You wrote: “Mike has taken single words (from the way magazine) from one paragraph, and linked them to other words (in other paragraphs), and then said --- SEE -- THIS IS GOD TALKING THROUGH DOCVIC.”
Not quite. First I assume (for many complex reasons) that the same way God talked to Isreal us via the prophets of old, He can do the same thing today and He did with VPW. Then I apply something fundamental we were taught: that in order to see the truth regarding any topic we must examine not just one place where that topic occurs, but ALL the places where it occurs in God’s communication to us through the writings of the men he selects. I rightfully draw upon multiple locations in Dr’s writings to get the whole story. It’s wrong to NOT do this.
***
No. There is no *NOT QUITE* about it. After you pm'ed me on the old GS, and wondered how to get a conversation going with multiple participants, and I told you how to do it -- suddenly there was a plethora of docvic supporters, and you (primarily) were pulling certain words from certain articles from the Way rag and saying -- *See -- this is one of the hidden truths if you connect this word with (XYZ) word found in the latter paragraphs*
I don't even remember the topic now, but you did an admirable job of scraping, and scrounging each word docvic had in the article, to make your point. Your zealousness in searching those articles would put to shame many biblical scholars these days. What is *fueling your fire*??? Search for knowledge? Or proving that you are right?
You wrote: “He promotes the *hidden messages* found there-in.”
We can see in the Old Testament how there were hidden messages in the way God had men prophesy about the future. God can do the same thing today. There’s nothing wrong with God having more than one meaning impregnating a text. Humans do it sometimes; why can’t God?
***
This I can agree with
You wrote: “I'm not being facetious. He is more than serious about this agenda. While I will agree that there is some good talked about in docvic's teachings, I would never extend myself to the point to link one word in an opening paragraph, to another in a concluding paragraph, FROM THE WAY MAGAZINE,”
I’m not quite sure why it is that you have a phobia about the magazine form of Dr’s writings versus the book form. Text is text. What would you say to some nutty traditionalist who criticized you for reading a KJV Bible in book form and not in the original scroll form it was “intended” to be read from?
Please define your exact problem with the magazine form of Dr’s text so that I can help you dispense with this silly problem of yours.
***
OK -- let's get one thing straight. I said *some good in docvic's teachings*. Period! I include (unlike you) his teachings on tape, as well as those found in print.
I DO NOT IDOLIZE THE MAN, OR WHAT HE TAUGHT. Is that clear??
What I find disturbing is your ability/ willingness to take random words from a magazine article, and that does NOT mean I have problem with the magazine, I have a problem with your interpretaion of it.
Having worked in the publishing industry for 15 years, I am all too familiar with edits, type-space, etc.
CAN YOU GIVE ME (OR ANYONE) THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE, BEFORE IT WAS FORMATTED TO FIT THE PAGE YOU SEE IT ON???
NO --- YOU CAN'T. SO YOU HAVE A *TATTERED REMNANT* IN THE WAY MAGAZINE, OR EVEN THE PFAL BOOK JUST LIKE YOU CLAIM THE KJV TO BE.
You have admitted that there are problems with the received texts and their exact meaning in English. You have somewhat admitted that your solution to this problem is to wing it and hope you’re right. Don’t you think THAT is a form of idolatry, a form of self worship in that you expect God to respect your ability to wing it?
No, I don't. I think you are setting up a *straw-man* here. I'm not gonna bite.
After my years of winging it and trusting in my own abilities I decided to submit to a form of God’s Word outside my own abilities. I have humbled myself to accept what I believe is bigger than me. Longer ago I was doing much the same kind of submission with the KJV and the abilities of the translators and text scholars, but I saw that break down. Now I see, with the best of my abilities, a stronger, more accurate form of God’s Word to submit to.
Dmiller, what do YOU submit to that’s bigger than you? Do you think there’s an authority that’s bigger than you, or are YOU the god in your life?
Mike. Bless ya bro. By now you should know that I consider God to be THE authority in my life. I don't say any book is bigger than I, cause it's paper -- and I can set it on fire any time I wish, and it will be gone, and I will remain.
The ideas found therein are another story entirely. Maybe you might even agree on this, but I don't know.
You'll have to state your questions/ objections more succinctly if you'd like me to fully address them...I'm afraid that my brain isn't working that well this late at night.
[Fair enough. I will when I have a chance.]
I'll try with what I can comprehend:
1) Allos vs. Heteros -- Allos refers specifically to quantity w/o regard one way or another to quality. Heteros refers to a qualitative distinction. Number is not an issue here at all.
2) Cruciform churches. A traditional layout for Catholic church buildings is a cruciform shape. The symbology is obvious. In a cruciform church, the altar is at the junction of the arm and tree of the cross. If crosses are located at each of the apexes, I would submit that there are, in fact, five crosses (because there is always a crucifix on the altar. In which case, I would submit the symbology again points to the five wounds of Christ. Just like the easter candle: there is always five pieces of incense placed in the candle -- the symbology there is representative of the wounds.
Bullinger, not being Catholic, would probably not understand that symbology and the connections...
[That's information I didn't have, but I admitted there were
simpler reasons than the ones Bullinger ascribed to people's actions.]
If there are other issues you'd like me to address, please list them. Or if you (or somebody else) would like me to address this issue as a whole, you might wish to consider putting the appropriate extract from piffle as the opening post of a fresh thread and I am confident that we, as a group, can completely deconstruct it and locate each and every error. I am not in a position to specifically deconstruct the Wierwille text, as I simply don't have it available to deconstruct and so am forced to rely upon a constantly dimming memory of that book.
[That's a better idea.
When I get a chance, I'll dig up the relevant books-
or, if someone else has them handy-please do so-
and see what we see.]
(snip)
Listen, WW, if you'd like me to do a line-by-line of those crucified with Christ, I can do so. And, with what I have available to me right now, I can address the idea that there is no evidence presented in scripture that there were any more than two crucified with Christ. If you would like me to do a refutation of the contents of piffle on this issue, somebody will need to post the applicable contents of piffle.
[seems we're overdue on an intelligent, detailed discussion of this
particular subject. Might as well address it now rather than leave it
undone. I agree. We can examine the verses, and the support for
differing positions, and see where the stronger "argument" lies.]
Those photos are indeed, as Raf said, a very "good catch".
I was trying to make out from those photos whether or not the crosses
at the ends (one either side) actually had a figure of the crucified Jesus on them,
which had become worn-down over time. But I can't really tell from these photos.
For me, an apparent strong point in the Bullingerite/Wierwillian teaching that there might have been more than two "evil-doers"/"robbers" crucified with Christ was the fact that in two accounts (Matt.27:44; Mark 15:32) both those crucified with Him "reproached Him" while in Luke 23:40, the "malefactor" accepted Him.
I don't entirely rule out that more than two people could have been crucified with Christ - mass crucifixions were not unknown to have taken place in those times (as in the case of Spartacus and his comrades).
But now, of course, other explanations are certainly possible; for example, we might ask: might one of the "malefactors/"robbers" [btw - I agree with you here - what does prevent these as functioning as synonyms in this case?] who started out "reproaching" Jesus had had a change of heart?
(such conversion experiences - especially upon the approach of death - are not unheard).
Or - if one treats these as "eyewitness" accounts - might one "witness" had been closer to the action, - to have heard what the robbers were actually saying -while another further away, at a place unable to decipher everything being spoken (cf. the confusion of those who heard Jesus crying out "Eli, Eli", etc. - which was mistaken as a cry for Elijah).
But of course, allowance for the varying narrative styles/theological intentions of the Gospel writers/editors themselves must also be taken into consideration. It's obvious when reading any Gospel "Harmony" that the writers were drawing from both shared source material, and some unique sources as well, and arranging everything in their literary creations as they saw fit.
Interesting subject, which I haven't really revisited in awhile.
First, let's talk about 'eyewitness accounts.' There is little or no way that Luke was an 'eyewitness.' Luke was, from all accounts, a Gentile from the city of Antioch in what is now Turkey.
According to Eusebius (Church History Book III Chap 4):
Timothy, so it is recorded, was the first to receive the episcopate of the parish in Ephesus, Titus of the churches in Crete. But Luke, who was of Antiochian parentage and a physician by profession, and who was especially intimate with Paul and well acquainted with the rest of the apostles, has left us, in two inspired books, proofs of that spiritual healing art which he learned from them.
One of these books is the Gospel, which he testifies that he wrote as those who were from the beginning eye witnesses and ministers of the word delivered unto him, all of whom, as he says, he followed accurately from the first.
The other book is the Acts of the Apostles which he composed not from the accounts of others, but from what he had seen himself. And they say that Paul meant to refer to Luke's Gospel wherever, as if speaking of some gospel of his own, he used the words, "according to my Gospel."
Although Luke's non-eyewitness status is easily verifiable, there is no support for the assertion that Matthew or Mark were actually there at the scene, either. The only ones verifiably present were the women and John.
Secondly, the crucifixion happened at 9 AM, according to biblical accounts. The eclipse that turned the sky dark happened at noon. That's a three hour window. A lot can happen in three hours. Suppose this: suppose that both people crucified with Jesus initially started off mocking him and this continued for a while. One of them continued to mock him, but the other, witnessing Jesus' reactions to the crucifixion changed his tune and realized exactly what Jesus was. We have two time hacks that we're dealing with here: 9 AM and noon. We can't definitively say, because there are no other time hacks to break these accounts down.
One other thing to bear in mind, though, verbiage used for the abuse:
Matthew: saved others, cannot save self. Get down from the cross. Let God save him!
Mark: Get down from the cross. Let God save him.
John: no words of abuse mentioned
Luke: If you are the son of God, save yourself and us
Note the difference there. (Of course, in Matthew and Mark, the words came from the chief priests, scribes, elders -- with the others crucified spewing the same out, while in Luke, the words came from the others crucified with Jesus) -- why couldn't it be harmonized to say that the accounts in Matthew and Mark happened early on after 9 AM and the account in Luke happened later on, but before noon?
Just something to consider there, Danny...
And, by the way, I agree with your statement completely that there could have been more than two crucified with him...there could have been 10 or 20 crucified with him for all I know. I just don't see Biblical evidence that contradicts the tradition of two.
You wrote: “After you pm'ed me on the old GS, and wondered how to get a conversation going with multiple participants, and I told you how to do it -- suddenly there was a plethora of docvic supporters, and you (primarily) were pulling certain words from certain articles from the Way rag and saying -- *See -- this is one of the hidden truths if you connect this word with (XYZ) word found in the latter paragraphs* ____ I don't even remember the topic now, but you did an admirable job of scraping, and scrounging each word docvic had in the article, to make your point. Your zealousness in searching those articles would put to shame many biblical scholars these days. What is *fueling your fire*??? Search for knowledge? Or proving that you are right?”
You also wrote: “OK -- let's get one thing straight. I said *some good in docvic's teachings*. Period! I include (unlike you) his teachings on tape, as well as those found in print. ____ I DO NOT IDOLIZE THE MAN, OR WHAT HE TAUGHT. Is that clear?? ____What I find disturbing is your ability/ willingness to take random words from a magazine article, and that does NOT mean I have problem with the magazine, I have a problem with your interpretaion of it. ____Having worked in the publishing industry for 15 years, I am all too familiar with edits, type-space, etc. ____CAN YOU GIVE ME (OR ANYONE) THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE, BEFORE IT WAS FORMATTED TO FIT THE PAGE YOU SEE IT ON??? ____NO --- YOU CAN'T. SO YOU HAVE A *TATTERED REMNANT* IN THE WAY MAGAZINE, OR EVEN THE PFAL BOOK JUST LIKE YOU CLAIM THE KJV TO BE.”
In both my PT’s last year and in the thread “Masters of the Word – Mastering PFAL” I first posted the entire article and then I went into a focus on individual use of words. Maybe you glossed over the pristine posting of the article and only focused on my analysis. I’d be happy to send you the article (actually there were two) by regular e-mail to avoid the usual charges of hogging bandwidth, sometimes by a poster who doesn’t think twice about bandwidth in his quoting every word I post and then adding his own petty remarks that constitute nothing but a useless filibuster.
Your complaint of my not supplying the total article is unfounded. I can send it to you and then you will have three chances to see it without my comments interspersed.
***
You wrote: “I DO NOT IDOLIZE THE MAN, OR WHAT HE TAUGHT. Is that clear??”
It’s never been not clear. What is not clear is that I too do not idolize the man; I worship the True God Who gave him revelation to write to and compile for us.
