speech thing in stone as much as your thesis would require.
I can quote the PFAL book at length to prove my point. I think HE is the one who stretched the importance of figures of speech awfully thin.
I'm going to open the subject up to all the written books of VPW, not including Life Lines or those that were edited posthumously.
In Christians Should Be Prosperous, Wierwille writes that throughout the Bible, material prosperity ALWAYS hinges on tithing.
In truth, plenty of Bible characters are described as being materially prosperous, and the vast majority of them never tithed.
--------------------------------------------
This one is more of a question than a declaration of an actual error:
In Are the Dead Alive Now, Wierwille goes into detail about the vast distinction between a "resurrection" and a "rising." I always thought he was absolutely torturing the language when he said this, but never cared enough to venture into it any further. Any comments?
------------------------------------------------
Anyone care to expound on Wierwille's explanation of modern Jewry in the "Jew and Judaen" chapter of Jesus Christ Our Passover?
I can quote the PFAL book at length to prove my point.
Rafael, I have no doubt that you can quote it at length, but it will not prove your point, at least not the way you've made it.
The fallacy in your argument is that you've supposedly disproved Wierwille's statement by establishing the falsehood of its inverse. There is no definite relationship between the truth of a statement and the truth of its inverse.
That sort of proof is only valid when you can establish the falsehood of the contrapositive to the statement.
Broken down logically, here's what you've said so far, as I've understood it:
quote:Statement: The Holy Spirit marked the important things with figures of speech.
Inverse: If the Holy Spirit did NOT mark a thing with a figure of speech, then it is NOT important.
Proof: The Ten Commandments are literal, yet important. This falsifies the inverse, so the statement is false, QED.
This is incorrect. It establishes that the inverse is false, but it does nothing towards disproving the statement.
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
Vertical Limit
I thought "espoused" meant that they were already married and just haven't consumated the marriage. The time for that was supposed to be set by the priest or so we were taught.
If memory serves....
Deut 20:7 And what man is there that hath betrothed a wife, and hath not taken her? let him go and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man take her.
the only scripture I could find on it...
And that maybe that's how Joseph found out she was pregnant was when they were to come together. Then Joseph was considering what to do because he thought she was pregnant by someone else. Then the angel showed up.
[This message was edited by Vertical Limit on January 21, 2003 at 2:18.]
[This message was edited by Vertical Limit on January 21, 2003 at 2:20.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Ooooh, oh-oh-oh, I thunk of a 'nuther error! I know, late in the game.
Wierwille claims, somewhere in da Klass, that the Old Testament contains over 900 laws. Completely unsubstantiated flip comment...a real misstatement meant to impress.
Perhaps he was referring to Rabinnical law, the Talmud. In which are appended many laws & rules. But still nowhere near 900. Rently I finished a careful reading of the Pentateuch. Off the cuff I would say there aren't nearly 100 laws & rules. If I had to guess, I'd say around 50.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
troubledwine
I thought there were 613 or so...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lightside
I heard VPW say it 62 times.....
"Over 900 promises", in the Old Testament.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Lightside is correct: it was promises, not laws.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vertical Limit
1 more on the dead horse that keeps popping up in my brain.
Jesus could not have been illegitimate because he had to fullfill the law. Joseph and Mary had to have already been married when she got pregnant.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Is it time to call for a moratorium on this subject? It's starting to feel like the THE thread.
It seems the only thing we all really disagree about is whether the Pharisees said "Yo Mama!" to Jesus in John 8.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Doh
Never mind
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
thump...thump...thump...thump...thump
(sound of dead horse being beaten)
Oakspear
"We...know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling"
Henri Poincare
Link to comment
Share on other sites
A la prochaine
I just read the latest few posts here and wanted to add a bit of information. It may help, don't know...
I remember during PFAL '77 we were put into twigs and one of our topics we were to research were these 900 promises. So each twig was given a certain chapter or section of the old testament to search. Then they recorded our findings and it was put into some computer.
I remember them coming out and showing us the print out of all the scriptures that mentioned a promise from God. I think VP said it was the very first time in history that this was ever done.
-->
Ya, like those snowy gas pumps
-->
Hey Oak,
I'm laughing my guts out here
:D-->
'til the next time...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Oh goodness.
You ever notice how Wierwille would claim to have researched something, only to find out he was quoting, without attribution, some other book?
I'm paraphrasing: "Near as I can figure, there have been 220 figures of speech throughout history, and 212 of them were used in the Bible."
Umm. Ok. He's quoting Bullinger almost directly, but shhhh. Makes it sound like Wierwille did the figuring all by himself.
Does he mention Bullinger's figures of speech book in the class? He doesn't mention it in the PFAL book.
And now, ladies and gentlemen, an all new Actual Error.
