As they were going out, they met a man from Cyrene, named Simon, and they forced him to carry the cross.
John 19:17
Carrying his own cross, he went out to the place of the Skull (which in Aramaic is called Golgotha).
What's wrong with this picture? Am I the only one that sees a contradiction?
_____________
I don't see a contradiction.
All gospels say Jesus left Jerusalem for Golgatha carrying his cross. All Gospels say Jesus arrived at Golgatha where he was crucified. Three Gospels (except John) add the detail of one thing that happened on the way, namely Simon carried the cross on the second part of the trip. The fact that John doesn't add the detail that Simon carried the cross part of the way is not a contradtiction.
There are many details found in only one Gospel that are not in the other three. For example, Luke 23 adds another detail of what happened on the way to Golgatha, namely that he spoke to some grieving women on the way. That adds to, not contradicts, other Gospels that don't mention that detail. The addition of details doesn't mean they contradict each other.
We all at times tell the same story to more than one person-- in longer, more detailed versions to some people, and shorter, more abbreviated versions to other people. If your friends gathered together later to compare versions and pick you apart for your "contradictions," how would you feel? Would you conclude that you couldn't tell your own story right, or that they were trying to make something out of nothing?
But *where else* than twi and some offshoots can one pay (again, and again, and again) to hear the same practically dry analysis of one "mathematically accurate" "detail" after another.. I'm sure there are a couple of places.. but not many..
then at the end of that presentation in pfal.. doesn't he say something like.. "people (whoever *they* are) say to me, what difference does it make? Wasn't the middle cross what was important? " Then he kinda dodges a little.. and says the whole heavens and earth depend on the *accuracy* of the contradiction free wordagawd.. that he apparently held..
Then he kinda dodges a little.. and says the whole heavens and earth depend on the *accuracy* of the contradiction free wordagawd.. that he apparently held..
interesting..
It is all about him - VPW. He becomes the "savior of the world" by correcting all the mistakes that everyone over the course of history has failed to realize are mistakes in translation and transmission.
As they were going out, they met a man from Cyrene, named Simon, and they forced him to carry the cross.
John 19:17
Carrying his own cross, he went out to the place of the Skull (which in Aramaic is called Golgotha).
What's wrong with this picture? Am I the only one that sees a contradiction?
_____________
I don't see a contradiction.
All gospels say Jesus left Jerusalem for Golgatha carrying his cross. All Gospels say Jesus arrived at Golgatha where he was crucified. Three Gospels (except John) add the detail of one thing that happened on the way, namely Simon carried the cross on the second part of the trip. The fact that John doesn't add the detail that Simon carried the cross part of the way is not a contradtiction.
Thanks, John.
So...Matthew, Mark, and Luke didn't think it was important enough to mention that Jesus carried the cross at least part of the way? That doesn't make sense to me. (And it doesn't have to make sense to me, either. I can appreciate the gospels for what they are: the perfect word of God transcribed by the hands of imperfect men.)
So...Matthew, Mark, and Luke didn't think it was important enough to mention that Jesus carried the cross at least part of the way? That doesn't make sense to me. (And it doesn't have to make sense to me, either. I can appreciate the gospels for what they are: the perfect word of God transcribed by the hands of imperfect men.)
The gospels were not written from recalled memories. They were written from recalled stories. The reality probably is the gospels were more of an afterthought since the apocalypse did not occur in Jesus' generation (as he predicted), and were written after the epistles to help us know who Jesus was, which was after Paul proclaimed "all scripture is god-breathed". I believe this is the reason why most mainstream denominations are not literalist in their interpretation of scripture.
Think of it this way - the Bereans were not searching MMLJ to see the truth of what Paul was teaching - they were searching the prophetic texts of the OT.
I know my assumption was that since TWI was a "research ministry" that all those little factoids of information were taken into consideration when coming up with its conclusions. When I discovered that none of those things was factored into the conclusion, that's when I realized that pretty much everything that TWI taught was at least as off-base as anything taught mainstream - if not more so.
The gospels were not written from recalled memories. They were written from recalled stories.
That makes their accuracy even more questionable, doesn't it?
The reality probably is the gospels were more of an afterthought since the apocalypse did not occur in Jesus' generation (as he predicted), and were written after the epistles to help us know who Jesus was, which was after Paul proclaimed "all scripture is god-breathed".
So what is your belief, that JC carried the cross all the way, part of the way, or not all?