I’ve often been criticized by churchianity adherents that I worship Paul because I spend more time in his epistles than in the 4 gospels, but that charge too is spurious. I worship that same God who gave Paul revelation as well as to Victor Paul.
***
You wrote: "By now you should know that I consider God to be THE authority in my life. I don't say any book is bigger than I, cause it's paper -- and I can set it on fire any time I wish, and it will be gone, and I will remain."
It's HOW ACCURATELY are you ABLE to consider God the authority in your life that's in question here, not your intent.
You too can be burned up and gone in a flash, just as easily as paper under the right conditions. The relative ease of cumbustability of paper does not give you any spiritual superiority. We're like the grass of the field, very combustable, here today and gone tomorrow as the Bible indicates. I think it's in Peter.
Your disdain for paper recordings of God’s Word is odd. Because we are so bound by the 5-senses, being born without spirit, we absolutely NEED a 5-senses presentation of God’s Word in order to grow to the point of telling the difference between the True God and His close counterfeit.
Those who are tricked into thinking they can skip around and totally avoid a thorough mastery of God’s WRITTEN word via their 5-senses, and indulge in an embrace of the True God directly via spirit are in for a rude awakening someday.
The reason God had His Word put into written form on combustible paper for our 5-senses mastery is so that we can first learn to separate the false god out of our embrace. Jesus had to go through this stage of first mastering the written form of God’s Word and that’s how he was able to operate spirit and spot the counterfeit in his desert temptations.
If you love the True God you will accept and master His written Word as a necessary stepping stone to direct communion with Him, hearing His voice only as you operate spiritual manifestations, and not hearing the counterfeit.
We were taught this in the “16 Keys to Walking in the Spirit” in the Advanced Class. Key #4: “Study the Word much. What you can know by the five senses God expects you to know.”
***
CM, here is your answer if you’re listening: What I mean by “bigger” is “having more authority.”
If you or dmiller can’t point to a physical, flesh realm representation of God’s written Word that’s bigger than you, more authoritative than you, then your physical, flesh brain’s contents is your own broken cistern representation of a god of your own making and you are doomed, your brain being no match against the devil’s intellect.
Those who wing it and think their brain (along with spirit) is supplying them with a totally accurate representation of God’s will without first having mastered all that the True God supplies in written form will eventualy be listening to the wrong spirit. When the power is needed the most it won’t be there.
If you have filled your brain with a printed paper text that you regard as authoritatively bigger than your brain’s authority, then you are no longer worshipping your own brain’s ability to collect and edit material, but worshipping the actual real author of that printed paper text.
CHOOSE YOUR PRINTED PAPER TEXTS AS IF YOUR LIFE DEPENDED ON IT BECAUSE IT DOES.
***
Here is how Dr put it in his last book OMSW p.240 with my bold fonts:
"Throughout His Word it is recorded that God is Light. Now how can anybody say that he has light if he doesn’t know the true God, the source of light? Nobody can say that he has light until he knows God. God is Light and if anybody is ever going to have light, he must have a relationship with God, he must plug into the source.
"Since God is Spirit and therefore cannot be seen, the only way we by our senses can learn about God is to go to His written Word, which is in the senses realm. If God is Light, so is His Word. The light of God’s Word makes known God Who is Light. Without the light of God’s Word, people will never know God, and they will continue to walk in darkness. They may say, 'We have light,' but this cannot be true. The fact that somebody says he has light is sometimes far removed from his actually having it."
CM, you do err not knowing the scriptures or the power of God.
Now see if you can show me where and how I err, like I just did in my longer post above. THAT'S the hard part.
It's easy to quote scriptures and then mis-apply them.
It takes work to show someone the details, just like it takes work to learn to recognize the True God from the counterfeit using the 5-senses and the paper form of God's Word that He provides.
Are you up to the task(s) or ar you going to wing-it lazily along on both counts?
On the canonical "Luke" not being a direct witness is a good point. However, there may have been another variant tradition concerning the origin of material underlying "Luke" about which we unfortunately know very little outside of a tantalizing little bit mentioned in "the Dialogue of Adamantius" by Pseudo-Origen; in Book I of the "Dialogue", Megethius (Meg.) represents the Marcionite position while "Adamantius" (Ad.) the Catholic:
Chapter VIII
Meg. I shall show that there is one gospel.
Ad. From whom can you appeal from scripture itself that confirms there is only one Gospel?
Meg. Christ.
Ad. Did Christ himself write of his crucifixion and resurrection from the dead after three
days?
Meg. The Apostle Paul imparted [or, added ] this.
Ad. Do you mean to say that Paul was in attendance at the crucifixion of Christ?
Meg. He himself wrote the Gospel.
We know from the Patristic accounts (e.g., Tertullian, Epiphanius and Adamantius) that the Marcionites did not include "Acts" in their canon, either having rejected it or not having known it at the time they compiled their canon, which raises the possibility that the Marcionites did not hold to the same biographical sketch of Paul's activity (or even identity) as found in the Catholic tradition's "Acts". But what the precise details of their tradition were here, we unfortunately possess little. My preliminary speculation is that Paul may have been regarded among "the seventy" disciples chosen by Jesus which we read about in Luke ch.10, but I admittedly have little to base this on at the moment.
"Luke the Physician" as a travelling companion to Paul was apparently also not in the Marcionite tradition (as seemingly suggested by the omission of "physician" associated with a "Luke" in Col.4 in the Marcionite version).
This will be a bit long (sorry everybody), but I wanted to make sure the context was complete. From Irenaeus, Against Heresies Book 3, Chap 13 & 14:
3. But that Paul acceded to [the request of] those who summoned him to the apostles, on account of the question [which had been raised], and went up to them, with Barnabas, to Jerusalem, not without reason, but that the liberty of the Gentiles might be confirmed by them, he does himself say, in the Epistle to the Galatians: "Then, fourteen years after, I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking also Titus. But I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that Gospel which I preached among the Gentiles." And again he says, "For an hour we did give place to subjection, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you." If, then, any one shall, from the Acts of the Apostles, carefully scrutinize the time concerning which it is written that he went up to Jerusalem on account of the forementioned question, he will find those years mentioned by Paul coinciding with it. Thus the statement of Paul harmonizes with, and is, as it were, identical with, the testimony of Luke regarding the apostles.
Chap 14:
1. But that this Luke was inseparable from Paul, and his fellow-labourer in the Gospel, he himself clearly evinces, not as a matter of boasting, but as bound to do so by the truth itself. For he says that when Barnabas, and John who was called Mark, had parted company from Paul, and sailed to Cyprus, "we came to Troas;" and when Paul had beheld in a dream a man of Macedonia, saying, "Come into Macedonia, Paul, and help us," "immediately," he says, "we endeavoured to go into Macedonia, understanding that the Lord had called us to preach the Gospel unto them. Therefore, sailing from Troas, we directed our ship's course towards Samothracia." And then he carefully indicates all the rest of their journey as far as Philippi, and how they delivered their first address: "for, sitting down," he says, "we spake unto the women who had assembled;" and certain believed, even a great many. And again does he say, "But we sailed from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came to Troas, where we abode seven days." And all the remaining [details] of his course with Paul he recounts, indicating with all diligence both places, and cities, and number of days, until they went up to Jerusalem; and what befell Paul there, how he was sent to Rome in bonds; the name of the centurion who took him in charge; and the signs of the ships, and how they made shipwreck; and the island upon which they escaped, and how they received kindness there, Paul healing the chief man of that island; and how they sailed from thence to Puteoli, and from that arrived at Rome; and for what period they sojourned at Rome.
As Luke was present at all these occurrences, he carefully noted them down in writing, so that he cannot be convicted of falsehood or boastfulness, because all these [particulars] proved both that he was senior to all those who now teach otherwise, and that he was not ignorant of the truth.
That he was not merely a follower, but also a fellow-labourer of the apostles, but especially of Paul, Paul has himself declared also in the Epistles, saying: "Demas hath forsaken me, ... and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus to Dalmatia. Only Luke is with me." From this he shows that he was always attached to and inseparable from him. And again he says, in the Epistle to the Colossians: "Luke, the beloved physician, greets you." But surely if Luke, who always preached in company with Paul, and is called by him "the beloved," and with him performed the work of an evangelist, and was entrusted to hand down to us a Gospel, learned nothing different from him (Paul), as has been pointed out from his words, how can these men, who were never attached to Paul, boast that they have learned hidden and unspeakable mysteries?
2. But that Paul taught with simplicity what he knew, not only to those who were [employed] with him, but to those that heard him, he does himself make manifest. For when the bishops and presbyters who came from Ephesus and the other cities adjoining had assembled in Miletus, since he was himself hastening to Jerusalem to observe Pentecost, after testifying many things to them, and declaring what must happen to him at Jerusalem, he added: "I know that ye shall see my face no more. Therefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all. For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. Take heed, therefore, both to yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost has placed you as bishops, to rule the Church of the Lord, which He has acquired for Himself through His own blood." Then, referring to the evil teachers who should arise, he said: "I know that after my departure shall grievous wolves come to you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them." "I have not shunned," he says, "to declare unto you all the counsel of God." Thus did the apostles simply, and without respect of persons, deliver to all what they had themselves learned from the Lord. Thus also does Luke, without respect of persons, deliver to us what he had learned from them, as he has himself testified, saying, "Even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word."
3. Now if any man set Luke aside, as one who did not know the truth, he will, [by so acting,] manifestly reject that Gospel of which he claims to be a disciple. For through him we have become acquainted with very many and important parts of the Gospel; for instance, the generation of John, the history of Zacharias, the coming of the angel to Mary, the exclamation of Elisabeth, the descent of the angels to the shepherds, the words spoken by them, the testimony of Anna and of Simeon with regard to Christ, and that twelve years of age He was left behind at Jerusalem; also the baptism of John, the number of the Lord's years when He was baptized, and that this occurred in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar. And in His office of teacher this is what He has said to the rich: "Woe unto you that are rich, for ye have received your consolation;" and "Woe unto you that are full, for ye shall hunger; and ye who laugh now, for ye shall weep;" and, "Woe unto you when all men shall speak well of you: for so did your fathers to the false prophets." All things of the following kind we have known through Luke alone (and numerous actions of the Lord we have learned through him, which also all [the Evangelists] notice): the multitude of fishes which Peter's companions enclosed, when at the Lord's command they cast the nets; the woman who had suffered for eighteen years, and was healed on the Sabbath-day; the man who had the dropsy, whom the Lord made whole on the Sabbath, and how He did defend Himself for having performed an act of healing on that day; how He taught His disciples not to aspire to the uppermost rooms; how we should invite the poor and feeble, who cannot recompense us; the man who knocked during the night to obtain loaves, and did obtain them, because of the urgency of his importunity; how, when [our Lord] was sitting at meat with a Pharisee, a woman that was a sinner kissed His feet, and anointed them with ointment, with what the Lord said to Simon on her behalf concerning the two debtors; also about the parable of that rich man who stored up the goods which had accrued to him, to whom it was also said, "In this night they shall demand thy soul from thee; whose then shall those things be which thou hast prepared?" and similar to this, that of the rich man, who was clothed in purple and who fared sumptuously, and the indigent Lazarus; also the answer which He gave to His disciples when they said, "Increase our faith;" also His conversation with Zaccheus the publican; also about the Pharisee and the publican, who were praying in the temple at the same time; also the ten lepers, whom He cleansed in the way simultaneously; also how He ordered the lame and the blind to be gathered to the wedding from the lanes and streets; also the parable of the judge who feared not God, whom the widow's importunity led to avenge her cause; and about the fig-tree in the vineyard which produced no fruit. There are also many other particulars to be found mentioned by Luke alone, which are made use of by both Marcion and Valentinus. And besides all these, [he records] what [Christ] said to His disciples in the way, after the resurrection, and how they recognised Him in the breaking of bread.
4. It follows then, as of course, that these men must either receive the rest of his narrative, or else reject these parts also.
For no persons of common sense can permit them to receive some things recounted by Luke as being true, and to set others aside, as if he had not known the truth.
And if indeed Marcion's followers reject these, they will then possess no Gospel; for, curtailing that according to Luke, as I have said already, they boast in having the Gospel [in what remains]. But the followers of Valentinus must give up their utterly vain talk; for they have taken from that [Gospel] many occasions for their own speculations, to put an evil interpretation upon what he has well said. If, on the other hand, they feel compelled to receive the remaining portions also, then, by studying the perfect Gospel, and the doctrine of the apostles, they will find it necessary to repent, that they may be saved from the danger [to which they are exposed].
