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.
Wierwille made two statements that are without basis or proof.
1. That they were in town for bar-mitzvah.
2. That "illegitimate" children were treated differently than other children for the purpose of bar-mitvah.
Prove it. You casually dismiss this as an "apparent" contradiction or error. I call it an actual error. It is flat out on its face wrong. Go ahead and show me that Wierwille was right (and no, you don't get to quote the PFAL book as "proof"). And don't tell me that you have the proof but you're waiting for the right time for me to step up to your telescope to see it.
I'm not asking you to start another endless Mike thread. Just address one of the errors we've posted here. No more "I have the answers, trust me, I just haven't posted them yet." Just post already. It's hard to be patient when you always manage to find the time to post about how you have no time to post. You always find the time to post that you have the answers we're seeking from you, but you never have the time to post the answers. It's tiring, and it's wearing thin. Actually, it starting wearing thin weeks ago, but when I told you then to put up or shut up, you called me a cruel taskmaster. So I waited. And waited. You disappeared. You came back. And how much progress? Not an inch. Why? Because you're too busy to post anything other than that you're too busy to post.
You know what? No one demands anything from you. But when you keep coming on, saying we're wrong, providing ZERO documentation to even STATE your case, much less back it up, it gets tiring.
So I'll say it again. Put up or shut up. If you don't have time to type out the answer, then shut up until you do. I promise not to claim victory. But if you have the time to tell me you have the answer, then please have the decency to share it with the rest of the class.
Ok. I accept to put up, but on a temporary basis. I slightly injured my back, so I have a squeegee holiday today.
My established policy in performing PFAL mastery is to "put up" my focus to a high standard. My primary mastering activity is simply READING the books.
I do, however, alot a small percentage of my time and focus to deal with Apparent Contradictions, ACs. I will engage for a time in pondering this AC, and then go back
my more normal routine of focusing on what DOES fit from PFAL, which is massive. This is my policy, even if the AC is still unresolved.
When I came back to reading PFAL, again, my appreciation for the truths taught soared. ACs are but tiny specks in unwashed food scraps, while the Thanksgiving Meal of my main reading material is constantly nourishing to the growing body of knowledge that FITS. The ACs are the exceptions, the FITs are the rule.
Some ACs I've been wondering about for years, but they are minor in importance. Some ACs that used to bug me got worked out well as the years go by. This is my first "go" at this particular AC.
But, Rafael, please try and put yourself in my shoes, here.
For ME, visiting this thread is like Googling a thousand websites for "Bible Contradictions."
When YOU see an intractable AC of the Bible for the first time, how do you react? If you can't deal with it immediately, do you chuck out the whole Bible? Or do you view it as an interesting puzzle for the future, that may even yield a surprising bonus result if solved? THAT's how I view PFAL ACs. This challenge from you is like a friendly game of arm wrestling, a little match at a local pub. After it's over, we both go back to our business. Tomorrow's match is another day.
There were times when I young in the Word, and was hit with very tough ACs in the Bible. A few did shake me to a state of nausea. How's THAT for cognitive dissonance? But I gradually learned to resist that "rush to judgement" syndrome, and take Bible ACs in stride.
Ditto for PFAL ACs. These things take some time, but they shouldn't get primary time.
If after a few internet hours or so, I still don't have THE convincing answer to satisfy you, then I will file it away in my spiritual closet and may return to it on another date to work it again.
Rafael, you wrote:
"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.
Wierwille made two statements that are without basis or proof."
Let's look at the print record, NOT for proof of PFAL correctness, but to see more clearly the stated charge. This brings us back to page 57 of the PFAL book, where Dr writes:
"Luke 2 contains one verse of Scripture that for many years I was not able to understand.
Luke 2:42:
And when he [Jesus] was twelve years old, they went up
to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.
"I knew that according to Jewish law, a boy became a man, going through Bar Mitzvah, when he was thirteen. But Jesus was taken to the temple when He was twelve. I could not understand it so I considered that there might be a mistake in the text. I looked in every critical Greek text that I could find and checked every other source I could think of; but I never found Jesus to be thirteen when He went to the synagogue. Every text concurred on the age of twelve. Finally I came across an old piece of literature which explained that according to ancient Judean law when a boy was conceived illegitimately, this child was brought to the temple at the age of twelve instead of thirteen."
"This explains why Jesus could not communicate with the people in His own hometown. They thought that a child conceived illegitimately certainly could not have great knowledge or do wonderful works. They were offended by Him, would not listen to hear enough to believe when He spoke, and thus suffered from apistia, unbelief."
The overall context of these paragraphs goes back as far as page 53, where a key verse was brought up and is being explained. The verse is Matthew 13:58 - "And he [Jesus] did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief."
It looks to me that the Luke 2 verse is only loosely brought in as confirmatory or illustrative. Dr is totally up front with this item being one in which he confused.
He uses the phrase "for many years I was not able to understand" to preface this issue. The Luke 2 verse can be thought of as just another reason Dr was confused.
