Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

Four Crucified, Six Denials, and Other Stuff


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 195
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Maybe we ARE posessed and just don`t KNOW it.... muahahahahahahahahahhaah

That holds about as much truth as being a grease spot by midnight if we ever left the ministry that taught us God`s word.

How about if we didn`t tithe to twi, it opened the doors to the adversary being allowed to get us...

Gee it`s been over ten years and NONE of these things have happened....guess ole Satan`s got his hands so full dealing with alla us cop outs that he just hasn`t had the time to get around to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My notes in bold

Originally posted by Eagle:

The devil would have to be a being everywhere at once and know everybody who is confessing him as Lord in order for him to impart unholy spirit,

Untrue, since those that are lost have been blinded by the god of this world. His children didn't just all of a sudden make the Devil lord, they were seduced into it over time. The Devil does not have to be everywhere present to orchestrate this.

Note to Raf: our gospel is hid to them THAT ARE LOST, i.e., they will not be saved to the uttermost. UNTIL they were lost, they had that chance.

and since he is a fallen angel, a limited being, how much of himself can he impart?

I don't know that he actually imparts of himself, but it is evident that he has finitely many children.

The idea that born-again Christians can be possessed means that the devil spirits have to take control and operate a physical body that already has God's holy spirit within. If they are doing that, they are pretty much controlling what the Bible has called "the tabernacle" or "the temple" of the holy spirit.

As does an unpossessed believer, by his free will.

This Seed of the Serpent concept VPW brought forth made the devil _equal_ with God.

No, the Devil mimics and perverts what God does.

The idea that the devil or devil spirits can take over the temple of the holy spirit made the devil _superior_ to God.

No more so than any believer choosing not to do as the spirit leads is greater than God.

Remember, the Bible made it clear light and darkness do not cohabitate and that the clean and unclean had to be separated, especially in the temple.

Which is why it's up to the believer to keep his tabernacle clean.

Then remember the weird darkness that fell upon TWI after they began to propound heavily these doctrines.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by johniam:

I have issues with #4. Not once does the word say ANY believer is possessed. Both Acts 16 and Acts 19 have unbelievers who are called possessed. The closest it comes to calling a believer possessed is a) satan entering into the heart of Judas Iscariot when Judas left to betray Jesus. and b) Ananias of Acts 5 being told by Peter, "why hath satan filled (pleroo) thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost?" right before he died. (I used to hear this crap that Ananias died because the temperature of believing caused it or something. From Acts 5:2 it could be argued that Ananias was trying to infiltrate leadership with a bribe and Peter caught him and the spirits that were influencing him had enough control of his life that they killed him when they saw they would get no more "mileage" out of him in this situation.) I don't think it's far fetched to say that devil spirits can influence believers. They obviously did Judas, but if God in His word doesn't call believers possessed, perhaps we shouldn't either.

I might point out Acts 5:14-16. It's clear that the sick who were brought to Peter in v.15 were of the multitude of believers. It's also possible (though I can't say for certain) that those "vexed with unclean spirits" in v.16 were also believers.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought it all very impressive at the time.

However, whereas it is an interesting intellectual exercise, the details are much less relevant than the significance of the crucifixion, the gospel empahasis is upon the one "in the midst" - Jesus and how Peter caved in after stating that he would never deny the Lord.

The gospel writers took their material from various different sources and were not necessarily witnesses to all the events themselves. Matthew Mark and Luke are known as the Synoptic Gospels in that they agree together more upon the details and incidents and were more likely to have used a common source which scholars call Q which comes from the German word Quelle meaning "which."

John upon the other hand uses very different sources and included much material that is unknown in the other gospels.

VPW himself stated that "men of God, moved by the Holy Ghost" used their own vocabularies which is on of the reasons why we get lestai and also kakourgoi. Semantics and punctuation (which he was more than happy to criticise when it did not fit in with his teachings) help to give us six denials but surely the original writers would have listed every one individuallly in their own writing if it was that important a detail - the idea of "I will only mention half of them and let another apostle mention the other half" is patently ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Belle. How important is it? Why did he spend all of that time on those kinds of things?

Whether Judas hanged himself or impelled impelled himself is another one. When vp got to that one in PFAL, I remember thinking first time, he was just trying to be different and have people think HE was the know-it-all--which, probably wasn't too far from the truth.

Another first impression first time through was that he seemed more like a salesman than a preacher.

But, everyone else seemed to BELIEVE everything he said so I thought, oh well, maybe I need to learn some meekness and suck it up. Hence, my 15 years in twil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still believe all of them, but dont think any of them are important.

Knowing how many times Peter denied Christ does not make a difference. Neither does knowing how many were crucified with Christ.

