VP taught that the renewed mind was something you had to do with your mind, a fleshly discipline { mind over matter type of believing immutable law thingamajig}. Where one would Line their mind up with the Word, but we know the 1st century Church didn't have Bibles to renew their minds too. So, to me, it had to more.
What I'm saying, which somebody already did say, it is God that does the renewing. It's all part of the walk by the spirit. One cannot renew something that's already dead, which is ones fleshly dead as a doornail brain. It wars against the spirit. No, I believe love is manifested by the walk in Christ, which is thee excellent way.
Wouldn't you say that disciplines are a dime a dozen?
VP taught that the renewed mind was something you had to do with your mind, a fleshly discipline { mind over matter type of believing immutable law thingamajig}. Where one would Line their mind up with the Word, but we know the 1st century Church didn't have Bibles to renew their minds too. So, to me, it had to more.
What I'm saying, which somebody already did say, it is God that does the renewing. It's all part of the walk by the spirit. One cannot renew something that's already dead, which is ones fleshly dead as a doornail brain. It wars against the spirit. No, I believe love is manifested by the walk in Christ, which is thee excellent way.
Wouldn't you say that disciplines are a dime a dozen?
One cannot renew something that's already dead, which is ones fleshly dead as a doornail brain.
What are you talking about My brain is alive and well. It is not fleshly dead.
but we know the 1st century Church didn't have Bibles to renew their minds too
They had scrolls to look at.
I am not sure what you meant about the fleshly dead brain but I am thinking that you are wrong. So your theory about the dead brain must be wrong because I can think and hopefully you can to.
Do you have any comprehension of the time and effort that went into making just one scroll. Much less making the brushes and ink then the hand lettering???
Ordinary people probably never held a scroll in their lives--at best they saw the Torah being read from on the sabbath.
You make it sound like there were libraries in everyone's home and they were all literate
They aren't sufficient 2 would not and 200 will not
CK
Really?
Would you care to address each of our posts point by point?
Or are you intellectually unable to do so?
What, specifically, about them are insufficient?
This is a discussion forum, so let's discuss
As far as I can tell, Wierwille declared the definition of agapē "the love of God in the renewed mind in manifestation" without explaining why. He did this fairly often. If he, the great biblical researcher, is right, then then you should be able to easily rebut my claim that he was wrong, as well as the evidense that I have cited.
I'm willing to change my mind if some evidense can be supplied that the definition didn't come out of thin air.
Frankly, ck, I think you're too lazy to try, too weak in biblical research skills get very far if you do try, and too ill-equipped intellectually to present your case intelligebly even if you are right.
But have a nice weekend anyway. There's got to be some Dragonball-Z reruns on.
Oh and ckmkeon - according to your position on another thread - you shouldn't be judging anyone that is honestly trying their best to do God's will - Roman Catholic Church and the Pope included. Mother Theresa was quite a woman whether you believe her beliefs were accurate or not. Would you dismiss her just because she was a Roman Catholic nun??
Of course he would. He's only learned the ego-centric walk taught by TWI from the time he was a pup. Therefore, people who actually do as they were commanded, picking up the cross of Christ and walking with it...those peeps who lived their lives as if they believed God and walked like Christ were actually just operating devil spirits...dontcha know!
People like St. Theresa of Calcutta, St. Maximillion Kolbe, and any martyrs just weren't walking with real believing.
I'll tell you this. I have done a very long and very exhausting word study on the word Agape. the definition that vpw supplied for us was a well-worn and often repeated one that ony worked well in some limited circumstances, but failed miserably in others for instance:
God so LOVED the world...Jn 3:16
so you would say- "God so loved the world in the renewed mind in manifestation?????" That is ridiculous. God doesn't renew His mind - it doesn't need renewing - He's GOD.
That isn't the only verse - but it is the one that comes to mind first.
What about the other thing that vpw said - that we have the things of God but we don't necessarily use them. Wouldn't that statement apply to agape love? isn't it possible to "have" the love of God (agape) but not show it? So then it is still agape but not in manifestation.
One thing I always did - and I really felt I was encouraged to do although it might have been in my imagination - was to think and re-think for myself. So if you are starting with someone else's conclusions and then reading the Bible and just plugging in their definition, then you aren't thinking for yourself - you're just rubber stamping what they say.