I say the Luke 2 verse is only "loosely" brought in because it's not used to derive anything. Nothing in the main point is hanging on this.
The way "temple" comes up again in the main paragraph of p.57: "But Jesus was taken to the temple when He was twelve." This may, or may not be directly connected to the Luke 2 verse. It doesn't matter, though, because it's tangential to the main point. The main point is "Why did Jesus have a tough time in his home town?"
Next Dr further itemizes his state of uncertainty thusly: "...I could not understand it... I looked in every... and checked every.... but I never found... Finally I came across an old piece of literature which explained..."
He's totally up front as to the uncertainty of this connection, from an official documentation point of view, and goes even STILL further to explain this in the video class soundtrack: "And then one day I ran across a piece of literature that I have since lost I cannot find it but it was in an old text where I learned this that in ancient Jewish law when a boy was..."
Now, in applying my newly adopted (5 years now) perspective to these paragraphs of Dr's admitted 5-senses uncertainty, I proceed to the next paragraph.
What is this Newly adopted perspective? That, IN ADDITION to Dr's 5-senses research efforts, God is giving him revelation. This is a new principle for me to apply. I resisted it, vehemently at times, for may years in the past. Five years ago I gave it a try as I came back with meekness to reading PFAL.
Applying this new key to the next paragraph I meekly read: "This explains why Jesus could not communicate with the people in His own hometown."
Now, Rafael, are you going to ask me to leave this overall context and look at all the timing involved in exactly WHEN on the calendar Luke 2:42 occurred? I say, I don't care when it occurred. That's not germane to the story. Besides it could take a lot of time. I’m not good at tracking those kind of things. I’m happy with the verse being there loosely.
On this page I see that Dr did some 5-senses research, couldn't find a simple documentable answer, DID find one hot clue, but lost it later, and then, in the midst of all Dr's 5-senses confusion (which often well characterizes behind-the-scenes academia) God gave him a revelation "You can trust the lost, "old piece of literature" and the 12 year old shame deal."
The next sentence is "This explains why Jesus could not communicate with the people in His own hometown." I'm willing to accept this revelation, whether or not it's documentable in a way that satisfies other 5-senses researchers. I accept this and move on... with more reading, because I've come back... to PFAL.
[This message was edited by Mike on January 16, 2003 at 17:00.]
Ok, Mike brought the pretzels. Who brought the beer?
Mike, you don't know what time of year Luke 2:42 takes place? Honest? Really? Are you literate? Can you show the Bible just a FRACTION of the devotion you're showing PFAL?
Luke 2:42 takes place during Passover. It says so, right there in the context. Remember how PFAL taught us that in order to understand the BIBLE, we have to read VERSES in their context. Do you remember that in PFAL? It's about how to read the Bible you reject.
I ask you for proof that Wierwille is right, and you SPECULATE that God must have told him to trust an "old piece of literature" that none of us gets to see or read? HOGWASH, sir. Do not pass Go, Do not collect 1/10 of my income.
I told you, if you don't have an answer, don't write. This drivel you've provided is not an answer.
By the way, didn't I specifically say you can't quote the PFAL book as proof? It's the only thing you quoted as proof. That's rich. The proof that Wierwille is right is that in other parts of the PFAL book he talks about related things.
HUH? Your reply is logically, practically, scripturally and rationally flawed.
Another so far, incomplete, I'm not done yet non-answer.
Mike, IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER, TAKE YOUR TIME. I'll be patient waiting for the answer, but I won't be patient with longwinded, non-answers, evading the question and calling it a clarification of the charge when in fact it is nothing of the kind.
Do you know what linguistic legerdemain is? You use it so well, I thought you might want to know that there's actually a term for it.
2 points to the first one who tells me where I first heard the term.
The charge is clear to everyone but you, Mike, but I'll give you some help. Wierwille says illegimate Jewish boys were bar mitzvahed at 12. To successfully uphold Wierwille's finding, producing any of the following will suffice:
- Any Old Testament scripture that directs Israel to do this. (Don't waste your time, it's not there.)
- Any Jewish tradition record like from the Talmud.
- Any secular record of the time, like from Josephus.
- Any book apart from TWI publications that supports this theory could only help. Please produce a title, author, and ISBN number if available.
To support Wierwille's finding, one must also produce evidence that the section in Luke is even TALKING about Bar-mitzvah (a ceremony, as one poster noted, that did not even begin for centuries after Christ).
But Rafael, you're side stepping my Bible AC comments.
How DO you face Bible ACs of a huge magnitude like on a long list from a Google search?
If the writer of a particular Bible AC on that list doesn't present a really convincing case, don't you tend to casually dismiss the sloppy charges and move on to the next Google AC on the list?
You haven't convinced me that there's a serious problem here.
Now if some of your case for this particular AC is buried up in the previous many posts of this thread, then direct me there, or better yet, paste it here.