Having been raised Catholic and seeing depictions of the "Stations of the Cross" in almost every church I've been to, I was always under the impression that JC carried the cross most of the way (with help from Simon). It is only after having actually read the gospels that I realize he might not have carried it at all.
So what is your belief, that JC carried the cross all the way, part of the way, or not all?
Having been raised Catholic and seeing depictions of the "Stations of the Cross" in almost every church I've been to, I was always under the impression that JC carried the cross most of the way (with help from Simon). It is only after having actually read the gospels that I realize he might have carried it at all.
I've walked the via dolorosa (actually both of them) in Jerusalem, and the fact that there are 2 distinct routes turned out to not be the distraction that it could have been once I got it through my head that complete historical accuracy was not possible because the ancient city that we visit was actually built on top of Jerusalem that was destroyed.
My belief is that it really doesn't matter - that it (and every other thing TWI believed was wrongly taught in the orthodox church) is not the deal breaker that TWI made it out to be.
I've walked the via dolorosa (actually both of them) in Jerusalem, and the fact that there are 2 distinct routes turned out to not be the distraction that it could have been once I got it through my head that complete historical accuracy was not possible because the ancient city that we visit was actually built on top of Jerusalem that was destroyed.
My belief is that it really doesn't matter - that it (and every other thing TWI believed was wrongly taught in the orthodox church) is not the deal breaker that TWI made it out to be.
Interesting. Thank you. (My emoticons don't seem to work when I'm on this computer, or I would have inserted a smiley face here.)
So...Matthew, Mark, and Luke didn't think it was important enough to mention that Jesus carried the cross at least part of the way? That doesn't make sense to me. (And it doesn't have to make sense to me, either. I can appreciate the gospels for what they are: the perfect word of God transcribed by the hands of imperfect men.)
No, it's not important enough to mention this. Apparently the reason Simon was mentioned at all is because the people in the early church knew his family, probably because they had become Christians-- Mark mentions that Simon was the father of Alexander and Rufus, assumng that a lot of people knew who Alexander and Rufus were. Mark is pointing out a couple more witnesses of the crucifixion that people would know.
We study the Gospels line by line and forget how very short they are. The whole account of the trial before Pilate and the crucifixion is only 2-3 pages, roughly as short as a magazine article. Each biography of Jesus (each Gospel) is only 30-60 pages long. Compare that to typical biographies today which may be 300-1,000 pages long. The writers were all pressed for space and gave only the bare bones, condensed version of any event or day or conversation.
For example, the Gospel of John is basically just 15 or so conversations with Jesus, approximately one per chapter- Nicodemus in ch 3, Samaritan woman in 4, Lazarus in 11, Pilate in 18, etc. Just the highlights.
Bullinger - scholar, legit doctorate, smart guy. progressive thought for the 1700's.
Wierwille - not so much. doctorate from correspondance school located in a house in Manitou Springs CO. his only progressive thought was preaching to hippies so that his loose morals didn't stand out so much.
Apparently, VP's only qualifiction for authors was that they used initials intsead of full names-- E.W. Bullinger, K. C. Pillai, J.E. Stiles, V.P. Wierwille, etc
He didn't care how wierd their teachings were, as long as he could plagiarize from them without them complaining.
Apparently, VP's only qualifiction for authors was that they used initials intsead of full names-- E.W. Bullinger, K. C. Pillai, J.E. Stiles, V.P. Wierwille, etc
He didn't care how wierd their teachings were, as long as he could plagiarize from them without them complaining.
You left out EW KENYON and BG LEONARD.
Sources:
EW Bullinger- systematic study method, "How to Enjoy the Bible" was incorporated
into episodes 5-8 of pfal, almost all of "Are the Dead Alive Now?" if not all,
individual studies on Scripture, including all usages of the phrase "Holy Spirit."
BG Leonard- systematic class on spiritual matters (began reteaching Leonard's
class-the EXACT SAME CLASS- the same year he took Leonard's class, and labeled it
his own class. (He asked Leonard to teach Leonard's class one time, but he did it
the rest of his life, and told the students it was HIS OWN class.)
EW Kenyon- the Word-Faith, "LAW of Believing" doctrine, early chapters of
the Blue Book.
JE Stiles- the Holy Spirit field, how to speak in tongues, the White Book
(except for the parts plagiarized from Leonard and Bullinger.)
KC Pillai- (very little by comparison to the others, who had large swathes
of material stolen, or material became the most fundamental material in twi)
Eastern customs, "Orientalisms", Eastern phrases.
And their main reason for not complaining was them not finding out about vpw.
