Strange people vic wier went to for info

[WordWolf]

Well, you'll call it that TODAY,

but when we discuss it again, I expect the usual,

that is, you'll start all over again....

=======

It's manifestly ridiculous to claim that others say vpw "stole" the administrations

teaching when about 2 posts back I did a breakdown on what he got there

from Bullinger, and what he didn't.

Not only did I not use the word "stole" anywhere,

but I broke it down rather specifically as to what was what.

He failed to give credit to Bullinger on that. This was wrong.

Whether or not that is criminally actionable I leave to the lawyers.

It is a moral flaw, and is evidence of a lack of integrity on his part.

The one ambiguity on this is that it was in Bullinger's "Companion Bible",

and vpw never hid that book- lots of us have/had copies.

This is different from him using 2 of Bullinger's other books to form ADAN,

or another book of Bullinger's as a part of RTHST.

It's also different from using Leonard as a source, since he hid that with

all his might.

========

BTW,

depending on the level of quality he's going for,

footnotes and endnotes all over each chapter of a book may be EXPECTED.

It's common among all scholarly books.

A book like JCOP should have had them to that degree, and all of his books should

have had them some of the time.

The Orange Book and the White Book did NOT have them-

and the degree to which they are the sum total of other people's work means that

nearly every paragraph SHOULD have had footnotes or endnotes.

Using a counter-example,

Woodrow's "Babylon Mystery Religion" was heavily end-noted and was almost entirely taken

from one source. The book didn't suffer from the end-noting, and the HONESTY didn't

hurt the author.

If vpw had actually done his own research/work more and relied on transliterating the work of

others LESS, there would be much less need to footnote or endnote except when citations of

sources are needed. This is EXPECTED in any work of consequence because it's expected

that you actually did some research and admit that at least SOME of your work came from

completed work by others. (And was not just given by the hand of God or something.)

When one claims to use the Bible as guidebook and textbook, one is making a blanket claim

that there are no literary sources to footnote EXCEPT where noted.

I know-to you this sounds like I'm placing unreasonable demands on his work.

To everybody else, it probably sounds like I expect him to play by the rules just as everyone else.

(Which is the idea.)

[oldiesman]

...This is EXPECTED in any work of consequence because it's expected

that you actually did some research and admit that at least SOME of your work came from

completed work by others. (And was not just given by the hand of God or something.)

In VP's case, he already admitted that he learned from men of God scattered across the continent.

He made the point verbally numerous times, and in writing some, so it was no secret.

He wasn't hiding anything by not giving proper written acknowledgment.

If he wanted to hide the fact that he learned these things from other people, he wouldn't have repeated that he did learn from these people, naming them specifically, and he CERTAINLY wouldn't have had their books in the Way Bookstore for years.

Although he didn't have any of B.G. Leonard's books in there... he had many others.

Edited September 27, 2005 by oldiesman

[WordWolf]

In VP's case, he already admitted that he learned from men of God scattered across the continent.

New drinking rule: one drink whenever the people vpw plagiarizes from are

"scattered across the continent".

"Scattered across the continent" must mean what the rest of us refer to as

"kept in the dark that vpw used their work."

This was the 20th century AD, not the 7th century AD.

These people could get in a plane, car, bus or train and reached the farm within the day.

Someone could pick up a phone at the farm and reach them in a moment.

Someone could write a letter and reach them within the week.

They lived in different places than the farm.

That doesn't mean they're "scattered across the continent".

Look,

this isn't difficult for 95% or more of us,

and more than 95% of the literary world,

including college students and grad schools,

and people who earned degrees in colleges and grad schools.

If I write a book that rips off someone else,

but I document properly,

then I'm NOT hiding anything, and I'm NOT "ripping them off."

Flip thru your copy of "Babylon:Mystery Religion."

Woodrow documented ALL his references from Hislop's book.

Furthermore, he didn't copy over sentences from Hislop's book.

If he did, but documented properly, it would have been fine.

vpw wrote books whose contents were taken COMPLETELY from the books of others.

The books he wrote that in had NO mention of the sourcebooks nor the source authors.

That's a criminal action, and the holders of the various copyrights could have sued

his head off.

However, since they didn't hear about vpw's books, they didn't sue.

Leonard DID hear, but CHOSE not to exercise his legal RIGHTS to recover damages.

Instead, he condemned it in print, but let it continue, probably waiting to see if it would

benefit people.

