Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

Actual Errors in PFAL


Raf
 Share

Recommended Posts

discovered what? do you have an example?

I was trying to fallaciously highlight the arrogance of calling everything that wasn't TWI doctrine "error." If you pointed to christian theologians, they were off the Word. If you pointed to the critical texts, Wierwille had access to better texts. If you pointed to a logical fallacy, then logic stopped being true and you were still in error.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From post #1:

Number 10

In PFAL, Wierwille states that in Luke 2, Jesus was taken to the temple for bar-mitzvah at age 12 instead of 13 because he was considered illegitimate.

In truth, the passage in Luke 2 has nothing whatsoever to do with bar-mitzvah. The passage states rather clearly that they were celebrating Passover, not Jesus’ bar-mitzvah.

In addition, there is no such custom in Judaism (treating illegitimate children differently for the purpose of bar-mitzvah). Wierwille cites “an old piece of literature” as his source for this bizarre claim.

**************************************************************

Here are some links dealing with the origins of Bar Mitzvah:

Bar Mitzvah

The modern method of celebrating one's becoming a Bar Mitzvah did not exist in the time of the Bible, Mishnah or Talmud. Passages in the books of Exodus and Numbers note the age of majority for army service as twenty.[6] The term "Bar Mitzvah" appears first in the Talmud, the codification of the Jewish oral Torah compiled in the early 1st millennium of the common era, to connote "an [agent] who is subject to scriptural commands,"[7] and the age of thirteen is also mentioned in the Mishnah as the time one is obligated to observe the Torah's commandments: "At five years old a person should study the Scriptures, at ten years for the Mishnah, at thirteen for the commandments..."[8][9] The Talmud gives thirteen as the age at which a boy's vows are legally binding, and states that this is a result of his being a "man," as required in Numbers 6:2.[10] The term "Bar Mitzvah", in the sense it is now used, can not be clearly traced earlier than the fourteenth century, the older rabbinical term being "gadol" (adult) or "bar 'onshin" (son of punishment); that is, liable to punishment for his own misdoings. [11] Many sources indicate that the ceremonial observation of a Bar Mitzvah developed in the Middle Ages,[9][12] however, there are extensive earlier references to thirteen as the age of majority with respect to following the commandments of the Torah, as well as Talmudic references to observing this rite of passage with a religious ceremony, including:-------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_and_Bat_Mitzvah

Historians also found that ancient initiations usually occurred when a boy was between the ages of twelve and fourteen, as he reached maturity. Similarly, rabbis fixed the age of responsibility for Jewish boys at age thirteen during the Middle Ages.

http://www.mnment.com/brochure/bar.mitzvah.history.html

_**********************************************

PFAL is saturated with blatant, actual errors.

Edited by waysider
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was trying to fallaciously highlight the arrogance of calling everything that wasn't TWI doctrine "error." If you pointed to christian theologians, they were off the Word. If you pointed to the critical texts, Wierwille had access to better texts. If you pointed to a logical fallacy, then logic stopped being true and you were still in error.

ahhh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you examine the doctrine that was taught, you would, in fact, be confronted with the fact that it is just an extreme form of Restorationism.

you're right. verrry interesting . . . I've met quite a few a post-restorationist, who believe that the restorationist church went terribly wrong in the late '80s and must be restored to the state that "doctor," the restorationist apostle, left it in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Page 9---"the orange book"

Many times people say to me in my classes on Power for Abundant Living, "Dr. Wierwille, you sure get excited about your Biblical research." That is right; why shouldn't I be enthusiastic-------

Here we see that Wiewille allowed himself to be recognized as a 'Dr." when in fact his so-called doctorate came from a degree mill.

This is not only actual, it's deliberately deceptive.

In addition, he allows the reader to believe that the so-called research originated with him, when in fact, he plagiarized undisclosed sources.

These are items that are not subject to opinion, they are "actual"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder who the "many people" happen to actually be..

VP used this 3rd person technique frequently.

Page 95

What happens when people fail to understand The Word? They succumb to all the doctrines and theories of man

Page 95

A woman once wrote to me regarding one of our broadcasts. She had appreciated my preaching because it agreed with what she thought. Suppose------that it had disagreed?

Page 96

After the second session a man came to me and said, "I think this is the most logical Biblical teaching I have ever heard, but," he said, "it is upsetting me because I have always held other opinions and I don't 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----."

Page 99

Too many ministers like to talk around The word, yada, yada, yada, yada

************************************************

To the rank and file believers, he would never directly say, "I think you're stupid if you don't do it my way."

So, he would give you a 3rd person example of someone he declared to be stupid and hoped you would identify with that person.

Ok, that's pretty far off topic but I think it shows, in part, how he got us to buy into some of these inaccuracies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno. Maybe its not that far off..

what if "a woman", "a man" and the "too many ministers" do not exist, existed only in his narrative? Or the woman with fear in her heart and life that lost the child?

Wouldn't those be "actual errors" as well as fraud?

just a thought..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...

A really short thread would be, "Things in PFAL That Were True."

It is a gobbledygook of half-truths, lies, & slanders...

