The ancient scriptures are not accessible, and the modern man-made reconstructions of them are FAR from definitive, shifting about constantly by the latest theological fads in translation and manuscript rating.
Mike, do you have documentation for your bold assertion?
Why doesn't it befuddle you that the riff raff here spends so much time and energy trying to nullify, camouflage, distort, and mock my message? Why doesn't it befuddle you that they just CAN'T leave me all by my lonesome to post my message with a few civil, conversational people like you? What do they have to gain by investing so much to thwart me? Do you ever ask them that? I know why they are so hopped up on their anti-Mike mission. My message is from the True God and the adversary hates it so he puls on as many strings he can grab.
You wrote: "You might have a more captive audience if you stopped telling people they aren't doing God's will. I view it as YOUR will, not God's."
I'm telling them that there is a FAR better will to do than what they are presently stuck with. That's good news, or it should be.
Of course you view it as my will. That's obvious. It's the expected norm. If you don't expect anything more than a feelings God to interact with the world, then you MUST think I'm off on my own trip. But why do you embrace such a mediocre theology? Why bother with a God of your own making who can only give backrubs once in a while? Why bother with life if the five senses and human words are all there is?
If you want to see something better than a nice live, try coming back to PFAL and see what is actually written there. Come back and see why all those renegade top leaders, and all the riff raff here, and all the rumor and gossip mongers, are so united and dedicated to seeing people NOT open up PFAL and study it out. Come back and see what is so hated by these people.
Mike, I must confess - I don't think I have the patience, endurance, and sharp critical thinking skills like WordWolf or Tom Strange - and to be honest maybe I'm a little lazy not wanting to read through your extensive posts on various threads. Quite frankly, I get lost in the things you say - it's very confusing - makes no sense...Would you be so kind to write out the basic tenets of your belief system...And I mean BASIC...I've done this myself on GSC - in several places - in two or three sentences...Please keep it short - and be specific, concise and clear.
The red drapes are not in the book. A few years ago I started a grand project of a split screen comparison of the two. On the left I have the film class transcript and on the right I have the book text. There are only tiny differences at first, but they mount rapidly as the class progresses. I was very surprised at how many differences there were. Heres another: for needs and wants parallel, the book uses the word balanced in place of parallel a few times.
Thank you for responding
To be clear
Since the red drape scenario is not in the books, would it be safe to say that we can discard this as not of as much worth as it would have been if it had been in the books?
Heres another: for needs and wants parallel, the book uses the word balanced in place of parallel a few times.
Wow, doesn't this change the whole thrust of getting your needs and wants parallel?
Parallel indicating something running side by side in the same direction. Balance indicating something different--- while a cup of Sugar and a cup of Sugar weigh the same. A cup of lead and a cup of Sugar are vastly different in weight. It would take many cups of sugar to get the scales in balance.
So which is it parallel or balanced? Does it matter? Is one applicable in one situation and another in another? which Is preferable? HOw do we determine which is necessary in a given situation?
But the red drapes are critical to understanding what WIERWILLE meant by the law of the believing. You dismiss it because it's inconvenient and it was left out of the book. But it does help establish what Wierwille thought the law of believing included and did not include.
Would you be so kind to write out the basic tenets of your belief system...And I mean BASIC...I've done this myself on GSC - in several places - in two or three sentences...Please keep it short - and be specific, concise and clear.
I respond with:
That's like asking Bill Clinton to tell the truth about 'having sex with that woman', or like having L. Craig Martindale to totally come clean as regards his abusive behavior.
You wrote: “The red drapes were left out of the book by the editors. __ In their attempts to operate their 5-senses understanding to make the best book possible- AS THEY THEMSELVES EXPLAINED ON THE GSC-”
Please produce your evidence of this.
"THEY" plural? I only remember one such person posting, HCW, and he wasn't really an editor, but a layout manager.
I have much more to say on this, but I'd like to see your evidence. Are you pulling this out of your memory? Or do you have the thread names and Post #s so we can examine them ourselves?
You asked me: “Please cite from written PFAL the passages that support these claims”
You then laid out a list of many items.
Do you have any idea how much work you’re asking of me? I have to prioritize my time here. Some of the items I'm routinely callanged to prove here would take weeks to cite all the passages from which I have drawn to build and then report the items you and others refer to, and sometimes with only partial accuracy.
Some of the items you asked about I have ALREADY spent many hours posting passages on in the past three plus years. Then, some will only be understood by someone who immerses themselves in nearly all the passages of PFAL for some time, and focuses ONLY on PFAL, purging out all related and especially contradictory material. Then some will require of you the deep commitment written to have God show you the way the passages are to be put together.
Let’s go through the items.
1) PFAL is "God breathed"
This I have often stated requires immersion, exclusive immersion, and living it. I have often posted that proof or substantiation of this requires God to tell you that he is the real author. I have often posted on this, and recently I posted 22 claims (not proofs) of Dr’s that what he was teaching was of God and not himself. Do you remember all this? Please answer me, ok?
***
2) We don't need any versions of the Bible anymore, only PFAL. ( The rest of this item, as you wrote it, is identical to item # 1), so I deleted it. Why didn’t you recognize this? Did you paste in text from somebody else without hardly reading it? I’d really like an answer to this too.
I disagree with this line. It's not logical in many ways.
First off, the "we" is ill defined here. If I were to write it I'd want to make sure the context shows the "we" are people who had put many years into careful study of the KJV and included some other good versions too.
Second, nearly every page of PFAL refers to the KJV or a few other versions. Obviously, there is SOME need for the versions if they are quoted in PFAL. Sometimes PFAL mentions a chapter in KJV without quoting it. Isn't it logical to reach over when encountering such a PFAL passage and reading the mentioned chapter, at least once in a while?
I have tried often to dispense with this idea often misattributed to me. If you search GSCs forums under my name and the word "replace" you will find some of the many posts where I dissociated myself from the simplistic statement you provided. If it's a direct quote from me it's stripped from it's context, and either you or whoever you got it from did me a disservice.
How is it that you can ask me this item this way unless you picked it up from someone else or stripped it if its context yourself? I suspect you are running with a crowd mentality here.
***
3) Christ is currently learning from PFAL and will be teaching from PFAL materials when he returns.
Again, where did you get this from?
I don’t think there are going to be any passages that help you believe this. I have posted before on this that Christ is the Word in flesh form, so since PFAL is the Word in written form, doesn’t it sound logical that he’d be interested in it? Or do you think Christ is God and knows all? I think Jesus Christ is NOT God.
I have seen many grads who are wiling to mouth that sentence, yet turn right around and give him characteristics in their mind that makes him quite identical to God, and not a man, not flesh.
***
4) Betraying Dr's revelations is betraying God.
This is a no-brainer. Since Dr didn’t write from his own flesh understanding, but produced the written Word of God given in English and not translated by flesh men from copies of copies of copies of the ancient scriptures, then it’s only logical that rejecting the revelations God gave to Dr would be rejecting the Giver of the revelations, God himself.
Again, I’m impressed with the way you put this item. It again looks like a mindless paste or regurgitation of somethig you read but didn't think through. Think it through, from the way you wrote... or posted it.
“Betraying Dr's revelations...” – refers to the revelations Dr received from God.
“... is betraying God.” – it’s almost a tautology.
How much thought did you put into this?
***
5) Studying PFAL will defeat death.
Well if God gave us PFAL, and God is willing and able to defeat death (do I need to prove this to you?) then PFAL should enable us to implement God’s Word and will.
***
6) I feel that VPW should be the final authority on what PFAL says or doesn't say, after all he wrote the books
This sounds quite acceptable to me.
By the way, are you aware of the usual process by which a highly esteemed college professor writes his books? He has his trusted graduate students write most of it, under the professor’s supervision. After training them and getting them to speak his language and utter his thoughts, the grad students become a secondary mouthpiece for the professor.
The supervision certainly entails the professor himself reading the final edit before final approval is given to the printers. After the book is written and the grad students receive their PhDs, they drift off and form their own ideas, sometimes even contradiction their old mentor and/or forgetting some or much of the old professor’s points of view. They then are no longer good spokesmen for the professor.
Their ability to speak authoritatively about the book they have participated in writing fades with each passing year. If they suffer any form of mental (or spiritual) illness they are in even less a position to speak authoritatively of the book’s contents.
This process I’m describing has occurred many hundreds, even thousands of times. It doesn’t happen with all professors, only with highly esteemed ones who can command great allegiance from very willing grad students. It’s like a luxury or a reward for the professor making a very big name for himself and thus attracting a sufficient number and quality of willing volunteers.
I have seen this process a number of times in the fields of Physics and Brain Science first hand and knew the professors and grad students well, all on a first name basis. I was not one of the grad students but I was allowed in the circles as an avid and competent tag-along.
***
Templelady, You then wrote: “This will be of great benefit to new posters who are here for the first time. It will also be of great benefit to myself and other posters who are still waiting for the citations and have been waiting since Feb 9 2006, at 04:11 PM when the original PFAL thread was started.”
Did you notice BEFORE you wrote your post that most of the items were logical derivatives of item #1?
Item #1 was supplied no citations by me here, unless you want to count the 22 claims by Dr to the truth if item #1?
Think about it logically, though, if there were such simple quotable passages that would satisfy simple minded readers who did not want to execute the total immersion I talked about above, wouldn’t it be logical that many other readers of PFAL would have stumbled across the same passages? Were you aware of this when you wrote your post. Did you know I was aware of it?
I wonder how much thought you put into all of this and how much of your post was merely you repeating what the crowd of riff raff is yelling? Please, if you want to differentiate yourself from this kind of mob mentality, think about the points here where I asked you questions.
You and I have been through a lot of posting. In that activity I have pointed out to you quite a few items that you had no idea were in written PFAL, and even a few your didn’t remember from the film class. Did you get any inkling from all that there may be MANY wonderful items yet for you to discover in PFAL? I really believe that with God working within you as you meekly and systematically read that material He will show you the same things He showed to me?
You must know the standard Mormon rap where you ask God directly and He will tell you if Mormonism is true? What I’m telling you is much the same, only instead of you jumping into a direct one-on-one session with a spirit, I’m showing you a way to immerse yourself in a body of English text, to do the work of reading and pondering in a non-supernatural way, and then listening for that still small voice.
I’ve had many Mormons go through the set-up with me for the direct spirit asking and I saw it was a lazy man’s mode of inquiry. It involved feelings and goose bumps, but not a substantial amount of deep and clear thought, and certainly no scripture passages.
God wants people who can think through highly detailed situations, not someone who asks for a quick feeling and thinks that’s a deep spiritual revelation.
We saw many TWI leaders do this cheap method of ignoring details and jumping on... not first thought because most of them had no sound thoughts... but jumping on first feeling. We saw that lazy way of asking God to reveal Himself backfire greatly.
We saw where the one inquiring had to do little to no disciplined work involving detailed thought from absorbing and integrating large amounts of text, but were winging it on TVTs.
We saw how disastrous that lazy method was, with a plethora of false revelations, mostly from the flesh, and not the intelligent parts of the flesh; it was more like pulling the “revelation” from their butt.
I urge you to take the noble approach to inquiring of God. The noble Bereans in Acts 17 should be our example of this approach. I did it this Berean way to see that PFAL was God-breathed and that almost all of the items logically derived from seeing this one great blessing from God to us in English.
Acts 17:10-12
And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea:
who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica,
in that they received the word with all readiness of mind,
and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Therefore many of them believed...
Paul did not cite any short few magic passages to them that led them to believe.
If someone had asked him to, like you asked of me, I’ll bet he’d have declined and said “Just listen for a while.”
Notice that the noble Bereans did not ask for a lazy quickie from God to tell them Paul was to be believed. It took time, and they had to do work. They searched the scriptures daily after listening with a ready mind. They had to exercise their intellect to inquire of God, not their feelings and adrenal glands.
They did not believe Paul on the first session of teaching, and not on the second. I believe the use of the word “daily” here means it may have been WEEKS before they believed. They had to do a lot of work themselves, and did not ask Paul for a quick proof.
AND... And we know that they only had Old Testament scriptures to search daily, so they found NOT ONE simple passage that proved the mystery that Paul was speaking to them. It had to be God working within them as they did their best to be to study, workmen that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Therefore many of them believed.
That’s how the noble Bereans arrived at the truth. That’s how we need to do it. I’ve shown to you that you did not receive many items the first times you took the class. Maybe then you were operating in the same mob-rule, bandwagon mode that I strongly suspect you’re operating in here.
I urge you to read the books, just you and God, with no others influencing your behavior and beliefs. If you want to try this noble approach and be one of the VERY few grads to do so, please PM me I will see to it that you will soon have a complete set of the books.
You wrote: “Those who actually interacted with vpw in his last few months said "THE HOPE" was the last teaching he covered for people, and that came AFTER "the Joy of Serving", which is the one Mike is quoting.”
Name names here.
No one has EVER contested “The Joy of Serving” being his last teaching until you just spouted this.
Look at the Sep/Oct 1986 Way Mag and it will tell you “The Joy of Serving” was his last teaching. I can supply a .jpg image of it for anyone who wants to see how innacurate you are.
Listen to the weekly Corps tape from the Wednesday about two days after Dr died. Craig played clips from both “The Hope” and “The Joy of Serving” and notes the latter is his last. I can supply an .mp3 of this Corps tape.
Listen to tapes of both teachings and you can hear Dr to be very, very weak on “The Joy of Serving” compared to “The Hope.” I can supply .mp3 files for both.