Besides,

"admitted he learned from"

has NOTHING TO DO WITH

"this book is based entirely on the writings of".

I learned from vpw-but when I teach and write, they're not transliterations of "his books" or any OTHER

person's "work".

He made the point verbally numerous times, and in writing some, so it was no secret.

The White Book was completely the work of Leonard, Stiles, and Bullinger.

Their names do NOT appear in the book.

We didn't know ANY of it was based on books by any of them.

Know why?

It was a SECRET.

Instead, he says in the book that the BIBLE was his GUIDEBOOK as well as his TEXTBOOK.

This was a LIE.

Books by those men were his TEXTBOOKS.

Since it was a CRIME, there should be little surprise it was a SECRET.

Failing to document the sources IN that book is a crime.

Saying it LATER VERBALLY in front of a tiny portion of the owners of the books would NOT

constitute "making the point verbally."

Plus, he never even told the corps "if not for Bullinger, Stiles, and Leonard,

the pages would all have been blank."

We've said this lots of times. If it was a matter of "I don't understand", you would have

understood by now." Since there's no sign you've gotten it before or now,

it's a matter of "I choose not to accept this."

Why not be honest? Try saying

"I refuse to accept ANY evidence or ANY source showing wrongdoings by vpw."

It would save a lot of time.

He wasn't hiding anything by not giving proper written acknowledgment.

What he did was a textbook example of not giving proper written acknowledgement.

He refused to do so-despite learning it was wrong in high school, college, and grad school-

in order to claim he threw out all his theology books, and use ONLY the Bible

(the Orange Book) and to use the Bible as his guidebook and textbook (the White Book).

He did this to claim it was the product of his SKILL and his unique connection to God.

He did this to conceal the real authors.

This means he was HIDING the books AND the authors.

If he wanted to hide the fact that he learned these things from other people, he wouldn't have repeated that he did learn from these people, naming them specifically, and he CERTAINLY wouldn't have had their books in the Way Bookstore for years.

Leonard's books were in the Way Bookstore?

Bullinger's books that he cut-and-pasted into the White Book and ADAN were NEVER carried in the

Way Bookstore.

Did anyone here buy a copy of STILES' book in the Bookstore? It would surprise me to hear his books

were carried there.

Further,

telling some people "I learned from this guy"

is not the same as "I cut-and-pasted his books into my books".

Finally, even if it WAS, it would STILL fall FAR short of the standards accepted in every HIGH SCHOOL,

let alone college, grad school, publishing house...

Although he didn't have any of B.G. Leonard's books in there... he had many others.

He had SOME books by Bullinger, true, and SOME books by Kenyon, true.

No arguments about that.

HOWEVER,

he seemed to have LEFT OUT the books that comprised the White Book and the Orange Book.

(With the exception of "How to Enjoy the Bible", which is such a dry read that relatively few people

who BOUGHT the book ever finished READING the book.)

[oldiesman]

Why not be honest? Try saying

"I refuse to accept ANY evidence or ANY source showing wrongdoings by vpw."

That wouldn't be honest.

I accept it is plagiarism when he copies word for word.

I do not accept it is plagiarism when he teaches a concept that he had been taught from others, believes it himself, thinks its the truth, and then writes about that concept in one of his books.

YOU on the other hand seem to think that every idea he got from everyone else he STOLE IT.

He didn't just teach what he learned from others, no, he STOLE IT.

So that's about the drift of where I'm coming from.

I wonder how many other teachings he learned and taught, that you call STEALING, that really isn't.

Look,

this isn't difficult for 95% or more of us,...

Do you really think that the majority of ex-way believers think like you do?

I don't.

I think only a very small minority, believe he STOLE these ideas and that's the spin we should put on it and that's the way we should think about it.

It's certainly debatable.

Oh btw, IF B.G. Leonard thought it was so very bad what VPW did, why didn't he sue?

I don't know why, but I do know that when a person feels they are really ripped off, they sue...

Vp's teaching was not a crime, far from it.

[WordWolf]

I noticed you skipped most of the points I've made,

and seem determined to ignore my use of an example of a book you owned/own.

I accept it is plagiarism when he copies word for word.

You do today.

I have a bet with myself that about 3 months from the expiration of this thread, you'll

reverse this position. I'll have to see this maybe February or so.

I do not accept it is plagiarism when he teaches a concept that he had been taught from others,

believes it himself, thinks its the truth, and then writes about that concept in one of his books.