So far all I see is the originally stated in my opening:
Rafael, you wrote:
"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.
Wierwille made two statements that are without basis or proof."
I'll bring the beer. Does TreeFrog suit everybody? I can't drink the stuff myself, because it could interact with my Paxil and possibly cause a psychotic episode. We wouldn't want that to happen, would we.
Rafael asked you to deal with two specific things in regards to Luke 2 that VPW stated without basis or proof. These are:
1. That they were in town for bar-mitzvah.
2. That "illegitimate" children were treated differently than other children for the purpose of bar-mitvah.
You did everyting except address these specific claims. As for me, I am not interested in how many months or years of study it will take or how germane is is to the story. VPW thought it was germane, because he used these to prove his point.
quote:On this page I see that Dr did some 5-senses research, couldn't find a simple documentable answer, DID find one hot clue, but lost it later, and then, in the midst of all Dr's 5-senses confusion (which often well characterizes behind-the-scenes academia) God gave him a revelation "You can trust the lost, "old piece of literature" and the 13 year old shame deal."
Is this your answer? That:
1. VPW found, but then lost an "old piece of literature" about illegitimate boys being taken to Bar Mitzvah at 12.
2. God gave revelation to VPW confirming the accuracy of this literature, saying, " You can trust the lost, "old piece of literature" and the 13 year old shame deal."
Mike, you have got to do better than that. You can't expect too many to take you and your "data" very seriously if you respond to legitimate questions with, "God gave him [VPW] a revelation..." Is this going to be your pat answer?
If you want to start an "Actual Errors in the Bible" thread, be my guest. But YOU're the one doing the sidestepping here, and I will NOT see you derail this conversation and drag the Bible down just so you can have youuuurrrrr preciousssss PFAL.
No sir, nice try, but no dice. YOU'RE the one claiming that PFAL exists to correct the Bible's errors. You're the one who's going to have to explain why PFAL has documented and documentable ACTUAL errors.
You call what Raf shows in the Bible a huge Bible AC (or state that it doesn't matter) without even looking at the biblical text. And simply upon VPW's account in PFAL.
And you do so without question.
I ask again. Is what VPW wrote really *that* important, that you must brush everything to the side that challenges it? Is what VPW wrote really that much God's Word to you?
Rafael - I don't know where you first encountered the phrase "linguistic legerdemain", but I bet I can identify some of it's techniques (my father-in-law is president of the local chapter of Society of American Magicians).
One trick is to shift the terminology. For instance, this thread is about "actual errors". Somehow this has been transformed into "ACs" which Mike equivocally defined as "actual contradictions" or "apparent contradictions". By using "AC", he shifts the focus of the thread from "actual" to "apparent".
Zixar will confirm me when I say that "AC" means "armor class".
I'll make it easy. The complete phrase is "What we require now is a feat of linguistic legerdemain and a degree of intrepidity."
One of the all time great sentences.
Mike,
I left out an option.
I basically said answer now or answer later, but don't give a half answer or long non-answer and expect us to be satisfied with it.
I will be completely satisfied if you just say, "I'm not going to answer." No one's forcing you to answer anything. My only complaint is when you come here and say "I;ve already answered many of these, I just haven't posted my answers, yet you still don't post. I'm not going to read your mind. If you're going to answer, answer. If you're not, don't.
But enough with the "I have the answers I'm just not posting them" nonsense.
quote: Throughout history, many groups of people have had rituals to celebrate the time when a boy becomes and man, and a girl becomes a woman. For Jewish people, these rituals are called bar mitzvah and bat mitzvah. Bar mitzvah is the Hebrew phrase meaning "son of the commandment," and bat mitzvah means "daughter of the commandment." Becoming a bar or bat mitzvah means that a boy or girl has become an adult, and is fully responsible for his or her morals and religious duties. It also means that he or she has become a full-fledged member of the Jewish community, and must follow the rules of Jewish life ? the commandments.
Both rituals are usually held in the Jewish temple, or synagogue, and are followed by a party to celebrate. Family, friends, and members of the synagogue come to celebrate the young person's coming of age. During bar mitzvah and bat mitzvah ceremonies, the boy or girl actively participates in the ceremony - reading prayers and giving his or her own personal speech. It is a chance for the young people to express themselves as individuals. Often, a bar mitzvah and bat mitzvah are essentially the same, and follow the same format. However, the form of the ceremony may vary, depending on the branch of Judaism and the young adult. Some Jewish boys and girls may not even have a formal ceremony at all.
Did the Bar/t Mitzvah originate in the Torah? Contrary to what many believe, the bar mitzvah ceremony did not originate from the Bible. It grew out of the need for boys to celebrate their coming of age, long before the Jewish religion existed. Historians and sociologists have discovered evidence of such rites of passage in ancient tribes and cultures all over the globe. The modern bar mitzvah has evolved and grown from these early rituals.