Look at the text of the POP posted here. Near the end Geer walks with Dr to the teaching that was to become the “The Joy of Serving.” Track the dates.
“The Hope” was recorded on April 21, 1985.
“The Joy of Serving” was recorded on May 12, 1985.
The Way Magazine reports both of these dates, as well as a catalog prepared by Jim Stutz of CA in the late 90’s.
How incredibly irresponsible of you. So who are the “who actually interacted with vpw in his last few months” you referred to? Name names for us and you will not be alone in this huge error. Who are they and where did they say this?
How many other huge errors plague your mind?
This is one reason I find your posts repulsive. Are you deliberately lying or just monumentally sloppy?
You wrote: “The red drapes were left out of the book by the editors. __ In their attempts to operate their 5-senses understanding to make the best book possible- AS THEY THEMSELVES EXPLAINED ON THE GSC-”
Please produce your evidence of this.
"THEY" plural? I only remember one such person posting, HCW, and he wasn't really an editor, but a layout manager.
I have much more to say on this, but I'd like to see your evidence. Are you pulling this out of your memory? Or do you have the thread names and Post #s so we can examine them ourselves?
Actually, I was thinking specifically of HCW.
I don't discount the possibility of others chiming in and me missing it, though.
HCW broke down how the editing process in the books AND magazines was
done-which was identical to how it was also explained by one of the
editors-was it Linda Z?
They used their brains and their best understanding to make whatever they
were working on as good as possible as defined by the framework they were
working in.
In the case of the magazine articles, that sometimes necessitated
radical restating/rephrasing in different words,
and sometimes it meant trimming out extraneous sentences.
Thus, in transcribing the film to print, they started with EVERYTHING
word for word.
Then they cleaned up some awkward language and obvious errors
(like anabalepto being corrected to eidon, and fixing the
"Felix or Festus" when it was Agrippa who said "almost thou persuadest
me to be a Christian", as the KJV renders it.)
In some cases, entire anecdotes went on the chopping block since they
were NOT able to be functionally-restored. They were SERIOUS about
retaining as much of the film as possible-so any absences are telling.
Furthermore, as we've seen in discussions right here,
the "red drapes" anecdote falls on its face when examined.
So, to "strengthen" the book, the anecdote is removed.
Since you've taken all accounts they posted, as well as the
face-to-face encounters you've had with editing staff,
and rewritten the accounts to say
"they inadvertently operated revelation"
(you did this addressing HCW previously),
I figured you'd continue to just do so ad infinitum.
Have you changed your mind, or are you asking just to try to
You asked for some quick synopsis of my position. Can you ask me that again someday? I’m tired and need to sleep soon. It would require more than I have right now.
However, I can somewhat answer your earlier post in my sleep because I’ve done it so many, many times before.
I had written: “The ancient scriptures are not accessible, and the modern man-made reconstructions of them are FAR from definitive, shifting about constantly by the latest theological fads in translation and manuscript rating.”
You wrote: “Mike, do you have documentation for your bold assertion?”
Yes, just look at how many footnotes are on every page of any good Interlinear.
That should be documentation enough if you understand the Interlinear and what the critical Greek texts are.
I’ll explain a little.
Do you know what the critical Greek texts are?
Do you know when they were written?
Do you know why they were written?
Do you know why they are called “critical.”?
Many grads think that critical Greek texts are very ancient and they are most critically important and reliable texts available, and that they are the definitive “last say” on what the originals said, and that all they need be is accurately translated. They are none of these things.
Do you know why they are none of these things?
Do you need more of an explanation?
If you can accurately answer the above questions you should be able to see my documentation for that bold assertion.
Have you ever read the introduction to a good Interlinear like “THE ENGLISHMAN’S GREEK New Testament”? It’s about 12 pages long. I suggest you read it. If I have time tomorrow I’ll elaborate. If it gets lost in the shuffle please PM me. I may try to scan it and send it to you if you can’t find it in a library or bookstore. You could probably read it standing up and not have to buy the book.
You asked me: “Please cite from written PFAL the passages that support these claims”
You then laid out a list of many items.
Do you have any idea how much work you’re asking of me? I have to prioritize my time here. Some of the items I'm routinely callanged to prove here would take weeks to cite all the passages from which I have drawn to build and then report the items you and others refer to, and sometimes with only partial accuracy.
[supposedly,
you've already examined all of this and should be able to rattle
them off like the definitions of the manifestations.
You mentioned this work perhaps 24 hours ago on this very thread.
Things sure change fast around here...]
Some of the items you asked about I have ALREADY spent many hours posting passages on in the past three plus years. Then, some will only be understood by someone who immerses themselves in nearly all the passages of PFAL for some time, and focuses ONLY on PFAL, purging out all related and especially contradictory material. Then some will require of you the deep commitment written to have God show you the way the passages are to be put together.
[it is esoteric, and not to be shared with the unenlightened.]
Let’s go through the items.
1) PFAL is "God breathed"
This I have often stated requires immersion, exclusive immersion, and living it. I have often posted that proof or substantiation of this requires God to tell you that he is the real author. I have often posted on this, and recently I posted 22 claims (not proofs) of Dr’s that what he was teaching was of God and not himself. Do you remember all this? Please answer me, ok?
[That was on the post that took up several written pages all in one shot,
not indexed for actual read-ability. You may remember it.
The lack of format strongly suggested Mike didn't actually want it
READ or STUDIED- just posted so he could say
"I posted it."
I would have responded to the claims of Mike's that vpw made such
claims-but if Mike didn't care enough to make his material
read-able, I'm not going to do all his work FOR him.
Mind you, if he'd been communicating plainly with us for the past
few years rather than playing word-games and assigning homework,
I might have volunteered to add a format
(you know, chapters and verses) just to facilitate maintaining discussion.
However, technically, he DID post them,
and that's where you'll find them.]
***
2) We don't need any versions of the Bible anymore, only PFAL. ( The rest of this item, as you wrote it, is identical to item # 1), so I deleted it. Why didn’t you recognize this? Did you paste in text from somebody else without hardly reading it? I’d really like an answer to this too.
I disagree with this line. It's not logical in many ways.
First off, the "we" is ill defined here. If I were to write it I'd want to make sure the context shows the "we" are people who had put many years into careful study of the KJV and included some other good versions too.
Second, nearly every page of PFAL refers to the KJV or a few other versions. Obviously, there is SOME need for the versions if they are quoted in PFAL. Sometimes PFAL mentions a chapter in KJV without quoting it. Isn't it logical to reach over when encountering such a PFAL passage and reading the mentioned chapter, at least once in a while?
I have tried often to dispense with this idea often misattributed to me. If you search GSCs forums under my name and the word "replace" you will find some of the many posts where I dissociated myself from the simplistic statement you provided. If it's a direct quote from me it's stripped from it's context, and either you or whoever you got it from did me a disservice.
How is it that you can ask me this item this way unless you picked it up from someone else or stripped it if its context yourself? I suspect you are running with a crowd mentality here.
[it's not your imaginations, folks,
he ducked the question.]
3) Christ is currently learning from PFAL and will be teaching from PFAL materials when he returns.
Again, where did you get this from?
[Are you saying you didn't say this, Mike?
Are you saying that she is unable to use the search function and find
your own posts saying exactly this, Mike?
Are you saying you DON'T believe this, Mike?
No-you're not saying any of those-
your answer, if it was in a court of law, would have been called
"UNRESPONSIVE."
Or, in other words,
YOU DUCKED THE QUESTION AGAIN.
I'm beginning to see a pattern here...]
I don’t think there are going to be any passages that help you believe this. I have posted before on this that Christ is the Word in flesh form, so since PFAL is the Word in written form, doesn’t it sound logical that he’d be interested in it? Or do you think Christ is God and knows all? I think Jesus Christ is NOT God.
["PFAL IS THE WORD IN WRITTEN FORM",
in the same fashion, or analagous, to how Christ is The Word in flesh form.
See, you CAN give plain answers to what you believe when you want to.
Why waste weeks and months REFUSING to do so and diluting your posts
when you could say all the basics in ONE PAGE?]
I have seen many grads who are wiling to mouth that sentence, yet turn right around and give him characteristics in their mind that makes him quite identical to God, and not a man, not flesh.
**********
4) Betraying Dr's revelations is betraying God.
This is a no-brainer. Since Dr didn’t write from his own flesh understanding, but produced the written Word of God given in English and not translated by flesh men from copies of copies of copies of the ancient scriptures, then it’s only logical that rejecting the revelations God gave to Dr would be rejecting the Giver of the revelations, God himself.
["Dr produced the written Word of God given in English".
There's another concise sentence.
We knew you were CAPABLE of them, Mike, nice to see them
emerging from your posts.
Of course, the "copies of copies of copies" sounds a LOT
less extreme and harsh in comparison to your normal distain
for critical Greek texts. Are you feeling less antithetical
of them now, possibly even respectful? Any thoughts that
the extant ones actually contain God-breathed Word?
It would be worth saying so if you did...]
Again, I’m impressed with the way you put this item. It again looks like a mindless paste or regurgitation of somethig you read but didn't think through. Think it through, from the way you wrote... or posted it.
“Betraying Dr's revelations...” – refers to the revelations Dr received from God.
“... is betraying God.” – it’s almost a tautology.
How much thought did you put into this?
[As is obvious to most of us who read her post,
she was asking rather obvious questions, and comparing your
direct answers to HER to claims made ABOUT what you've said.
In other words, she had some honest questions,
and you're suggesting something about them-
either that there's some sort of "agenda" besides inquiry,
or that there's some other problem with asking.
With this type of response to even respectful questions,
is it any wonder you inspire some barbed replies from
several people?]
***
5) Studying PFAL will defeat death.
Well if God gave us PFAL, and God is willing and able to defeat death (do I need to prove this to you?) then PFAL should enable us to implement God’s Word and will.
[That was ANOTHER ducked question.
(Aw, and after he actually ANSWERED some...)
First, he belittled her ("do I need to prove this to you?")
then he SUDDENLY CHANGED THE SUBJECT
and began phrasing himself AMBIGUOUSLY,
DELIBERATELY OCCULTING HIS ANSWER.
If "PFAL should enable us to implement God's Word and will"
is meant here to say
"PFAL should enable us to defeat death",
then Mike should say so outright.
If it is meant to say ANYTHING ELSE,
why, then, did Mike frame the question and the first part
of the answer to suggest he would be addressing whether
or not he's saying PFAL will defeat death?
Either way, it's a sudden, sharp turn from candor
to dishonesty. He's deliberately attempting to confuse
the reader and PRETEND to answer the question.
This is the same type of thing you get when one person
claims to have played basketball all thru high school and
college and be "involved with" a local amateur team,
when you want them to conclude you were saying you
were a member of the team, when the truth of
the matter was you answered their phone or did their
taxes or announced their games or something.
Why not simply answer the question?]
***
6) I feel that VPW should be the final authority on what PFAL says or doesn't say, after all he wrote the books
This sounds quite acceptable to me.
[The following is a lie that Mike has attempted to claim about
the researcher EW Bullinger,
and about other respected writers,
in an attempt to smear their respectability
and drag them to the level of a plagiarist.]
By the way, are you aware of the usual process by which a highly esteemed college professor writes his books? He has his trusted graduate students write most of it, under the professor’s supervision. After training them and getting them to speak his language and utter his thoughts, the grad students become a secondary mouthpiece for the professor.
The supervision certainly entails the professor himself reading the final edit before final approval is given to the printers. After the book is written and the grad students receive their PhDs, they drift off and form their own ideas, sometimes even contradiction their old mentor and/or forgetting some or much of the old professor’s points of view. They then are no longer good spokesmen for the professor.
[The TRUTH of the matter is that if a professor attempted to have a student
write ANY portion of a book OR a dissertation he is going to attach his name
to-without featuring their name SPECIFICALLY as having written part of it-
the student could have the professor FIRED WITH CAUSE from the
institution, and the professor's reputation would be DESTROYED.
That's because colleges and universities take plagiarism
VERY, VERY SERIOUSLY.
Is it TECHNICALLY possible a professor (or professors) did this?
Yes-but "getting away with it" makes it no less a crime than theft
or murder ceases to be a crime if you don't get caught.
A professor may have a respected grad student REVIEW his work
before it's published-as a technical proofreader.
A professor may ask a respected grad student to COMPILE DATA-
which the professor will then read, evaluated, then write on.
That's not "writing" his book-not even a single letter of text.
However, Mike's attempting to play an
"everybody does it" game with plagiarism so that it makes
vpw's crimes seem less harsh. Interesting how he tried to
sneak that one by while aiming for a different target,
which is the NEXT point....]
Their ability to speak authoritatively about the book they have participated in writing fades with each passing year. If they suffer any form of mental (or spiritual) illness they are in even less a position to speak authoritatively of the book’s contents.
This process I’m describing has occurred many hundreds, even thousands of times. It doesn’t happen with all professors, only with highly esteemed ones who can command great allegiance from very willing grad students. It’s like a luxury or a reward for the professor making a very big name for himself and thus attracting a sufficient number and quality of willing volunteers.
I have seen this process a number of times in the fields of Physics and Brain Science first hand and knew the professors and grad students well, all on a first name basis. I was not one of the grad students but I was allowed in the circles as an avid and competent tag-along.
[And the relevance of this anecdote?
Was it just to claim you've seen MANY professors and
grad students BREAK THE LAW AND NOT GET CAUGHT,
or were you trying to suggest something you never said?]