I believe the only way to prove this isn't semantics used to label everything as "not plagiarized" would

be to give examples of what you consider plagiarism, undocumented sources but NOT plagiarism,

and something where a source need not be documented at all.

IF you are game to an intelligent, polite discussion along those lines, please open a thread for it.

I'd gladly participate in it, and do so playing nice.

YOU on the other hand seem to think that every idea he got from everyone else he STOLE IT.

He didn't just teach what he learned from others, no, he STOLE IT.

That's a gross oversimplification of my position.

He claimed to have no source for some materials other than the Bible and GOD ALMIGHTY.

When he did so and lifted sentences, that was plagiarism, and any judge can tell you that.

When he did so and rewrote sentences, that was ALSO plagiarism, and any judge can tell you that.

When he took an idea from someone else and taught aloud, it is not necessarily expected that he

cite his sources-nor would I expect him to.

When he took an idea from someone else and WROTE IT IN A BOOK,

it is a LEGAL requirement that he give the source.

In some cases, a footnote is called for, in others (like Woodrow used all over Babylon:Mystery Religion)

endnotes are called for.

When he took

a concept that came from THE BOOK of someone

then writes about it

WHETHER OR NOT HE BELIEVES IT-

he is legally bound to, at the very least, place it in the bibliography of the book.

Book to book concepts mean SOURCES.

SOURCES must be cited in your bibliography.

I learned that in JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL.

If I didn't cite sources in high school, I would have been in trouble.

If I didn't cite sources in college, the paper would be given a failing grade-

OR I'd be given the chance to re-submit it WITH the sources or face a failing grade.

Further,

if I write a book and claim

"I had no sources"

and have even ONE source,

I lie AND can get into trouble.

That's the case with the White Book and the Orange Book.

(I explained why above, again.)

Do you really think that the majority of ex-way believers think like you do?

The context was 95% of us on the messageboard OR partakers in the threads explaining plagiarism.

It was not "ex-twi" or "people posting in cyberspace" or "lurkers".

I don't know enough about THEM to make comments-those are people I've never interacted with.

I think only a very small minority, believe he STOLE these ideas and that's the spin we should put on it and that's the way we should think about it.

I believe you think that.

I think the vast majority of people who post here believe he plagiarized, hid his sources, and did so to

support his claim he learned from GOD (with slight side-trips to taking tiny bits from others

after he "got the error" out of their work.)

By both of us using the words "I think", we indicated we're speaking of OUR OPINIONS,

which makes our statements less universal, and thus, less objectionable to those who we are not

speaking for.

It's certainly debatable.

Yes it is.

Oh btw, IF B.G. Leonard thought it was so very bad what VPW did, why didn't he sue?

Since Leonard never told me, anything I say would be a guess.

However, he DID give clear indications that plagiarism is wrong in his books afterwards.

I addressed this several posts back, and I don't feel the need to keep reposting the same comment

you missed the first time. Feel free to scroll up.

I don't know why,

But you expected me to know?

..but I do know that when a person feels they are really ripped off, they sue...

Usually.

I've seen people who had cause but chose not to.

The reasons are their own.

Vp's teaching was not a crime, far from it.

In your opinion.

In my opinion,

the material of much of vpw's teaching was good material. Presenting it was a good thing.

The framework in which it was presented was a bad thing.

Some of it was error-but the framework DEMANDED it was all above questioning-which is a worse thing.

When he said things like adultery was ok with God (reserved for "private teachings")

and that "all the women in the land belonged to the king",

it wasn't legally a crime,

but it facilitated what WERE crimes.

When he self-published books that were entirely cut-and-pastes of the books of others,

and failed to footnote the other books, endnote the other books, or include them in the

Bibliography,

THOSE were CRIMES. AND they were morally wrong.

The holders of the copyrights were entitled to sue and recover damages.

If they knew about it, of course-

but "his" books were never distributed nationally among anyone BUT pfal students and grads.

[oldiesman]

When he took an idea from someone else and WROTE IT IN A BOOK,

it is a LEGAL requirement that he give the source.

This is what is debatable.

I believe and state that when he was taught the idea, or when he read about an idea, then believed it, thought it was true, and wrote about it in his own book, without making reference in the book where the idea came from, he wasn't stealing.

You say it is stealing.

Under that concept, you may as well say everything he ever wrote, is stealing.

Because everything came from somewhere else.