Ancient coming-of-age rituals usually involved some sort of initiation. In some tribes, a young boy had to hunt, cook, and eat a large animal in order to be initiated. Others had to endure tests of strength, speed, or skill to prove they had become a man. As the Jewish religion grew, similar initiation ceremonies were probably common. Eventually however, the emphasis changed to that of a spiritual coming-of-age rather than a physical one.
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. Even though there was no bar mitzvah in the early days, age thirteen marked a significant turning point into adulthood.
In ancient times, boys were encouraged to begin studying the Bible as soon as they learned to read, often as early as age five. Boys who were advanced in their religious studies were allowed to take part in religious services, even before they reached thirteen. Since there were no rules against it, children were encouraged to live up to the commandments as soon as they could understand them and take part in religious services. By the time a boy turned thirteen, it was not an option to follow the commandments, it was an expectation.
On a boy's thirteenth birthday, he was taken to an elder rabbi and blessed. Typically, the rabbi would pray with the boy, ask that he remember the commandments and encourage him to do good deeds. Although this birthday was considered a major turning point in a boy's life, there wasn't a need to hold a special ceremony like a modern bar mitzvah since he had likely been taking part in religious services for years.
Over time, the Jewish community began to change their attitude about children taking part in religious services. They felt that children were too young to take an adult role in the synagogue. By the Middle Ages, the participation of young children in religious services and ceremonies was strongly discouraged. Gradually, the custom of waiting until a boy turned thirteen became accepted.
With this acceptance, a boy's thirteenth birthday became an important occasion in his life. When he turned thirteen, he was allowed to take part in a religious service for the first time. This coming-of-age event seemed to call for a special ceremony, which eventually grew more significant and elaborate. Today, the modern bar mitzvah ceremony in celebrated on the Sabbath, the day of rest, coinciding with or immediately following his thirteenth birthday. The Sabbath begins at sundown on Friday and lasts until nightfall on Saturday.
Mike wrote, "My primary mastering activity is simply READING the books."
I Thessalonians 5:21 says, "Prove [test] all things; hold fast that which is good." The Bereans did so by searching the Scriptures (Acts 17:11). Jesus exhorted his countrymen to search the Scriptures (John 5:39).
Mike wrote "The ACs are the exceptions, the FITs are the rule." How can Mike know what "FITs" if he doesn't compare what he reads in PFAL with what is actually written in the Bible? Wierwille was in massive error on a number of topics. What VPW wrote about "administrations" is in error. What VPW wrote about "body-soul-spirit" is in error. What VPW wrote about "the new birth" is in error.
One of the reasons I called this thread "actual errors" is to differentiate between theological arguments and outright mistakes. The perfect word of a perfect God will, according to PFAL, have no errors or contradictions in it. The existence of ONE error, no matter how small, invalidates PFAL's claim to be God-breathed according to the standard ESTABLISHED IN PFAL. Wierwille himself said and wrote that if any word other than "pros" were used in John 1:1, the WHOLE BIBLE would fall to pieces.
This proves two things.
1. That even the tiniest word discrepancy matters.
2. That Wierwille, UNLIKE YOU, did not believe the Bible had fallen to pieces.
Now, if you're going to call these ACTUAL ERRORS unimportant, then you are contradicting Wierwille and PFAL.
On the other hand, if you would rather move this discussion on to LARGER matters, rather than little indisputable mistakes, I say BRING IT ON! Because Wierwille made some DOOZY errors throughout PFAL and the collaterals. DOOZIES. (Steve can probably do a better job of tackling these than I can).
But you can't even address the little ones. How can you even begin to address the big ones? The massive errors of interpretation.
Why did Wierwille say the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven were two different things when Jesus CLEARLY spoke of them as synonymous?
Is that big enough for you? It was on my original list. I noticed you didn't answer that one either.
“You're the one who's going to have to explain why PFAL has ...errors."
Yes, but only in my posts on this thread.
To convince you of its inerrancey (sp?) is probably not going to happen.
In my private life I don't have to explain these PFAL ACs any more than I have to explain Googled Bible ACs.
I know they're there, but I'm willing to bet my life that they all fall into the "apparent" category if properly worked. After I place this bet, I continue reading for pleasure and enlightenment. Often while enjoying such reading, an old AC is suddenly taken care of. It’s a fun process.
So far what I’ve seen in your chosen AC is Dr making an excellent point on page 57, and also you looking in shadows for inaccuracies having nothing to do with the lesson at hand.
So far, there are many more keys I haven’t even started to think about employing in order to rightly divide page 57 in the shadow of your still unclear charges. Gads! We could be here all week on this one little ditty.
If I am to employ my new perspective of meek-mastering in dealing with PFAL, this approach I use here is legitimate for debate because I’m not arguing proof of “God-breathedness,” instead I’m arguing consistency within “God-breathedness.”
In other words, the way I handle PFAL ACs is to assume the originals were of God and therefore perfect, and that any ACs are due to any one of a list of possible culprits. The FIRST culprit of which is “Read what is Written” hence I quoted the passage.