So he does have a good point: if one will accept the Gospel According to St. Luke, then why in the world would one not accept the second part of that writing: the Acts of the Apostles...
we'll be looking at an example of how Mike is either unable
to read what's written,
or understand what's written.
=========
Here's what dmiller said, and even Mike quoted it,
so we know he read it:
"Having worked in the publishing industry for 15 years, I am all too familiar with edits, type-space, etc. ____CAN YOU GIVE ME (OR ANYONE) THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE, BEFORE IT WAS FORMATTED TO FIT THE PAGE YOU SEE IT ON??? ____NO --- YOU CAN'T. SO YOU HAVE A *TATTERED REMNANT* IN THE WAY MAGAZINE, OR EVEN THE PFAL BOOK JUST LIKE YOU CLAIM THE KJV TO BE.”
=========
Now,
in case some of you are as lacking in background at this subject
as Mike is, I shall clarify slightly.
dmiller had previously pointed one problem with Mike's approach.
Mike often sets GREAT store-and can go on for pages-on the specific
placement of a specific word in a specific place in something vpw
supposedly wrote. He claims that-given ALL those specifics-the meaning
is different than if any of those were different, and is specific beyond
normal usage of the English language.
HERE, dmiller pointed out one reason WHY this is ridiculous.
Mike does this will all sorts of publications where vpw's words are
supposedly written. However, the exact order of the words, and
the specific words chosen, are NOT the original words of vpw.
They are the result of the words of vpw, which were then EDITED
for CLARITY, SPACE and the preferences of the editor.
Even a LIGHT editing determined to retain meanings will radically
change the EXACT wording of a paragraph, and NO article
ANYPLACE avoids even LIGHT editing.
Therefore, anyone using the Mikean method will end up setting
great store on the words and their placement-and will, more often
than not, spend hours and hours on the deep, hidden meaning
of a word the editors were fond of using, or that fit better in
the page-count.
Thus, dmiller points out that Mike CLAIMS to have "originals",
but instead has "edited versions" in the case of EVERYTHING
written-and supposedly, that's his highest authority.
(Written over taped, etc.)
So, dmiller pointed out that the placements on the page,
and even light editing makes Mike's methods useless.
Mike does not have the original manuscripts-ever.
=========
Mike's response?
"In both my PT’s last year and in the thread “Masters of the Word – Mastering PFAL” I first posted the entire article and then I went into a focus on individual use of words. Maybe you glossed over the pristine posting of the article and only focused on my analysis. I’d be happy to send you the article (actually there were two) by regular e-mail to avoid the usual charges of hogging bandwidth, sometimes by a poster who doesn’t think twice about bandwidth in his quoting every word I post and then adding his own petty remarks that constitute nothing but a useless filibuster.
Your complaint of my not supplying the total article is unfounded. I can send it to you and then you will have three chances to see it without my comments interspersed."
=========
The casual observer will note that Mike's response completely
MISSED what dmiller was talking about.
dmiller said that, by the time Mike gets an article, it has been
altered beyond Mikean methods, then sent to the printers.
Mike then said "that's wrong-I posted entire articles."
But those articles were already altered-which was dmiller's point.
Mike's either displaying his inability to read what's written,
a total ignorance of the origin of the articles he's basing his life on,
or desperately trying to draw attention away from dmiller's
completely legitimate point.
Readers may take their pick.
===============
What's almost funny is the next item Mike CHOSE to respond to.
dmiller said:
“I DO NOT IDOLIZE THE MAN, OR WHAT HE TAUGHT. Is that clear??”
=====
Mike replied:
"It’s never been not clear. What is not clear is that I too do not idolize the man; I worship the True God Who gave him revelation to write to and compile for us."
=========
To those arriving late,
Mike is the same man who said of vpw-the man he claims
not to idolize- that he was
"BORN with an OVERabundance of BRAINS
AND BRAWN,"
and that he was "gifted, even OVERgifted".
He's characterized vpw-who was an unremarkable student
at EVERY level of study- as exceptional even among geniuses,
and has absolutely NO evidence to support this,
making this a "leap of faith".
He's characterized vpw-who was a fairly talented athlete
at the high school level, but unremarkable at any higher
level- as at the level of a professional athlete despite his
never playing or being drafted by any professional team.
Supposedly, vpw was an exceptional athlete-and Mike's
compared him to the famous Babe Ruth and his skills.
Plenty of people-not exceptional-have distinguished
themselves at the COLLEGIATE level athletically,
which is something vpw never accomplished.
(Ever see a varsity letter in basketball for him?)
Mike has claimed that his view of vpw is not idolatry.
However, most other people would claim that to laud
the flesh and mind of any human who is not seated at
the right hand of God is idolatry-
especially when wild claims are added that he had
skills he never demonstrated.
Mike has said of vpw that
"where he walked, the earth shook."
Is that idolatry?
Readers may judge for themselves.
=========
Mike tried to defend his "hero worship" as follows:
"I’ve often been criticized by churchianity adherents that I worship Paul because I spend more time in his epistles than in the 4 gospels, but that charge too is spurious."
==========
Now, Mike's spent about as much time in the church Epistles
in the last few years as I've spent as a lounge singer.
However, this imaginary time is being compared to with
his vpw "hero worship."
Now, ignoring his usual slam against normal Christians with
normal Bibles, he's trying to claim there's no difference between
studying the Epistles in the Bible,
and claiming that where vpw walked, the earth shook.
NOBODY makes such claims about Paul-who actually WAS
tapped for writing assignments by God Almighty.
NOBODY claims Paul was "OVERgifted."
So, this is a smokescreen for "hero worship."
He also sneaks in his "pfal was given by God" here:
" I worship that same God who gave Paul revelation as well as to Victor Paul. "
Those of you who arrived late and thought we made up his claims,
You wrote: "I do not have the original that KJV came from. ___You do not have the original that docvic's article came from. ___ According to your own premises --- ___ You also are working from *tattered remnants*"
Ok, it looks like we may have mis-communicated on what you meant by original magazine article.
I thought you meant the article as it originally appeared in the magazine minus my comments chopping it up, but instead you meant the original draft of the article as Dr “penned” it.
Ok, let’s deal with the issue as I now better understand your phrasing of it.
(WW, I was writing all this while you wrote and posted what you just did above, so I didn't have time to read your post at all yet. As usual, I'll probably only have the time and motivation to quickly skim it at most, so IF there's anything substantial in it could you please be a good little theologian for me and separate those few parts out and repeat them for me in a separate post? Thanks.)
Dr did not usually pen the articles; he usually spoke them. Many of them were originally SNS tapes, which ARE available.
There is a group of grads who have been working for many years on this, and now make available ALL of Dr’s SNS tapes as well as all his Tape of the Month recordings. The set costs about $88 and is in mp3 format on about 17 disks. If you or anyone else wants them then just PM me and I’ll send you the address where you can find them.
***
Because I lived with one of Dr’s PFAL Book editors for two years in the late 70’s and we became very good long time friends, and because I became very good long time friends with one of the long standing editors of the Way Magazine for the 70’s decade, and because I sought out several more of Dr’s editors, including his daughter KM, in recent years ... I can tell you a little about how Dr’s magazine articles were produced. The first two editors I just mentioned allowed me many years of discussion. I was interested in the process long ago, and became even more interested in very recent years so I pumped them with many, many questions.
One very important item to consider is found in Dr’s comments in the Thessalonians Corps tapes, which later were issued in the University of Life series. When Dr hits the very first verses of both Thessalonian epistles he explains why there are apparently three authors listed: Paul, Silas, and Timothy.
Dr explains that USUALLY the revelations of God’s Word are put into written form only AFTER they have been discussed for a while. Paul received the revelation for both epistles alone, but then he spoke it out to Timothy and Silas and they discussed it for a while before the revelation was put into written form. That’s why they are included as authors of the physical manuscripts.
This makes sense for several reasons, one of which is that II Peter 1:20,21 says: “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Notice that it’s talking about scripture but then switches to speaking. It dos NOT say, “...holy men of God wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”
People sometimes mis-speak or don’t choose the best words suitable for all others to understand what they have spiritually received and is inside them. Speaking it out helps iron out these human artifacts that should not included in the written end product. God knows this and is present when his revelation is being “hammered out” this way, and He works within his servants who are doing His will in getting the revelation into written form.
If writing instruments were easy to use and scrap paper were abundant enough in Paul’s day this hammering out process could have included “rough drafts” just like speaking it out could be thought of as a rough draft. In Dr’s day it was much easier to include these extra tools in the process and he did use them.
Dr’s editors told me that they would usually get an exact transcript of one of Dr’s tapes, or a rough draft he did pen, or notes from a secretary where he spoke out some rough ideas. This stage (or earlier ones) may have included blocks of text similar to or identical to texts appearing elsewhere, and now generating plagiarism charges from rabid, hate filled, ungrateful grads, but Dr received revelation from God that this was right and proper because HE, GOD, was the real author and owner. It’s also conceivable that God would have Dr originate the exact same words that He, God, inspired in other authors without any copying on Dr’s part, but I hardly ever mention this POSSIBILITY because it’s too freaky for the rabid, hate filled, ungrateful grads mentioned above, so I usually spare them.
The editors would hammer out a rough draft as the next step and submit it to Dr where he’d red line it, accepting some portions of their text and not accepting others. He’d fill in areas that need more detail, and make more suggestions and return it to the editors. They’d work on it and then a second draft would be re-submitted to Dr for approval, and so on, until he said “Print it.”
God was not only working in Dr by giving him the original revelation(s) but God was also at work in Dr training these editors. They too would have God working in them throughout all this process. Dr says that these editors had two abilities working for them: 5-senses academic skills and spiritual revelation skills.
Dr says this very thing outright, but he says it in a place few casual readers of the collaterals ever bother to venture, especially for a second, third, and fourth reading spanning decades like any diligent mastering student would do. Dr says this of his editors at the end of the PREFACE of RHST:
“To his helpers and colleagues every writer owes a profound debt. This seventh edition has been read and studied carefully by men and women of Biblical and spiritual ability. To all of these I am most grateful.”
In Dr’s vocabulary “Biblical” abilities are 5-senses skills because the Bible is in the senses realm as he mentions twice on page 27 of RHST, 7th edition. So his editors had both good 5-senses skills and spiritual skills to contribute to the process, just like Silas and Timothy in their helping Paul.
It was totally normal for ALL staff members at TWI in the good old days to sometimes need and want to receive revelation to carry out their duties most efficiently, hence God provided that revelation when and where it was needed and the staff member was believing. I was on staff and I know I tried my best to do this when I was in fellowship, and so did nearly everyone else.
Dr teaches us in PFAL that there can be proofreaders’ and printers’ errors in the production of KJV Bibles and the same was the case for Way Ministry products. I was in a staff meeting where Dr “read the riot act” to my friend the magazine editor for the previous issue’s errors and demanded that the next issue would have zero errors. I also heard Dr say to us back then (though I can’t remember if it was the same staff meeting) that if the ministry waited to get ALL the bugs out of it’s product before it was shipped then the ministry probably would never get anything out the door.
This is the quintessential Quality Control problem in any kind of industry. I was once a Quality Control department manager at an electronics factory, so again, I speak from my experiences of “being there.” I’m sure, and have been for many years, that not only were the original manuscripts of the ancient scriptures slightly contaminated by an occasional flyspeck or misplaced drop of ink, but since they were GENERALLY not given by divine dictation (are you listening, WordWolf) they even had some slight difficulties in transmitting God’s original intent due to inevitable vocabulary idiosyncrasies of the men God selected to work with Him on it. It’s the responsibility of the student to adapt to his teacher’s vocabulary in order to learn to the maximum.
Why do you think Dr taught us in the class about God using the vocabularies of the prophets to issue His revelation? It was to prepare us for seeing these truths I’m laying out for you now.
God has complete foreknowledge of all the flyspecks, all the printers’ errors, all the vocabulary idiosyncrasies, and the total effects they all have on all readers for all time, ...just ALL of these things. (Sorry Geer. Sorry CES. You guys really blew it on foreknowledge.) When Dr got the revelation to say “Ship it,” it was because God was saying to him “That’s as perfect as I need it to be to get the job done.”
***
So, dmiller, you gave me a great opportunity to say all of this for the few interested readers: “Yes, there are some minor tatterations in the book and magazine form of PFAL.”
***
When I compare the number and quality all the middlemen between me and God regarding the ancient scriptures with number and quality all the middlemen between me and God for the PFAL writings, I see that the latter is far fewer far more spiritual than the former.
Just a few proofreaders and a few printers had a few years to fiddle with the PFAL product. Compare that with the ancient scriptures where there is a veritable army of extra middlemen involved in transmitting the ancient scriptures to us, and many of those middle men were not even born again believers but plants of the adversary.