This isn't thought, it's re-gurgitation as Mark's last emoticon so visually stated ( BTW how did you get that -mark?)
So, when we here at GS ask you why you believe something we aren't calling you names, we are seeing if you are just repeating what you've heard or really thinking things through.
please remember and don't be offended that many of us were researching the Word for at least 10 years by the time we left twi and by the time you were even born. We do know something about which we speak. I really don't get why you come out with guns blazing when you are asked simple questions. Someone asking why you believe something to be true isn't calling you wrong - just asking for your thoughts on the matter. ( Hint, hint - theres' your moment to really show that you know something!) When you come back with insults you tip the scales against you finding any sort of meaningful discussion and actually derail your own thread - again and again.
Remember that popular definition of insanity a few years back?
Insanity is doing the exact same thing over and over and expecting different results every time.
Ask yourself if this isn't what you are doing when you refuse to discuss your thoughts and turn to mockery and name calling.
They aren't sufficient 2 would not and 200 will not
CK
Are you saying that despite being presented with overwhelming evidence that what you were taught is wrong, you will still refuse to change your stance? You're that determined to hold onto wrong teachings? vee pee himself said that if you could find one - just one contradiction the whole thing falls apart and no longer fits like a hand in a glove. If you're going to follow vee pee's logic then at least follow the correct parts of it. ;) His definition of agape is wrong. Flat out wrong. craiggers made it worse by adding "in the household" to the end of the definition thereby limiting agape to those involved with and faithful to TWIt doctrine.
Luk 11:43 Woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye love (agape) the uppermost seats in the synagogues and greetings in the markets.
Jhn 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved (agape) darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Jhn 12:43 For they loved (agape)the praise of men more than the praise of God.
2Ti 4:10 For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved (agape) this present world, and 2532 is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia.
Maybe watch and read a bit. Maybe ask questions instead of trying to teach, especially when you obviously don't know your own material well enough to answer questions and discuss logical reasoning behind why you believe the way you do.
Furthermore, if you think that TWIts have done more for God than saints in the RC Church, then you're sorely mistaken.
Exactly which books of the Bible do you think people had? How often do you think they actually got to study and look at it in depth? You might be surprised. Mo is right on target. It wasn't as easy back then and there wasn't as much information as you seem to think.
They aren't sufficient 2 would not and 200 will not
CK
There ya go folks. CK is aparantly not interested in real doctrinal dialog, honest handling of the sciptures or even truth for that matter. Wierwille/PFAL is the alpha and omega of "biblical understanding" for him. Too bad cause there is so much more out there. But weren't many of us all kinda intellectually lazy when WE subscribed to PFAL.
Here is a young cock-sured fellow (much like many of us were back in our way daze) who can' t/won't even consider anything that seems to challenge what he has deemed to be true. He won't even use the basic tools that VPW laid out in PFAL. VPW said it, I believe it, and that settles it.
CK won't address the points concerning VPW's "translation according to usage" of agape because he is both unwilling and unable. Unwilling, because in practice he has put PFAL and the teachings of VPW above the scriptures themselves and see's no need to "defend the truth" taught by VPW. Unable, (even if he wanted to) because Wierwille declared his definition of agape by fiat and provided no exegesis or explanation for this "doctrine" for CK to draw from.
Remember guys and gals, in Way World we were not trained in apologetics, ecclesiology, soteriology, exegesis, hermeneutics, or even basic logic. We were basically taught to throw that stuff aside. Didn't Wierwille tell us that apologetics was "apologizing for being a Christian" ? Got to chuckle at that one now.
My point being I suppose ....that it may be unreasonable to try to hold CK to any higher standard of discussion than what he has presently demonstrated in this thread. He's not ready to critically examine his own beliefs or the sacred cow teachings of VPW.
Goey - I might have been a different type of person - but I did try to keep on thinking and I would consider other points of view even way back then. - At least I would look into them long enought oread the whole scripture that someone was using to prove something to me and I made sure I looked at both the immediate and the remote context.
I wish that ckmkeon would at least try it.
Oh and it was a way minister that taught a class on logic that a few of us took in NYC back in early '79. I still fall back on things I learned there.
Not that you're wrong - I just have this thing about generalizations and getting put into boxes.
boxes are for tasty snacks and presents - not people :B)
OTOH I was pretty waybrained as well and fairly stubborn - and opinionated - OK I'll take a small box
Goey - I might have been a different type of person - but I did try to keep on thinking and I would consider other points of view even way back then. - At least I would look into them long enought oread the whole scripture that someone was using to prove something to me and I made sure I looked at both the immediate and the remote context.