I figured if we go back to the written record, as opposed to the spoken record, we could see if we really remembered what was written. I find that, with myself and any others, many PFAL ACs stem from a GREAT familiarity with the tape record, and a VERY weak familiarity with the print record. That’s another reason I broke your rule and quoted the whole page.
This tape/book confusion is a very strong generators of misunderstandings. This is why Dr often urged us to master the writings, especially in his Last/Lost Teaching.
Sorry Garth, Zixar, Goey, Steve, Hope. I was NOT ingnoring you, just heavily preoccupied with an arm-wrestling. I dooooo hope this doesn't influence your vote on who is winning, me or Rafael.
I have to leave to get dinner. I'm going out to a real pub, hopefully with no arm wrestling challenges.
Later I'll try and read the posts I had little time to read while writing the above posts.
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
Mike
Put up WHAT? The thread? or the handling of one of these many listed AC's or AE's.
AC= Apparent (or Actual) Contradiction
AE= Apparent (or Actual) Error
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
How about this.
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.
Wierwille made two statements that are without basis or proof.
1. That they were in town for bar-mitzvah.
2. That "illegitimate" children were treated differently than other children for the purpose of bar-mitvah.
Prove it. You casually dismiss this as an "apparent" contradiction or error. I call it an actual error. It is flat out on its face wrong. Go ahead and show me that Wierwille was right (and no, you don't get to quote the PFAL book as "proof"). And don't tell me that you have the proof but you're waiting for the right time for me to step up to your telescope to see it.
I'm not asking you to start another endless Mike thread. Just address one of the errors we've posted here. No more "I have the answers, trust me, I just haven't posted them yet." Just post already. It's hard to be patient when you always manage to find the time to post about how you have no time to post. You always find the time to post that you have the answers we're seeking from you, but you never have the time to post the answers. It's tiring, and it's wearing thin. Actually, it starting wearing thin weeks ago, but when I told you then to put up or shut up, you called me a cruel taskmaster. So I waited. And waited. You disappeared. You came back. And how much progress? Not an inch. Why? Because you're too busy to post anything other than that you're too busy to post.
You know what? No one demands anything from you. But when you keep coming on, saying we're wrong, providing ZERO documentation to even STATE your case, much less back it up, it gets tiring.
So I'll say it again. Put up or shut up. If you don't have time to type out the answer, then shut up until you do. I promise not to claim victory. But if you have the time to tell me you have the answer, then please have the decency to share it with the rest of the class.
We're waiting.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Rafael,
Ok. I accept to put up, but on a temporary basis. I slightly injured my back, so I have a squeegee holiday today.
My established policy in performing PFAL mastery is to "put up" my focus to a high standard. My primary mastering activity is simply READING the books.
I do, however, alot a small percentage of my time and focus to deal with Apparent Contradictions, ACs. I will engage for a time in pondering this AC, and then go back
my more normal routine of focusing on what DOES fit from PFAL, which is massive. This is my policy, even if the AC is still unresolved.
When I came back to reading PFAL, again, my appreciation for the truths taught soared. ACs are but tiny specks in unwashed food scraps, while the Thanksgiving Meal of my main reading material is constantly nourishing to the growing body of knowledge that FITS. The ACs are the exceptions, the FITs are the rule.
Some ACs I've been wondering about for years, but they are minor in importance. Some ACs that used to bug me got worked out well as the years go by. This is my first "go" at this particular AC.
But, Rafael, please try and put yourself in my shoes, here.
For ME, visiting this thread is like Googling a thousand websites for "Bible Contradictions."
When YOU see an intractable AC of the Bible for the first time, how do you react? If you can't deal with it immediately, do you chuck out the whole Bible? Or do you view it as an interesting puzzle for the future, that may even yield a surprising bonus result if solved? THAT's how I view PFAL ACs. This challenge from you is like a friendly game of arm wrestling, a little match at a local pub. After it's over, we both go back to our business. Tomorrow's match is another day.
There were times when I young in the Word, and was hit with very tough ACs in the Bible. A few did shake me to a state of nausea. How's THAT for cognitive dissonance? But I gradually learned to resist that "rush to judgement" syndrome, and take Bible ACs in stride.
Ditto for PFAL ACs. These things take some time, but they shouldn't get primary time.
If after a few internet hours or so, I still don't have THE convincing answer to satisfy you, then I will file it away in my spiritual closet and may return to it on another date to work it again.
Rafael, you wrote:
"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.
Wierwille made two statements that are without basis or proof."
Let's look at the print record, NOT for proof of PFAL correctness, but to see more clearly the stated charge. This brings us back to page 57 of the PFAL book, where Dr writes:
****************************************************************
"Luke 2 contains one verse of Scripture that for many years I was not able to understand.
Luke 2:42:
And when he [Jesus] was twelve years old, they went up
to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.