The ancient scriptures have far more problems in going through hand-copy after hand-copy, often by copyists who had no problem inserting their own “corrections” let alone errors due to poor lighting and eyestrain. The ancient scriptures had moth and mold eating away at the manuscripts, museum curators to mess with them, archeologists, and even forgers who have jumped on them to change them.
The adversary had centuries to do this dirty work too, compared to comparatively no time span for us receiving good Gutenberg copies of PFAL. PFAL has the advantage of exact duplication in modern mass printing, they did not. AND MOST OF ALL, we don’t need no stinkin’ translators for PFAL that could and did tear the ancient manuscripts to shreds, figuratively speaking.
The tatterations in PFAL we must deal with are miniscule by comparison, and are usually just diddly typos. God can work in us with much greater efficiency when we work and study and master PFAL than if we were to start from scratch had there been no 1942 intervention. The efficiency differences lie within the human element, not the Godly, so pompus, pious objections to this efficiency matter I will not entertain.
Dr does address these kinds of minor problems in the PFAL and magazine texts in a magazine “Our Times” editorial, but I forget where. I may come across it and augment this later if I do.
***
Yes, dmiller, there are some minor typos in PFAL, and we don’t strictly have the originals, but God said “Ship it!” so that we can master what we do have and learn and grow far beyond what the ancient scriptures will allow. All the needed contributions of the ancient scriptures are cleaned up and included in the PFAL writings. Nearly every page of PFAL has these needed verses from KJV or other versions included.
***
Now, if WW does his usual boring, petty filibuster remarking on every line of this long post, AND THEN if I were to have the time and the mischievous heart to counter his efforts with an identical treatment on HIS post with equally petty remarks on all of his remarks, we just might not only see some serious bandwidth problems arise, but the entire Internet may melt down in front of our very eyes.
Ship...my ship...strange inhabitants have entered through the bays...my crew, savaged but intact! Communications...cut off! Spock! Spock!! Dammit man! Come in, where are you!? Ship's drives....not responding!!! Scottie, report! Report!!! Belle, the book! What happened to the book??!!! Can we get a report...on...!@#$~~~! the b-!@#$$~!!.........D((MILLE}}R..... W - W - W - is...are we....all hands to the Bridge...!!...///^^^/////
So he does have a good point: if one will accept the Gospel According to St. Luke, then why in the world would one not accept the second part of that writing: the Acts of the Apostles...
Well naturally on the side of Ireneaus' perspective - that his tradition (or as, you have stated here in the past according to Roman Catholic belief, The Tradition)- is affirmed the sole true one over all others.
And the Marcionites (as any number of other variant Christian movements that existed at the time) were just as convinced about the verity of their particular "tradition" and with all the doctrinal stances and historical claims associated with that. Of course, all we need do is look around ourselves even today (Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, Jewish, "The Way", and now the "Mikionites") to note that very little has changed in this regard.
The Patristic Fathers asserted that Marcion had deliberately shortened "the Gospel of Luke"; the Marcionites countered by asserting that the Catholic tradition had added to it. We are presented with two possibilities here. But it has only been these past two centuries where inquiring minds have actively explored the latter possibility, rather than assume as fact along with the Church Fathers their negative expressions against their rival.
If nothing else, I would love to see to the case for "Proto-Luke" re-opened among scholarly circles. Was there a common textual source behind 'Luke" that both the Catholics and Marcionites chose, prior to the Catholic (or the Marcionite) form as has come down to us?
Scholars have not been hesitant in proposing such theories behind "John" ( the "signs gospel") or even 'Matthew" (the "Gospel of the Hebrews" or Ebionites), amidst all the "Qs" and "Sayings" material tossed about; but it seems that when many of these same critical scholars come to "Luke" - they treat it as if it's always been the polished product as it has come down to us (lol), with no developmental theories proposed for it.
Finally, lest we forget - the "Acts of the Apostles" is representative of an entire genre of such "Acts" literature, as we know from the NT apocrypha and even the Nag Hammadi material; the question is, when did such a genre (forgive me, it's probably not the appropriate term, but it's late) come into vogue?
When did such literature catch on? Did it enter into circulation about the same time as the gospel literature, or a bit later? What in fact is the earliest Patristic testimony concerning "Acts of the Apostles"? Do we have any evidence for its existence preceding 150 CE? It seems I recall Justin Martyr having especial fondness for "the Acts of Pilate".
(WW, I was writing all this while you wrote and posted what you just did above, so I didn't have time to read your post at all yet. As usual, I'll probably only have the time and motivation to quickly skim it at most, so IF there's anything substantial in it could you please be a good little theologian for me and separate those few parts out and repeat them for me in a separate post? Thanks.)
[No dice.
Don't blame your inferior work ethic and style on me. I read YOUR posts before
responding. Nobody forces you to post here. If your corner-cutting is exposed
as majorly flawed and you don't see it but everyone else does, well,
that's life.]
Dr did not usually pen the articles; he usually spoke them. Many of them were originally SNS tapes, which ARE available.
There is a group of grads who have been working for many years on this, and now make available ALL of Dr’s SNS tapes as well as all his Tape of the Month recordings. The set costs about $88 and is in mp3 format on about 17 disks. If you or anyone else wants them then just PM me and I’ll send you the address where you can find them.
[Now THERE's a labour of diminishing returns if ever I've seen one...]
One very important item to consider is found in Dr’s comments in the Thessalonians Corps tapes, which later were issued in the University of Life series. When Dr hits the very first verses of both Thessalonian epistles he explains why there are apparently three authors listed: Paul, Silas, and Timothy.
[There are not.
There are commentary-type notes that suggest something along those lines.
They're in italics in the King James Version because they're devoid of authority,
like verse-markers and chapter-titles.
Most pfal grads should know that.]
Dr explains that USUALLY the revelations of God’s Word are put into written form only AFTER they have been discussed for a while.
[What horse's patoot did he plagiarize THAT one from?]
Paul received the revelation for both epistles alone,
[Ok, I can agree on that part...]
but then he spoke it out to Timothy and Silas and they discussed it for a while before the revelation was put into written form. That’s why they are included as authors of the physical manuscripts.
[see,
this is what happens when your area of study is "homiletics" and you
study "homiletics" and you SPEAK on "Bible history".
Wild inaccuracies result.
Paul, like many writers of the time, DICTATED.
Letters by dictation are written as the dictating person gives it.
They are not re-arranged by the stenographer.
Anyone saying otherwise is inserting their own opinion into events,
which pfal calls "private interpretation."
If vpw was more open to correction, he might have avoided going
on-record with inaccuracies that big, that often.]
This makes sense for several reasons,
[This makes NO sense as stated!
They had no tape-recorders!
Supposedly, Paul is given the letter by Divine revelation, which he
dictates aloud. Then they have a committee meeting that edits
God's letter,
THEN they start writing it down.
(They hadn't committed it to a written form until this step.)
That's a guarantee you will insert your opinion and leave out
important stuff. And just how lousy was the initial revelation
that it needed an editing staff?]
one of which is that II Peter 1:20,21 says: “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Notice that it’s talking about scripture but then switches to speaking. It dos NOT say, “...holy men of God wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”
[Paul gave the letters by dictation.That's what I said.
That's what most Christians say.
This verse did not say "...holy men of God conferred and wrote as they concluded
the Holy Ghost really meant", which is what Mike is saying.]
People sometimes mis-speak or don’t choose the best words suitable for all others to understand what they have spiritually received and is inside them.
[Good thing most people aren't called upon to relay SCRIPTURE, then.
It takes someone with unusually facile faculties to manage that one.
Only a tiny handful across the centuries were called upon to do so.
None of them was a bum.]
Speaking it out helps iron out these human artifacts that should not included in the written end product.
[speaking it out helps the process of "dictation". Without it, the stenographer
would have to get the text by telepathy. This way, the stenographer can
concentrate on the text, and the reciter can concentrate on listening to God.]
God knows this and is present when his revelation is being “hammered out” this way, and He works within his servants who are doing His will in getting the revelation into written form.
[Chapter and verse, please, on this "committee method" of Scriptural origins.]
If writing instruments were easy to use and scrap paper were abundant enough in Paul’s day this hammering out process could have included “rough drafts” just like speaking it out could be thought of as a rough draft.
[Writing instruments and scrap "paper" was common enough to use if needed.
If revelation needed improvement after being given, however,
we'd have bigger problems than the cost of scrap paper.
We'd have a God who was a poor communicator.]
In Dr’s day it was much easier to include these extra tools in the process and he did use them.
[since he was a man writing a man's books or doing a man's teachings,
these tools are expected to be used. Anything of non-divine origin can be
improved upon and fine-tuned, since it isnt perfect.]
Dr’s editors told me that they would usually get an exact transcript of one of Dr’s tapes, or a rough draft he did pen, or notes from a secretary where he spoke out some rough ideas.
[Which makes sense.]
This stage (or earlier ones) may have included blocks of text similar to or identical to texts appearing elsewhere,
[Or, as Mike is suggesting and trying not to say, might have been right out of
and now generating plagiarism charges from rabid, hate filled, ungrateful grads,
[Or Christians to whom integrity matters.
"Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid." (Romans 6:1-2.)
Good enough for us...]
but Dr received revelation from God that this was right and proper because HE, GOD, was the real author and owner.
[We have this on the strict authority of Mike and Mike alone,
who has determined this thru the process of starting with the assumption
that anything vpw did was just and correct,
and thus engaging in apologetics to rationalize out fraud, plagiarism,
lying, theft...]
It’s also conceivable that God would have Dr originate the exact same words that He, God, inspired in other authors without any copying on Dr’s part, but I hardly ever mention this POSSIBILITY because it’s too freaky for the rabid, hate filled, ungrateful grads mentioned above, so I usually spare them.
[Actually, it's too ridiculous to take seriously.
vpw encounters Leonard's class and takes it.
3 months later, he teaches an exact copy of Leonard's class
and tells the students it is "his" "pfal" class.
vpw encounters Stiles' book and studies it.
Within a few years, he writes a book where whole paragraphs
and pages are IDENTICAL word-for-word with Stiles' book.
Later editions add the contents of Bullinger's books,
and shuffle a few words around,
and delete the mention that vpw learned anything on this
subject from any man (even the anonymous man
mentioned in the early editions who was actually Stiles.)
Mike would posit that it is possible that vpw read these
books, and then God gave vpw the exact phrases as they
occurred in these works after vpw read them.
Might as well posit that the 1st editions descended from heaven
in already-written form, writ by the finger of God.
That's hardly LESS silly than Mike's postulate.
And slapping labels on those who expose sin and lies
is no more right for you than it was when others reviled the
prophets of old for warning people.]
The editors would hammer out a rough draft as the next step and submit it to Dr where he’d red line it, accepting some portions of their text and not accepting others. He’d fill in areas that need more detail, and make more suggestions and return it to the editors. They’d work on it and then a second draft would be re-submitted to Dr for approval, and so on, until he said “Print it.”
[Considering how much of those books were just dictation from the
classes/sermons, less jokes and insults, this description is hyperbole.
I suspect this was what was told to Mike, but it's an exaggeration
of the proofreading process. Besides, if you couldn't work
autonomously, vpw didnt want to know from you.]
God was not only working in Dr by giving him the original revelation(s)
[According to Mike]
but God was also at work in Dr training these editors.
[According to Mike]
They too would have God working in them throughout all this process. Dr says that these editors had two abilities working for them: 5-senses academic skills and spiritual revelation skills.
[Which would make them the same as any competent Christian
who could edit.]
Dr says this very thing outright,
[That the proofreaders were competent? Yes, and it was hardly news.
Either they were-which is expected, or they were not-
and no introduction to a book will ever say
"the proofreaders on this book were only of lukewarm
abilities, but we think this book is pretty good anyway."
So, regardless, that would STILL be said.]
but he says it in a place few casual readers of the collaterals ever bother to venture,
[Except at the GSC, where we've discussed it several times.]
especially for a second, third, and fourth reading spanning decades like any diligent mastering student would do. Dr says this of his editors at the end of the PREFACE of RHST:
“To his helpers and colleagues every writer owes a profound debt. This seventh edition has been read and studied carefully by men and women of Biblical and spiritual ability. To all of these I am most grateful.”
In Dr’s vocabulary “Biblical” abilities are 5-senses skills because the Bible is in the senses realm as he mentions twice on page 27 of RHST, 7th edition.
[Actually, no special vocabulary is needed here.
A book supposedly explaining the Bible is being proofread.