Some were dead (Bullinger), and some never heard because twi was a very small
player on a very big stage. Before the internet, twi was only on a few people's
radars, mostly cult analysts (and even they got their details wrong, usually.)
Leonard eventually found out, and added elaborate notes about how plagiarism
is wrong to all his books. (In a few people's minds, that means Leonard either
thought vpw's plagiarism was OK or that it was not the FELONY that it was.
I can't correct delusion no matter how hard I try.)
Apparently, VP's only qualification for authors was that they used initials instead of full names-- E.W. Bullinger, K. C. Pillai, J.E. Stiles, V.P. Wierwille, etc
He didn't care how weird their teachings were, as long as he could plagiarize from them without them complaining.
During the waning days of my "innieness", another GSer and I (who was also an "innie" at the time) were comparing notes about various errors and inconsistancies that we had found in WayAP and PFAL.
One of these was "private interpretation". We believed that Wierwille had it wrong, and referred to Bullinger's How to Enjoy the Bible, as well as verses that used epilu? in questioning our respective "leadership" about it.
Both of us got an explanation of how hunting dogs act, how they are trained, more than anyone could possibly want to know about dogs loosed on the game, but NO reference to a single bible verse, NO reference to a lexicon that would contain the actual meaning of the word...nothing, except a detailed explanation of the explanation.
I think there's two explanations vpw gave of judas hanging himself, one in the collaterals and another in JCOP?
When pointing this out to someone at HQ and they immediately came up with an explanation on the spot about the date of the books' publishing and the progression of vpw's knowledge and understanding.
so do all twi publications belong in the canon or just some of them?
I think there's two explanations vpw gave of judas hanging himself, one in the collaterals and another in JCOP?
When pointing this out to someone at HQ and they immediately came up with an explanation on the spot about the date of the books' publishing and the progression of vpw's knowledge and understanding.
so do all twi publications belong in the canon or just some of them?
VP didn't write nor did he do any of the research for JCOP. He just put his name to it. If my memory serves me, Cummins said that it was common when scholars did their writings, their research was usually done by their students. I'm not positive on the Cummins comment, but something like that is floating in the back of my mind. Then again, could be something I ate.
VP didn't write nor did he do any of the research for JCOP. He just put his name to it.
VP was not a writer. His "books" came in 3 ways:
1) he plagiarized most of PFAL, RTHST, ATDAN and parts of other books and magazine articles
2) he babbled off the top of his head, and someone else transcribed them (for example, the chapter in JCING on miscellaneous verses Trinitarians use- you can find this on tape #295) This is why the "research" is so shallow and un-academic
3)he had other people research and write for him, such as JCOP.
...and you can really see the difference among the 3 major types of "writing". Even with the transcribing, sometimes they tried to clean up his syntax and vocabulary, sometimes not.
...and those trying to "clean up" the research even when VP contradicted himself often failed, for example, his two different teachings on when soul life begins.
1971:
PFAL book
Pg. 237
“The soul life is in the blood and is passed on when the sperm impregnates the egg at the time of fertilization.”
Contradicts these two later teachings:
1977:
Christian Family and Sex class, 1977 syllabus
Pg. 12
“The most dramatic part of the birth is the crowning because this is when the baby takes its first breath of life and becomes a living soul.”
1979:
Advanced Class
Segment 9 (on tape which I no longer have):
“The first breath of a child is soul life, until that time, there’s no soul life.”
So between 1971 when the PFAL book first came out, and 1977, only a six-year span of time, something changed for VPW regarding this topic. Again, in 1979 he repeated the 1977 version.
Anyone who continues to claim we were "taught The Word" needs to think again!
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
6
12
6
8
Popular Days
Nov 25
10
Nov 23
10
Feb 3
8
Nov 26
6
Top Posters In This Topic
WordWolf 6 posts
Oakspear 12 posts
waysider 6 posts
soul searcher 8 posts
Popular Days
Nov 25 2009
10 posts
Nov 23 2009
10 posts
Feb 3 2005
8 posts
Nov 26 2009
6 posts
johnj
Matthew 27:32
As they were going out, they met a man from Cyrene, named Simon, and they forced him to carry the cross.
John 19:17
Carrying his own cross, he went out to the place of the Skull (which in Aramaic is called Golgotha).
What's wrong with this picture? Am I the only one that sees a contradiction?
_____________
I don't see a contradiction.