***
Templelady, You then wrote: “This will be of great benefit to new posters who are here for the first time. It will also be of great benefit to myself and other posters who are still waiting for the citations and have been waiting since Feb 9 2006, at 04:11 PM when the original PFAL thread was started.”
Did you notice BEFORE you wrote your post that most of the items were logical derivatives of item #1?
[some related questions bear answering. No need to attack her for it.]
Item #1 was supplied no citations by me here, unless you want to count the 22 claims by Dr to the truth if item #1?
[Can hardly blame her for that, but nice try anyway.]
Think about it logically, though, if there were such simple quotable passages that would satisfy simple minded readers who did not want to execute the total immersion I talked about above, wouldn’t it be logical that many other readers of PFAL would have stumbled across the same passages?
[According to you, Mike, everyone else has been so poor at reading
comprehension that a plain declaration might well be beyond their talents.
So, based on your previous claims, one MIGHT expect you to whip something
obvious out and say "See? It was in plain sight all along and you all missed it!"]
Were you aware of this when you wrote your post. Did you know I was aware of it?
I wonder how much thought you put into all of this and how much of your post was merely you repeating what the crowd of riff raff is yelling? Please, if you want to differentiate yourself from this kind of mob mentality, think about the points here where I asked you questions.
[i wonder if you realize just how patronizing and arrogant you
come off in posts like this. Presuming to read her mind-which is a common
presumption on your part-displays a sloppy mentality which does NOT
place a favourable light on you ANYTIME you do it.]
You and I have been through a lot of posting. In that activity I have pointed out to you quite a few items that you had no idea were in written PFAL, and even a few your didn’t remember from the film class. Did you get any inkling from all that there may be MANY wonderful items yet for you to discover in PFAL? I really believe that with God working within you as you meekly and systematically read that material He will show you the same things He showed to me?
[Congratulations! You answered your own questions from above
and explained WHY she might ask questions that seem obvious to you!
Will you now berate YOURSELF for EXPLAINING IT like you
attacked her for asking? It would be internally consistent, at any rate.
(Like the traffic judge fining himself for poor driving.)]
You must know the standard Mormon rap where you ask God directly and He will tell you if Mormonism is true? What I’m telling you is much the same, only instead of you jumping into a direct one-on-one session with a spirit, I’m showing you a way to immerse yourself in a body of English text, to do the work of reading and pondering in a non-supernatural way, and then listening for that still small voice.
I’ve had many Mormons go through the set-up with me for the direct spirit asking and I saw it was a lazy man’s mode of inquiry. It involved feelings and goose bumps, but not a substantial amount of deep and clear thought, and certainly no scripture passages.
God wants people who can think through highly detailed situations, not someone who asks for a quick feeling and thinks that’s a deep spiritual revelation.
We saw many TWI leaders do this cheap method of ignoring details and jumping on... not first thought because most of them had no sound thoughts... but jumping on first feeling. We saw that lazy way of asking God to reveal Himself backfire greatly.
We saw where the one inquiring had to do little to no disciplined work involving detailed thought from absorbing and integrating large amounts of text, but were winging it on TVTs.
We saw how disastrous that lazy method was, with a plethora of false revelations, mostly from the flesh, and not the intelligent parts of the flesh; it was more like pulling the “revelation” from their butt.
I urge you to take the noble approach to inquiring of God. The noble Bereans in Acts 17 should be our example of this approach. I did it this Berean way to see that PFAL was God-breathed and that almost all of the items logically derived from seeing this one great blessing from God to us in English.
[Cheap shot on other leaders,
cheap shot on Mormonism,
or both?
What do the other readers say?]
Acts 17:10-12
And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea:
who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica,
in that they received the word with all readiness of mind,
and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Therefore many of them believed...
Paul did not cite any short few magic passages to them that led them to believe.
If someone had asked him to, like you asked of me, I’ll bet he’d have declined and said “Just listen for a while.”
Notice that the noble Bereans did not ask for a lazy quickie from God to tell them Paul was to be believed. It took time, and they had to do work. They searched the scriptures daily after listening with a ready mind. They had to exercise their intellect to inquire of God, not their feelings and adrenal glands.
They did not believe Paul on the first session of teaching, and not on the second. I believe the use of the word “daily” here means it may have been WEEKS before they believed. They had to do a lot of work themselves, and did not ask Paul for a quick proof.
AND... And we know that they only had Old Testament scriptures to search daily, so they found NOT ONE simple passage that proved the mystery that Paul was speaking to them. It had to be God working within them as they did their best to be to study, workmen that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Therefore many of them believed.
That’s how the noble Bereans arrived at the truth. That’s how we need to do it. I’ve shown to you that you did not receive many items the first times you took the class. Maybe then you were operating in the same mob-rule, bandwagon mode that I strongly suspect you’re operating in here.
I urge you to read the books, just you and God, with no others influencing your behavior and beliefs. If you want to try this noble approach and be one of the VERY few grads to do so, please PM me I will see to it that you will soon have a complete set of the books.
[Cute.
Made some assumptions based on what a section of Acts did NOT say
(it did NOT say Paul declared things FROM the Scriptures-
at least NOT IN THE CITED VERSES),
so therefore, Paul must not have shown them the verses.
(Likewise, this account says nothing about Paul using an outhouse
or going abroad, so he must never have used a bathroom
when he was with them. Same principle-let's be CONSISTENT!)
Then he says his dodging of questions is the same thing Paul did.
Like I said, cute.
Hey, Mike,
I'll get back to your other posts as soon as I have time.
You asked for some quick synopsis of my position. Can you ask me that again someday? I’m tired and need to sleep soon. It would require more than I have right now.
However, I can somewhat answer your earlier post in my sleep because I’ve done it so many, many times before.
I had written: “The ancient scriptures are not accessible, and the modern man-made reconstructions of them are FAR from definitive, shifting about constantly by the latest theological fads in translation and manuscript rating.”
You wrote: “Mike, do you have documentation for your bold assertion?”
Yes, just look at how many footnotes are on every page of any good Interlinear.
That should be documentation enough if you understand the Interlinear and what the critical Greek texts are.
I’ll explain a little.
Do you know what the critical Greek texts are?
Do you know when they were written?
Do you know why they were written?
Do you know why they are called “critical.”?
Many grads think that critical Greek texts are very ancient and they are most critically important and reliable texts available, and that they are the definitive “last say” on what the originals said, and that all they need be is accurately translated. They are none of these things.
Do you know why they are none of these things?
Do you need more of an explanation?
If you can accurately answer the above questions you should be able to see my documentation for that bold assertion.
Have you ever read the introduction to a good Interlinear like “THE ENGLISHMAN’S GREEK New Testament”? It’s about 12 pages long. I suggest you read it. If I have time tomorrow I’ll elaborate. If it gets lost in the shuffle please PM me. I may try to scan it and send it to you if you can’t find it in a library or bookstore. You could probably read it standing up and not have to buy the book.
In other words,
Mike is going to PRETEND he has documentation for his bold assertion,
and send you off with a homework assignment to prove his assertion
FOR him!
Mike began with the premise that a new Bible was issued in the
20th century,
therefore there must be a problem with the Bible of the
preceeding 19 centuries (and change),
therefore it's inadequate,
therefore all "investigations" on his part will be with a
view towards trying to strengthen his case.
This means he will "ignore the misses and count the hits",
and otherwise skip anything that documents the OPPOSITE
You asked for some quick synopsis of my position. Can you ask me that again someday? I'm tired and need to sleep soon. It would require more than I have right now.
However, I can somewhat answer your earlier post in my sleep because I've done it so many, many times before.
I had written: "The ancient scriptures are not accessible, and the modern man-made reconstructions of them are FAR from definitive, shifting about constantly by the latest theological fads in translation and manuscript rating."
You wrote: "Mike, do you have documentation for your bold assertion?"
Yes, just look at how many footnotes are on every page of any good Interlinear.
That should be documentation enough if you understand the Interlinear and what the critical Greek texts are.
I'll explain a little.
Do you know what the critical Greek texts are?
Do you know when they were written?
Do you know why they were written?
Do you know why they are called "critical."?
Many grads think that critical Greek texts are very ancient and they are most critically important and reliable texts available, and that they are the definitive "last say" on what the originals said, and that all they need be is accurately translated. They are none of these things.
Do you know why they are none of these things?
Do you need more of an explanation?
Mike - how is it you can't give me a short synopsis of your main beliefs but you awkwardly ATTEMPT to prove your assertion about the inaccessibility to ancient scriptures? And you still have NOT given me any specific evidence to support your claim! Please re-read your own quote in the above text [in boldred] - do I have to diagram the sentence for you? Do I have to define each word YOU used? You're the one making these sweeping claims - I shouldn't have to do the work for you to prove your point! You are the one that chose those particular words and phrases. Surely you're not just throwing them out there with no basis or reason! Do you understand the meaning of the words in your sentence? Are these your ideas? Can you cite specific instances that led you to conclude this?
You wrote: “I don't see any difference between what you are trying to do Mike and what they are doing. You are posting here too you know.”
Here are some differences:
The renegade, reprobate leaders claim that they have picked up where Dr left off, and yet they continue to downplay Dr’s instructions to master written PFAL. I promote these final instructions.
The renegade, reprobate leaders promote the impression that they support Dr and PFAL to Dr’s followers, trying to woo them, yet they will quietly and behind the scenes, or much later come out and contradict many passages in Dr’s writings. In contrast, I seek to conform more and more to what Dr wrote. (Sure, many here claim I contradict what they THINK they remember is in PFAL, but I don’t try to conform to those partial and distorted images, just to what’s on paper and what all the writings say, not just one passage often taken alone by many.)
The renegade, reprobate leaders claim to have sat at the feet of the man of God, or are ordained, and therefore have one-up on those who did not. They demand to be the major speaker and shun give-and-take with others as equals. I don’t claim this superiority. I just claim to have finally obeyed Dr and opened my books again to meekly master and urge others to do the same. I point not to my authority to have the deciding word like the renegade, reprobate leaders do, but I urge others to accept the revelations God had Dr put into writing as the final say.
The renegade, reprobate leaders are often looking for abundant sharing loyal followers. I am not.
The renegade, reprobate leaders get nasty and threateningly tough, warning of consequences and/or cut off communication with those who cross them, defy their leadership status, or contradict them. I do not. I seek to civilly discuss our differences and keep the door open to future conversation.
Like I said Mike, I don't see any difference in what you are doing compared to what they are doing. You are in it for yourself just like they are. Reasons may vary but the same selfishness is there.
And by the way, who do you think these people are anyway?
[Those who actually interacted with vpw in his last few months said
"THE HOPE" was the last teaching he covered for people,
and that came AFTER "the Joy of Serving", which is the one
Mike is quoting.
Mike, however, plain refuses to accept that and just keeps
announcing this in the hopes he can rewrite events by rewriting
people's memories.]
This just goes to show you that if you keep typing long enough
(I've been posting on the GSC since before Y2K, IIRC),
you can make a bad post.
Now, I could do like Mike and pretend I never posted a mistake,
and just go on, hoping it will blow over.
Or, I could demonstrate a higher standard of behaviour,
and internal consistency,
'fess up,
and fix it, and say what I SHOULD have said.
I chose the latter.
Now, then,
when I said
"Those who interacted with vpw in his last few months",
that was hyperbole, an exaggeration.
What I SHOULD have said was
"Those who were active in the ministry at the time".
I'm so used to multi-tasking on Mike's posts, and with
Mike contradicting the live witnesses, that I sorta typed
this out of habit. That was wrong, and I should pay a bit
more attention when I type.
As for
"and that came AFTER 'the Joy of Serving",
that was incorrect and not what I MEANT to say.
It's true-I made an error. I'll admit I finally made one
on these threads. Since Mike's been loading them with
logic fallacies, errors, mistakes and outright lies,
and not admitting to them,
I think it should be forgiveable that I made one (or 1 1/2,
depending on how you call it) and owned up to it.
I shall clarify what I MEANT to say.
When I said
" 'THE HOPE' was the last teaching he covered for people"
THAT was COMPLETELY CORRECT.
vpw SPECIFICALLY taught that for EVERYONE, and expected
THAT to be his very last public teaching-his last teaching for
everyone.
When reviewing the opening of "the Joy of Serving",
anyone can see that he specifically addressed it-
not to everyone, or "the people" as I called them,
but to COUNTRY COORDINATORS.
He was NOT teaching with a view towards this one going out
to the rank and file, Joe and Jane Believer.
That's because he says in the opening-and Mike himself has
attested to this:
"Since this is the meeting here at this time of COUNTRY COORDINATORS
--and of course, what I'm going to say SHOULD be applicable to every
born-again believer,
but ESPECIALLY to-- our coordinators.]"
He also addresses himself shortly thereafter to leadership again-
"That twig and twig area leader, and the country coordinators,
leadership of the Corps, of the WOWs,..."
So, my main point-
that "THE HOPE" was the LAST teaching vpw intended for all the people
to hear- that was CORRECT.
My other point-
that 'the Joy of Serving' was NEVER intended to be a last message
FOR ALL THE PEOPLE,
but Mike has built it up to be so,
and has exercised various verbal gymnastics to attempt to
make it so.
So, vpw's comments about what he'd say to people if he knew he
was going to never see them again, those comments-
if they apply to ANY teaching, for EVERYBODY-
those comments apply to "THE HOPE."
Now, some people are paying attention and wonder where my
comments about people mentioning this before come in.