The proofreaders need a background in the Bible to do the best job,
and they need to be spiritually sharp.
So, any comments on the proofreaders will therefore mention both.
No need for a few paragraphs on the usage of the word "Biblical".]
So his editors had both good 5-senses skills
[Actually,
he never promised they were competent at EDITING.
THAT's a 5-senses skill, and important at this stage.
To view this strictly, then, we cannot GUESS or SUPPOSE
they did, since the White Book does not tell us.
Therefore, we know they had Bible skills but not 5-senses
skills. In fact, the mysterious absence of mentioning them
(to use Mike's technique of speculating on ABSENCES)
means that they were NOT competent editors,
which means they were lousy in the 5-senses.]
and spiritual skills to contribute to the process, just like Silas and Timothy in their helping Paul.
[That entire trip STILL failed to compare apples-the Epistles-
with figs-the White Book,
Mike's declarations by fiat notwithstanding.]
It was totally normal for ALL staff members at TWI in the good old days to sometimes need and want to receive revelation to carry out their duties most efficiently, hence God provided that revelation when and where it was needed and the staff member was believing. I was on staff and I know I tried my best to do this when I was in fellowship, and so did nearly everyone else.
[Duh.]
Dr teaches us in PFAL that there can be proofreaders’ and printers’ errors in the production of KJV Bibles and the same was the case for Way Ministry products. I was in a staff meeting where Dr “read the riot act” to my friend the magazine editor for the previous issue’s errors and demanded that the next issue would have zero errors. I also heard Dr say to us back then (though I can’t remember if it was the same staff meeting) that if the ministry waited to get ALL the bugs out of it’s product before it was shipped then the ministry probably would never get anything out the door.
[That's standard business doctrine.
AND, stating it makes it clear that the "ministry's product" was
NEVER meant to be God-Breathed,
since THAT would be perfect ALREADY and only require a competent
spell-checker.
Thanks for confirming-once again-
that twi's books were never MEANT to be considered of
equal stature as the God-Breathed Scriptures.]
This is the quintessential Quality Control problem in any kind of industry.
[True of business and twi, but not true of anything directly from God.
Everyone caught that, right?
Everyone ELSE, I mean.]
I was once a Quality Control department manager at an electronics factory,
[Anyone keeping score on how many lives Mike has had so far?
This is a new one...]
so again, I speak from my experiences of “being there.”
[As most people can see,
there is a difference between an electronics factory,
a supposed Bible-research ministry,
and a room where holy men of God spake as moved by the Holy Spirit.]
I’m sure, and have been for many years,
[Which demonstrates a low standard for you, being totally ignorant
of the process and how it was done historically,
and yet being SO certain you know all the details..]
that not only were the original manuscripts of the ancient scriptures slightly contaminated by an occasional flyspeck or misplaced drop of ink,
[The tens of thousands of recovered documents, when reviewed, do NOT show
evidence that the copies were marred by ink or flyspecks.
They're eminently legibile-amazingly so given their ages.
Therefore, extrapolating from TENS OF THOUSANDS of examples,
the original originals should ALSO be free of marring in this fashion.
And factories and modern printing presses have nothing to do
with them.]
but since they were GENERALLY not given by divine dictation (are you listening, WordWolf)
[i read you like a comic-book.
You're not oversimplifying in THAT way,
but you ARE adding opinions and faulty data to the mix,
as the rest of us can see.]
they even had some slight difficulties in transmitting God’s original intent due to inevitable vocabulary idiosyncrasies of the men God selected to work with Him on it.
[Depends on how one defines "slight difficulties".
If they had needed a new glossary of his phrases, then the text would
have been useless, and God would have picked the wrong man,
and that would make God fallible.]
It’s the responsibility of the student to adapt to his teacher’s vocabulary in order to learn to the maximum.
[Adding a new, Gnostic, hidden/occulted meaning to how vpw used
words is NOT the same thing.
Further, as we've seen many times, it's proved totally unnecessary.
Finally, over 85% of Scripture-
and you said this is Scripture-
is supposed to be self-evident right in the sentence, without
hidden meanings,
if the Orange Book is to be believed.
That makes such a dictionary 85% useless.]
Why do you think Dr taught us in the class about God using the vocabularies of the prophets to issue His revelation?
[Well,
to interpret what he said in the sentences he said them,
he explained that's why the shepherd Amos had direct,
short, choppy sentences,
and the scholar John's Gospel opens with a flowing text
that is almost poetic.
Therefore, the odds are 85% that this is exactly why
he said that.]
It was to prepare us for seeing these truths I’m laying out for you now.
[At best, your odds are 15%.
I wouldn't bet a fiver on those odds, let alone my salvation.
You, of course, may do whatever you wish.]
God has complete foreknowledge of all the flyspecks, all the printers’ errors, all the vocabulary idiosyncrasies, and the total effects they all have on all readers for all time,
[And all the ABSENCES of same.]
...just ALL of these things.
(Sorry Geer. Sorry CES. You guys really blew it on foreknowledge.)
[The preceeding is one of those rare moments where Mike and I
agree on something. That happens from time to time.]
When Dr got the revelation to say “Ship it,” it was because God was saying to him “That’s as perfect as I need it to be to get the job done.”
[This entire scenario has been brought to you
by Mike's dogma.]
***
So, dmiller, you gave me a great opportunity to say all of this for the few interested readers: “Yes, there are some minor tatterations in the book and magazine form of PFAL.”
[Which grossly understates the situation, so "no problem"
admitting it.
It's like Jackie Gleason admitting he could stand to drop a few pounds.]
***
When I compare the number and quality all the middlemen between me and God regarding the ancient scriptures with number and quality all the middlemen between me and God for the PFAL writings, I see that the latter is far fewer far more spiritual than the former.
[Macular degeneration of the mind can't be corrected
by surgery, but your "seeing" could be corrected if it
wasn't slaved to a new gnostic path.
The only part that was correct was the greater NUMBER.
Further, I've received-directly-
comic book stories-with art-
directly from the hand of the writer/artist.
That means zero middlemen.
(Hand-drawn, hand-coloured, hand-lettered.)
This was not as important as Scripture, however,
so this was not exactly an earth-shaking announcement.]
Just a few proofreaders and a few printers had a few years to fiddle with the PFAL product.
[Which was fundamentally the same as a transcript of the class.
When you're working from a direct recording, that is NOT
hard-just TEDIOUS.]
Compare that with the ancient scriptures where there is a veritable army of extra middlemen involved in transmitting the ancient scriptures to us, and many of those middle men were not even born again believers but plants of the adversary.
[Coming soon to a theater near you:
Plants of the Adversary!
These evil fronds, pods and flowers will alter text,
sneak into scriptoriums,
and justify Mike's theology!
See them drive the panicked throngs into the streets!
Coming soon!
Once again,
even vpw-who never STUDIED this-
knew better than this-
and that was based on input now 50 years old.
That's why he said he was confident that a Christian
working with his Bible could see The Word and say
"Thus saith the Lord."
Mike, if you do some reading-OUTSIDE twi stuff-
you might discover that the texts were NOT transmitted
thru a game of "telephone" or the like,
which your claim resembles.]
The ancient scriptures have far more problems in going through hand-copy after hand-copy, often by copyists who had no problem inserting their own “corrections” let alone errors due to poor lighting and eyestrain. The ancient scriptures had moth and mold eating away at the manuscripts, museum curators to mess with them, archeologists, and even forgers who have jumped on them to change them.
[Amazingly, they have survived all this.
Was that due to the prevalence of hundreds of thousands of copies,
a fraction of which have survived for 20 centuries?
Or was that the plan of God Almighty? Or both?
The reader may decide...]
The adversary had centuries to do this dirty work too,
[And according to vpw, he failed at this.
vpw WAS fond of this poem, you know.
I have him on tape reciting it....
"Last eve I passed beside a blacksmith's door
And heard the anvil ring the vesper chime.
Then, looking in, I saw upon the floor
Old hammers, worn with beating years of time.
'How many anvils have you had', said I,
'To wear and batter all these hammers so?'
'Just one', said he, and then, with twinkling eye,
'The anvil wears the hammers out, you know.'
And so, thought I, the anvil of God's Word
For ages skeptic blows have beat upon.
Yet, though the noise of falling blows was heard,
The anvil is unharmed--the hammers gone."
vpw would have classified you as a "hammer"
in this poem.]
compared to comparatively no time span for us receiving good Gutenberg copies of PFAL.
[American Christian Press used a Gutenberg press?
How did they ever get anything done on time?]
PFAL has the advantage of exact duplication in modern mass printing, they did not. AND MOST OF ALL, we don’t need no stinkin’ translators for PFAL that could and did tear the ancient manuscripts to shreds, figuratively speaking.
[And yet.........
.......one has volunteered.......]
The tatterations in PFAL we must deal with are miniscule by comparison,
[Given your ignorance of the ancient texts,
this statement is devoid of authority.
You based this "conclusion" solely on your doctrine,
and are a stranger to the evidence.]
and are usually just diddly typos.
[Not counting, of course, when the information
was just plain wrong or self-contradictory.
THOSE weren't typos.]
[And, finally, we have our commercial!]
God can work in us with much greater efficiency when we work and study and master PFAL than if we were to start from scratch had there been no 1942 intervention.
[There WAS no 1942 intervention.
That was invented in the 1950s.]
The efficiency differences lie within the human element, not the Godly, so pompus, pious objections to this efficiency matter I will not entertain.
[Nor will you entertain differences of substance, since
they undermine your theology. This makes you of less
integrity than the average modern student of the
ancient Scriptures, for they want the truth even if
it doesn't match their theology.]
Dr does address these kinds of minor problems in the PFAL and magazine texts in a magazine “Our Times” editorial, but I forget where. I may come across it and augment this later if I do.
[Feel free.
This could be fun.]
***
Yes, dmiller, there are some minor typos in PFAL, and we don’t strictly have the originals,
[Which COMPLETELY invalidates the "the secret meaning of the
placement of this word here is..." doctrine....]
but God said “Ship it!”
[Or vpw did, since he needed to move product.
One or the other.]
so that we can master what we do have and learn and grow far beyond what the ancient scriptures will allow.
[Or "so we would take classes, buy books, and convince others to do the same,
and pay 10% of our income."
One or the other.]
All the needed contributions of the ancient scriptures are cleaned up and included in the PFAL writings.
[so long as you don't mind skipping anything vpw didn't
understand. That means the Book of Revelation's pretty small
in the PFAL writings.
"Well, that means we don't need it", I can hear someone now.
However, if we didn't need it, God wouldn't have issued it.]
Nearly every page of PFAL has these needed verses from KJV or other versions included.
[And is based on the knowledge vpw was able to assemble 1/2 a century
ago-some of which is outdated.]
***
Now, if WW does his usual boring,
petty
[They disagree.]
filibuster
[Have you ALREADY forgotten your recent education by Oakspear
as to what a filibuster is? Has your memory expired?
Is that why you've never gone past a taped class from the 70s?]
remarking on every line of this long post,
[A) Don't blame me if your post is long.
You could have trimmed out all the error and saved at least 1/2.
B) I skipped a lot of lines, and usually do.]
AND THEN if I were to have the time
[YOU decide your priorities.
I can spank you with a paddle next week or next month, as time permits.]
and the mischievous heart
[sKILL! You would need some SKILL!]
to counter his efforts with an identical treatment on HIS post
[i'd LOVE to have everyone compare our efforts side-by-side!
It would underscore your lack of skill all the more!]
with equally petty remarks
[The history of Scripture, the history of vpw, etc. are hardly
"petty" except for those looking to hide from them.]
on all of his remarks, we just might not only see some serious bandwidth problems arise,
Hey-don't blame me.
YOUR idolatrous spew takes up a lot of space.
Then exposing its errors takes up a lot of space.
Paw tolerates you like every other board admin doesn't,
but that doesn't absolve you of responsibility.]
but the entire Internet may melt down in front of our very eyes.
[ Ooh-Mike's going to make the
ENTIRE INTERNET MELT DOWN IN FRONT OF OUR EYES!]
Should I?
[COULD YOU? No.
Should you try?
From your perspective, no.
It would underscore all your weaknesses.
However, it would entertain the HECK of all the people who
The Patristic Fathers asserted that Marcion had deliberately shortened "the Gospel of Luke"; the Marcionites countered by asserting that the Catholic tradition had added to it.
The Marcionites also reject the other three Gospel accounts and the letters of Peter, James, John, Jude, and the Apocolypse of John in their NT Canon, as well.