All gospels say Jesus left Jerusalem for Golgatha carrying his cross. All Gospels say Jesus arrived at Golgatha where he was crucified. Three Gospels (except John) add the detail of one thing that happened on the way, namely Simon carried the cross on the second part of the trip. The fact that John doesn't add the detail that Simon carried the cross part of the way is not a contradtiction.
There are many details found in only one Gospel that are not in the other three. For example, Luke 23 adds another detail of what happened on the way to Golgatha, namely that he spoke to some grieving women on the way. That adds to, not contradicts, other Gospels that don't mention that detail. The addition of details doesn't mean they contradict each other.
We all at times tell the same story to more than one person-- in longer, more detailed versions to some people, and shorter, more abbreviated versions to other people. If your friends gathered together later to compare versions and pick you apart for your "contradictions," how would you feel? Would you conclude that you couldn't tell your own story right, or that they were trying to make something out of nothing?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
But *where else* than twi and some offshoots can one pay (again, and again, and again) to hear the same practically dry analysis of one "mathematically accurate" "detail" after another.. I'm sure there are a couple of places.. but not many..
then at the end of that presentation in pfal.. doesn't he say something like.. "people (whoever *they* are) say to me, what difference does it make? Wasn't the middle cross what was important? " Then he kinda dodges a little.. and says the whole heavens and earth depend on the *accuracy* of the contradiction free wordagawd.. that he apparently held..
interesting..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
It is all about him - VPW. He becomes the "savior of the world" by correcting all the mistakes that everyone over the course of history has failed to realize are mistakes in translation and transmission.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
Thanks, John.
So...Matthew, Mark, and Luke didn't think it was important enough to mention that Jesus carried the cross at least part of the way? That doesn't make sense to me. (And it doesn't have to make sense to me, either. I can appreciate the gospels for what they are: the perfect word of God transcribed by the hands of imperfect men.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
The gospels were not written from recalled memories. They were written from recalled stories. The reality probably is the gospels were more of an afterthought since the apocalypse did not occur in Jesus' generation (as he predicted), and were written after the epistles to help us know who Jesus was, which was after Paul proclaimed "all scripture is god-breathed". I believe this is the reason why most mainstream denominations are not literalist in their interpretation of scripture.
Think of it this way - the Bereans were not searching MMLJ to see the truth of what Paul was teaching - they were searching the prophetic texts of the OT.
I know my assumption was that since TWI was a "research ministry" that all those little factoids of information were taken into consideration when coming up with its conclusions. When I discovered that none of those things was factored into the conclusion, that's when I realized that pretty much everything that TWI taught was at least as off-base as anything taught mainstream - if not more so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
That makes their accuracy even more questionable, doesn't it?
So what is your belief, that JC carried the cross all the way, part of the way, or not all?
Having been raised Catholic and seeing depictions of the "Stations of the Cross" in almost every church I've been to, I was always under the impression that JC carried the cross most of the way (with help from Simon). It is only after having actually read the gospels that I realize he might not have carried it at all.
[fixed]
Edited by soul searcherLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
I've walked the via dolorosa (actually both of them) in Jerusalem, and the fact that there are 2 distinct routes turned out to not be the distraction that it could have been once I got it through my head that complete historical accuracy was not possible because the ancient city that we visit was actually built on top of Jerusalem that was destroyed.
My belief is that it really doesn't matter - that it (and every other thing TWI believed was wrongly taught in the orthodox church) is not the deal breaker that TWI made it out to be.
Edited by TzaiaLink to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
Interesting. Thank you. (My emoticons don't seem to work when I'm on this computer, or I would have inserted a smiley face here.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johnj
No, it's not important enough to mention this. Apparently the reason Simon was mentioned at all is because the people in the early church knew his family, probably because they had become Christians-- Mark mentions that Simon was the father of Alexander and Rufus, assumng that a lot of people knew who Alexander and Rufus were. Mark is pointing out a couple more witnesses of the crucifixion that people would know.
We study the Gospels line by line and forget how very short they are. The whole account of the trial before Pilate and the crucifixion is only 2-3 pages, roughly as short as a magazine article. Each biography of Jesus (each Gospel) is only 30-60 pages long. Compare that to typical biographies today which may be 300-1,000 pages long. The writers were all pressed for space and gave only the bare bones, condensed version of any event or day or conversation.
For example, the Gospel of John is basically just 15 or so conversations with Jesus, approximately one per chapter- Nicodemus in ch 3, Samaritan woman in 4, Lazarus in 11, Pilate in 18, etc. Just the highlights.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Hmmm. Wierwille & Bullinger. Let's contrast.