In PFAL, Wierwille writes that a figure of speech is God's way of marking what's important in His Word.
In truth, the Bible itself makes no such claim regarding figures of speech, and even the most cursory analysis of the figures of speech used in the Bible will reveal that they are not revealing anything more important than that which is directly stated.
Okay, maybe it's an interpretation error. At the very least, its an indefensible statement.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Ummm....yeah...I'm going to have to disagree with you there, Raf. Figures of speech are emphatic in all forms of communication. Now as to whether or not VPW's swiping of Bullinger's particular conclusions from those figures of speech are valid, that's quite a different story. The statement itself, however, is not an error, actual or interpretational.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Not so fast.
Again, we need to take a look at the statement being made and compare it to the scope of scripture.
The statement is not whether figures of speech make an emphatic point. The question is whether God is using figures of speech to mark that which is important in His Word. What's the difference? Well, in my opinion, the vast majority of figures of speech employed in the Bible (go ahead, check Bullinger's list) declare nothing that is any more emphatic than things that are stated directly.
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten son..." is literal. There's no figure of speech employed there. But is there anything more important in scripture than that verse?
Analogies help. Metaphors help. But they are of no more importance than direct commandments.
Thou Shalt Not Murder loses no emphasis without the addition of a figure of speech.
That's why it is an error of interpretation at the least, and arguably an actual error (an oxymoron: if it's arguable, it's not an actual error).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
A figure of speech is a writer's way of making a point more dramatically than he would by stating the same point literally. It does not distinguish the point being made from other points that are made literally.
"Present your bodies a living sacrifice" is a figure of speech (an oxymoron, for one, as sacrifices are, by definition, killed).
"Be ye holy, for I am holy," is not a figure of speech. It's a straightforward declaration that God is holy and desires for us to be holy too.
Which is more emphatic? Well, neither, to be honest.
------------------------------------------------
Are the Ten Commandments important in God's Word?
Are there figures of speech in each of the Ten Commandments?
Maybe the first one. Almost certainly the second. Nothing in the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth or tenth.
Does the absence of figures of speech mean that God does not consider those commandments important?
I could go on, but do you see my point?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Figures...
I agree with Rafael's assessment on figures. They do not necessarily point to what is more important and relegate the literal to less important. Actually, adding a figure can sometimes cause the loss of emphasis.
Rafael said, "Thou Shalt Not Murder loses no emphasis without the addition of a figure of speech."
Hmm? Let's add a figure and see..
"Thou shalt not quench the fountain of another mans soul." or...
"Thou shalt not cause another to fall asleep before his appointed time"
You be the judge as to which has more emphasis or more importance.
In any case, as a side note, I think TWI sometimes employed obscure figures of speech in order to torture scripture to fit into their preconceived beliefs.
Goey
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Yes, Rafael, I see your point. You're specifically looking for scriptures which support your notion and presenting them as if they spoke for the whole Bible.
What about Jesus? He was quite fond of using parables, metaphors, etc., to emphasize and illustrate his important points, even going so far as to say that all the commandments you stated as well as the rest of the law and prophets "hung" on the first two.
I really think this is needless quibbling over concepts and definitions, rather than anything objectively falsifiable in PFAL. I think we need to move on to something else and not waste time on it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Zix, you're still missing my point.
My point is this:
Sometimes a figure of speech is used in a way consistent with Wierwille's description. Sometimes it does not. THE FACT that sometimes it does NOT proves Wierwille's statement false.
Remember, Wierwille's statement is that figures of speech are the Holy Spirit's markings as to what is important in His Word. The fact is, there are many places in the Bible in which God communicates something of vital importance without employing a figure of speech. And there are many places in which figures of speech are employed where that which is being communicated is, let's face it, not all that important.
I'll agree with you that this is quibbling over concepts and definitions. However, you need to recall that PFAL is the book that set the standard for this discussion. Wierwille wrote that ONE PREPOSITION, just ONE out of place, and the WHOLE BIBLE would fall to pieces. The extraordinary weight Wierwille placed on figures of speech, and his usage of that information in touting the importance of his work, ministry, class and book, makes it worthy of discussion.
I'm not saying figures of speech are unimportant, or that they're unworthy of study. I do believe Wierwille inflated their importance and made claims about them that are not supportable, Biblically.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Rafael: Whatever. I just think you're stretching this one awfully thin. I don't think Wierwille etched that figure of speech thing in stone as much as your thesis would require.
Perhaps Mike has another perspective...
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hope R.
I feel the same way about Orientalisms. I think some of the explanations were made up. I'm no bible scholar - but I've seen a few books like "Manners and Customs of the Bible" that were much better at explaining some of the parables in the gospels than the K.C. Pillai "Orientalisms" teachings were at explaining them.