I am not enough of a Biblical Scholar to be familiar sufficiently with the ancient texts to engage in an intelligent discussion of this particular subject. I, frankly, do not have the time to make myself sufficiently familiar with the subject enough to do so either. I have taken a look at the development of the New Testament Canon from the study of the Patristic writings to be satisfied with the validity of the canon...at least for my purposes. As one who is largely an autodidact on matters theological, there's only so far that I can go...at least efficiently. And, to be honest with you, I have neither the drive nor the financial independence needed to allow me to pursue a course of study that would make me competent to discuss the subject. Without that level of knowledge, we'll be limited to discussing this author's work versus that author's work (secondary sources) rather than discussing the material itself (primary sources). And that means we'll essentially be acting as chelas for competing gurus. We can see how intellectually sound that is from examining the posts made by certain people (who will remain nameless for their obviousness) on this thread, itself.
I hate to sound so anti-intellectual, but there are limits on my time and so I must devote that limited time to what is most profitable to my soul. The scriptures are not supposed to be the be-all and end-all. Their purpose is to reveal Christ to us so that we can conform ourselves to Him. I worship Christ, not the scriptures that reveal Him. So I will concentrate the bulk of my study time to those areas that will help reveal Him more completely to me and that will help me in the process of conformance.
I am familiar to a degree with the 'Q' theory and have briefly purused some of the other 'Acts' literature, but haven't devoted adequate time to their study to competantly discuss them. And without spending the time necessary (of which I really don't have), I am not competent to engage in that particular discussion. It's not that I'll take your word for it, I just don't have the time to engage intelligently one way or the other. So I'll leave it go for now...until I have the time to get adequately spun up on the subject to engage in an intelligent discussion...
I finally figured it all out. Smikeol isn't a person at all.
Smikeol a rapidly expanding and malevolent virus, against which even some of the most potent anti-virus packages are ineffectual. ... I mean, there is no person who could be this stupidly persistant and unreal! ... There can't be!
This thread is resembling a Twilite Zone episode with several conversations going on at once.
I've pretty well said what I want to say here on this thread, so for those who are hell-bent on protecting the poor, innocent, helpless, brainless, easy-to-manipulate new people coming here from my overly-convincing evil clutches... I'll probably gravitate now to my promised response to doojable on her thread in this Doctrinal Forum titled "OK once and for all" so that they can take cheap pot-shots at me there.
Did I address your concerns this second time around with my comparative tatterations analysis? ...PFAL having comparatively FAR, FAR less tatterations due to various factors, the largest being no need for translations?
Like that topic last summer regarding Dr knowing that "The Joy of Serving" was going to be his very last teaching, I hope I've demonstrated at least to you and a small few others that this is no ad hoc adventure I’m on, but that I’ve thought through every angle in extreme detail well before I ever dared facing the heat of posting here.
My position was many years in the making, and much of my preparation for these ideas took place without my awareness. I never would have dreamed I’d be espousing these things even 9 years ago, let alone 30. If it hadn’t been for a rich confluence of many sources dating back decades I’d probably be on the majority opinion’s side here at GSC. This may be the other half of my answer to templelady (I think it was her) when she asked me who appointed me to the job of blowing the whistle on the things we ALL messed up with 20 and 30 years ago. I can look back and see it was a Godly setup that induced me to volunteer for the job. I don’t expect her (or many others) to believe this, but I do believe it and act on it no matter what the price. I act in spite of what others think. What God thinks about these things is all I really care about.
Anyway, I read half of WW’s post looking for loose ends before I totally sign off this thread and nearly fell asleep. If you or anyone else want to carry out the assignment he doesn’t seem to have the capacity for and present to me any substantial loose ends I’ll fade away here.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
37
23
30
24
Popular Days
Jan 11
29
Jan 6
27
Jan 9
20
Jan 5
17
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 37 posts
WordWolf 23 posts
Mike 30 posts
markomalley 24 posts
Popular Days
Jan 11 2006
29 posts
Jan 6 2006
27 posts
Jan 9 2006
20 posts
Jan 5 2006
17 posts
dmiller
Ok -- since you asked for it ---
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Mark,
Those photos are indeed, as Raf said, a very "good catch".
I was trying to make out from those photos whether or not the crosses
at the ends (one either side) actually had a figure of the crucified Jesus on them,
which had become worn-down over time. But I can't really tell from these photos.
For me, an apparent strong point in the Bullingerite/Wierwillian teaching that there might have been more than two "evil-doers"/"robbers" crucified with Christ was the fact that in two accounts (Matt.27:44; Mark 15:32) both those crucified with Him "reproached Him" while in Luke 23:40, the "malefactor" accepted Him.
I don't entirely rule out that more than two people could have been crucified with Christ - mass crucifixions were not unknown to have taken place in those times (as in the case of Spartacus and his comrades).
But now, of course, other explanations are certainly possible; for example, we might ask: might one of the "malefactors/"robbers" [btw - I agree with you here - what does prevent these as functioning as synonyms in this case?] who started out "reproaching" Jesus had had a change of heart?
(such conversion experiences - especially upon the approach of death - are not unheard).
Or - if one treats these as "eyewitness" accounts - might one "witness" had been closer to the action, - to have heard what the robbers were actually saying -while another further away, at a place unable to decipher everything being spoken (cf. the confusion of those who heard Jesus crying out "Eli, Eli", etc. - which was mistaken as a cry for Elijah).
But of course, allowance for the varying narrative styles/theological intentions of the Gospel writers/editors themselves must also be taken into consideration. It's obvious when reading any Gospel "Harmony" that the writers were drawing from both shared source material, and some unique sources as well, and arranging everything in their literary creations as they saw fit.
Interesting subject, which I haven't really revisited in awhile.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Danny,
First, let's talk about 'eyewitness accounts.' There is little or no way that Luke was an 'eyewitness.' Luke was, from all accounts, a Gentile from the city of Antioch in what is now Turkey.
According to Eusebius (Church History Book III Chap 4):
Although Luke's non-eyewitness status is easily verifiable, there is no support for the assertion that Matthew or Mark were actually there at the scene, either. The only ones verifiably present were the women and John.
Secondly, the crucifixion happened at 9 AM, according to biblical accounts. The eclipse that turned the sky dark happened at noon. That's a three hour window. A lot can happen in three hours. Suppose this: suppose that both people crucified with Jesus initially started off mocking him and this continued for a while. One of them continued to mock him, but the other, witnessing Jesus' reactions to the crucifixion changed his tune and realized exactly what Jesus was. We have two time hacks that we're dealing with here: 9 AM and noon. We can't definitively say, because there are no other time hacks to break these accounts down.
One other thing to bear in mind, though, verbiage used for the abuse:
Matthew: saved others, cannot save self. Get down from the cross. Let God save him!
Mark: Get down from the cross. Let God save him.
John: no words of abuse mentioned
Luke: If you are the son of God, save yourself and us
Note the difference there. (Of course, in Matthew and Mark, the words came from the chief priests, scribes, elders -- with the others crucified spewing the same out, while in Luke, the words came from the others crucified with Jesus) -- why couldn't it be harmonized to say that the accounts in Matthew and Mark happened early on after 9 AM and the account in Luke happened later on, but before noon?
Just something to consider there, Danny...
And, by the way, I agree with your statement completely that there could have been more than two crucified with him...there could have been 10 or 20 crucified with him for all I know. I just don't see Biblical evidence that contradicts the tradition of two.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
dmiller,
You wrote: “After you pm'ed me on the old GS, and wondered how to get a conversation going with multiple participants, and I told you how to do it -- suddenly there was a plethora of docvic supporters, and you (primarily) were pulling certain words from certain articles from the Way rag and saying -- *See -- this is one of the hidden truths if you connect this word with (XYZ) word found in the latter paragraphs* ____ I don't even remember the topic now, but you did an admirable job of scraping, and scrounging each word docvic had in the article, to make your point. Your zealousness in searching those articles would put to shame many biblical scholars these days. What is *fueling your fire*??? Search for knowledge? Or proving that you are right?”
You also wrote: “OK -- let's get one thing straight. I said *some good in docvic's teachings*. Period! I include (unlike you) his teachings on tape, as well as those found in print. ____ I DO NOT IDOLIZE THE MAN, OR WHAT HE TAUGHT. Is that clear?? ____What I find disturbing is your ability/ willingness to take random words from a magazine article, and that does NOT mean I have problem with the magazine, I have a problem with your interpretaion of it. ____Having worked in the publishing industry for 15 years, I am all too familiar with edits, type-space, etc. ____CAN YOU GIVE ME (OR ANYONE) THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE, BEFORE IT WAS FORMATTED TO FIT THE PAGE YOU SEE IT ON??? ____NO --- YOU CAN'T. SO YOU HAVE A *TATTERED REMNANT* IN THE WAY MAGAZINE, OR EVEN THE PFAL BOOK JUST LIKE YOU CLAIM THE KJV TO BE.”
In both my PT’s last year and in the thread “Masters of the Word – Mastering PFAL” I first posted the entire article and then I went into a focus on individual use of words. Maybe you glossed over the pristine posting of the article and only focused on my analysis. I’d be happy to send you the article (actually there were two) by regular e-mail to avoid the usual charges of hogging bandwidth, sometimes by a poster who doesn’t think twice about bandwidth in his quoting every word I post and then adding his own petty remarks that constitute nothing but a useless filibuster.
Your complaint of my not supplying the total article is unfounded. I can send it to you and then you will have three chances to see it without my comments interspersed.
***
You wrote: “I DO NOT IDOLIZE THE MAN, OR WHAT HE TAUGHT. Is that clear??”
It’s never been not clear. What is not clear is that I too do not idolize the man; I worship the True God Who gave him revelation to write to and compile for us.
I’ve often been criticized by churchianity adherents that I worship Paul because I spend more time in his epistles than in the 4 gospels, but that charge too is spurious. I worship that same God who gave Paul revelation as well as to Victor Paul.
***
You wrote: "By now you should know that I consider God to be THE authority in my life. I don't say any book is bigger than I, cause it's paper -- and I can set it on fire any time I wish, and it will be gone, and I will remain."
It's HOW ACCURATELY are you ABLE to consider God the authority in your life that's in question here, not your intent.
You too can be burned up and gone in a flash, just as easily as paper under the right conditions. The relative ease of cumbustability of paper does not give you any spiritual superiority. We're like the grass of the field, very combustable, here today and gone tomorrow as the Bible indicates. I think it's in Peter.
Your disdain for paper recordings of God’s Word is odd. Because we are so bound by the 5-senses, being born without spirit, we absolutely NEED a 5-senses presentation of God’s Word in order to grow to the point of telling the difference between the True God and His close counterfeit.
Those who are tricked into thinking they can skip around and totally avoid a thorough mastery of God’s WRITTEN word via their 5-senses, and indulge in an embrace of the True God directly via spirit are in for a rude awakening someday.
The reason God had His Word put into written form on combustible paper for our 5-senses mastery is so that we can first learn to separate the false god out of our embrace. Jesus had to go through this stage of first mastering the written form of God’s Word and that’s how he was able to operate spirit and spot the counterfeit in his desert temptations.
If you love the True God you will accept and master His written Word as a necessary stepping stone to direct communion with Him, hearing His voice only as you operate spiritual manifestations, and not hearing the counterfeit.
We were taught this in the “16 Keys to Walking in the Spirit” in the Advanced Class. Key #4: “Study the Word much. What you can know by the five senses God expects you to know.”
***
CM, here is your answer if you’re listening: What I mean by “bigger” is “having more authority.”
If you or dmiller can’t point to a physical, flesh realm representation of God’s written Word that’s bigger than you, more authoritative than you, then your physical, flesh brain’s contents is your own broken cistern representation of a god of your own making and you are doomed, your brain being no match against the devil’s intellect.
Those who wing it and think their brain (along with spirit) is supplying them with a totally accurate representation of God’s will without first having mastered all that the True God supplies in written form will eventualy be listening to the wrong spirit. When the power is needed the most it won’t be there.
If you have filled your brain with a printed paper text that you regard as authoritatively bigger than your brain’s authority, then you are no longer worshipping your own brain’s ability to collect and edit material, but worshipping the actual real author of that printed paper text.
CHOOSE YOUR PRINTED PAPER TEXTS AS IF YOUR LIFE DEPENDED ON IT BECAUSE IT DOES.
***
Here is how Dr put it in his last book OMSW p.240 with my bold fonts:
"Throughout His Word it is recorded that God is Light. Now how can anybody say that he has light if he doesn’t know the true God, the source of light? Nobody can say that he has light until he knows God. God is Light and if anybody is ever going to have light, he must have a relationship with God, he must plug into the source.