Well,
some entire threads have been wiped out,
and, unlike Mike, I have not been keeping an archive of the
threads where Mike's idolatry has been discussed and exposed.
However,
deleted posts to the contrary,
I WAS able to find the following comment, which did NOT exist in a void.
(I don't have ALL the posts, but I found this one.)
It was posted by Zixar, Jan 6, 2003, 5:12pm.
"Another thing. One of the most basic keys to biblical interpretation that Dr. Wierwille taught was to get
'to whom it was written' straight.
Reading your transcript of the 'Last' Teaching, it is PRIMARILY addressed to the
Country Coordinators, and only SECONDARILY addressed to believers in general.
That makes it his last teaching specifically only for Country Coordinators. Dr. Wierwille knew
his true, public Last Teaching would be tape # 1275, 'The Hope'.
It was addressed to all believers, and is his final message to TWI assembled.
Therefore, unless you are a Country Coordinator, the advice to master the FC, IC and
collaterals is not an absolute final mandate. Look to 'The Hope' for that."
Mike's reply to that was to say it ONCE applied to them,
but NOW applies to everyone.
"My Daddy is blind to name tag status, He looks at believing."
Now, then,
THAT was what I MEANT to say.
I got sloppy, and didn't post it originally.
Thus, this correction.
I shall try to make it ANOTHER 6 years before I make another.
Meanwhile, I noticed Mike saw me refute him for several
pages, but skipped over THOSE posts-and most of
this one, actually-
and seized on my first actual mistake, as if it was the only
thing I've posted all year....
Wordwolf,
You’re really losing it.
You wrote: “Those who actually interacted with vpw in his last few months said "THE HOPE" was the last teaching he covered for people, and that came AFTER "the Joy of Serving", which is the one Mike is quoting.”
Name names here.
No one has EVER contested “The Joy of Serving” being his last teaching until you just spouted this.
Look at the Sep/Oct 1986 Way Mag and it will tell you “The Joy of Serving” was his last teaching. I can supply a .jpg image of it for anyone who wants to see how innacurate you are.
Listen to the weekly Corps tape from the Wednesday about two days after Dr died. Craig played clips from both “The Hope” and “The Joy of Serving” and notes the latter is his last. I can supply an .mp3 of this Corps tape.
Listen to tapes of both teachings and you can hear Dr to be very, very weak on “The Joy of Serving” compared to “The Hope.” I can supply .mp3 files for both.
Look at the text of the POP posted here. Near the end Geer walks with Dr to the teaching that was to become the “The Joy of Serving.” Track the dates.
“The Hope” was recorded on April 21, 1985.
“The Joy of Serving” was recorded on May 12, 1985.
The Way Magazine reports both of these dates, as well as a catalog prepared by Jim Stutz of CA in the late 90’s.
How incredibly irresponsible of you. So who are the “who actually interacted with vpw in his last few months” you referred to? Name names for us and you will not be alone in this huge error. Who are they and where did they say this?
How many other huge errors plague your mind?
This is one reason I find your posts repulsive. Are you deliberately lying or just monumentally sloppy?
Now, this was sloppy of me, but not "incredibly irresponsible" of me.
If I claimed, say, that "the greatest secret in the world today is that
the Bible is the revealed Word and Will of God",
and then spent the rest of my time saying that the Bible wasn't a
Bible anymore, but a collection of books, tapes and magazine
clippings were-in varying percentages- now the revealed Word and
Will of God, and that the Bible that originally WAS claimed to be
the revealed Word and Will of God is now
"unreliable fragments" and "tattered remnants",
then THAT would be "incredibly irresponsible" of me.
That would be internal inconsistency of the first order,
and it would be to my shame.
However, if I was Mike, that type of internal inconsistency is
just business as usual. Mike and I have different standards
for an acceptable doctrine and an acceptable post.
As for "huge errors" that "plague a mind",
I'd say taking "the keys to Genesis to Revelation"
and saying "this is Genesis to Revelation",
and taking "then shall we say 'thus saith the LORD'"
and saying "we will no longer to say 'thus saith the LORD then",
I'd consider those "huge errors",
and mixing up a pair of dates is an error,
but hardly to be compared to a "HUGE ERROR."
"This is one reason I find your posts repulsive."
Hardly.
I made ONE mistake.
Mike finds my posts repulsive in general for the same reason
the robber finds the policeman to be unwelcome.
He had that problem LONG before I finally made a goof.
I neither deliberately lie nor am MONUMENTALLY sloppy.
This time I was 'sloppy', but not in a MONUMENTAL fashion.
A MONUMENTAL mistake would be to throw away the meal and
eat the menu,
and that's not the type of mistake I made.
However, that IS the type of mistake we've seen around here...
You wrote: “Mike - how is it you can't give me a short synopsis of your main beliefs but you awkwardly ATTEMPT to prove your assertion about the inaccessibility to ancient scriptures?”
How IS it?
Well, did you read what I wrote? I said I was tired. Did you look at the time stamp on my post? It was 1:38 am PST.
I do light manual labor for a living and I'm almost 57 years old. When I get home I'm tired. I then spent many hours in the evening writing to templelady and then to you. Writing can take more energy than light manual labor. I gave you the best I could at that late hour in a state of great fatigue. If you can’t show some gratitude, I’ll easily relagate you to the cold theologian and/or riff raff category and end conversation with you. You decide.
Have you ever dealt with MANY hostile posters with MANY words shot at you before? If so, show me where.
I came back this morning with fresh thoughts regarding your two posts to me. Don’t blow it and brush me off so cavalierly, PLEASE! Anyone can misbehave like that; it doesn’t take much searching in this world to find inspiration to act like an jerk’s .....
Regarding your first post last night to me, have you ever looked at Mark 16:9-20? Which side of that controversy would you be willing to bet your life on? Do you know of that controversy to which I refer? Look those verses up in a NIV and it's in plain print.
Do you have some answers for me on my questions posed in preliminary answer to your first post where I mentioned the critical Greek texts? Have you read the Introduction to your Interlinear? Have you Googled “critical Greek texts”?
Do you even WANT me to deal with this first post of yours to me any more beyond my late night attempt to get it started? You decide.
***
You wrote: “And you still have NOT given me any specific evidence to support your claim!"
Have you ANY patience and human understanding? This is a very childish and impatient demand of yours here?
Did you notice in my paragraphs above that I did supply some specific evidence in my question about Mark 16, or did you blow off those paragraphs like you did my late night post?
If you want to dish out tough talk to me you're going to have to be able to take it too! Kabish?
***
You wrote: “Please re-read your own quote in the above text [in bold red] - do I have to diagram the sentence for you? Do I have to define each word YOU used? You're the one making these sweeping claims - I shouldn't have to do the work for you to prove your point!”
E-gads man! Want me to change your diapers for you? I’m trying to have a dialog with you and you are acting like a two-year-old temper tantrum artist.
***
You wrote: “You are the one that chose those particular words and phrases. Surely you're not just throwing them out there with no basis or reason! Do you understand the meaning of the words in your sentence? Are these your ideas? Can you cite specific instances that led you to conclude this?”
I cited the abundance of footnotes at the bottom of every page of the Interlinear as specific proof. I then asked you some questions to see if you had enough understanding of how an Interlinear works to recognize the significance of my highly abbreviated yet potent specific citation.
If you cannot answer those several questions, my plan this morning was, after getting some few hours of rest, to get more specific. I was going to “add water” to the concentrated footnote answer if you needed me to. Now, after your marching with the mob mentality here I’m not sure if I want to bother. If you want me to work with you like I have worked with some of the much more civil ladies here in recent days, just say so.
If you want civil discussion I suggest you work on some answers to the questions I posed. If you can’t answer them, don’t be ashamed. Just say so. Hardly any grads can answer them, but I though maybe you could, seeing some of the intelligent posts you've made before here.
I’m not going to bite your head off and refuse you more discussion if you can’t answer the questions; I’ll help supply answers, so that we can proceed. Please answer my questions from last night (1:38 am late) as well as my more recent Mark 16 question.
PFAL unfolds the Bible versions we have that are closed on many issues. Where are you going to find "the mechanics of speech" explained in a version?
I mentioned to templelady above how I've distanced myself from the charge of claiming that PFAL 'replaces" the bible. Did you see it?
PFAL has Bible verses on nearly every page.
I think PFAL is like a necessary supplement to the Bible versions we have. The Bible is addressed to “Jew, Gentile, or the church of God.” PFAL is addressed to grads.
Have you noticed that different Bible versions can contradict each other in some ways, or cast confusion or uncertainty on each other a times?
I think the QUALITY of PFAL is superior to the modern Bible versions we have in that it settles issues the come up when comparing Bible verses.
I think that the quality of PFAL is equivalent to the quality of the first apostle supervised copies of the originals. There are some very minor errors in printed PFAL due to proofreader and printer mistakes.
I think that the quality of the revelations Dr and his editors and his teachers got that ended up becoming printed PFAL... the quality of those revelations is IDENTICAL to the quality of the revelations to the original Bible writers.
I think all these "think" items are not merely my opinions, but the absolute truth, or otherwise I wouldn' think them, much less post them, much MUCH less bet my life on them. They are truth and that's why I'm embraced them, and not vice versa.
As for your second post, I have been mulling that over in my mind. I have several possible approaches in mind. First things first, though.
Did you notice my earlier post on revvel? There’s a lot of hints there to one approach I’m contemplating.
In Post #6 of this thread you can find some questions I had asked Tom Strange as he pressed me for some comment on an issue remarkable similar to templelady’s quested item #3 (my numbering system) in Post #233 of this thread.
In that Post #6 of this thread I did a recap of the previous “Round 1” thread in the series in which this thread is “Round 2.”
Reiterating my recap there, and reproducing it’s original color scheme I said this:
RECAPPING THE PREVIOUS THREAD
On the Round One thread of this PFAL series titled “The Official, the Ultimate, the Amazing PFAL Thread, Come Back to PFAL, but watch for the land mines” in Post #1009, just before it reached such a large size that it was locked down (probably to prevent slowing down the server’s hard drive from the weight), Tom Strange had asked me a question after pasting in some lines where he quoted me.
Tom Strange wrote over there in that thread’s Post #1009 the following:
So then you're talking "spiritually" here???
Mike 2/2/04, 12:17am.
"When you see Christ in his glory he will be holding a PFAL book in his hand
and teaching you from it."
Mike 2/3/04 5:22am.
"Jesus Christ appointed Dr his spokesman.
Jesus Christ is VERY interested in PFAL.
He told me so."
Vickles 2/3/04, 7:51pm.
"So, Mike, you weren't kidding about JC coming with a PFAL book in his hand."
Mike, 2/3/04, 7:53pm.
"Totally serious. I've already seen him this way more than once."
...you haven't actually physically seen him? just spiritually???”
Then I responded to Tom in that thread’s last Post #1011 with:
What do you mean by “...just spiritually”???
Is that like “merely spiritually”?
Is there something lacking with spiritually?
Is there something less than “actual” with spiritually?
I think we got a lot of background work to do.
***
Let me ask YOU some questions to get you prepared for some answers.
When you see Jesus, how will you know FOR SURE that it’s him, the REAL him and not a counterfeit?
You wouldn’t want to bend the knee and swear loyalty to the wrong god accidentally.
Have you ever thought this through deeply?
I used to do this all the time in the 60’s. I saw all kinds of things then. From those experiences I would say the counterfeit is much more possible than most people think.
This is related to your questions to me, because how are you going to tell if what I saw was counterfeit or not?
What criteria can be used to discern the real Jesus? Finger prints? Iris scan? DNA?
One guy I know used touching the holes in his hands feet and the gash in his side to tell, but he got scolded for that.
How much thought have you put into things like this? I’m serious.
Before I’m allowed to bring you on a tour of the limits of the universe, I have to make sure you can take it. It’s a liability issue. My hands are tied by insurance regulations. You have to be fit to survive the ride, doncha know.
***
Ok, T-Bone, I’m back with you now.
This set of questions I asked of Tom Strange, he and others here strangely avoided dealing with, dodging them like I have always asserted we all do at times.
(WW, did you notice this dodge?)
Well, anyway T-Bone, I posed these questions to him in much the same way I posed questions to you: to use the responses as a springboard to my ultimate grand thesis here, right in line with your second post to me last night. I’m giving you a hint to one of the approaches I contemplated in responding to you.
There’s another hint in my post on revvel not many days ago. That post of mine too was relatively ignored here, totally ignored if WW didn’t include it in his profuse blatherings that I don’t have the time or stomach to thoroughly read.
I noticed long ago here at GSC that whenever I got down to some specifics on the Return of Christ it’s almost totally ignored by the usual suspects. Maybe their muses are troubled by the imminence of it.
So, T-Bone, why don’t you try your hand at answering the questions I posed in Post #6 to Tom to get the ball rolling on my response to your second post to me last night? It will help me to get to the short, simple, succinct sentences you requested. Work with me on this, why don’t you? I show up here for a dialog, not to hop-to-it, write a bunch of essays before short deadlines pass, and meet the demands of posters to produce whatever whims waft through them.
I may go ahead with this or any of the other approaches to your request even if you decline me the conversation mode of exploration of such. You got me intrigued with just how much I should reveal.
And now for some more "well-mannered conversation" from Mike....
Feel free to click back and read the entire post, or just scroll up for it.
Well, did you read what I wrote?
If you can’t show some gratitude, I’ll easily relagate you to the cold theologian and/or riff raff category and end conversation with you. You decide.