I did the same things doojable, but wasn't this the exception more than the rule?
I wish that ckmkeon would at least try it.
So do I. With his enthusasim, imagine what he might could acomplish if his enthusiasm were directed more towards the things God than the things of Wierwille/PFAL.
Oh and it was a way minister that taught a class on logic that a few of us took in NYC back in early '79. I still fall back on things I learned there.
Was this an official TWI teaching, or just something that a Way minister took upon himself? I suspect the latter. Based upon my experience in TWI this was never offered to the average TWIT. I know that I never was offered anyting like that. ( 76-83)
Not that you're wrong - I just have this thing about generalizations and getting put into boxes.
I was generalizing in a sense. However I tried to temper that with terms like "many of us" instead of "all of us" so that the exceptions like yourself would not feel boxed in. My intent was not to box anyone in but rather to try to give CK a little slack and to give him a few things to mull over.
I think your points were very well made, Goey. And I truly hold out hope for ck. He really does remind me a lot of myself at his age - heck, even in my mid 20's when I started swallowing things hook, line and sinker. I was definitely one of the lazy, brain dead ones.
I think he sticks things out there sometimes to see the response and, while he may not immediately embrace it, it's sinking in and if he continues he'll have an "ah ha" moment where it comes together. It did for me anyway and that's my hope for him.
ck, how about those verses I posted? They really don't fit with vee pee's teachings, do they?
Oh yeah I am here I thought everyone needed some time for the information already provided.
:)
CK
Gee CK, and I thought you were taking time to look up scriptures, do some word studies, etc . in order to intelligently explain via the scriptures, why the Greek 'agape' should be translated , "the love of God in the renewed mind in manefestation".
Though I speak with the tounges of men and of angels and have not (charity) [the love of god in the renewed mind]. I am become as a sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal.
The only way to get people to god is with a renewed mind and the love of god. At one point LCM had this love and I have hope he can find his way back. Without the love of god in the renewed mind you are as sharp as a razor when you talk about God. Dr Wierwille said "Without the love of god you are just a noice in a band" You will never make harmony with winning people to God. What I am saying is to win people to God not to the TWI, right now the TWI is corrupt. So what I have done is start a fellowship with the doctrines of VPW and the PFAL class. The plan is to read each verse day by day and give the meaning to the best of my ability
God bless,
CK
I think your plan of studying this section of scripture is noble. However, can you truly accomplish this project to "the best of [your] ability", if the only "tools' you have in your box are the old vpw Way brand? Oh sure they're classics, but tools have also come a long way since then.
They were fine looking tools when they were new years ago, but over the years, it has been my experience that the VPW line is limited and woefully underpowered for various applications. I could no longer accomplish "the best of my ability" with these old tools - that old "Timothy II" Jigsaw, for example - one couldn't saw a straight line with that damn thing no matter how hard they tried! The blades are duller and cheesier than hell. In fact, I've observed so many users over the years who ended up with splinters in their eyes even when they took the extra precaution of wearing safety goggles. Weird...
The higher-critical line of power tools, on the other hand, do a far better job ripping straight lines through all kind of materials, thick 'n thin; they are particularly good for stripping layers of the old veneer off old wooden "scripture" to get a better look at what's going on beneath. The old VPW line of tools, by contrast, had barely enough torque to scratch the surfaces, and then they would oft overheat and bog down.
For this reason, I can no longer recommend Way products.
Look elsewhere to expand "The best of [your] ability", like throughout the libraries and bookstores in your local area, as well as online.
I think your plan of studying this section of scripture is noble. However, can you truly accomplish this project to "the best of [your] ability", if the only "tools' you have in your box are the old vpw Way brand? Oh sure they're classics, but tools have also come a long way since then.
They were fine looking tools when they were new years ago, but over the years, it has been my experience that the VPW line is limited and woefully underpowered for various applications. I could no longer accomplish "the best of my ability" with these old tools - that old "Timothy II" Jigsaw, for example - one couldn't saw a straight line with that damn thing no matter how hard they tried! The blades are duller and cheesier than hell. In fact, I've observed so many users over the years who ended up with splinters in their eyes even when they took the extra precaution of wearing safety goggles. Weird...