"Since God is Spirit and therefore cannot be seen, the only way we by our senses can learn about God is to go to His written Word, which is in the senses realm. If God is Light, so is His Word. The light of God’s Word makes known God Who is Light. Without the light of God’s Word, people will never know God, and they will continue to walk in darkness. They may say, 'We have light,' but this cannot be true. The fact that somebody says he has light is sometimes far removed from his actually having it."
.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
CM
Mike, you do err not knowing the scriptures or the power of God
Edited by CMLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
CM,
Look at this. I can do that too:
CM, you do err not knowing the scriptures or the power of God.
Now see if you can show me where and how I err, like I just did in my longer post above. THAT'S the hard part.
It's easy to quote scriptures and then mis-apply them.
It takes work to show someone the details, just like it takes work to learn to recognize the True God from the counterfeit using the 5-senses and the paper form of God's Word that He provides.
Are you up to the task(s) or ar you going to wing-it lazily along on both counts?
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
CM
i don't waste my time on fools
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Mark,
On the canonical "Luke" not being a direct witness is a good point. However, there may have been another variant tradition concerning the origin of material underlying "Luke" about which we unfortunately know very little outside of a tantalizing little bit mentioned in "the Dialogue of Adamantius" by Pseudo-Origen; in Book I of the "Dialogue", Megethius (Meg.) represents the Marcionite position while "Adamantius" (Ad.) the Catholic:
Chapter VIII
Meg. I shall show that there is one gospel.
Ad. From whom can you appeal from scripture itself that confirms there is only one Gospel?
Meg. Christ.
Ad. Did Christ himself write of his crucifixion and resurrection from the dead after three
days?
Meg. The Apostle Paul imparted [or, added ] this.
Ad. Do you mean to say that Paul was in attendance at the crucifixion of Christ?
Meg. He himself wrote the Gospel.
We know from the Patristic accounts (e.g., Tertullian, Epiphanius and Adamantius) that the Marcionites did not include "Acts" in their canon, either having rejected it or not having known it at the time they compiled their canon, which raises the possibility that the Marcionites did not hold to the same biographical sketch of Paul's activity (or even identity) as found in the Catholic tradition's "Acts". But what the precise details of their tradition were here, we unfortunately possess little. My preliminary speculation is that Paul may have been regarded among "the seventy" disciples chosen by Jesus which we read about in Luke ch.10, but I admittedly have little to base this on at the moment.
"Luke the Physician" as a travelling companion to Paul was apparently also not in the Marcionite tradition (as seemingly suggested by the omission of "physician" associated with a "Luke" in Col.4 in the Marcionite version).
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
And of course I could quote Irenaeus of Lyons but that kind of argument is far to escoteric....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Go for it - can't be any worse than mine (lol).
Is this material concerning the question of Jesus' age?
As I recall, he was under the impression that Jesus was much older
(between 50-60?).
And as I get older, I grow fond of the idea (lol).
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
This will be a bit long (sorry everybody), but I wanted to make sure the context was complete. From Irenaeus, Against Heresies Book 3, Chap 13 & 14:
So he does have a good point: if one will accept the Gospel According to St. Luke, then why in the world would one not accept the second part of that writing: the Acts of the Apostles...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
I don't think I ever said that. :)
I DID say that you take certain words out of the articles.
And you never did answer the question ---
"CAN YOU GIVE ME (OR ANYONE) THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE,
BEFORE IT WAS FORMATTED TO FIT THE PAGE YOU SEE IT ON???
NO --- YOU CAN'T.
SO YOU HAVE A *TATTERED REMNANT* IN THE WAY MAGAZINE,
OR EVEN THE PFAL BOOK JUST LIKE YOU CLAIM THE KJV TO BE.”
I do not have the original that KJV came from.
You do not have the original that docvic's article came from.
According to your own premises ---
You also are working from *tattered remnants*
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
At this moment,
we'll be looking at an example of how Mike is either unable
to read what's written,
or understand what's written.
=========
Here's what dmiller said, and even Mike quoted it,
so we know he read it:
"Having worked in the publishing industry for 15 years, I am all too familiar with edits, type-space, etc. ____CAN YOU GIVE ME (OR ANYONE) THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE, BEFORE IT WAS FORMATTED TO FIT THE PAGE YOU SEE IT ON??? ____NO --- YOU CAN'T. SO YOU HAVE A *TATTERED REMNANT* IN THE WAY MAGAZINE, OR EVEN THE PFAL BOOK JUST LIKE YOU CLAIM THE KJV TO BE.”
=========
Now,
in case some of you are as lacking in background at this subject
as Mike is, I shall clarify slightly.
dmiller had previously pointed one problem with Mike's approach.
Mike often sets GREAT store-and can go on for pages-on the specific
placement of a specific word in a specific place in something vpw
supposedly wrote. He claims that-given ALL those specifics-the meaning
is different than if any of those were different, and is specific beyond
normal usage of the English language.
HERE, dmiller pointed out one reason WHY this is ridiculous.
Mike does this will all sorts of publications where vpw's words are
supposedly written. However, the exact order of the words, and
the specific words chosen, are NOT the original words of vpw.
They are the result of the words of vpw, which were then EDITED
for CLARITY, SPACE and the preferences of the editor.
Even a LIGHT editing determined to retain meanings will radically
change the EXACT wording of a paragraph, and NO article
ANYPLACE avoids even LIGHT editing.
Therefore, anyone using the Mikean method will end up setting
great store on the words and their placement-and will, more often
than not, spend hours and hours on the deep, hidden meaning
of a word the editors were fond of using, or that fit better in
the page-count.
Thus, dmiller points out that Mike CLAIMS to have "originals",
but instead has "edited versions" in the case of EVERYTHING
written-and supposedly, that's his highest authority.
(Written over taped, etc.)
So, dmiller pointed out that the placements on the page,
and even light editing makes Mike's methods useless.
Mike does not have the original manuscripts-ever.
=========
Mike's response?
"In both my PT’s last year and in the thread “Masters of the Word – Mastering PFAL” I first posted the entire article and then I went into a focus on individual use of words. Maybe you glossed over the pristine posting of the article and only focused on my analysis. I’d be happy to send you the article (actually there were two) by regular e-mail to avoid the usual charges of hogging bandwidth, sometimes by a poster who doesn’t think twice about bandwidth in his quoting every word I post and then adding his own petty remarks that constitute nothing but a useless filibuster.
Your complaint of my not supplying the total article is unfounded. I can send it to you and then you will have three chances to see it without my comments interspersed."
=========
The casual observer will note that Mike's response completely
MISSED what dmiller was talking about.
dmiller said that, by the time Mike gets an article, it has been
altered beyond Mikean methods, then sent to the printers.
Mike then said "that's wrong-I posted entire articles."
But those articles were already altered-which was dmiller's point.
Mike's either displaying his inability to read what's written,
a total ignorance of the origin of the articles he's basing his life on,
or desperately trying to draw attention away from dmiller's
completely legitimate point.
Readers may take their pick.
===============
What's almost funny is the next item Mike CHOSE to respond to.
dmiller said:
“I DO NOT IDOLIZE THE MAN, OR WHAT HE TAUGHT. Is that clear??”
=====
Mike replied:
"It’s never been not clear. What is not clear is that I too do not idolize the man; I worship the True God Who gave him revelation to write to and compile for us."
=========
To those arriving late,
Mike is the same man who said of vpw-the man he claims
not to idolize- that he was
"BORN with an OVERabundance of BRAINS
AND BRAWN,"
and that he was "gifted, even OVERgifted".
He's characterized vpw-who was an unremarkable student
at EVERY level of study- as exceptional even among geniuses,
and has absolutely NO evidence to support this,
making this a "leap of faith".
He's characterized vpw-who was a fairly talented athlete
at the high school level, but unremarkable at any higher
level- as at the level of a professional athlete despite his
never playing or being drafted by any professional team.
Supposedly, vpw was an exceptional athlete-and Mike's
compared him to the famous Babe Ruth and his skills.
Plenty of people-not exceptional-have distinguished
themselves at the COLLEGIATE level athletically,
which is something vpw never accomplished.
(Ever see a varsity letter in basketball for him?)
Mike has claimed that his view of vpw is not idolatry.
However, most other people would claim that to laud
the flesh and mind of any human who is not seated at
the right hand of God is idolatry-
especially when wild claims are added that he had
skills he never demonstrated.
Mike has said of vpw that
"where he walked, the earth shook."
Is that idolatry?
Readers may judge for themselves.
=========
Mike tried to defend his "hero worship" as follows:
"I’ve often been criticized by churchianity adherents that I worship Paul because I spend more time in his epistles than in the 4 gospels, but that charge too is spurious."
==========
Now, Mike's spent about as much time in the church Epistles
in the last few years as I've spent as a lounge singer.
However, this imaginary time is being compared to with
his vpw "hero worship."
Now, ignoring his usual slam against normal Christians with
normal Bibles, he's trying to claim there's no difference between
studying the Epistles in the Bible,
and claiming that where vpw walked, the earth shook.
NOBODY makes such claims about Paul-who actually WAS
tapped for writing assignments by God Almighty.
NOBODY claims Paul was "OVERgifted."
So, this is a smokescreen for "hero worship."
He also sneaks in his "pfal was given by God" here:
" I worship that same God who gave Paul revelation as well as to Victor Paul. "
Those of you who arrived late and thought we made up his claims,
there's one right there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
dmiller,
You wrote: "I do not have the original that KJV came from. ___You do not have the original that docvic's article came from. ___ According to your own premises --- ___ You also are working from *tattered remnants*"
Ok, it looks like we may have mis-communicated on what you meant by original magazine article.
I thought you meant the article as it originally appeared in the magazine minus my comments chopping it up, but instead you meant the original draft of the article as Dr “penned” it.
Ok, let’s deal with the issue as I now better understand your phrasing of it.
(WW, I was writing all this while you wrote and posted what you just did above, so I didn't have time to read your post at all yet. As usual, I'll probably only have the time and motivation to quickly skim it at most, so IF there's anything substantial in it could you please be a good little theologian for me and separate those few parts out and repeat them for me in a separate post? Thanks.)
Dr did not usually pen the articles; he usually spoke them. Many of them were originally SNS tapes, which ARE available.
There is a group of grads who have been working for many years on this, and now make available ALL of Dr’s SNS tapes as well as all his Tape of the Month recordings. The set costs about $88 and is in mp3 format on about 17 disks. If you or anyone else wants them then just PM me and I’ll send you the address where you can find them.
***
Because I lived with one of Dr’s PFAL Book editors for two years in the late 70’s and we became very good long time friends, and because I became very good long time friends with one of the long standing editors of the Way Magazine for the 70’s decade, and because I sought out several more of Dr’s editors, including his daughter KM, in recent years ... I can tell you a little about how Dr’s magazine articles were produced. The first two editors I just mentioned allowed me many years of discussion. I was interested in the process long ago, and became even more interested in very recent years so I pumped them with many, many questions.
One very important item to consider is found in Dr’s comments in the Thessalonians Corps tapes, which later were issued in the University of Life series. When Dr hits the very first verses of both Thessalonian epistles he explains why there are apparently three authors listed: Paul, Silas, and Timothy.
Dr explains that USUALLY the revelations of God’s Word are put into written form only AFTER they have been discussed for a while. Paul received the revelation for both epistles alone, but then he spoke it out to Timothy and Silas and they discussed it for a while before the revelation was put into written form. That’s why they are included as authors of the physical manuscripts.
This makes sense for several reasons, one of which is that II Peter 1:20,21 says: “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Notice that it’s talking about scripture but then switches to speaking. It dos NOT say, “...holy men of God wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”
People sometimes mis-speak or don’t choose the best words suitable for all others to understand what they have spiritually received and is inside them. Speaking it out helps iron out these human artifacts that should not included in the written end product. God knows this and is present when his revelation is being “hammered out” this way, and He works within his servants who are doing His will in getting the revelation into written form.
If writing instruments were easy to use and scrap paper were abundant enough in Paul’s day this hammering out process could have included “rough drafts” just like speaking it out could be thought of as a rough draft. In Dr’s day it was much easier to include these extra tools in the process and he did use them.
Dr’s editors told me that they would usually get an exact transcript of one of Dr’s tapes, or a rough draft he did pen, or notes from a secretary where he spoke out some rough ideas. This stage (or earlier ones) may have included blocks of text similar to or identical to texts appearing elsewhere, and now generating plagiarism charges from rabid, hate filled, ungrateful grads, but Dr received revelation from God that this was right and proper because HE, GOD, was the real author and owner. It’s also conceivable that God would have Dr originate the exact same words that He, God, inspired in other authors without any copying on Dr’s part, but I hardly ever mention this POSSIBILITY because it’s too freaky for the rabid, hate filled, ungrateful grads mentioned above, so I usually spare them.