Do you even WANT me to deal with this first post of yours to me any more beyond my late night attempt to get it started? You decide.
***
Have you ANY patience and human understanding? This is a very childish and impatient demand of yours here?
Did you notice in my paragraphs above that I did supply some specific evidence in my question about Mark 16, or did you blow off those paragraphs like you did my late night post?
If you want to dish out tough talk to me you're going to have to be able to take it too! Kabish?
***
E-gads man! Want me to change your diapers for you? I’m trying to have a dialog with you and you are acting like a two-year-old temper tantrum artist.
***
Now, after your marching with the mob mentality here I’m not sure if I want to bother.
If you want civil discussion I suggest you work on some answers to the questions I posed. If you can’t answer them, don’t be ashamed. Just say so. Hardly any grads can answer them, but I though maybe you could, seeing some of the intelligent posts you've made before here.
I’m not going to bite your head off and refuse you more discussion if you can’t answer the questions; I’ll help supply answers, so that we can proceed. Please answer my questions from last night (1:38 am late) as well as my more recent Mark 16 question.
We've got more insults and more homework.
Mike STILL thinks the GSC is his classroom,
he is the professor,
and the posters are students of his.
Mike's not mentally incapable of understanding that HIS posting
determines the speed of the posting here,
and if he wants the thread to slow down, all he needs to do is
stop posting on it, and it goes back to sleep until he returns.
Therefore, he knows this-it's been pointed out several times,
more than once by me-and this claim that he's too busy in all
his replies- is simply another form of dodge.
He's too busy to reply to everyone else's posts, but they're
all supposed to read HIS posts. They're supposed to do
any homework he assigns, but he can't just come out and
speak plainly and say "This is what I believe".
(He's been asked to do that every few months for over a
year, and has no signs of doing so now. There's always
an excuse-"I was GOING to, but you're now unworthy
of me speaking plainly, so I'm going to continue to
Do you have documentation for me yet on those two glaring issues you brought up?
I asked you about the editors (plural) that showed up here and posted what you claimed they posted. I have some contrary information in the wings, but I though I’d give you the chance to back up your claim first.
I also asked you to name names of the people who told you (and you gullibly believed?) that “The Joy of Serving” was not really Dr’s last recorded teaching. I supplied text documentation and offered audio documentation that you and they are dead wrong.
***
On this second issue I will qualify thusly: “The Joy of Serving” teaching may very well have been, even probably was, PREPARED by Dr for teaching before he delivered “The Hope.”
I say this because I have become aware of the fact that Dr toured the country in his last months teaching much the same material that ended up in that VERY last recorded and public teaching in Scotland we now call “The Joy of Serving.”
You, WW, may have confused what those people said with this fact of the earlier preparation of “The Joy of Serving.”
Dr urged mastery of the written portions of PFAL in his last Emporia teaching, as I’ve posted here many times, he did it at his last Limb Meeting (I think it was Kentucky), and I've heard that he did it privately in Connecticut and Massachusetts as he was traveling towards that very last public teaching in Scotland.
***
I’ve heard unsubstantiated reports that Dr's very last dying last words of his whole life, addressed to Mrs. Wierwille, were something to the effect of “Well, honey, at least we got it all down in writing.”
I throw this totally unsubstantiated item out in public to try and solicit it’s verification or refutation from someone who was there. It was many years ago that this came to my attention, and I apologize for not even remembering from whom I heard it. I vaguely remember it to be Ralph D or someone who was present at his meeting with San Diego grads in the summer, around July, of 1987.
PFAL unfolds the Bible versions we have that are closed on many issues. Where are you going to find "the mechanics of speech" explained in a version?
I mentioned to templelady above how I've distanced myself from the charge of claiming that PFAL 'replaces" the bible. Did you see it?
PFAL has Bible verses on nearly every page.
I think PFAL is like a necessary supplement to the Bible versions we have. The Bible is addressed to “Jew, Gentile, or the church of God.” PFAL is addressed to grads.
Have you noticed that different Bible versions can contradict each other in some ways, or cast confusion or uncertainty on each other a times?
I think the QUALITY of PFAL is superior to the modern Bible versions we have in that it settles issues the come up when comparing Bible verses.
I think that the quality of PFAL is equivalent to the quality of the first apostle supervised copies of the originals. There are some very minor errors in printed PFAL due to proofreader and printer mistakes.
I think that the quality of the revelations Dr and his editors and his teachers got that ended up becoming printed PFAL... the quality of those revelations is IDENTICAL to the quality of the revelations to the original Bible writers.
I think all these "think" items are not merely my opinions, but the absolute truth, or otherwise I wouldn' think them, much less post them, much MUCH less bet my life on them. They are truth and that's why I'm embraced them, and not vice versa.
Well OK then. Those are some dangerous thoughts you have. I think that PFAL contains some truths, but it is not all encompassing of THE TRUTH. I hope you don't sell yourself short when you meet Him face-to-face.
You invited me to come back and see what others missed. No thank you. I like broader horizons of learning than that. I tend to run the opposite way when there are doctrines presented with "this is THE TRUTH like nobody else has". I think there are different views and denominations for a reason. I like that variety. I also like that the denominations I have frequented can be godly to each other despite their differences in doctrine. That is the real body of Christ working together.
I think you are one who feels comfort to have your package (PFAL) which is set in the bounds of your orange book so that you don't have to look elsewhere. You could better serve Him if you expand your horizons.
I accept your decision and thank you for your civil converasation. If you should someday find your present path wanting, please remember that there is a huge unturned stone you left behind here. I think you'll find, should you someday decide to make your search more thorough, is that looking into written PFAL will prove to be THE safe path God has lovingly provided for us grads.
I’m amazed at how much speculation you and others do here from defective human memory, shooting from the hip, without referring back to the original!
Here is the red drape passage from the film class. In bold print is all that that made it into the book, almost word-for-word, on page 21. The rest is entirely absent.
If we have our need and our want parallel we ask anything according to His will; how can it be His Will if we don't know His Word? His Word is His Will that gets our need and our want parallel. If we know His Word we can parallel it off. And once we get our need and want parallel, whatsoever we ask, we get. Many years ago when I was first questing in the integrity and accuracy of God's Word and doing Biblical research, just starting in the field, there were some things in the Word of God that we believed and that we understood and were practicing in our prayer life. And we were really concerned about learning more about God's Word. We had a letter from one of our radio audience from Cincinnati. And this good lady stipulated in that letter stating the following: she said, "now on Thursday night when you have your prayer group meeting and you meet with your people; I'd like for you to pray for an apartment for me. Because I have to find this apartment and I would like for this apartment to be within walking distance, two or three blocks from where I am employed." And she said, "It has to be a furnished apartment because I do not have my own furniture," and she said, "while your praying for this apartment within this area of where I am gainfully employed will you please ask God that in this furnished apartment there will be red drapes on the living room windows."
My, oh my. That shook me. I thought to myself well good lord, if I'm going to pray for her for an apartment and she gets that apartment she ought to be thankful. What difference does if make if its got pink drapes or yellow drapes or orange drapes on the living room window? But she had stipulated in her letter please pray that there be red drapes on the window. Well I don't know who did the believing, I helped in the praying but I want to tell you something that night spiritually I hadn't gone this far; I believed for the apartment this I could believe for, it was a need I understood this. So I believed that she'd have an apartment but I can't imagine and I know that I did not believe anything about drapes at all. But we prayed that evening and within fifteen minutes of the time when we had prayed for this situation this lady in Cincinnati many, many, many miles away had a telephone call from an entire stranger who said to her "a friend of yours told me that you have need of an apartment, is this right?" And she said, "yes." And she said, "well where's it located?" He said, "well such and such a place." Within two blocks of where she was employed. So she said to him, "May I come and see it in the morning?" He said, "You certainly may." They made an appointment. She went next morning and looked at this apartment. And when she walked into the living room what do you think the color of those drapes were on those living room windows? Green, oh no they weren't. They were fire engine red. That's right. People, she must have had her need and her want parallel. Look at this. All right! She rented a furnished apartment and it had to have drapes on the window, right? Does it make God any difference whether the drapes are green or red or pink? No, but she had a need, that need was that they might as well have red drapes on, that's what she wanted. She got her need and her want parallel. She not only got that apartment but she got the red drapes on the windows. You talk about the accuracy of God's Word when He said He'll supply all of our need according to His riches in glory. Doesn't say He'll supply our greed but He'll supply our need according to His riches in glory. That's true. It's wonderful.
So not only must you know what's available, and how to receive it and what to do with it after you've got it but you've got to get your need and want parallel if you want to tap into the resources for the more abundant life.
I’d like to reproduce here some of the split screen work I’ve done on the use of “parallel” versus “balanced” for those interested in a better discussion than blind speculation Can anyone tell me if and how I can post a .doc file (or an .RTF file) with table cell formatting intact? I didn’t use column formatting, but tables.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
104
50
72
59
Popular Days
May 5
39
May 3
38
Apr 4
34
Apr 3
28
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 104 posts
templelady 50 posts
Tom Strange 72 posts
dmiller 59 posts
Popular Days
May 5 2006
39 posts
May 3 2006
38 posts
Apr 4 2006
34 posts
Apr 3 2006
28 posts
T-Bone
Mike, do you have documentation for your bold assertion?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Mike, I must confess - I don't think I have the patience, endurance, and sharp critical thinking skills like WordWolf or Tom Strange - and to be honest maybe I'm a little lazy not wanting to read through your extensive posts on various threads. Quite frankly, I get lost in the things you say - it's very confusing - makes no sense...Would you be so kind to write out the basic tenets of your belief system...And I mean BASIC...I've done this myself on GSC - in several places - in two or three sentences...Please keep it short - and be specific, concise and clear.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Thank you for responding
To be clear
Since the red drape scenario is not in the books, would it be safe to say that we can discard this as not of as much worth as it would have been if it had been in the books?
Heres another: for needs and wants parallel, the book uses the word balanced in place of parallel a few times.
Wow, doesn't this change the whole thrust of getting your needs and wants parallel?
Parallel indicating something running side by side in the same direction. Balance indicating something different--- while a cup of Sugar and a cup of Sugar weigh the same. A cup of lead and a cup of Sugar are vastly different in weight. It would take many cups of sugar to get the scales in balance.
So which is it parallel or balanced? Does it matter? Is one applicable in one situation and another in another? which Is preferable? HOw do we determine which is necessary in a given situation?
What do the books say??
Edited by templeladyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
But the red drapes are critical to understanding what WIERWILLE meant by the law of the believing. You dismiss it because it's inconvenient and it was left out of the book. But it does help establish what Wierwille thought the law of believing included and did not include.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
T-bone sez,
I respond with:
That's like asking Bill Clinton to tell the truth about 'having sex with that woman', or like having L. Craig Martindale to totally come clean as regards his abusive behavior.
Ie., it ain't gonna be done! <_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
WordWolf,
You wrote: “The red drapes were left out of the book by the editors. __ In their attempts to operate their 5-senses understanding to make the best book possible- AS THEY THEMSELVES EXPLAINED ON THE GSC-”
Please produce your evidence of this.
"THEY" plural? I only remember one such person posting, HCW, and he wasn't really an editor, but a layout manager.
I have much more to say on this, but I'd like to see your evidence. Are you pulling this out of your memory? Or do you have the thread names and Post #s so we can examine them ourselves?
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
templelady,
You asked me: “Please cite from written PFAL the passages that support these claims”
You then laid out a list of many items.
Do you have any idea how much work you’re asking of me? I have to prioritize my time here. Some of the items I'm routinely callanged to prove here would take weeks to cite all the passages from which I have drawn to build and then report the items you and others refer to, and sometimes with only partial accuracy.
Some of the items you asked about I have ALREADY spent many hours posting passages on in the past three plus years. Then, some will only be understood by someone who immerses themselves in nearly all the passages of PFAL for some time, and focuses ONLY on PFAL, purging out all related and especially contradictory material. Then some will require of you the deep commitment written to have God show you the way the passages are to be put together.
Let’s go through the items.
1) PFAL is "God breathed"
This I have often stated requires immersion, exclusive immersion, and living it. I have often posted that proof or substantiation of this requires God to tell you that he is the real author. I have often posted on this, and recently I posted 22 claims (not proofs) of Dr’s that what he was teaching was of God and not himself. Do you remember all this? Please answer me, ok?
***
2) We don't need any versions of the Bible anymore, only PFAL. ( The rest of this item, as you wrote it, is identical to item # 1), so I deleted it. Why didn’t you recognize this? Did you paste in text from somebody else without hardly reading it? I’d really like an answer to this too.
I disagree with this line. It's not logical in many ways.
First off, the "we" is ill defined here. If I were to write it I'd want to make sure the context shows the "we" are people who had put many years into careful study of the KJV and included some other good versions too.
Second, nearly every page of PFAL refers to the KJV or a few other versions. Obviously, there is SOME need for the versions if they are quoted in PFAL. Sometimes PFAL mentions a chapter in KJV without quoting it. Isn't it logical to reach over when encountering such a PFAL passage and reading the mentioned chapter, at least once in a while?
I have tried often to dispense with this idea often misattributed to me. If you search GSCs forums under my name and the word "replace" you will find some of the many posts where I dissociated myself from the simplistic statement you provided. If it's a direct quote from me it's stripped from it's context, and either you or whoever you got it from did me a disservice.
How is it that you can ask me this item this way unless you picked it up from someone else or stripped it if its context yourself? I suspect you are running with a crowd mentality here.