******

When I first took PFAL at the one-week PFAL camp, I remember a roommate there showing me (to my then surprise) that Bullinger had 4 crosses in his bible, signifying the 4 crucified.

My first thought was "gee, maybe there's really something to this stuff I'm learning, it's mapped out in that other book"

My thoughts weren't "VP stole it from Bullinger."

I was just happy to hear it, and that he taught it, if it was the truth.

[WordWolf]

WordWolf said

When he took an idea from someone else and WROTE IT IN A BOOK,

it is a LEGAL requirement that he give the source.

Oldiesman commented on this.

This is what is debatable.

Actually, Oldiesman,

citing sources is a LEGAL requirement and is legally-actionable.

I believe and state that when he was taught the idea, or when he read about an idea, then believed it, thought it was true, and wrote about it in his own book, without making reference in the book where the idea came from, he wasn't stealing.

Actually, what we're discussing at this exact moment whether or not citation of sources is legally

required-or morally required.

What you're asserting is actually

"I believe and state that when he read an idea, then wrote about it in his book, without citing his source,

that there was nothing wrong with this."

What I am asserting is actually

"I believe and state that when he read an idea, then wrote about it in his book, without citing his source,

that this was morally wrong and legally wrong."

You say it is stealing.

No I don't-which post did I say that? Please provide the thread, page, date and time,

and provide the quote.

I say it is wrong, but I didn't say that THIS was theft.

If it IS, then I'm unaware of this.

(Perhaps one of our legal-eagle posters can fill us BOTH in.)

Under that concept, you may as well say everything he ever wrote, is stealing.

A lot of it would. Now, if someone was actually claiming that was stealing,

we would have grounds for discussion of that.

Since this appears to be a manufactured complaint (pending an actual quote from a post),

This is a complaint without merit.

It's as valid as complaining about someone's charge that

"When he rose from his grave in 1986 and sucked the blood from people on grounds, it was wrong."

Right-nobody claimed that EITHER. (Duh.)

Because everything came from somewhere else.

Direct sources for a literary work are legally required to be cited.

Direct sources for a sermon are not legally required to be cited.

This is not difficult to understand.

******

When I first took PFAL at the one-week PFAL camp, I remember a roommate there showing me (to my then surprise) that Bullinger had 4 crosses in his bible, signifying the 4 crucified.

My first thought was "gee, maybe there's really something to this stuff I'm learning, it's mapped out in that other book".

My thoughts weren't "VP stole it from Bullinger."

Actually, in the PFAL books, if the section cites Bullinger, then he's fine.

If the section fails to cite the source (the Companion Bible by EW Bullinger), then it's wrong.

At least one running of the taped class, the live staff provided a Companion Bible, open to the

picture with the 4 crosses, AND an interlinear with the missing word open, for the students to

look over. Bravo. I appreciate that.

However,

that is STILL not legally equivalent to citing his source in the book.

This is not difficult to understand.

I was just happy to hear it, and that he taught it, if it was the truth.

I lose track of how many times we've said this.

Whether or not something is plagiarized, or sources are not cited, or anything along those lines,

has NOTHING TO DO with the validity of the printed material.

If Manson writes a book and is the original author, that does not guarantee merit of the material.

If someone writes a paper that is a segment of Leonard's best work,

that does not guarantee the material itself lacks merit.

Whether or not the material is true has nothing to do with the illegality of what vpw did in printing it.

It reflects entirely on the character of the supposed "author".

vpw KNEW what was required-he couldn't get out of COLLEGE without knowing this,

and couldn't graduate and get his Masters without knowing this.

(Both his college and where he got his Masters are schools with certification,

and ALL such schools make this an elementary requirement on all submissions.)

Furthermore,

whether you were happy to hear it has nothing to do with ANYTHING.

You were happy when you first sat through him explaining how

"technically, all the women in the kingdom belonged to the king",

which was completely wrong,

and when first reading "Christians Should Be Prosperous" and when

vpw said that people should be giving their money to Bible organizations in the class.

I don't blame you for that.

Nearly EVERY first-time student of pfal was happy at both times, also.

(There are 3 types of first-time students of pfal-

those who were happy to hear most of it,

those who dropped out before or just after Session 12,

and revisionists who rewrote their memories.)

HOWEVER, it has NO BEARING on whether or not illegalities were performed.

If you were starving and someone gave you a loaf of bread, you'd receive it happily,

even if they told you they had to steal it to get it to you.

The bread was good-the act of stealing it was bad.