(This Verse goes with the previous verse) [Charity] (The Love of God in the renewed mind)5. Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil
The meaning for unseemly is not proper then seeketh not her own to find something for yourself or Selfish. Then comes is not easily provoked to be angry quickly, and final but not least in this verse thinketh no evil now I have a example for you. I will only think the best of VPW and his teachings during his ministry. He did the best he could during his time. The same goes for Rev. Geer and LCM. They might of done horrible evils but they still did the best they could.
I will only think the best of VPW and his teachings during his ministry. He did the best he could during his time. The same goes for Rev. Geer and LCM. They might of done horrible evils but they still did the best they could.
If you want to believe in VP's definition's, then have at it. Christianity could fill dump trucks with all the definition's men have come up since it's inception.
Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!) To sum up then, with my understanding, I--my true self--am in servitude to the Law of God, but with my lower nature I am in servitude to the Law of sin.
Romans 7:25 Weymouth
The only true self we are told to recognize is the new man created in Christ.
(This Verse goes with the previous verse) [Charity] (The Love of God in the renewed mind)5. Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil
The meaning for unseemly is not proper then seeketh not her own to find something for yourself or Selfish. Then comes is not easily provoked to be angry quickly, and final but not least in this verse thinketh no evil now I have a example for you. I will only think the best of VPW and his teachings during his ministry. He did the best he could during his time. The same goes for Rev. Geer and LCM. They might of done horrible evils but they still did the best they could.
CK
P.S. That was my example of thinketh no evil.
I'll play ........
1 Cor 13:1-5 (KJV)
13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become [as] sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
13:2 And though I have [the gift of] prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
13:3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed [the poor], and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
13:4 Charity suffereth long, [and] is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
13:5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
'Charity' in these verses is translated In KJV from the Greek 'agape' and can also properly translated love as in 1 John 4:16: Same word. Look at 1 John
1Jo 4:16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him."
Love is this verse is also "agape". The same as in 1 Corinthians. While TWI put much emphasis upon the "renewed mind" there is no scriptural basis or evidence to suggest that 'agape' should be translated "the love of God in the renewed mind". If so then this verse should be translated ..... "God is the love of God in the renewed mind" which certainly does not make any sense..... Likewise in Jhn 3:19
"And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. "
Love in this verse is agapao, the verb form of agape. How could someone love darkness" in the renewed mind? " It simply doesn't fit. Same for John 12:43
Jhn 12:43 "For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God".
How could they love the praise of men in the renewed mind? .....
Interestingly, Strong's does not attribute godliness to agape/agapao Here is Strong's definition.
Agapao:
1) of persons
a) to welcome, to entertain, to be fond of, to love dearly
2) of things
a) to be well pleased, to be contented at or with a thing
Agape:
1) brotherly love, affection, good will, love, benevolence
2) love feasts
It seems that agape/agapao might be best understood within their immediate context and that no pat definition applies to all occurrences. Even rendering agape as the "love of God" doesn't fit in some places. Like in John 5:42:
"But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you."
If we translate agape as "the love of God" it woud read "... have not the love of God of God in you" .. since "of God" appears in the text. If we translate agape as "the love of god in the renewd mind ..." well ?
It seems best then not to shoot for a pat definition that will be end up being erroneous (like VPW's literal according usage), but rather to translate agape/agapao as simply "love" and then consider the context where the occur for extra or specific meaning.
Now to 1 Corinthians 13:5
1Cr 13:5 "Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;"
For brevity's sake I am only gonna address "the thinketh no evil" part. First a definition. From Strong's:
Thinketh is translated from the Greek 'logizetai' which means to impute, count or to reckon - as opposed to 'enthumeomai' which means to to bring to mind, revolve in mind or to ponder.
So what then does it mean to think evil from 1 Cor 13:5 ..... Look at the other translations and we can see more.
NLT: Love does not demand its own way. Love is not irritable, and it keeps no record of when it has been wronged.
NASB: does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong {suffered,}
RSV: it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;
Young: doth not act unseemly, doth not seek its own things, is not provoked, doth not impute evil,
Darby: does not behave in an unseemly manner, does not seek what is its own, is not quickly provoked, does not impute evil,
HNV: doesn't behave itself inappropriately, doesn't seek its own way, is not provoked, takes no account of evil;
NIV: It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.