Neither one impacts my love for God and others or my relationships in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God first and foremost

Beloved Eagle

you ask


just need to know. How many still believe the following:

1: There were "four" others crucified with Christ.

2: Peter denied Jesus "Six" times.

3: The devil can really "get people born again" of him (seed of the serpent).

4. That Christians, with holy spirit within, can get possessed and taken over by devil spirits, including taking over the holy spirit within.

I'd be interested in your thoughts on these topics.


Ok the first

1. not sure about this anymore because some of some of the books I read that did not make it in the bible ---talking about they cast the same in his teeth being others along side with the one robber or evil doer

2. about Peter denied six times never read anything saying he did not but I ready to hear how one would belive he did not denied Jesus etc times

3. ok yes the devil can not get people born again of him because We were all born in the flesh or into darkness

4. Yes an beliver can not get possessed because the table has turn were we no longer have spirit upon but spirit in

But can get add

5. how many believe we can only prophecy when in a group of three or more

6. how many believe the bible is the only writtens of God

7. how many believe the law of believing is spiritual while we do it by action

(what is spiritual is the law of trust God to do what he said)

8. I many believe that the Way only have the way to heaven (ha ha I bet few still believe this one)

9. How many still believe we will miss the trumps of God in Revelation

(last trump means last after first)

10. I still believe we can not talk with Jesus Christ himself

just for fun

with love and an holy kiss Roy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely, dmiller, you admit it is profoundly irrelevant, yes? Just "ax" yourself, what IS relevant about those who were crucified with Christ. Otherwise it becomes an interesting exercise in contemplating your navel.

Evan -- icon_smile.gif:)--> Irrelevancy is where you find it, and I suspect we all have our own fields that grow "bumper crops" of such. In the over-all plan of Salvation, yes -- I will agree that it is irrelevant if 2, 4, 10, or 20 were crucified with Christ, just as it is irrelevant to Salvation if Peter denied Christ 3, 6, 9, or 12 times. The fact that others were crucified with Christ, and the fact that Peter did deny Christ is relevant, since those two instances were included in scripture.

While the fact that these two instances (numerically speaking) may or may not be relevant, it can be a moot point, while the real issue is being ignored. To me, the main issue is the integrity of the Word - plain and simple.

Too many folks will see discrepancies in certain verses, and toss out the entire bible, because of those verses that do not match up. In this age of skepticism, it doesn't take much to discredit anything, and if the explanations of 4 crucified, or 6 denials, or 2 entries into Jerusalem, or 3 Suppers, or the 2 genealogies can help a person see the over-all relevance, and integrity of the Word --- then I am all for it.

I don't go out "preaching" 4 crucified. Never have, and never will. A verse often quoted by John Schoenheit on the CES tapes is Proverbs 25:2

Proverbs 25:2 -- It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honor of kings is to search out a matter"

God expects us to work to find truth. Most do not want to do so. Most want it handed to them on a silver platter. Most shun the "work ethic" involved, when confronted with inconsitancies. To have an answer for those problematic verses handy, is invaluable, but not the main focus, to be sure - for those who have questions.

Now -- I better shut up, or this will be so lengthy, that I will be an author "engaged in an interesting exercise in contemplating his novel".

anim-smile.gificon_biggrin.gif:D--> anim-smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God first

Beloved Dmiller

Yes it should read

10. How many people believe we can not talk with Jesus Christ himself one on one

You see I do talk with Jesus Christ one on one

with love and an holy kiss Roy

All so note no 8.


8. I many believe that the Way only have the way to heaven (ha ha I bet few still believe this one)


It should read

8. How many believe that the Way only have the way to heaven (ha ha I bet only few still believe this one)

with love and an holy kiss Roy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The minor and relatively insignificant doctrines of four crucified and the six denials of Peter stem from the "dictation theory" of how we got scripture - in this case the Gospels.

When it is presumed that God gave Matthew, Mark, Luke and John every sentence word by word, letter by letter with absolutely no forethought (dictation theory) then the Gospels must harmonize perfectly, since there is presumend to be no humnan input or human recollections involved. This then directs the approach to how the gospels and the rest of the scriptures are interpreted.

But IMO, the dictation theory is untennable particulary in regards to the NT. It leads to much error in interpretaion and especially in the harmony of the Gospels.

I rather think that the writers of the Gospels drew from each other, from personal experience, from eyewitnesses, and possibly from oral tradition.

Right or wrong, (I think they are wrong), stuff like four crucified and the six denials are only significant to demonstrating the dictation theory and are really irrelevant to the Gospel of Christ and the Christian walk anyway.

A natural reading of the Gospels does not support the dictation theory of inspiration. I also question why God would have to have 4 books, with no one book complete enough to show four crucified or six denials.

It seems much more likely to me that these men of God wrote as honestly and as accurately as they could - the events in the Gospels according to their own knowledge and prospective (and in their own words).