The theft didn't "taint" the bread,

the "worthy cause" of feeding the starving did not "sanctify" the theft.

Perhaps the owner of the bread may choose not to press charges due to the situation,

but he is still entitled to recover damages.

See it now?

(I can hope, can't I?)

[oldiesman]

I think the fact is, we really don't know whether illegalities were performed, because it was never tested in court.

One person may believe an action is illegal while another person may believe it is justified.

And you can put 3 laywers in a room and they may all disagree.

A lot of this is opinion, and is debatable.

[WordWolf]

I think the fact is, we really don't know whether illegalities were performed, because it was never tested in court.

It is not difficult to determine if the letter of the law has been broken.

All you need is the letter of the law,

and the specifics of what action was taken.

In the case of a dispute over the printed word, this is pretty easy.

One person may believe an action is illegal while another person may believe it is justified.

The opposite of "illegal" is not "justified".

Someone may commit an illegal action-steal a loaf of bread-

which EVERYONE may consider justified.

This does not mean the law was not broken, but punishment may be mitigated or foregone

if it is believed to be justified.

In New Orleans, doctors broke into a pharmacy to get the medications needed to save lives

during the worst of the emergency.

THEY HAD A POLICE ESCORT.

Was the law broken? Yes. Did the police know this? Duuuuuhhhh.

Was a crime committed? Yes.

Why did law enforcement personnel participate in the commission of a crime?

They judged that the illegal action was illegal but justified in order to save lives.

I expect there will be a short investigation and no charges will be made to them.

---

Now then,

in the case of vpw,

he did not have to choose between "plagiarize and fail to cite sources"

and "people die".

There were perfectly legal alternatives to what he did. He chose not to exercise them.

And you can put 3 laywers in a room and they may all disagree.

It's a lawyer's job to argue a position whether or not he believes it to be true.

That's why I mentioned a JUDGE.

A lot of this is opinion, and is debatable.

What is legal or not is hardly opinion.

ANYTHING is debatable.

[TheEvan]

Honestly, I doubt there were illegalities involved. As hated as Der Veg was and is, I think somebody would have broght an action if it were so.

That said, I do think he deceived Leonard, and co-opted what Leonard thought was his work as his own. But that's just my opinion, based on certain facts, though.

I think the heaviest indictment is simply the intellectual dishonesty. Wierwille implied scholarship (Biblical Research and Teaching), just as an historian does by publishing a book. ALL HELL broke loose when a book by Stephen Ambrose (author of Band of Brothers, etc.) was found to have citations that were not fully and properly footnoted and sourced. He didn't claim any of it as his own research, all credit was given, he simply failed to fully and properly footnote. FOR THAT all hell broke loose and he was accused of plaigarism.

When Wierwille claimed his material as Biblical Research he opened himself to having at least the lowest standards of basic scholarship applied to his work. Even on a high school level, his work fails spectacularly.

[Kit Sober]

I was watching a "Classic" Billy Graham (circa early 1960s -- even George Beverly Shea looked young!) a few weeks ago and among other things I noticed was Billy Graham's hand motions and delivery style was very similar to vp's. And I thought, "Someone copied someone and didn't give the other credit."

Also I have found some of vp's "great one liners" in Norman Vincent Peale's works.

What vp did may not be "illegal" but it certainly led to a lot of people putting their spiritual life in the hand of a counterfeit Christian who made merchandise of men's (and women's) souls.

[VeganXTC]

Thanks Kit, for bringing this thread back up. There's lots of information here!

I remember a story where VPW, Billy Graham, and Oral Roberts supposedly all got together to discuss theology. They agreed on almost everything, but one item. If it wasn't for that one item, they would have all been working together.

I forget who told me that story, if VPW told it in a teaching, or if someone just told me that. And I forget what the one thing was. Jesus Christ is not God? Speaking in Tongues? But I remember even back then thinking it was pretty bizarre. It sounded to me like VPW was name dropping, and wanting people to believe he was like Billy Graham and Oral Roberts. It sure wouldn't surprise me if VPW studied Billy Graham, and copied his movements and delivery. He sure copied a lot of other things.

[TheEvan]

It was him, and yes, it was name dropping. And worse.

[GrouchoMarxJr]

I've recently discovered some other sources that huckster Vic copied directly from...sources that I have never heard documented before...I will discuss them at a later date when I have the time and inclination.