So it would seem "that thinkeh no evil" in the K JV is more on the lines of not imputing or keeping account of wrongs. Forgiveness if you will. I doubt it has anything to do with pretending or assuming that folks did the best they could when the evidence speaks loudly otherwise. It certainly does not mean to stick your head in the sand and stop using your brain. CK, are you thinking evil when you dis the Pope. Isn't he like Wiereille doing the best he can? Did Jim Jones do the best he could? Jim Baaker? David Koresh? According to your example it is thinking evil to say they weren't.
CK, I don't think your example fits the intended meaning of this verse of scripture at all.
What you have done is assumed an eroneous meaning of "think no evil" and then misapplied your assumption to try and show folks where it is evil to think that VPW, LCM, et al did less than their best. All to shore up your current beliefs. IMO your research was non-existant and motive less than honorable. So rather than honestly examine VPW teachings, you choose to misapply scripture to convict folks of unlovingly thinking evil.
Now, there is a scripture where folks thought evil of Jesus (in the same manner you suggest folks think evil of Wierwille) Here it is:
Matthew 9:4 (King James Version)
4 "And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts? "
CK, I challenge you to get your interlinear and look up the words used here for "evil" and "think". Look up the definitions - compare translations. Hint: the Greek words for evil and think are different than those in 1 Cor. . Look at the context: Then compare those words with the ones in 1 Cor 13:5 . See what you come up with ... Or do you even care ?
There ya go CK ... have at it .... the ball is in your court.
... So it would seem "that thinkeh no evil" in the K JV is more on the lines of not imputing or keeping account of wrongs. Forgiveness if you will. ...
Which shows again and again God's will of the highest order is love and forgiveness.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
16
11
18
30
Popular Days
Apr 8
17
Apr 9
10
Mar 24
8
Apr 5
7
Top Posters In This Topic
Goey 16 posts
Oakspear 11 posts
doojable 18 posts
ckmkeon 30 posts
Popular Days
Apr 8 2006
17 posts
Apr 9 2006
10 posts
Mar 24 2006
8 posts
Apr 5 2006
7 posts
ckmkeon
They aren't sufficient 2 would not and 200 will not
CK
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CWF
VP taught that the renewed mind was something you had to do with your mind, a fleshly discipline { mind over matter type of believing immutable law thingamajig}. Where one would Line their mind up with the Word, but we know the 1st century Church didn't have Bibles to renew their minds too. So, to me, it had to more.
What I'm saying, which somebody already did say, it is God that does the renewing. It's all part of the walk by the spirit. One cannot renew something that's already dead, which is ones fleshly dead as a doornail brain. It wars against the spirit. No, I believe love is manifested by the walk in Christ, which is thee excellent way.
Wouldn't you say that disciplines are a dime a dozen?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ckmkeon
They had scrolls to look at.
I am not sure what you meant about the fleshly dead brain but I am thinking that you are wrong. So your theory about the dead brain must be wrong because I can think and hopefully you can to.
CK
Edited by ckmkeonLink to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Do you have any comprehension of the time and effort that went into making just one scroll. Much less making the brushes and ink then the hand lettering???
Ordinary people probably never held a scroll in their lives--at best they saw the Torah being read from on the sabbath.
You make it sound like there were libraries in everyone's home and they were all literate
Please do some research before spouting
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Would you care to address each of our posts point by point?
Or are you intellectually unable to do so?
What, specifically, about them are insufficient?
This is a discussion forum, so let's discuss
As far as I can tell, Wierwille declared the definition of agapē "the love of God in the renewed mind in manifestation" without explaining why. He did this fairly often. If he, the great biblical researcher, is right, then then you should be able to easily rebut my claim that he was wrong, as well as the evidense that I have cited.
I'm willing to change my mind if some evidense can be supplied that the definition didn't come out of thin air.
Frankly, ck, I think you're too lazy to try, too weak in biblical research skills get very far if you do try, and too ill-equipped intellectually to present your case intelligebly even if you are right.
But have a nice weekend anyway. There's got to be some Dragonball-Z reruns on.
Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Of course he would. He's only learned the ego-centric walk taught by TWI from the time he was a pup. Therefore, people who actually do as they were commanded, picking up the cross of Christ and walking with it...those peeps who lived their lives as if they believed God and walked like Christ were actually just operating devil spirits...dontcha know!