***
3) Christ is currently learning from PFAL and will be teaching from PFAL materials when he returns.
Again, where did you get this from?
I don’t think there are going to be any passages that help you believe this. I have posted before on this that Christ is the Word in flesh form, so since PFAL is the Word in written form, doesn’t it sound logical that he’d be interested in it? Or do you think Christ is God and knows all? I think Jesus Christ is NOT God.
I have seen many grads who are wiling to mouth that sentence, yet turn right around and give him characteristics in their mind that makes him quite identical to God, and not a man, not flesh.
***
4) Betraying Dr's revelations is betraying God.
This is a no-brainer. Since Dr didn’t write from his own flesh understanding, but produced the written Word of God given in English and not translated by flesh men from copies of copies of copies of the ancient scriptures, then it’s only logical that rejecting the revelations God gave to Dr would be rejecting the Giver of the revelations, God himself.
Again, I’m impressed with the way you put this item. It again looks like a mindless paste or regurgitation of somethig you read but didn't think through. Think it through, from the way you wrote... or posted it.
“Betraying Dr's revelations...” – refers to the revelations Dr received from God.
“... is betraying God.” – it’s almost a tautology.
How much thought did you put into this?
***
5) Studying PFAL will defeat death.
Well if God gave us PFAL, and God is willing and able to defeat death (do I need to prove this to you?) then PFAL should enable us to implement God’s Word and will.
***
6) I feel that VPW should be the final authority on what PFAL says or doesn't say, after all he wrote the books
This sounds quite acceptable to me.
By the way, are you aware of the usual process by which a highly esteemed college professor writes his books? He has his trusted graduate students write most of it, under the professor’s supervision. After training them and getting them to speak his language and utter his thoughts, the grad students become a secondary mouthpiece for the professor.
The supervision certainly entails the professor himself reading the final edit before final approval is given to the printers. After the book is written and the grad students receive their PhDs, they drift off and form their own ideas, sometimes even contradiction their old mentor and/or forgetting some or much of the old professor’s points of view. They then are no longer good spokesmen for the professor.
Their ability to speak authoritatively about the book they have participated in writing fades with each passing year. If they suffer any form of mental (or spiritual) illness they are in even less a position to speak authoritatively of the book’s contents.
This process I’m describing has occurred many hundreds, even thousands of times. It doesn’t happen with all professors, only with highly esteemed ones who can command great allegiance from very willing grad students. It’s like a luxury or a reward for the professor making a very big name for himself and thus attracting a sufficient number and quality of willing volunteers.
I have seen this process a number of times in the fields of Physics and Brain Science first hand and knew the professors and grad students well, all on a first name basis. I was not one of the grad students but I was allowed in the circles as an avid and competent tag-along.
***
Templelady, You then wrote: “This will be of great benefit to new posters who are here for the first time. It will also be of great benefit to myself and other posters who are still waiting for the citations and have been waiting since Feb 9 2006, at 04:11 PM when the original PFAL thread was started.”
Did you notice BEFORE you wrote your post that most of the items were logical derivatives of item #1?
Item #1 was supplied no citations by me here, unless you want to count the 22 claims by Dr to the truth if item #1?
Did you see those 22 claims? There's a table of contents that can direct you to them in Post #936 on a thread located here: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...pic=9131&st=920
Think about it logically, though, if there were such simple quotable passages that would satisfy simple minded readers who did not want to execute the total immersion I talked about above, wouldn’t it be logical that many other readers of PFAL would have stumbled across the same passages? Were you aware of this when you wrote your post. Did you know I was aware of it?
I wonder how much thought you put into all of this and how much of your post was merely you repeating what the crowd of riff raff is yelling? Please, if you want to differentiate yourself from this kind of mob mentality, think about the points here where I asked you questions.
You and I have been through a lot of posting. In that activity I have pointed out to you quite a few items that you had no idea were in written PFAL, and even a few your didn’t remember from the film class. Did you get any inkling from all that there may be MANY wonderful items yet for you to discover in PFAL? I really believe that with God working within you as you meekly and systematically read that material He will show you the same things He showed to me?
You must know the standard Mormon rap where you ask God directly and He will tell you if Mormonism is true? What I’m telling you is much the same, only instead of you jumping into a direct one-on-one session with a spirit, I’m showing you a way to immerse yourself in a body of English text, to do the work of reading and pondering in a non-supernatural way, and then listening for that still small voice.
I’ve had many Mormons go through the set-up with me for the direct spirit asking and I saw it was a lazy man’s mode of inquiry. It involved feelings and goose bumps, but not a substantial amount of deep and clear thought, and certainly no scripture passages.
God wants people who can think through highly detailed situations, not someone who asks for a quick feeling and thinks that’s a deep spiritual revelation.
We saw many TWI leaders do this cheap method of ignoring details and jumping on... not first thought because most of them had no sound thoughts... but jumping on first feeling. We saw that lazy way of asking God to reveal Himself backfire greatly.
We saw where the one inquiring had to do little to no disciplined work involving detailed thought from absorbing and integrating large amounts of text, but were winging it on TVTs.
We saw how disastrous that lazy method was, with a plethora of false revelations, mostly from the flesh, and not the intelligent parts of the flesh; it was more like pulling the “revelation” from their butt.
I urge you to take the noble approach to inquiring of God. The noble Bereans in Acts 17 should be our example of this approach. I did it this Berean way to see that PFAL was God-breathed and that almost all of the items logically derived from seeing this one great blessing from God to us in English.
Acts 17:10-12
And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea:
who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica,
in that they received the word with all readiness of mind,
and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Therefore many of them believed...
Paul did not cite any short few magic passages to them that led them to believe.
If someone had asked him to, like you asked of me, I’ll bet he’d have declined and said “Just listen for a while.”
Notice that the noble Bereans did not ask for a lazy quickie from God to tell them Paul was to be believed. It took time, and they had to do work. They searched the scriptures daily after listening with a ready mind. They had to exercise their intellect to inquire of God, not their feelings and adrenal glands.
They did not believe Paul on the first session of teaching, and not on the second. I believe the use of the word “daily” here means it may have been WEEKS before they believed. They had to do a lot of work themselves, and did not ask Paul for a quick proof.
AND... And we know that they only had Old Testament scriptures to search daily, so they found NOT ONE simple passage that proved the mystery that Paul was speaking to them. It had to be God working within them as they did their best to be to study, workmen that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Therefore many of them believed.
That’s how the noble Bereans arrived at the truth. That’s how we need to do it. I’ve shown to you that you did not receive many items the first times you took the class. Maybe then you were operating in the same mob-rule, bandwagon mode that I strongly suspect you’re operating in here.
I urge you to read the books, just you and God, with no others influencing your behavior and beliefs. If you want to try this noble approach and be one of the VERY few grads to do so, please PM me I will see to it that you will soon have a complete set of the books.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Wordwolf,
You’re really losing it.
You wrote: “Those who actually interacted with vpw in his last few months said "THE HOPE" was the last teaching he covered for people, and that came AFTER "the Joy of Serving", which is the one Mike is quoting.”
Name names here.
No one has EVER contested “The Joy of Serving” being his last teaching until you just spouted this.
Look at the Sep/Oct 1986 Way Mag and it will tell you “The Joy of Serving” was his last teaching. I can supply a .jpg image of it for anyone who wants to see how innacurate you are.
Listen to the weekly Corps tape from the Wednesday about two days after Dr died. Craig played clips from both “The Hope” and “The Joy of Serving” and notes the latter is his last. I can supply an .mp3 of this Corps tape.
Listen to tapes of both teachings and you can hear Dr to be very, very weak on “The Joy of Serving” compared to “The Hope.” I can supply .mp3 files for both.
Look at the text of the POP posted here. Near the end Geer walks with Dr to the teaching that was to become the “The Joy of Serving.” Track the dates.
“The Hope” was recorded on April 21, 1985.
“The Joy of Serving” was recorded on May 12, 1985.
The Way Magazine reports both of these dates, as well as a catalog prepared by Jim Stutz of CA in the late 90’s.
How incredibly irresponsible of you. So who are the “who actually interacted with vpw in his last few months” you referred to? Name names for us and you will not be alone in this huge error. Who are they and where did they say this?
How many other huge errors plague your mind?
This is one reason I find your posts repulsive. Are you deliberately lying or just monumentally sloppy?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Actually, I was thinking specifically of HCW.
I don't discount the possibility of others chiming in and me missing it, though.
HCW broke down how the editing process in the books AND magazines was
done-which was identical to how it was also explained by one of the
editors-was it Linda Z?
They used their brains and their best understanding to make whatever they
were working on as good as possible as defined by the framework they were
working in.
In the case of the magazine articles, that sometimes necessitated
radical restating/rephrasing in different words,
and sometimes it meant trimming out extraneous sentences.
Thus, in transcribing the film to print, they started with EVERYTHING
word for word.
Then they cleaned up some awkward language and obvious errors
(like anabalepto being corrected to eidon, and fixing the
"Felix or Festus" when it was Agrippa who said "almost thou persuadest
me to be a Christian", as the KJV renders it.)
In some cases, entire anecdotes went on the chopping block since they
were NOT able to be functionally-restored. They were SERIOUS about
retaining as much of the film as possible-so any absences are telling.
Furthermore, as we've seen in discussions right here,
the "red drapes" anecdote falls on its face when examined.
So, to "strengthen" the book, the anecdote is removed.
Since you've taken all accounts they posted, as well as the
face-to-face encounters you've had with editing staff,
and rewritten the accounts to say
"they inadvertently operated revelation"
(you did this addressing HCW previously),
I figured you'd continue to just do so ad infinitum.
Have you changed your mind, or are you asking just to try to
throw doubt on what happened before?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
T-Bone,
You asked for some quick synopsis of my position. Can you ask me that again someday? I’m tired and need to sleep soon. It would require more than I have right now.
However, I can somewhat answer your earlier post in my sleep because I’ve done it so many, many times before.
I had written: “The ancient scriptures are not accessible, and the modern man-made reconstructions of them are FAR from definitive, shifting about constantly by the latest theological fads in translation and manuscript rating.”
You wrote: “Mike, do you have documentation for your bold assertion?”
Yes, just look at how many footnotes are on every page of any good Interlinear.
That should be documentation enough if you understand the Interlinear and what the critical Greek texts are.
I’ll explain a little.
Do you know what the critical Greek texts are?
Do you know when they were written?
Do you know why they were written?
Do you know why they are called “critical.”?
Many grads think that critical Greek texts are very ancient and they are most critically important and reliable texts available, and that they are the definitive “last say” on what the originals said, and that all they need be is accurately translated. They are none of these things.
Do you know why they are none of these things?
Do you need more of an explanation?
If you can accurately answer the above questions you should be able to see my documentation for that bold assertion.
Have you ever read the introduction to a good Interlinear like “THE ENGLISHMAN’S GREEK New Testament”? It’s about 12 pages long. I suggest you read it. If I have time tomorrow I’ll elaborate. If it gets lost in the shuffle please PM me. I may try to scan it and send it to you if you can’t find it in a library or bookstore. You could probably read it standing up and not have to buy the book.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
[supposedly,
you've already examined all of this and should be able to rattle
them off like the definitions of the manifestations.
You mentioned this work perhaps 24 hours ago on this very thread.
Things sure change fast around here...]
[it is esoteric, and not to be shared with the unenlightened.]
[That was on the post that took up several written pages all in one shot,
not indexed for actual read-ability. You may remember it.
The lack of format strongly suggested Mike didn't actually want it
READ or STUDIED- just posted so he could say
"I posted it."
I would have responded to the claims of Mike's that vpw made such
claims-but if Mike didn't care enough to make his material
read-able, I'm not going to do all his work FOR him.
Mind you, if he'd been communicating plainly with us for the past
few years rather than playing word-games and assigning homework,
I might have volunteered to add a format
(you know, chapters and verses) just to facilitate maintaining discussion.
However, technically, he DID post them,
and that's where you'll find them.]
[it's not your imaginations, folks,
he ducked the question.]
[Are you saying you didn't say this, Mike?
Are you saying that she is unable to use the search function and find
your own posts saying exactly this, Mike?
Are you saying you DON'T believe this, Mike?
No-you're not saying any of those-
your answer, if it was in a court of law, would have been called
"UNRESPONSIVE."
Or, in other words,
YOU DUCKED THE QUESTION AGAIN.
I'm beginning to see a pattern here...]
["PFAL IS THE WORD IN WRITTEN FORM",
in the same fashion, or analagous, to how Christ is The Word in flesh form.
See, you CAN give plain answers to what you believe when you want to.
Why waste weeks and months REFUSING to do so and diluting your posts
when you could say all the basics in ONE PAGE?]
["Dr produced the written Word of God given in English".
There's another concise sentence.
We knew you were CAPABLE of them, Mike, nice to see them
emerging from your posts.
Of course, the "copies of copies of copies" sounds a LOT
less extreme and harsh in comparison to your normal distain
for critical Greek texts. Are you feeling less antithetical
of them now, possibly even respectful? Any thoughts that
the extant ones actually contain God-breathed Word?
It would be worth saying so if you did...]
[As is obvious to most of us who read her post,
she was asking rather obvious questions, and comparing your
direct answers to HER to claims made ABOUT what you've said.
In other words, she had some honest questions,
and you're suggesting something about them-
either that there's some sort of "agenda" besides inquiry,
or that there's some other problem with asking.
With this type of response to even respectful questions,
is it any wonder you inspire some barbed replies from
several people?]