Wierwille was incredible!...he shamelessly stole from a multitude of sources...and this from a guy who claimed to have hauled all his theological books to the dump and studied nothing but the bible...

If he were alive today, there would be a bounty on his head.

Edited December 16, 2006 by GrouchoMarxJr

[Kit Sober]

I'd love to see this guy give vp a talking to.

Dog the Bounty Hunter

[What The Hey]

All the MOG's borrow from one another and take from one another without giving the other MOG credit - at least to the other MOG's satisfaction - even when they do. Some MOG's don't even recall just from who or from where they picked their stuff up! That's why the plagarism charge goes along with the territory of being a very highly successful, charismatic MOG - especially when a lot of $$$ are involved. If you think otherwise you're either deluded, naïve or both. The plagarism charge is one "less charismatic" MOG's pi$$ a$$ ($$$ properly supplied) way at their attempt to appear superior in front of someone who is a "more charismatic" MOG.

Sure - there are people who really think they are "enlightening" others by advancing and pushing their tired, worn out argument forward. If you ask me, this is one sermon the church would be better off :sleep1: through. When it comes to the Word of God, none of them really have anything original to say (or write) about it anyway. Carry on, ya-all.

[dmiller]

I forget who told me that story, if VPW told it in a teaching, or if someone just told me that. And I forget what the one thing was. Jesus Christ is not God? Speaking in Tongues? But I remember even back then thinking it was pretty bizarre. It sounded to me like VPW was name dropping, and wanting people to believe he was like Billy Graham and Oral Roberts. It sure wouldn't surprise me if VPW studied Billy Graham, and copied his movements and delivery. He sure copied a lot of other things.

I heard that on a sns tape once.

If I recollect correct (and it WAS docvic speaking),

the claim was made that he (docvic), Billy Graham,

and Oral Roberts were going to team up.

Billy Graham would be the evangelist;

Oral Roberts would be the *healer*;

and docvic would be the teacher -- or somethng like that.

I do remember him lumping the three of them together,

then saying it fell apart because he refused to *compromise*.

Docvic and *no compromise* in the same sentence??

Oxymoron.

[WordWolf]

All the MOG's borrow from one another and take from one another without giving the other MOG credit - at least to the other MOG's satisfaction - even when they do. Some MOG's don't even recall just from who or from where they picked their stuff up!

That's one reason not to trust self-professed MOGs.

That's why the plagarism charge goes along with the territory of being a very highly successful, charismatic MOG - especially when a lot of $$$ are involved. If you think otherwise you're either deluded, naïve or both.

Or we expect people to adhere to the law, and find it UNACCEPTABLE that an erstwhile teacher

will be so arrogant as to pass off another's works as his own, so lazy as to fail to cite his

sources, so vain he will break the law and think nothing of it.

You may call that naivete if it makes you happy.

I call it "having standards", or "character", depending on the context.

The plagarism charge is one "less charismatic" MOG's pi$$ a$$ ($$$ properly supplied) way at their attempt to appear superior in front of someone who is a "more charismatic" MOG.

No, it's finding out someone committed a crime and exposing it.

Charisma and MOGs have nothing to do with exposing crime.

Sure - there are people who really think they are "enlightening" others by advancing and pushing their tired, worn out argument forward.

Continuing to expose lies-especially lies others try to hide, whitewash, or get others

to believe-is an ongoing process, with its own end.

Labelling it doesnt make it less valid.

It DOES, however, telegraph one's OWN agenda- "distract from the plagiarism".

If you ask me, this is one sermon the church would be better off :sleep1: through. When it comes to the Word of God, none of them really have anything original to say (or write) about it anyway. Carry on, ya-all.

It's not a SERMON, it is a warning. You know, like lots of guys all over the Bible gave.

God seems to like when His people are warned.

Feel free to sleep all you want- but some of us consider it high time to wake from sleep.

[doojable]

This is what is debatable.

I believe and state that when he was taught the idea, or when he read about an idea, then believed it, thought it was true, and wrote about it in his own book, without making reference in the book where the idea came from, he wasn't stealing.

You say it is stealing.

Under that concept, you may as well say everything he ever wrote, is stealing.

Because everything came from somewhere else.

******

When I first took PFAL at the one-week PFAL camp, I remember a roommate there showing me (to my then surprise) that Bullinger had 4 crosses in his bible, signifying the 4 crucified.

My first thought was "gee, maybe there's really something to this stuff I'm learning, it's mapped out in that other book"

My thoughts weren't "VP stole it from Bullinger."