"I knew that according to Jewish law, a boy became a man, going through Bar Mitzvah, when he was thirteen. But Jesus was taken to the temple when He was twelve. I could not understand it so I considered that there might be a mistake in the text. I looked in every critical Greek text that I could find and checked every other source I could think of; but I never found Jesus to be thirteen when He went to the synagogue. Every text concurred on the age of twelve. Finally I came across an old piece of literature which explained that according to ancient Judean law when a boy was conceived illegitimately, this child was brought to the temple at the age of twelve instead of thirteen."
"This explains why Jesus could not communicate with the people in His own hometown. They thought that a child conceived illegitimately certainly could not have great knowledge or do wonderful works. They were offended by Him, would not listen to hear enough to believe when He spoke, and thus suffered from apistia, unbelief."
*****************************PFAL p.57************
The overall context of these paragraphs goes back as far as page 53, where a key verse was brought up and is being explained. The verse is Matthew 13:58 - "And he [Jesus] did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief."
It looks to me that the Luke 2 verse is only loosely brought in as confirmatory or illustrative. Dr is totally up front with this item being one in which he confused.
He uses the phrase "for many years I was not able to understand" to preface this issue. The Luke 2 verse can be thought of as just another reason Dr was confused.
I say the Luke 2 verse is only "loosely" brought in because it's not used to derive anything. Nothing in the main point is hanging on this.
The way "temple" comes up again in the main paragraph of p.57: "But Jesus was taken to the temple when He was twelve." This may, or may not be directly connected to the Luke 2 verse. It doesn't matter, though, because it's tangential to the main point. The main point is "Why did Jesus have a tough time in his home town?"
Next Dr further itemizes his state of uncertainty thusly: "...I could not understand it... I looked in every... and checked every.... but I never found... Finally I came across an old piece of literature which explained..."
He's totally up front as to the uncertainty of this connection, from an official documentation point of view, and goes even STILL further to explain this in the video class soundtrack: "And then one day I ran across a piece of literature that I have since lost I cannot find it but it was in an old text where I learned this that in ancient Jewish law when a boy was..."
Now, in applying my newly adopted (5 years now) perspective to these paragraphs of Dr's admitted 5-senses uncertainty, I proceed to the next paragraph.
What is this Newly adopted perspective? That, IN ADDITION to Dr's 5-senses research efforts, God is giving him revelation. This is a new principle for me to apply. I resisted it, vehemently at times, for may years in the past. Five years ago I gave it a try as I came back with meekness to reading PFAL.
Applying this new key to the next paragraph I meekly read: "This explains why Jesus could not communicate with the people in His own hometown."
Now, Rafael, are you going to ask me to leave this overall context and look at all the timing involved in exactly WHEN on the calendar Luke 2:42 occurred? I say, I don't care when it occurred. That's not germane to the story. Besides it could take a lot of time. I’m not good at tracking those kind of things. I’m happy with the verse being there loosely.
On this page I see that Dr did some 5-senses research, couldn't find a simple documentable answer, DID find one hot clue, but lost it later, and then, in the midst of all Dr's 5-senses confusion (which often well characterizes behind-the-scenes academia) God gave him a revelation "You can trust the lost, "old piece of literature" and the 12 year old shame deal."
The next sentence is "This explains why Jesus could not communicate with the people in His own hometown." I'm willing to accept this revelation, whether or not it's documentable in a way that satisfies other 5-senses researchers. I accept this and move on... with more reading, because I've come back... to PFAL.
[This message was edited by Mike on January 16, 2003 at 17:00.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Ok, Mike brought the pretzels. Who brought the beer?
Mike, you don't know what time of year Luke 2:42 takes place? Honest? Really? Are you literate? Can you show the Bible just a FRACTION of the devotion you're showing PFAL?
Luke 2:42 takes place during Passover. It says so, right there in the context. Remember how PFAL taught us that in order to understand the BIBLE, we have to read VERSES in their context. Do you remember that in PFAL? It's about how to read the Bible you reject.
I ask you for proof that Wierwille is right, and you SPECULATE that God must have told him to trust an "old piece of literature" that none of us gets to see or read? HOGWASH, sir. Do not pass Go, Do not collect 1/10 of my income.
I told you, if you don't have an answer, don't write. This drivel you've provided is not an answer.
By the way, didn't I specifically say you can't quote the PFAL book as proof? It's the only thing you quoted as proof. That's rich. The proof that Wierwille is right is that in other parts of the PFAL book he talks about related things.
HUH? Your reply is logically, practically, scripturally and rationally flawed.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Rafael, just before defying your rule, I explained my justification for such defiance as follows:
"Let's look at the print record, NOT for proof of PFAL correctness, but to see more clearly the stated charge. This brings us back..."
I'm still not done with the “Clarification of Charges” phase of this trial.
I’m only challenging the clarity of your charges... so far.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Mike,
"I’m only challenging the clarity of your charges... so far."
Ie., it all depends on how you define the word 'is', ehh?
;)-->
Man, you should be an attorney. O'J' Simpson's attorneys couldn't touch your side-stepping song-and-dance!