The "bottle in smoke" comes to mind... and a few others that were a bit "off" that were similar to that one.
Hope R. color>size>face>
GO BUCS!!!size> color>
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Goey,
I meant no offense. My point was that there is no reason for any of us to read Wierwille’s unfounded ideas into the Bible (or anything else, for that matter). Most of us did and many of us still do, at least to some extent. I include myself. I have found several of Wierwille’s so-called discrepancies in the Bible that have turned out not to be discrepancies at all, once I stopped reading Wierwille’s presumptions into them. What seemed difficult suddenly became easy to understand.
I hadn’t meant to post any more on this but I will address your points.
I didn’t say that “espoused” doesn’t mean “espoused.” I accepted both Luke and Matthew as true and offered an explanation that harmonizes them. In Luke 1:27, Mary is “a virgin espoused to a man named Joseph.” In Matthew 1:18, she is “espoused to Joseph.” In Luke 2:5 (after Joseph “took unto him his wife” in Matthew 1:24), she is “his [Joseph’s] espoused wife.” There are a couple of subtle differences in Luke 2. In addition to the addition of the word “wife,” there seems to be a difference in viewpoint. If Luke 1 and Matthew 1 are from a general viewpoint, including that of the community, and Luke 2 is from Joseph’s viewpoint, then everything fits nicely without changing any definitions or assuming a situation contrary to the culture.
Matthew 1:24,25 says that Joseph “took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son:” I assumed that he did that legally and considered the cultural implications. I don’t see how it is reading things into the Bible to assume, unless stated otherwise, that Jesus’ parents obeyed God’s laws and conformed to their culture. The Bible doesn’t mention Mary and Joseph’s marriage ceremony at all. That doesn’t mean that they never had one. It is reasonable to think that they did, just as it is reasonable to think that the other married couples in the Bible had ceremonies, in accordance with the law and culture, even though the Bible mentions very few marriage ceremonies. That people were married implies that they got married, which implies that they had a ceremony.
There was no “tokens of virginity” part to a wedding ceremony for Joseph and Mary to have faked or omitted. A woman’s “tokens of virginity” was a cloth with blood on it from her torn hymen, which was regarded as proof that she was a virgin until her first time with her husband. If that came into play at all, it was after the wedding. It would have been irrelevant in Joseph and Mary’s case because Joseph “knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son.” For her to still have an intact hymen after that would have been a miracle indeed!
I don’t know how what I wrote communicated the idea that Joseph and Mary “masqueraded around as if they were having sex.” I merely pointed out that people assume that newlyweds have sex and wouldn’t think otherwise unless the newlyweds told them.
Last words on this subject: Although I no longer believe the Bible to be revelation from God, I hold it in higher regard than any other literature. I do not wish to denigrate it and I have tried to treat it honestly here. If my thoughts are of any value to anyone, that’s great. If not, at least I’ve gotten a little typing practice. If I’ve offended, I apologize.
Adios
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Long Gone,
I was not offended in the least. I am just being stubborn in public.
We share a similar belief about the Bible and revelation. For me though, it mostly concerns the New Testament scriptures. I don't think that Matthew, Luke, Paul, etc knew that what they were writing would hundreds of years later become the "Word of God". But actually I have more respect for it now than I did when I considered it God-breathed.
Your thoughts are of great value, whether I happen to agree or not, and it is good having you in the discussion.
Your apology is not necessary.
Goey
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I can quote the PFAL book at length to prove my point. I think HE is the one who stretched the importance of figures of speech awfully thin.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I'm going to open the subject up to all the written books of VPW, not including Life Lines or those that were edited posthumously.
In Christians Should Be Prosperous, Wierwille writes that throughout the Bible, material prosperity ALWAYS hinges on tithing.
In truth, plenty of Bible characters are described as being materially prosperous, and the vast majority of them never tithed.
--------------------------------------------
This one is more of a question than a declaration of an actual error:
In Are the Dead Alive Now, Wierwille goes into detail about the vast distinction between a "resurrection" and a "rising." I always thought he was absolutely torturing the language when he said this, but never cared enough to venture into it any further. Any comments?
------------------------------------------------
Anyone care to expound on Wierwille's explanation of modern Jewry in the "Jew and Judaen" chapter of Jesus Christ Our Passover?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Rafael, I have no doubt that you can quote it at length, but it will not prove your point, at least not the way you've made it.
The fallacy in your argument is that you've supposedly disproved Wierwille's statement by establishing the falsehood of its inverse. There is no definite relationship between the truth of a statement and the truth of its inverse.
That sort of proof is only valid when you can establish the falsehood of the contrapositive to the statement.
Broken down logically, here's what you've said so far, as I've understood it:
This is incorrect. It establishes that the inverse is false, but it does nothing towards disproving the statement.
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.