This approach alleviates the necessity of forcing things to fit "like a hand in a glove" , by conjuring up big differences in synonyms where none exist, and making the same event into a "similar but different event" It also allows for "errors" to exist while the big picture shines through brightly.

As John sums it up:

John 20:31-32

And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:

But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

So my answer is:

1. no

2. no

3. No

4. No Never heard that in TWI

Link to comment
Share on other sites


your comment:

It seems much more likely to me that these men of God wrote as honestly and as accurately as they could - the events in the Gospels according to their own knowledge and prospective (and in their own words).

I agree. Different people have different perspectives in describing the same event and use different words to describe them. While the words were "inspired of God" they were none the less in "there own vocabulary and perspective." Interesting that Luke seems to describe in great detail the events surrounding healings. (A physician would) Matthew the greatest details of content of teachings and events. Mark was more to the point. John describes things the others dont particularily emotional things. I think this tells us a lot about these peoples personalities in addition to being the "word of God".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I had wandered in here when this started, I would have said what Goey said. That should be the final word on the subject as far as I'm concerned.

Not to defend the indefensible VPW, but I don't think he meant those teachings to be points of doctrine. He was merely trying to illustrate the "hand in glove" and "no contradictions" theories. I believe he was wrong as wrong can be, but I don't think he meant for these subjects to overshadow the importance of Christ. He was just a lousy teacher and rotten human being so it came out that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

stuff like four crucified and the six denials are only significant to demonstrating the dictation theory and are really irrelevant to the Gospel of Christ and the Christian walk anyway.

If you mean "the Gospel of Christ"="salvation" then I agree with you, but as far as these things having to do with the Christian walk, that is where the Word of God disagrees with you. (2 Timothy 2:15). The paramount question one must ask is to what degree do these things affect my Christian walk? Some things may affect the Christian walk slightly while others things can and do have a very great impact. I believe there are plenty of people here who are struggling with issues that have affected their Christian walk to a great degree.

If I come to know the truth of the scriptures I then become responsible for what I know. Once someone knows the truth of God's Word they also become responsible for what they know. Once someone knows the truth of God's Word and then they decide to deny the truth, (for whatever reason they believe is justifiable) it negatively effects their Christian walk regardless if they recognize it or not. But all these things affect the Christian walk consequently, either slightly or very significantly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is this "Christian walk" your are talking about? If it has to do with living a life according to the principles that Jesus proclaimed, then I would say that I am closer to that today as an agnostic than I ever was as a Christian.

I think if I were a Christian today I would consider the things that Trefor and Geoy said. It doesn't make sense that God would have four people work in concert to come out with a few truths that are really not all that important. Not to mention that these are books that were written quite some time after the life of Jesus. Not to mention the time between each book. The comforter was to lead them to the all truth but these gems had to wait a couple hundred years? It just doesn't make sense.

Of course if I were a Christian today it wouldn't be too long before I was not a Christian again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some very good lines of argument on this thread. Would like to say one thing, though. In the New Testament, the record does not say or show that the people vexed with spirits were believers first, but believers afterward, if they became believers at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to go along with Goey also...Wierwille used the bible like a mathematician uses equations...he made a lot of assumptions that I now disagree with. The message of God's love and salvation and appropriate "Christian behavior" seem to be the main points of the new testament...maybe God gave them "concepts" and they put it into their own words and maybe they screwed it up a little bit...who knows? Maybe some books of the bible were more legitimate than others? Maybe there was a lot of politics involved with the entire process of putting the whole thing together?...

One thing that always bothered me was that we were taught that by the time the bible had gotten around to being translated into English, it had already gone through more than one language and several translations...but yet, Veepee hung on every English word like it came directly from heaven that way...but only when it served his purposes...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

posted by Goey:

A natural reading of the Gospels does not support the dictation theory of inspiration. I also question why God would have to have 4 books, with no one book complete enough to show four crucified or six denials.

Now you are getting into the topic of God's sovereignty. Suppose He chose to NOT reveal everything in one book? Suppose He chose to fragment "dictation", according to how He chooses to act, and tell, in His own Soveign manner, and dispense such informaton into different books??

I am still of the opinion that:

Matthew --- Is Jesus the King

Mark --- Is Jesus the Servant

Luke --- Is Jesus the Man, -- and

John --- Is Jesus the Son of God

Looking at various scriptures in each of these gospels, it is readily evident that there are different sides of Jesus Christ that are brought to the forefront, that are not apparent in some, or any of the other gospels.

For sure -- God could have said it all in one sentence (obviously), yet He did not. I (for one) will not question His Sovereignity, in not telling all in any one book of the bible. icon_smile.gif:)--> If He chooses not to do so, what business is that of ours??

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.

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.



  • Create New...