Better yet, run for office, ... as Clinton, Part Deux!
Prophet Emeritus of THE,
and Wandering CyberUU Hippie,
Garth P.
www.gapstudioweb.com
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Another so far, incomplete, I'm not done yet non-answer.
Mike, IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER, TAKE YOUR TIME. I'll be patient waiting for the answer, but I won't be patient with longwinded, non-answers, evading the question and calling it a clarification of the charge when in fact it is nothing of the kind.
Do you know what linguistic legerdemain is? You use it so well, I thought you might want to know that there's actually a term for it.
2 points to the first one who tells me where I first heard the term.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
The charge is clear to everyone but you, Mike, but I'll give you some help. Wierwille says illegimate Jewish boys were bar mitzvahed at 12. To successfully uphold Wierwille's finding, producing any of the following will suffice:
- Any Old Testament scripture that directs Israel to do this. (Don't waste your time, it's not there.)
- Any Jewish tradition record like from the Talmud.
- Any secular record of the time, like from Josephus.
- Any book apart from TWI publications that supports this theory could only help. Please produce a title, author, and ISBN number if available.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Thanks Zix. If I may add:
To support Wierwille's finding, one must also produce evidence that the section in Luke is even TALKING about Bar-mitzvah (a ceremony, as one poster noted, that did not even begin for centuries after Christ).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
But Rafael, you're side stepping my Bible AC comments.
How DO you face Bible ACs of a huge magnitude like on a long list from a Google search?
If the writer of a particular Bible AC on that list doesn't present a really convincing case, don't you tend to casually dismiss the sloppy charges and move on to the next Google AC on the list?
You haven't convinced me that there's a serious problem here.
Now if some of your case for this particular AC is buried up in the previous many posts of this thread, then direct me there, or better yet, paste it here.
So far all I see is the originally stated in my opening:
Rafael, you wrote:
"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.
Wierwille made two statements that are without basis or proof."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I'll bring the beer. Does TreeFrog suit everybody? I can't drink the stuff myself, because it could interact with my Paxil and possibly cause a psychotic episode. We wouldn't want that to happen, would we.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Mike,
Rafael asked you to deal with two specific things in regards to Luke 2 that VPW stated without basis or proof. These are:
1. That they were in town for bar-mitzvah.
2. That "illegitimate" children were treated differently than other children for the purpose of bar-mitvah.
You did everyting except address these specific claims. As for me, I am not interested in how many months or years of study it will take or how germane is is to the story. VPW thought it was germane, because he used these to prove his point.
Is this your answer? That:
1. VPW found, but then lost an "old piece of literature" about illegitimate boys being taken to Bar Mitzvah at 12.
2. God gave revelation to VPW confirming the accuracy of this literature, saying, " You can trust the lost, "old piece of literature" and the 13 year old shame deal."
Mike, you have got to do better than that. You can't expect too many to take you and your "data" very seriously if you respond to legitimate questions with, "God gave him [VPW] a revelation..." Is this going to be your pat answer?
Goey
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Mike,
What's the title of this thread?
If you want to start an "Actual Errors in the Bible" thread, be my guest. But YOU're the one doing the sidestepping here, and I will NOT see you derail this conversation and drag the Bible down just so you can have youuuurrrrr preciousssss PFAL.
No sir, nice try, but no dice. YOU'RE the one claiming that PFAL exists to correct the Bible's errors. You're the one who's going to have to explain why PFAL has documented and documentable ACTUAL errors.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Mike,
You call what Raf shows in the Bible a huge Bible AC (or state that it doesn't matter) without even looking at the biblical text. And simply upon VPW's account in PFAL.
And you do so without question.
I ask again. Is what VPW wrote really *that* important, that you must brush everything to the side that challenges it? Is what VPW wrote really that much God's Word to you?
Prophet Emeritus of THE,
and Wandering CyberUU Hippie,
Garth P.
www.gapstudioweb.com
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Rafael - I don't know where you first encountered the phrase "linguistic legerdemain", but I bet I can identify some of it's techniques (my father-in-law is president of the local chapter of Society of American Magicians).
One trick is to shift the terminology. For instance, this thread is about "actual errors". Somehow this has been transformed into "ACs" which Mike equivocally defined as "actual contradictions" or "apparent contradictions". By using "AC", he shifts the focus of the thread from "actual" to "apparent".
Zixar will confirm me when I say that "AC" means "armor class".
Love,
Steve
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Actually, it means Air Conditioning
Prophet Emeritus of THE,
and Wandering CyberUU Hippie,
Garth P.
www.gapstudioweb.com
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Steve,
I'll make it easy. The complete phrase is "What we require now is a feat of linguistic legerdemain and a degree of intrepidity."
One of the all time great sentences.
Mike,
I left out an option.
I basically said answer now or answer later, but don't give a half answer or long non-answer and expect us to be satisfied with it.