I was just happy to hear it, and that he taught it, if it was the truth.

Oldiesman - When I first took PFAL the person running the class showed us all that photo. It was helpd up as proof to lend weight to vpw's research - that someone had somehow corroborated his findings independently. The truth is that vpw took that from Bullinger. So the reference was a dishonest one. Kinda like reverse engineering a product and then trying to claim that you invented it yourself.

[markomalley]

Oldiesman - When I first took PFAL the person running the class showed us all that photo. It was helpd up as proof to lend weight to vpw's research - that someone had somehow corroborated his findings independently. The truth is that vpw took that from Bullinger. So the reference was a dishonest one. Kinda like reverse engineering a product and then trying to claim that you invented it yourself.

Almost a year ago, we had a thread going down in the Doctrinal Basement called "Misquoting Jesus."

Since Bullinger's five crosses came up, I'd like to quote a small part of a post I made on that thread:

---

I remember when I went through the piffle class that, during a break, the class coordinator passed around a copy of Bullinger's Companion Bible and showed us Appendix 164 with that now very familiar grainy picture:

Now, let me quote a couple of accounts the locals have about the 5 crosses:

five Crosses, located at the locality "Ar Pemp Croaz", at the crossroads road of Kerfons. This monument is composed of a large cross (XVème or XVIème century), alongside of four smaller crosses (of the Average Age). One sees, in the vicinity, of the traces of the Roman way which went from Carhaix in Yaudet. These crosses have apparently were gathered on only one support, probably about 1728

Google translated page:

here

. Original (in french)

here

.

---

The monument of the five crosses is composed of a large cross (XV 2nd or XVI 2nd century), surrounded of four smaller and older. Oldest of all, which is also most massive, is a pattée cross of X 2nd century and comprises reasons carved on its reverse. It also comprises the date, "1728", it is probably the year when they were joined together on the same support according to the local tradition, this monument would have been high in commemoration of a combat during which the inhabitants would have overcome the English. Actually, a vice-chancellor gathered these crosses at the beginning of the XX 2nd century to save them destruction.

Google translation

here

. Original (in french)

here

.

---

Keeping in mind that Brittany is a very Catholic area of France, and looking at the color pictures, which explanation seems more feasible?

One other thing, the five crosses that are made on an altar when it is consecrated are symbolic of the five wounds of Christ...no more...

Sorry for the length of the post, folks...

If you'd like to read the whole thing, you can see it here.

[nandon]

mark,

almost looks like they were graves...

but that's just speculation...

[fellowshipper]

Well after I left the Way I decided to take the BJ Leonard class in Brownsville TX. My mouth during the class just dropped. He spoke so many similarities as we were taught in the ADV. class. The only thing BJ did not do was use every verse of scripture VP did.I put two and two together. Here I am sitting in BJ's class and it is just like the ADV. class but Dr. used to teach that you couldn't teach experiences but only scripture but it was the same thing. When BJ opened the class he spoke of plagurizime. It was'nt until years later with Waydale and now GS that I see what really happened. Hmmmmmm.

[markomalley]

mark,

almost looks like they were graves...

but that's just speculation...

You ever drive on a road and see a cross and/or flowers on the side of the road? I see those things all the time around here, but don't know if that is a universal custom or not (I don't ever remember seeing that kind of thing in MN where I grew up).

In parts of Europe, you see little shrines all over the place, commemorating where loved ones were killed, where battles were won, or some other kind of event. That's what I think those crosses were originally.

Regardless of what they were, I wanted to show, based on some clearer photographs, that there is no way that they were originally constructed in the way they were.

Therefore, Bullinger should never have used those crosses as evidence of his "4 crucified with Christ" theory...as plagerized by VP. Had the photo not been so poorly colorerd and so grainy, this would have been just as obvious in the photo that he included in that appendix in his companion Bible.

[TheEvan]

I think "4 crucified" was specifically designed to get people to overthrow orthodoxy in favor of VP. Pure and simple. I think that's why VP gravitated to novel and heterodoxical interpretations and exploited them for their divisive potential.

[oldiesman]

I think "4 crucified" was specifically designed to get people to overthrow orthodoxy in favor of VP. Pure and simple.

I trow not.

He taught it from Bullinger.

It was not an original design, it was Bullingers design.

VP thought Bullinger was a tremendous scholar, and taught lots of his stuff.

Edited December 19, 2006 by oldiesman