[That was ANOTHER ducked question.
(Aw, and after he actually ANSWERED some...)
First, he belittled her ("do I need to prove this to you?")
then he SUDDENLY CHANGED THE SUBJECT
and began phrasing himself AMBIGUOUSLY,
DELIBERATELY OCCULTING HIS ANSWER.
If "PFAL should enable us to implement God's Word and will"
is meant here to say
"PFAL should enable us to defeat death",
then Mike should say so outright.
If it is meant to say ANYTHING ELSE,
why, then, did Mike frame the question and the first part
of the answer to suggest he would be addressing whether
or not he's saying PFAL will defeat death?
Either way, it's a sudden, sharp turn from candor
to dishonesty. He's deliberately attempting to confuse
the reader and PRETEND to answer the question.
This is the same type of thing you get when one person
claims to have played basketball all thru high school and
college and be "involved with" a local amateur team,
when you want them to conclude you were saying you
were a member of the team, when the truth of
the matter was you answered their phone or did their
taxes or announced their games or something.
Why not simply answer the question?]
[The following is a lie that Mike has attempted to claim about
the researcher EW Bullinger,
and about other respected writers,
in an attempt to smear their respectability
and drag them to the level of a plagiarist.]
[The TRUTH of the matter is that if a professor attempted to have a student
write ANY portion of a book OR a dissertation he is going to attach his name
to-without featuring their name SPECIFICALLY as having written part of it-
the student could have the professor FIRED WITH CAUSE from the
institution, and the professor's reputation would be DESTROYED.
That's because colleges and universities take plagiarism
VERY, VERY SERIOUSLY.
Is it TECHNICALLY possible a professor (or professors) did this?
Yes-but "getting away with it" makes it no less a crime than theft
or murder ceases to be a crime if you don't get caught.
A professor may have a respected grad student REVIEW his work
before it's published-as a technical proofreader.
A professor may ask a respected grad student to COMPILE DATA-
which the professor will then read, evaluated, then write on.
That's not "writing" his book-not even a single letter of text.
However, Mike's attempting to play an
"everybody does it" game with plagiarism so that it makes
vpw's crimes seem less harsh. Interesting how he tried to
sneak that one by while aiming for a different target,
which is the NEXT point....]
[And the relevance of this anecdote?
Was it just to claim you've seen MANY professors and
grad students BREAK THE LAW AND NOT GET CAUGHT,
or were you trying to suggest something you never said?]
[some related questions bear answering. No need to attack her for it.]
[Can hardly blame her for that, but nice try anyway.]
[Ah, a direct link! That was nice of you!]
[According to you, Mike, everyone else has been so poor at reading
comprehension that a plain declaration might well be beyond their talents.
So, based on your previous claims, one MIGHT expect you to whip something
obvious out and say "See? It was in plain sight all along and you all missed it!"]
[i wonder if you realize just how patronizing and arrogant you
come off in posts like this. Presuming to read her mind-which is a common
presumption on your part-displays a sloppy mentality which does NOT
place a favourable light on you ANYTIME you do it.]
[Congratulations! You answered your own questions from above
and explained WHY she might ask questions that seem obvious to you!
Will you now berate YOURSELF for EXPLAINING IT like you
attacked her for asking? It would be internally consistent, at any rate.
(Like the traffic judge fining himself for poor driving.)]
[Cheap shot on other leaders,
cheap shot on Mormonism,
or both?
What do the other readers say?]
[Cute.
Made some assumptions based on what a section of Acts did NOT say
(it did NOT say Paul declared things FROM the Scriptures-
at least NOT IN THE CITED VERSES),
so therefore, Paul must not have shown them the verses.
(Likewise, this account says nothing about Paul using an outhouse
or going abroad, so he must never have used a bathroom
when he was with them. Same principle-let's be CONSISTENT!)
Then he says his dodging of questions is the same thing Paul did.
Like I said, cute.
Hey, Mike,
I'll get back to your other posts as soon as I have time.
Only so many hours in a night...]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
In other words,
Mike is going to PRETEND he has documentation for his bold assertion,
and send you off with a homework assignment to prove his assertion
FOR him!
Mike began with the premise that a new Bible was issued in the
20th century,
therefore there must be a problem with the Bible of the
preceeding 19 centuries (and change),
therefore it's inadequate,
therefore all "investigations" on his part will be with a
view towards trying to strengthen his case.
This means he will "ignore the misses and count the hits",
and otherwise skip anything that documents the OPPOSITE
position.
I'm sure you notice (or can easily note)
that he fogged the usage of the word "critical"
in the above post.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Mike - how is it you can't give me a short synopsis of your main beliefs but you awkwardly ATTEMPT to prove your assertion about the inaccessibility to ancient scriptures? And you still have NOT given me any specific evidence to support your claim! Please re-read your own quote in the above text [in bold red] - do I have to diagram the sentence for you? Do I have to define each word YOU used? You're the one making these sweeping claims - I shouldn't have to do the work for you to prove your point! You are the one that chose those particular words and phrases. Surely you're not just throwing them out there with no basis or reason! Do you understand the meaning of the words in your sentence? Are these your ideas? Can you cite specific instances that led you to conclude this?
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
CM
Like I said Mike, I don't see any difference in what you are doing compared to what they are doing. You are in it for yourself just like they are. Reasons may vary but the same selfishness is there.
And by the way, who do you think these people are anyway?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Ok, let's see...
Here's what I said...
This just goes to show you that if you keep typing long enough
(I've been posting on the GSC since before Y2K, IIRC),
you can make a bad post.
Now, I could do like Mike and pretend I never posted a mistake,
and just go on, hoping it will blow over.
Or, I could demonstrate a higher standard of behaviour,
and internal consistency,
'fess up,
and fix it, and say what I SHOULD have said.
I chose the latter.
Now, then,
when I said
"Those who interacted with vpw in his last few months",
that was hyperbole, an exaggeration.
What I SHOULD have said was
"Those who were active in the ministry at the time".
I'm so used to multi-tasking on Mike's posts, and with
Mike contradicting the live witnesses, that I sorta typed
this out of habit. That was wrong, and I should pay a bit
more attention when I type.
As for
"and that came AFTER 'the Joy of Serving",
that was incorrect and not what I MEANT to say.
It's true-I made an error. I'll admit I finally made one
on these threads. Since Mike's been loading them with
logic fallacies, errors, mistakes and outright lies,
and not admitting to them,
I think it should be forgiveable that I made one (or 1 1/2,
depending on how you call it) and owned up to it.
I shall clarify what I MEANT to say.
When I said
" 'THE HOPE' was the last teaching he covered for people"
THAT was COMPLETELY CORRECT.
vpw SPECIFICALLY taught that for EVERYONE, and expected
THAT to be his very last public teaching-his last teaching for
everyone.
When reviewing the opening of "the Joy of Serving",
anyone can see that he specifically addressed it-
not to everyone, or "the people" as I called them,
but to COUNTRY COORDINATORS.
He was NOT teaching with a view towards this one going out
to the rank and file, Joe and Jane Believer.
That's because he says in the opening-and Mike himself has
attested to this:
"Since this is the meeting here at this time of COUNTRY COORDINATORS
--and of course, what I'm going to say SHOULD be applicable to every
born-again believer,
but ESPECIALLY to-- our coordinators.]"
He also addresses himself shortly thereafter to leadership again-
"That twig and twig area leader, and the country coordinators,
leadership of the Corps, of the WOWs,..."
So, my main point-
that "THE HOPE" was the LAST teaching vpw intended for all the people
to hear- that was CORRECT.
My other point-
that 'the Joy of Serving' was NEVER intended to be a last message
FOR ALL THE PEOPLE,
but Mike has built it up to be so,
and has exercised various verbal gymnastics to attempt to
make it so.
So, vpw's comments about what he'd say to people if he knew he
was going to never see them again, those comments-
if they apply to ANY teaching, for EVERYBODY-
those comments apply to "THE HOPE."
Now, some people are paying attention and wonder where my
comments about people mentioning this before come in.
Well,
some entire threads have been wiped out,
and, unlike Mike, I have not been keeping an archive of the
threads where Mike's idolatry has been discussed and exposed.
However,
deleted posts to the contrary,
I WAS able to find the following comment, which did NOT exist in a void.
(I don't have ALL the posts, but I found this one.)
It was posted by Zixar, Jan 6, 2003, 5:12pm.
"Another thing. One of the most basic keys to biblical interpretation that Dr. Wierwille taught was to get
'to whom it was written' straight.
Reading your transcript of the 'Last' Teaching, it is PRIMARILY addressed to the
Country Coordinators, and only SECONDARILY addressed to believers in general.
That makes it his last teaching specifically only for Country Coordinators. Dr. Wierwille knew
his true, public Last Teaching would be tape # 1275, 'The Hope'.
It was addressed to all believers, and is his final message to TWI assembled.
Therefore, unless you are a Country Coordinator, the advice to master the FC, IC and
collaterals is not an absolute final mandate. Look to 'The Hope' for that."
Mike's reply to that was to say it ONCE applied to them,
but NOW applies to everyone.
"My Daddy is blind to name tag status, He looks at believing."
Now, then,
THAT was what I MEANT to say.
I got sloppy, and didn't post it originally.
Thus, this correction.
I shall try to make it ANOTHER 6 years before I make another.
Meanwhile, I noticed Mike saw me refute him for several
pages, but skipped over THOSE posts-and most of
this one, actually-
and seized on my first actual mistake, as if it was the only
thing I've posted all year....
Now, this was sloppy of me, but not "incredibly irresponsible" of me.
If I claimed, say, that "the greatest secret in the world today is that
the Bible is the revealed Word and Will of God",
and then spent the rest of my time saying that the Bible wasn't a
Bible anymore, but a collection of books, tapes and magazine
clippings were-in varying percentages- now the revealed Word and
Will of God, and that the Bible that originally WAS claimed to be
the revealed Word and Will of God is now
"unreliable fragments" and "tattered remnants",
then THAT would be "incredibly irresponsible" of me.
That would be internal inconsistency of the first order,
and it would be to my shame.
However, if I was Mike, that type of internal inconsistency is
just business as usual. Mike and I have different standards
for an acceptable doctrine and an acceptable post.
As for "huge errors" that "plague a mind",
I'd say taking "the keys to Genesis to Revelation"
and saying "this is Genesis to Revelation",
and taking "then shall we say 'thus saith the LORD'"
and saying "we will no longer to say 'thus saith the LORD then",
I'd consider those "huge errors",
and mixing up a pair of dates is an error,
but hardly to be compared to a "HUGE ERROR."
"This is one reason I find your posts repulsive."
Hardly.
I made ONE mistake.
Mike finds my posts repulsive in general for the same reason
the robber finds the policeman to be unwelcome.
He had that problem LONG before I finally made a goof.
I neither deliberately lie nor am MONUMENTALLY sloppy.
This time I was 'sloppy', but not in a MONUMENTAL fashion.
A MONUMENTAL mistake would be to throw away the meal and
eat the menu,
and that's not the type of mistake I made.
However, that IS the type of mistake we've seen around here...
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
T-Bone,
You wrote: “Mike - how is it you can't give me a short synopsis of your main beliefs but you awkwardly ATTEMPT to prove your assertion about the inaccessibility to ancient scriptures?”
How IS it?
Well, did you read what I wrote? I said I was tired. Did you look at the time stamp on my post? It was 1:38 am PST.
I do light manual labor for a living and I'm almost 57 years old. When I get home I'm tired. I then spent many hours in the evening writing to templelady and then to you. Writing can take more energy than light manual labor. I gave you the best I could at that late hour in a state of great fatigue. If you can’t show some gratitude, I’ll easily relagate you to the cold theologian and/or riff raff category and end conversation with you. You decide.
Have you ever dealt with MANY hostile posters with MANY words shot at you before? If so, show me where.
I came back this morning with fresh thoughts regarding your two posts to me. Don’t blow it and brush me off so cavalierly, PLEASE! Anyone can misbehave like that; it doesn’t take much searching in this world to find inspiration to act like an jerk’s .....
Regarding your first post last night to me, have you ever looked at Mark 16:9-20? Which side of that controversy would you be willing to bet your life on? Do you know of that controversy to which I refer? Look those verses up in a NIV and it's in plain print.
Do you have some answers for me on my questions posed in preliminary answer to your first post where I mentioned the critical Greek texts? Have you read the Introduction to your Interlinear? Have you Googled “critical Greek texts”?
Do you even WANT me to deal with this first post of yours to me any more beyond my late night attempt to get it started? You decide.
***
You wrote: “And you still have NOT given me any specific evidence to support your claim!"
Have you ANY patience and human understanding? This is a very childish and impatient demand of yours here?
Did you notice in my paragraphs above that I did supply some specific evidence in my question about Mark 16, or did you blow off those paragraphs like you did my late night post?
If you want to dish out tough talk to me you're going to have to be able to take it too! Kabish?
***
You wrote: “Please re-read your own quote in the above text [in bold red] - do I have to diagram the sentence for you? Do I have to define each word YOU used? You're the one making these sweeping claims - I shouldn't have to do the work for you to prove your point!”
E-gads man! Want me to change your diapers for you? I’m trying to have a dialog with you and you are acting like a two-year-old temper tantrum artist.
***
You wrote: “You are the one that chose those particular words and phrases. Surely you're not just throwing them out there with no basis or reason! Do you understand the meaning of the words in your sentence? Are these your ideas? Can you cite specific instances that led you to conclude this?”