I will be completely satisfied if you just say, "I'm not going to answer." No one's forcing you to answer anything. My only complaint is when you come here and say "I;ve already answered many of these, I just haven't posted my answers, yet you still don't post. I'm not going to read your mind. If you're going to answer, answer. If you're not, don't.
But enough with the "I have the answers I'm just not posting them" nonsense.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Hope R.
I found this in about 1 minute using "Google".
Hope R. color>size>face>
Life, what is it but a dream? - Lewis Carroll
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Thanks Hope!
Do you have a link for that article so we can check the source?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hope R.
BarMitzvahNY.com
And this was just the first link I followed when I Googled - "Bar Mitzvah" history of - !
I actually found it in about 30 seconds... but I don't think Mike would have believed me if I'd said anything under a minute.
Hope R. color>size>face>
P.S. The bold and italics were my addition.
Life, what is it but a dream? - Lewis Carroll
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Mike wrote, "My primary mastering activity is simply READING the books."
I Thessalonians 5:21 says, "Prove [test] all things; hold fast that which is good." The Bereans did so by searching the Scriptures (Acts 17:11). Jesus exhorted his countrymen to search the Scriptures (John 5:39).
Mike wrote "The ACs are the exceptions, the FITs are the rule." How can Mike know what "FITs" if he doesn't compare what he reads in PFAL with what is actually written in the Bible? Wierwille was in massive error on a number of topics. What VPW wrote about "administrations" is in error. What VPW wrote about "body-soul-spirit" is in error. What VPW wrote about "the new birth" is in error.
I think Mike has the proportions backwards.
Love,
Steve
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Mike,
One of the reasons I called this thread "actual errors" is to differentiate between theological arguments and outright mistakes. The perfect word of a perfect God will, according to PFAL, have no errors or contradictions in it. The existence of ONE error, no matter how small, invalidates PFAL's claim to be God-breathed according to the standard ESTABLISHED IN PFAL. Wierwille himself said and wrote that if any word other than "pros" were used in John 1:1, the WHOLE BIBLE would fall to pieces.
This proves two things.
1. That even the tiniest word discrepancy matters.
2. That Wierwille, UNLIKE YOU, did not believe the Bible had fallen to pieces.
Now, if you're going to call these ACTUAL ERRORS unimportant, then you are contradicting Wierwille and PFAL.
On the other hand, if you would rather move this discussion on to LARGER matters, rather than little indisputable mistakes, I say BRING IT ON! Because Wierwille made some DOOZY errors throughout PFAL and the collaterals. DOOZIES. (Steve can probably do a better job of tackling these than I can).
But you can't even address the little ones. How can you even begin to address the big ones? The massive errors of interpretation.
Why did Wierwille say the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven were two different things when Jesus CLEARLY spoke of them as synonymous?
Is that big enough for you? It was on my original list. I noticed you didn't answer that one either.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Rafael wrote:
“You're the one who's going to have to explain why PFAL has ...errors."
Yes, but only in my posts on this thread.
To convince you of its inerrancey (sp?) is probably not going to happen.
In my private life I don't have to explain these PFAL ACs any more than I have to explain Googled Bible ACs.
I know they're there, but I'm willing to bet my life that they all fall into the "apparent" category if properly worked. After I place this bet, I continue reading for pleasure and enlightenment. Often while enjoying such reading, an old AC is suddenly taken care of. It’s a fun process.
So far what I’ve seen in your chosen AC is Dr making an excellent point on page 57, and also you looking in shadows for inaccuracies having nothing to do with the lesson at hand.
So far, there are many more keys I haven’t even started to think about employing in order to rightly divide page 57 in the shadow of your still unclear charges. Gads! We could be here all week on this one little ditty.
If I am to employ my new perspective of meek-mastering in dealing with PFAL, this approach I use here is legitimate for debate because I’m not arguing proof of “God-breathedness,” instead I’m arguing consistency within “God-breathedness.”
In other words, the way I handle PFAL ACs is to assume the originals were of God and therefore perfect, and that any ACs are due to any one of a list of possible culprits. The FIRST culprit of which is “Read what is Written” hence I quoted the passage.
I figured if we go back to the written record, as opposed to the spoken record, we could see if we really remembered what was written. I find that, with myself and any others, many PFAL ACs stem from a GREAT familiarity with the tape record, and a VERY weak familiarity with the print record. That’s another reason I broke your rule and quoted the whole page.
This tape/book confusion is a very strong generators of misunderstandings. This is why Dr often urged us to master the writings, especially in his Last/Lost Teaching.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Sorry Garth, Zixar, Goey, Steve, Hope. I was NOT ingnoring you, just heavily preoccupied with an arm-wrestling. I dooooo hope this doesn't influence your vote on who is winning, me or Rafael.
I have to leave to get dinner. I'm going out to a real pub, hopefully with no arm wrestling challenges.
Later I'll try and read the posts I had little time to read while writing the above posts.
This has been fun. (to be continued)
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.