People like St. Theresa of Calcutta, St. Maximillion Kolbe, and any martyrs just weren't walking with real believing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Ck,
I'll tell you this. I have done a very long and very exhausting word study on the word Agape. the definition that vpw supplied for us was a well-worn and often repeated one that ony worked well in some limited circumstances, but failed miserably in others for instance:
God so LOVED the world...Jn 3:16
so you would say- "God so loved the world in the renewed mind in manifestation?????" That is ridiculous. God doesn't renew His mind - it doesn't need renewing - He's GOD.
That isn't the only verse - but it is the one that comes to mind first.
What about the other thing that vpw said - that we have the things of God but we don't necessarily use them. Wouldn't that statement apply to agape love? isn't it possible to "have" the love of God (agape) but not show it? So then it is still agape but not in manifestation.
One thing I always did - and I really felt I was encouraged to do although it might have been in my imagination - was to think and re-think for myself. So if you are starting with someone else's conclusions and then reading the Bible and just plugging in their definition, then you aren't thinking for yourself - you're just rubber stamping what they say.
This isn't thought, it's re-gurgitation as Mark's last emoticon so visually stated ( BTW how did you get that -mark?)
So, when we here at GS ask you why you believe something we aren't calling you names, we are seeing if you are just repeating what you've heard or really thinking things through.
please remember and don't be offended that many of us were researching the Word for at least 10 years by the time we left twi and by the time you were even born. We do know something about which we speak. I really don't get why you come out with guns blazing when you are asked simple questions. Someone asking why you believe something to be true isn't calling you wrong - just asking for your thoughts on the matter. ( Hint, hint - theres' your moment to really show that you know something!) When you come back with insults you tip the scales against you finding any sort of meaningful discussion and actually derail your own thread - again and again.
Remember that popular definition of insanity a few years back?
Insanity is doing the exact same thing over and over and expecting different results every time.
Ask yourself if this isn't what you are doing when you refuse to discuss your thoughts and turn to mockery and name calling.
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Are you saying that despite being presented with overwhelming evidence that what you were taught is wrong, you will still refuse to change your stance? You're that determined to hold onto wrong teachings? vee pee himself said that if you could find one - just one contradiction the whole thing falls apart and no longer fits like a hand in a glove. If you're going to follow vee pee's logic then at least follow the correct parts of it. ;) His definition of agape is wrong. Flat out wrong. craiggers made it worse by adding "in the household" to the end of the definition thereby limiting agape to those involved with and faithful to TWIt doctrine.
Luk 11:43 Woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye love (agape) the uppermost seats in the synagogues and greetings in the markets.
Jhn 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved (agape) darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Jhn 12:43 For they loved (agape)the praise of men more than the praise of God.
2Ti 4:10 For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved (agape) this present world, and 2532 is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia.
Maybe watch and read a bit. Maybe ask questions instead of trying to teach, especially when you obviously don't know your own material well enough to answer questions and discuss logical reasoning behind why you believe the way you do.
Furthermore, if you think that TWIts have done more for God than saints in the RC Church, then you're sorely mistaken.
Exactly which books of the Bible do you think people had? How often do you think they actually got to study and look at it in depth? You might be surprised. Mo is right on target. It wasn't as easy back then and there wasn't as much information as you seem to think.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
There ya go folks. CK is aparantly not interested in real doctrinal dialog, honest handling of the sciptures or even truth for that matter. Wierwille/PFAL is the alpha and omega of "biblical understanding" for him. Too bad cause there is so much more out there. But weren't many of us all kinda intellectually lazy when WE subscribed to PFAL.
Here is a young cock-sured fellow (much like many of us were back in our way daze) who can' t/won't even consider anything that seems to challenge what he has deemed to be true. He won't even use the basic tools that VPW laid out in PFAL. VPW said it, I believe it, and that settles it.
CK won't address the points concerning VPW's "translation according to usage" of agape because he is both unwilling and unable. Unwilling, because in practice he has put PFAL and the teachings of VPW above the scriptures themselves and see's no need to "defend the truth" taught by VPW. Unable, (even if he wanted to) because Wierwille declared his definition of agape by fiat and provided no exegesis or explanation for this "doctrine" for CK to draw from.