It was Victor's attempt to hide the fact that he wasn't man enough to be real minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

He was just about good enough to be a felonious Elmer Gantry

It's always tragic when such low-lifes get power.

I, personally, can't think of a bigger waste of time than looking either for truth or error in PFAL...

but, whatever gets you thru the night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to be off topic but "Actual Errors in PFAL" is just too much an exercise in futility.

I can be more helpful.

Please read "The Road Less Traveled by M. Scott Peck. You'll learn more Christian truth in the first chapter than Victor could bouldercake in 14 hours.

Or The Confessions of St. Augustine. If you're Christian, and can read, and haven't read them... I can only ask... "Why not?" This may be the best book ever written.

Or the prayers of St. Anselm. Believers have fed on them for over a thousand years. I kept my copy near the throne for years.

The Little Flowers of St. Francis! As close to Jesus as any mortal ever.

Henry Suso (for those of you who like their religion a bit kinky).

Evelyn Underhill.... most brilliant religious mind of her time... her spritual director (Baron Von Hugel) told her she wasn't spending enough time serving the poor.

PFAL is exactly what it sounds like (a piffle).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The very title is an actual error.

It is NOT, in fact, power for abundant living.

Unless, of course, the abundant living being addressed is that of one Mr. V. PeePee Wierwille.

Except there was a book by that title.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread has three basic premises.

1. That there are actual errors (not due to interpretation or "translation," middlement, proofreaders, etc.) in the PFAL book and Wierwille's other writings.

2. That those errors disqualify PFAL from its own definition of what it means to be "God-breathed."

3. That anyone who considers PFAL to BE God-breathed has to either explain the actual errors (ie, make them fit) or abandon PFAL's definition OF God-breathed in order to maintain that position.

Most of us would take 1 and 2 as self-evident, and this thread would not be as necessary (although Jerry proved years ago that it could be tons of fun).

But for those addressed in the third premise, the challenge could not be more grave. For if you cannot EXPLAIN the actual errors (and I contend you could not even if you tried), then you MUST admit VPW was wrong about "God-breathed" or abandon your position that PFAL IS God-breathed.

You may, as Mike did, choose to ignore the challenge. I never did a google search on Bible contradictions, as Mike suggested. Why not? Because I choose not to take the critics up on the challenge.

The difference between me and Mike is, I don't go to the other Web sites and tell them how wrong they are while refusing to address ANY of the contradictions they pose. I don't go there and ask them to explain how they approach difficulties in the theory of evolution to entrap them in an inconsistency. If I make the claim that the Bible has no errors or contradictions, then it is my job to address the errors and contradictions that are brought up. If I'm not going to do that (put up), then I will remain off their boards and silent (shut up).

I don't go there and tell them they are lousy researchers or unwilling to listen, without giving them any answers they seek. That's rude. And I'm not talking about "yo mama" rude. I'm talking about dishonest-and-disingenuous-debating-designed-to-cause-confusion-while-failing-to-address-the-very-purpose-of-this-discussion rude.

Which brings me back to the point:

Any discussion that fits into one of the three premises above should be considered on-topic.

Identifying actual errors is on-topic.

Challenging a posed "actual error" is on-topic.

Resolving an error is on-topic.

Explaining how you identify, challenge or resolve an error is on-topic.

The clever thing Mike tried to do yesterday was establish for US a consistency he demands of himself. That was getting us off-topic, and it explains my harshness yesterday.

Calling on us to apply the same principles to PFAL as we apply to the Bible assumes we all have the same principles in how to resolve errors in the Bible. We do not. Some of us try very hard to resolve difficulties in the Bible.

Some of us happily accept their existence as evidence that God worked with men. That discussion is fascinating, but it's not the subject of this thread. If we were to engage in that discussion, then the thread would simply be derailed.

Now, if Mike wants to attempt to re-define Wierwille's definition of God-breathed, I'm all ears. But I think we're all well aware that Wierwille did not allow for a view of the Word of God that allowed it to contradict itself.

What galls me about Mike, and I've said this repeatedly, is that he comes onto these threads declaring to all the world that he will NOT consider any viewpoint that shakes him from the belief that PFAL is God-breathed, then considers US "unfit researchers" who "don't WANT to see it fit." In other words, the man who has declared his mind closed for business accuses us of having closed minds. That's hypocrisy, and I'm tired of arguing with it.

On the other hand, you've got to appreciate a thread that brings back Karl Kahler AND Jerry Barrax. icon_cool.gif<!--graemlin::cool:-->

Sorry to be off topic but "Actual Errors in PFAL" is just too much an exercise in futility.

(snip)

You're several years late for the main discussion.

This thread had a specific purpose.

There were claims- by certain wearers of tinfoil hats-

that the Bible was REPLACED by the "works" of vpw

(the various books he plagiarized from others),

that those books are "God-breathed",

and so on.

This thread took the definitions IN pfal of "God-breathed" to demonstrate

that pfal was never "God-breathed." To reasonable readers, this was never

necessary. Even those who thought they were insightful and so on never

seriously entertained such a ridiculous claim, so they never needed it

refuted. Since the claim was raised, this thread was written to refute it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...