I cited the abundance of footnotes at the bottom of every page of the Interlinear as specific proof. I then asked you some questions to see if you had enough understanding of how an Interlinear works to recognize the significance of my highly abbreviated yet potent specific citation.
If you cannot answer those several questions, my plan this morning was, after getting some few hours of rest, to get more specific. I was going to “add water” to the concentrated footnote answer if you needed me to. Now, after your marching with the mob mentality here I’m not sure if I want to bother. If you want me to work with you like I have worked with some of the much more civil ladies here in recent days, just say so.
If you want civil discussion I suggest you work on some answers to the questions I posed. If you can’t answer them, don’t be ashamed. Just say so. Hardly any grads can answer them, but I though maybe you could, seeing some of the intelligent posts you've made before here.
I’m not going to bite your head off and refuse you more discussion if you can’t answer the questions; I’ll help supply answers, so that we can proceed. Please answer my questions from last night (1:38 am late) as well as my more recent Mark 16 question.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Nottawayfer
Mike,
I have another question for you.
When you say PFAL is Godbreathed, do you mean it is equivalent or a substitution for the Bible?
Please clarify.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Wafer Not,
PFAL unfolds the Bible versions we have that are closed on many issues. Where are you going to find "the mechanics of speech" explained in a version?
I mentioned to templelady above how I've distanced myself from the charge of claiming that PFAL 'replaces" the bible. Did you see it?
PFAL has Bible verses on nearly every page.
I think PFAL is like a necessary supplement to the Bible versions we have. The Bible is addressed to “Jew, Gentile, or the church of God.” PFAL is addressed to grads.
Have you noticed that different Bible versions can contradict each other in some ways, or cast confusion or uncertainty on each other a times?
I think the QUALITY of PFAL is superior to the modern Bible versions we have in that it settles issues the come up when comparing Bible verses.
I think that the quality of PFAL is equivalent to the quality of the first apostle supervised copies of the originals. There are some very minor errors in printed PFAL due to proofreader and printer mistakes.
I think that the quality of the revelations Dr and his editors and his teachers got that ended up becoming printed PFAL... the quality of those revelations is IDENTICAL to the quality of the revelations to the original Bible writers.
I think all these "think" items are not merely my opinions, but the absolute truth, or otherwise I wouldn' think them, much less post them, much MUCH less bet my life on them. They are truth and that's why I'm embraced them, and not vice versa.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
T-Bone,
As for your second post, I have been mulling that over in my mind. I have several possible approaches in mind. First things first, though.
Did you notice my earlier post on revvel? There’s a lot of hints there to one approach I’m contemplating.
In Post #6 of this thread you can find some questions I had asked Tom Strange as he pressed me for some comment on an issue remarkable similar to templelady’s quested item #3 (my numbering system) in Post #233 of this thread.
In that Post #6 of this thread I did a recap of the previous “Round 1” thread in the series in which this thread is “Round 2.”
Reiterating my recap there, and reproducing it’s original color scheme I said this:
RECAPPING THE PREVIOUS THREAD
On the Round One thread of this PFAL series titled “The Official, the Ultimate, the Amazing PFAL Thread, Come Back to PFAL, but watch for the land mines” in Post #1009, just before it reached such a large size that it was locked down (probably to prevent slowing down the server’s hard drive from the weight), Tom Strange had asked me a question after pasting in some lines where he quoted me.
That thread’s last page can be found here:
http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...00entry228278
Tom Strange wrote over there in that thread’s Post #1009 the following:
So then you're talking "spiritually" here???
Mike 2/2/04, 12:17am.
"When you see Christ in his glory he will be holding a PFAL book in his hand
and teaching you from it."
Mike 2/3/04 5:22am.
"Jesus Christ appointed Dr his spokesman.
Jesus Christ is VERY interested in PFAL.
He told me so."
Vickles 2/3/04, 7:51pm.
"So, Mike, you weren't kidding about JC coming with a PFAL book in his hand."
Mike, 2/3/04, 7:53pm.
"Totally serious. I've already seen him this way more than once."
...you haven't actually physically seen him? just spiritually???”
Then I responded to Tom in that thread’s last Post #1011 with:
What do you mean by “...just spiritually”???
Is that like “merely spiritually”?
Is there something lacking with spiritually?
Is there something less than “actual” with spiritually?
I think we got a lot of background work to do.
***
Let me ask YOU some questions to get you prepared for some answers.
When you see Jesus, how will you know FOR SURE that it’s him, the REAL him and not a counterfeit?
You wouldn’t want to bend the knee and swear loyalty to the wrong god accidentally.
Have you ever thought this through deeply?
I used to do this all the time in the 60’s. I saw all kinds of things then. From those experiences I would say the counterfeit is much more possible than most people think.
This is related to your questions to me, because how are you going to tell if what I saw was counterfeit or not?
What criteria can be used to discern the real Jesus? Finger prints? Iris scan? DNA?
One guy I know used touching the holes in his hands feet and the gash in his side to tell, but he got scolded for that.
How much thought have you put into things like this? I’m serious.
Before I’m allowed to bring you on a tour of the limits of the universe, I have to make sure you can take it. It’s a liability issue. My hands are tied by insurance regulations. You have to be fit to survive the ride, doncha know.
***
Ok, T-Bone, I’m back with you now.
This set of questions I asked of Tom Strange, he and others here strangely avoided dealing with, dodging them like I have always asserted we all do at times.
(WW, did you notice this dodge?)
Well, anyway T-Bone, I posed these questions to him in much the same way I posed questions to you: to use the responses as a springboard to my ultimate grand thesis here, right in line with your second post to me last night. I’m giving you a hint to one of the approaches I contemplated in responding to you.
There’s another hint in my post on revvel not many days ago. That post of mine too was relatively ignored here, totally ignored if WW didn’t include it in his profuse blatherings that I don’t have the time or stomach to thoroughly read.
I noticed long ago here at GSC that whenever I got down to some specifics on the Return of Christ it’s almost totally ignored by the usual suspects. Maybe their muses are troubled by the imminence of it.
So, T-Bone, why don’t you try your hand at answering the questions I posed in Post #6 to Tom to get the ball rolling on my response to your second post to me last night? It will help me to get to the short, simple, succinct sentences you requested. Work with me on this, why don’t you? I show up here for a dialog, not to hop-to-it, write a bunch of essays before short deadlines pass, and meet the demands of posters to produce whatever whims waft through them.
I may go ahead with this or any of the other approaches to your request even if you decline me the conversation mode of exploration of such. You got me intrigued with just how much I should reveal.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
And now for some more "well-mannered conversation" from Mike....
Feel free to click back and read the entire post, or just scroll up for it.
We've got more insults and more homework.
Mike STILL thinks the GSC is his classroom,
he is the professor,
and the posters are students of his.
Mike's not mentally incapable of understanding that HIS posting
determines the speed of the posting here,
and if he wants the thread to slow down, all he needs to do is
stop posting on it, and it goes back to sleep until he returns.
Therefore, he knows this-it's been pointed out several times,
more than once by me-and this claim that he's too busy in all
his replies- is simply another form of dodge.
He's too busy to reply to everyone else's posts, but they're
all supposed to read HIS posts. They're supposed to do
any homework he assigns, but he can't just come out and
speak plainly and say "This is what I believe".
(He's been asked to do that every few months for over a
year, and has no signs of doing so now. There's always
an excuse-"I was GOING to, but you're now unworthy
of me speaking plainly, so I'm going to continue to
speak cryptically...")
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
WordWolf,
Do you have documentation for me yet on those two glaring issues you brought up?
I asked you about the editors (plural) that showed up here and posted what you claimed they posted. I have some contrary information in the wings, but I though I’d give you the chance to back up your claim first.
I also asked you to name names of the people who told you (and you gullibly believed?) that “The Joy of Serving” was not really Dr’s last recorded teaching. I supplied text documentation and offered audio documentation that you and they are dead wrong.
***
On this second issue I will qualify thusly: “The Joy of Serving” teaching may very well have been, even probably was, PREPARED by Dr for teaching before he delivered “The Hope.”
I say this because I have become aware of the fact that Dr toured the country in his last months teaching much the same material that ended up in that VERY last recorded and public teaching in Scotland we now call “The Joy of Serving.”
You, WW, may have confused what those people said with this fact of the earlier preparation of “The Joy of Serving.”
Dr urged mastery of the written portions of PFAL in his last Emporia teaching, as I’ve posted here many times, he did it at his last Limb Meeting (I think it was Kentucky), and I've heard that he did it privately in Connecticut and Massachusetts as he was traveling towards that very last public teaching in Scotland.
***
I’ve heard unsubstantiated reports that Dr's very last dying last words of his whole life, addressed to Mrs. Wierwille, were something to the effect of “Well, honey, at least we got it all down in writing.”
I throw this totally unsubstantiated item out in public to try and solicit it’s verification or refutation from someone who was there. It was many years ago that this came to my attention, and I apologize for not even remembering from whom I heard it. I vaguely remember it to be Ralph D or someone who was present at his meeting with San Diego grads in the summer, around July, of 1987.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Nottawayfer
Well OK then. Those are some dangerous thoughts you have. I think that PFAL contains some truths, but it is not all encompassing of THE TRUTH. I hope you don't sell yourself short when you meet Him face-to-face.
You invited me to come back and see what others missed. No thank you. I like broader horizons of learning than that. I tend to run the opposite way when there are doctrines presented with "this is THE TRUTH like nobody else has". I think there are different views and denominations for a reason. I like that variety. I also like that the denominations I have frequented can be godly to each other despite their differences in doctrine. That is the real body of Christ working together.
I think you are one who feels comfort to have your package (PFAL) which is set in the bounds of your orange book so that you don't have to look elsewhere. You could better serve Him if you expand your horizons.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Wafer Not,
I accept your decision and thank you for your civil converasation. If you should someday find your present path wanting, please remember that there is a huge unturned stone you left behind here. I think you'll find, should you someday decide to make your search more thorough, is that looking into written PFAL will prove to be THE safe path God has lovingly provided for us grads.
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
Raf and templelady,
Gee wiz! You two should be ashamed of yourselves.
I’m amazed at how much speculation you and others do here from defective human memory, shooting from the hip, without referring back to the original!
Here is the red drape passage from the film class. In bold print is all that that made it into the book, almost word-for-word, on page 21. The rest is entirely absent.
If we have our need and our want parallel we ask anything according to His will; how can it be His Will if we don't know His Word? His Word is His Will that gets our need and our want parallel. If we know His Word we can parallel it off. And once we get our need and want parallel, whatsoever we ask, we get. Many years ago when I was first questing in the integrity and accuracy of God's Word and doing Biblical research, just starting in the field, there were some things in the Word of God that we believed and that we understood and were practicing in our prayer life. And we were really concerned about learning more about God's Word. We had a letter from one of our radio audience from Cincinnati. And this good lady stipulated in that letter stating the following: she said, "now on Thursday night when you have your prayer group meeting and you meet with your people; I'd like for you to pray for an apartment for me. Because I have to find this apartment and I would like for this apartment to be within walking distance, two or three blocks from where I am employed." And she said, "It has to be a furnished apartment because I do not have my own furniture," and she said, "while your praying for this apartment within this area of where I am gainfully employed will you please ask God that in this furnished apartment there will be red drapes on the living room windows."
My, oh my. That shook me. I thought to myself well good lord, if I'm going to pray for her for an apartment and she gets that apartment she ought to be thankful. What difference does if make if its got pink drapes or yellow drapes or orange drapes on the living room window? But she had stipulated in her letter please pray that there be red drapes on the window. Well I don't know who did the believing, I helped in the praying but I want to tell you something that night spiritually I hadn't gone this far; I believed for the apartment this I could believe for, it was a need I understood this. So I believed that she'd have an apartment but I can't imagine and I know that I did not believe anything about drapes at all. But we prayed that evening and within fifteen minutes of the time when we had prayed for this situation this lady in Cincinnati many, many, many miles away had a telephone call from an entire stranger who said to her "a friend of yours told me that you have need of an apartment, is this right?" And she said, "yes." And she said, "well where's it located?" He said, "well such and such a place." Within two blocks of where she was employed. So she said to him, "May I come and see it in the morning?" He said, "You certainly may." They made an appointment. She went next morning and looked at this apartment. And when she walked into the living room what do you think the color of those drapes were on those living room windows? Green, oh no they weren't. They were fire engine red. That's right. People, she must have had her need and her want parallel. Look at this. All right! She rented a furnished apartment and it had to have drapes on the window, right? Does it make God any difference whether the drapes are green or red or pink? No, but she had a need, that need was that they might as well have red drapes on, that's what she wanted. She got her need and her want parallel. She not only got that apartment but she got the red drapes on the windows. You talk about the accuracy of God's Word when He said He'll supply all of our need according to His riches in glory. Doesn't say He'll supply our greed but He'll supply our need according to His riches in glory. That's true. It's wonderful.
So not only must you know what's available, and how to receive it and what to do with it after you've got it but you've got to get your need and want parallel if you want to tap into the resources for the more abundant life.
I’d like to reproduce here some of the split screen work I’ve done on the use of “parallel” versus “balanced” for those interested in a better discussion than blind speculation Can anyone tell me if and how I can post a .doc file (or an .RTF file) with table cell formatting intact? I didn’t use column formatting, but tables.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
CM
O Mike, you so funny!
lol..lol...lol...yep it's still on top of you making you smaller and smaller...
Edited by CMLink 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.