Bullinger - scholar, legit doctorate, smart guy. progressive thought for the 1700's.
Wierwille - not so much. doctorate from correspondance school located in a house in Manitou Springs CO. his only progressive thought was preaching to hippies so that his loose morals didn't stand out so much.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johnj
Apparently, VP's only qualifiction for authors was that they used initials intsead of full names-- E.W. Bullinger, K. C. Pillai, J.E. Stiles, V.P. Wierwille, etc
He didn't care how wierd their teachings were, as long as he could plagiarize from them without them complaining.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
You left out EW KENYON and BG LEONARD.
Sources:
EW Bullinger- systematic study method, "How to Enjoy the Bible" was incorporated
into episodes 5-8 of pfal, almost all of "Are the Dead Alive Now?" if not all,
individual studies on Scripture, including all usages of the phrase "Holy Spirit."
BG Leonard- systematic class on spiritual matters (began reteaching Leonard's
class-the EXACT SAME CLASS- the same year he took Leonard's class, and labeled it
his own class. (He asked Leonard to teach Leonard's class one time, but he did it
the rest of his life, and told the students it was HIS OWN class.)
EW Kenyon- the Word-Faith, "LAW of Believing" doctrine, early chapters of
the Blue Book.
JE Stiles- the Holy Spirit field, how to speak in tongues, the White Book
(except for the parts plagiarized from Leonard and Bullinger.)
KC Pillai- (very little by comparison to the others, who had large swathes
of material stolen, or material became the most fundamental material in twi)
Eastern customs, "Orientalisms", Eastern phrases.
And their main reason for not complaining was them not finding out about vpw.
Some were dead (Bullinger), and some never heard because twi was a very small
player on a very big stage. Before the internet, twi was only on a few people's
radars, mostly cult analysts (and even they got their details wrong, usually.)
Leonard eventually found out, and added elaborate notes about how plagiarism
is wrong to all his books. (In a few people's minds, that means Leonard either
thought vpw's plagiarism was OK or that it was not the FELONY that it was.
I can't correct delusion no matter how hard I try.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I'm thinking there were sprinklings of H.R. Pufnstuf, as well.
Always obsessed with good vs. evil. Know what I mean?
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Possibly.
I suspect a possible connection between the current twi prez and Witchie-Poo from that show,
however.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Hey!
We left out J.R. Ewing.
Granted, he wasn't an author (or real), but the similarities are uncanny.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I think there's two explanations vpw gave of judas hanging himself, one in the collaterals and another in JCOP?
When pointing this out to someone at HQ and they immediately came up with an explanation on the spot about the date of the books' publishing and the progression of vpw's knowledge and understanding.
so do all twi publications belong in the canon or just some of them?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
VP didn't write nor did he do any of the research for JCOP. He just put his name to it. If my memory serves me, Cummins said that it was common when scholars did their writings, their research was usually done by their students. I'm not positive on the Cummins comment, but something like that is floating in the back of my mind. Then again, could be something I ate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johnj
VP was not a writer. His "books" came in 3 ways:
1) he plagiarized most of PFAL, RTHST, ATDAN and parts of other books and magazine articles
2) he babbled off the top of his head, and someone else transcribed them (for example, the chapter in JCING on miscellaneous verses Trinitarians use- you can find this on tape #295) This is why the "research" is so shallow and un-academic
3)he had other people research and write for him, such as JCOP.
VP as "author" is myth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
...and you can really see the difference among the 3 major types of "writing". Even with the transcribing, sometimes they tried to clean up his syntax and vocabulary, sometimes not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
...and those trying to "clean up" the research even when VP contradicted himself often failed, for example, his two different teachings on when soul life begins.
1971:
PFAL book
Pg. 237
“The soul life is in the blood and is passed on when the sperm impregnates the egg at the time of fertilization.”
Contradicts these two later teachings:
1977:
Christian Family and Sex class, 1977 syllabus
Pg. 12
“The most dramatic part of the birth is the crowning because this is when the baby takes its first breath of life and becomes a living soul.”
1979:
Advanced Class
Segment 9 (on tape which I no longer have):
“The first breath of a child is soul life, until that time, there’s no soul life.”
So between 1971 when the PFAL book first came out, and 1977, only a six-year span of time, something changed for VPW regarding this topic. Again, in 1979 he repeated the 1977 version.
Anyone who continues to claim we were "taught The Word" needs to think again!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Probably his rapidly increasing level of debauchery.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
You are not the first person I've heard who has made that deduction!
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.