Remember guys and gals, in Way World we were not trained in apologetics, ecclesiology, soteriology, exegesis, hermeneutics, or even basic logic. We were basically taught to throw that stuff aside. Didn't Wierwille tell us that apologetics was "apologizing for being a Christian" ? Got to chuckle at that one now.
My point being I suppose ....that it may be unreasonable to try to hold CK to any higher standard of discussion than what he has presently demonstrated in this thread. He's not ready to critically examine his own beliefs or the sacred cow teachings of VPW.
I know I wasn't way back when......
Edited by GoeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Goey - I might have been a different type of person - but I did try to keep on thinking and I would consider other points of view even way back then. - At least I would look into them long enought oread the whole scripture that someone was using to prove something to me and I made sure I looked at both the immediate and the remote context.
I wish that ckmkeon would at least try it.
Oh and it was a way minister that taught a class on logic that a few of us took in NYC back in early '79. I still fall back on things I learned there.
Not that you're wrong - I just have this thing about generalizations and getting put into boxes.
boxes are for tasty snacks and presents - not people :B)
OTOH I was pretty waybrained as well and fairly stubborn - and opinionated - OK I'll take a small box
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
I did the same things doojable, but wasn't this the exception more than the rule?
So do I. With his enthusasim, imagine what he might could acomplish if his enthusiasm were directed more towards the things God than the things of Wierwille/PFAL.Was this an official TWI teaching, or just something that a Way minister took upon himself? I suspect the latter. Based upon my experience in TWI this was never offered to the average TWIT. I know that I never was offered anyting like that. ( 76-83)
I was generalizing in a sense. However I tried to temper that with terms like "many of us" instead of "all of us" so that the exceptions like yourself would not feel boxed in. My intent was not to box anyone in but rather to try to give CK a little slack and to give him a few things to mull over.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
I think your points were very well made, Goey. And I truly hold out hope for ck. He really does remind me a lot of myself at his age - heck, even in my mid 20's when I started swallowing things hook, line and sinker.
I was definitely one of the lazy, brain dead ones. 
I think he sticks things out there sometimes to see the response and, while he may not immediately embrace it, it's sinking in and if he continues he'll have an "ah ha" moment where it comes together. It did for me anyway and that's my hope for him.
ck, how about those verses I posted? They really don't fit with vee pee's teachings, do they?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Where'd you go, ck? You haven't given up on us, have you? :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ckmkeon
Oh yeah I am here I thought everyone needed some time for the information already provided.
:)
CK
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Gee CK, and I thought you were taking time to look up scriptures, do some word studies, etc . in order to intelligently explain via the scriptures, why the Greek 'agape' should be translated , "the love of God in the renewed mind in manefestation".
Can't ....can you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
I think your plan of studying this section of scripture is noble. However, can you truly accomplish this project to "the best of [your] ability", if the only "tools' you have in your box are the old vpw Way brand? Oh sure they're classics, but tools have also come a long way since then.
They were fine looking tools when they were new years ago, but over the years, it has been my experience that the VPW line is limited and woefully underpowered for various applications. I could no longer accomplish "the best of my ability" with these old tools - that old "Timothy II" Jigsaw, for example - one couldn't saw a straight line with that damn thing no matter how hard they tried! The blades are duller and cheesier than hell. In fact, I've observed so many users over the years who ended up with splinters in their eyes even when they took the extra precaution of wearing safety goggles. Weird...
The higher-critical line of power tools, on the other hand, do a far better job ripping straight lines through all kind of materials, thick 'n thin; they are particularly good for stripping layers of the old veneer off old wooden "scripture" to get a better look at what's going on beneath. The old VPW line of tools, by contrast, had barely enough torque to scratch the surfaces, and then they would oft overheat and bog down.
For this reason, I can no longer recommend Way products.
Look elsewhere to expand "The best of [your] ability", like throughout the libraries and bookstores in your local area, as well as online.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Nice analogy, Bob (Vila)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ckmkeon
ICOR 13:5
(This Verse goes with the previous verse) [Charity] (The Love of God in the renewed mind)5. Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil
The meaning for unseemly is not proper then seeketh not her own to find something for yourself or Selfish. Then comes is not easily provoked to be angry quickly, and final but not least in this verse thinketh no evil now I have a example for you. I will only think the best of VPW and his teachings during his ministry. He did the best he could during his time. The same goes for Rev. Geer and LCM. They might of done horrible evils but they still did the best they could.