The editors would hammer out a rough draft as the next step and submit it to Dr where he’d red line it, accepting some portions of their text and not accepting others. He’d fill in areas that need more detail, and make more suggestions and return it to the editors. They’d work on it and then a second draft would be re-submitted to Dr for approval, and so on, until he said “Print it.”
God was not only working in Dr by giving him the original revelation(s) but God was also at work in Dr training these editors. They too would have God working in them throughout all this process. Dr says that these editors had two abilities working for them: 5-senses academic skills and spiritual revelation skills.
Dr says this very thing outright, but he says it in a place few casual readers of the collaterals ever bother to venture, especially for a second, third, and fourth reading spanning decades like any diligent mastering student would do. Dr says this of his editors at the end of the PREFACE of RHST:
“To his helpers and colleagues every writer owes a profound debt. This seventh edition has been read and studied carefully by men and women of Biblical and spiritual ability. To all of these I am most grateful.”
In Dr’s vocabulary “Biblical” abilities are 5-senses skills because the Bible is in the senses realm as he mentions twice on page 27 of RHST, 7th edition. So his editors had both good 5-senses skills and spiritual skills to contribute to the process, just like Silas and Timothy in their helping Paul.
It was totally normal for ALL staff members at TWI in the good old days to sometimes need and want to receive revelation to carry out their duties most efficiently, hence God provided that revelation when and where it was needed and the staff member was believing. I was on staff and I know I tried my best to do this when I was in fellowship, and so did nearly everyone else.
Dr teaches us in PFAL that there can be proofreaders’ and printers’ errors in the production of KJV Bibles and the same was the case for Way Ministry products. I was in a staff meeting where Dr “read the riot act” to my friend the magazine editor for the previous issue’s errors and demanded that the next issue would have zero errors. I also heard Dr say to us back then (though I can’t remember if it was the same staff meeting) that if the ministry waited to get ALL the bugs out of it’s product before it was shipped then the ministry probably would never get anything out the door.
This is the quintessential Quality Control problem in any kind of industry. I was once a Quality Control department manager at an electronics factory, so again, I speak from my experiences of “being there.” I’m sure, and have been for many years, that not only were the original manuscripts of the ancient scriptures slightly contaminated by an occasional flyspeck or misplaced drop of ink, but since they were GENERALLY not given by divine dictation (are you listening, WordWolf) they even had some slight difficulties in transmitting God’s original intent due to inevitable vocabulary idiosyncrasies of the men God selected to work with Him on it. It’s the responsibility of the student to adapt to his teacher’s vocabulary in order to learn to the maximum.
Why do you think Dr taught us in the class about God using the vocabularies of the prophets to issue His revelation? It was to prepare us for seeing these truths I’m laying out for you now.
God has complete foreknowledge of all the flyspecks, all the printers’ errors, all the vocabulary idiosyncrasies, and the total effects they all have on all readers for all time, ...just ALL of these things. (Sorry Geer. Sorry CES. You guys really blew it on foreknowledge.) When Dr got the revelation to say “Ship it,” it was because God was saying to him “That’s as perfect as I need it to be to get the job done.”
***
So, dmiller, you gave me a great opportunity to say all of this for the few interested readers: “Yes, there are some minor tatterations in the book and magazine form of PFAL.”
***
When I compare the number and quality all the middlemen between me and God regarding the ancient scriptures with number and quality all the middlemen between me and God for the PFAL writings, I see that the latter is far fewer far more spiritual than the former.
Just a few proofreaders and a few printers had a few years to fiddle with the PFAL product. Compare that with the ancient scriptures where there is a veritable army of extra middlemen involved in transmitting the ancient scriptures to us, and many of those middle men were not even born again believers but plants of the adversary.
The ancient scriptures have far more problems in going through hand-copy after hand-copy, often by copyists who had no problem inserting their own “corrections” let alone errors due to poor lighting and eyestrain. The ancient scriptures had moth and mold eating away at the manuscripts, museum curators to mess with them, archeologists, and even forgers who have jumped on them to change them.
The adversary had centuries to do this dirty work too, compared to comparatively no time span for us receiving good Gutenberg copies of PFAL. PFAL has the advantage of exact duplication in modern mass printing, they did not. AND MOST OF ALL, we don’t need no stinkin’ translators for PFAL that could and did tear the ancient manuscripts to shreds, figuratively speaking.
The tatterations in PFAL we must deal with are miniscule by comparison, and are usually just diddly typos. God can work in us with much greater efficiency when we work and study and master PFAL than if we were to start from scratch had there been no 1942 intervention. The efficiency differences lie within the human element, not the Godly, so pompus, pious objections to this efficiency matter I will not entertain.
Dr does address these kinds of minor problems in the PFAL and magazine texts in a magazine “Our Times” editorial, but I forget where. I may come across it and augment this later if I do.
***
Yes, dmiller, there are some minor typos in PFAL, and we don’t strictly have the originals, but God said “Ship it!” so that we can master what we do have and learn and grow far beyond what the ancient scriptures will allow. All the needed contributions of the ancient scriptures are cleaned up and included in the PFAL writings. Nearly every page of PFAL has these needed verses from KJV or other versions included.
***
Now, if WW does his usual boring, petty filibuster remarking on every line of this long post, AND THEN if I were to have the time and the mischievous heart to counter his efforts with an identical treatment on HIS post with equally petty remarks on all of his remarks, we just might not only see some serious bandwidth problems arise, but the entire Internet may melt down in front of our very eyes.
Should I?
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Stardate 1.8.05G.009A...Captain's Log>enter>public-log>standard-protocol_337>start_sequence "record">enter....
Ship...my ship...strange inhabitants have entered through the bays...my crew, savaged but intact! Communications...cut off! Spock! Spock!! Dammit man! Come in, where are you!? Ship's drives....not responding!!! Scottie, report! Report!!! Belle, the book! What happened to the book??!!! Can we get a report...on...!@#$~~~! the b-!@#$$~!!.........D((MILLE}}R..... W - W - W - is...are we....all hands to the Bridge...!!...///^^^/////
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
socks,
Thanks for the comic relief.
LOL
I'm so happy to see you here and not WW!
I needed a belly laugh!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Mark:
So he does have a good point: if one will accept the Gospel According to St. Luke, then why in the world would one not accept the second part of that writing: the Acts of the Apostles...
Well naturally on the side of Ireneaus' perspective - that his tradition (or as, you have stated here in the past according to Roman Catholic belief, The Tradition)- is affirmed the sole true one over all others.
And the Marcionites (as any number of other variant Christian movements that existed at the time) were just as convinced about the verity of their particular "tradition" and with all the doctrinal stances and historical claims associated with that. Of course, all we need do is look around ourselves even today (Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, Jewish, "The Way", and now the "Mikionites") to note that very little has changed in this regard.
The Patristic Fathers asserted that Marcion had deliberately shortened "the Gospel of Luke"; the Marcionites countered by asserting that the Catholic tradition had added to it. We are presented with two possibilities here. But it has only been these past two centuries where inquiring minds have actively explored the latter possibility, rather than assume as fact along with the Church Fathers their negative expressions against their rival.
If nothing else, I would love to see to the case for "Proto-Luke" re-opened among scholarly circles. Was there a common textual source behind 'Luke" that both the Catholics and Marcionites chose, prior to the Catholic (or the Marcionite) form as has come down to us?
Scholars have not been hesitant in proposing such theories behind "John" ( the "signs gospel") or even 'Matthew" (the "Gospel of the Hebrews" or Ebionites), amidst all the "Qs" and "Sayings" material tossed about; but it seems that when many of these same critical scholars come to "Luke" - they treat it as if it's always been the polished product as it has come down to us (lol), with no developmental theories proposed for it.
Finally, lest we forget - the "Acts of the Apostles" is representative of an entire genre of such "Acts" literature, as we know from the NT apocrypha and even the Nag Hammadi material; the question is, when did such a genre (forgive me, it's probably not the appropriate term, but it's late) come into vogue?
When did such literature catch on? Did it enter into circulation about the same time as the gospel literature, or a bit later? What in fact is the earliest Patristic testimony concerning "Acts of the Apostles"? Do we have any evidence for its existence preceding 150 CE? It seems I recall Justin Martyr having especial fondness for "the Acts of Pilate".
Just a few more things to consider.
:)
Danny
Edited by TheInvisibleDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
[WordWolf in brackets and boldface again.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Danny,
That's the crux of the issue:
The Marcionites also reject the other three Gospel accounts and the letters of Peter, James, John, Jude, and the Apocolypse of John in their NT Canon, as well.
I am not enough of a Biblical Scholar to be familiar sufficiently with the ancient texts to engage in an intelligent discussion of this particular subject. I, frankly, do not have the time to make myself sufficiently familiar with the subject enough to do so either. I have taken a look at the development of the New Testament Canon from the study of the Patristic writings to be satisfied with the validity of the canon...at least for my purposes. As one who is largely an autodidact on matters theological, there's only so far that I can go...at least efficiently. And, to be honest with you, I have neither the drive nor the financial independence needed to allow me to pursue a course of study that would make me competent to discuss the subject. Without that level of knowledge, we'll be limited to discussing this author's work versus that author's work (secondary sources) rather than discussing the material itself (primary sources). And that means we'll essentially be acting as chelas for competing gurus. We can see how intellectually sound that is from examining the posts made by certain people (who will remain nameless for their obviousness) on this thread, itself.
I hate to sound so anti-intellectual, but there are limits on my time and so I must devote that limited time to what is most profitable to my soul. The scriptures are not supposed to be the be-all and end-all. Their purpose is to reveal Christ to us so that we can conform ourselves to Him. I worship Christ, not the scriptures that reveal Him. So I will concentrate the bulk of my study time to those areas that will help reveal Him more completely to me and that will help me in the process of conformance.
I am familiar to a degree with the 'Q' theory and have briefly purused some of the other 'Acts' literature, but haven't devoted adequate time to their study to competantly discuss them. And without spending the time necessary (of which I really don't have), I am not competent to engage in that particular discussion. It's not that I'll take your word for it, I just don't have the time to engage intelligently one way or the other. So I'll leave it go for now...until I have the time to get adequately spun up on the subject to engage in an intelligent discussion...
Edited by markomalleyLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
I finally figured it all out.
Smikeol isn't a person at all.
Smikeol a rapidly expanding and malevolent virus, against which even some of the most potent anti-virus packages are ineffectual. ... I mean, there is no person who could be this stupidly persistant and unreal! ... There can't be!
:ph34r:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
This thread is resembling a Twilite Zone episode with several conversations going on at once.
I've pretty well said what I want to say here on this thread, so for those who are hell-bent on protecting the poor, innocent, helpless, brainless, easy-to-manipulate new people coming here from my overly-convincing evil clutches... I'll probably gravitate now to my promised response to doojable on her thread in this Doctrinal Forum titled "OK once and for all" so that they can take cheap pot-shots at me there.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Now that I can agree with! <_<
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
dmiller,
Did I address your concerns this second time around with my comparative tatterations analysis? ...PFAL having comparatively FAR, FAR less tatterations due to various factors, the largest being no need for translations?
Like that topic last summer regarding Dr knowing that "The Joy of Serving" was going to be his very last teaching, I hope I've demonstrated at least to you and a small few others that this is no ad hoc adventure I’m on, but that I’ve thought through every angle in extreme detail well before I ever dared facing the heat of posting here.
My position was many years in the making, and much of my preparation for these ideas took place without my awareness. I never would have dreamed I’d be espousing these things even 9 years ago, let alone 30. If it hadn’t been for a rich confluence of many sources dating back decades I’d probably be on the majority opinion’s side here at GSC. This may be the other half of my answer to templelady (I think it was her) when she asked me who appointed me to the job of blowing the whistle on the things we ALL messed up with 20 and 30 years ago. I can look back and see it was a Godly setup that induced me to volunteer for the job. I don’t expect her (or many others) to believe this, but I do believe it and act on it no matter what the price. I act in spite of what others think. What God thinks about these things is all I really care about.
Anyway, I read half of WW’s post looking for loose ends before I totally sign off this thread and nearly fell asleep. If you or anyone else want to carry out the assignment he doesn’t seem to have the capacity for and present to me any substantial loose ends I’ll fade away here.
Edited by MikeLink 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.