CK
P.S. That was my example of thinketh no evil.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Ck --- that won't *wash* here. Sorry.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CWF
CK
If you want to believe in VP's definition's, then have at it. Christianity could fill dump trucks with all the definition's men have come up since it's inception.
Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!) To sum up then, with my understanding, I--my true self--am in servitude to the Law of God, but with my lower nature I am in servitude to the Law of sin.
Romans 7:25 Weymouth
The only true self we are told to recognize is the new man created in Christ.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
I'll play ........
1 Cor 13:1-5 (KJV)
'Charity' in these verses is translated In KJV from the Greek 'agape' and can also properly translated love as in 1 John 4:16: Same word. Look at 1 John
Love is this verse is also "agape". The same as in 1 Corinthians. While TWI put much emphasis upon the "renewed mind" there is no scriptural basis or evidence to suggest that 'agape' should be translated "the love of God in the renewed mind". If so then this verse should be translated ..... "God is the love of God in the renewed mind" which certainly does not make any sense..... Likewise in Jhn 3:19
Love in this verse is agapao, the verb form of agape. How could someone love darkness" in the renewed mind? " It simply doesn't fit. Same for John 12:43
How could they love the praise of men in the renewed mind? .....
Interestingly, Strong's does not attribute godliness to agape/agapao Here is Strong's definition.
Agapao:
1) of persons
a) to welcome, to entertain, to be fond of, to love dearly
2) of things
a) to be well pleased, to be contented at or with a thing
Agape:
1) brotherly love, affection, good will, love, benevolence
2) love feasts
It seems that agape/agapao might be best understood within their immediate context and that no pat definition applies to all occurrences. Even rendering agape as the "love of God" doesn't fit in some places. Like in John 5:42:
If we translate agape as "the love of God" it woud read "... have not the love of God of God in you" .. since "of God" appears in the text. If we translate agape as "the love of god in the renewd mind ..." well ?
It seems best then not to shoot for a pat definition that will be end up being erroneous (like VPW's literal according usage), but rather to translate agape/agapao as simply "love" and then consider the context where the occur for extra or specific meaning.
Now to 1 Corinthians 13:5
For brevity's sake I am only gonna address "the thinketh no evil" part. First a definition. From Strong's:
Evil:
1) of a bad nature
a) not such as it ought to be
2) of a mode of thinking, feeling, acting
a) base, wrong, wicked
3) troublesome, injurious, pernicious, destructive, baneful
Thinketh is translated from the Greek 'logizetai' which means to impute, count or to reckon - as opposed to 'enthumeomai' which means to to bring to mind, revolve in mind or to ponder.
So what then does it mean to think evil from 1 Cor 13:5 ..... Look at the other translations and we can see more.
So it would seem "that thinkeh no evil" in the K JV is more on the lines of not imputing or keeping account of wrongs. Forgiveness if you will. I doubt it has anything to do with pretending or assuming that folks did the best they could when the evidence speaks loudly otherwise. It certainly does not mean to stick your head in the sand and stop using your brain. CK, are you thinking evil when you dis the Pope. Isn't he like Wiereille doing the best he can? Did Jim Jones do the best he could? Jim Baaker? David Koresh? According to your example it is thinking evil to say they weren't.
CK, I don't think your example fits the intended meaning of this verse of scripture at all.
What you have done is assumed an eroneous meaning of "think no evil" and then misapplied your assumption to try and show folks where it is evil to think that VPW, LCM, et al did less than their best. All to shore up your current beliefs. IMO your research was non-existant and motive less than honorable. So rather than honestly examine VPW teachings, you choose to misapply scripture to convict folks of unlovingly thinking evil.
Now, there is a scripture where folks thought evil of Jesus (in the same manner you suggest folks think evil of Wierwille) Here it is:
Matthew 9:4 (King James Version)
4 "And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts? "
CK, I challenge you to get your interlinear and look up the words used here for "evil" and "think". Look up the definitions - compare translations. Hint: the Greek words for evil and think are different than those in 1 Cor. . Look at the context: Then compare those words with the ones in 1 Cor 13:5 . See what you come up with ... Or do you even care ?
There ya go CK ... have at it .... the ball is in your court.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Which shows again and again God's will of the highest order is love and forgiveness.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
I agree Oldies. Buts let's not confuse love and forgiveness with ignorant bliss.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.