| Author | Comment | Twosum
(9/20/00 9:17:52 am)
| Re: Separating truth from error
Steve:
Wouldn't it be nice if we lived nearly 2,000 years ago and had the availability of the scriptures they had back then, to study, as did the Bereans ? ?
What we have now are copies of copies of copies and now what we call translations , that have translated those many copies , and from the Greek, into our known language English.
Sound a bit confusing ? It should !!
Not only do we not live in the life style they lived in nearly two thousand years ago, but the translators have added and subtracted and changed the Word of God , in so much, that we no longer have what the Bereans had available to them - correct ?
With all of this known knowledge, that the Word of God has almost been destroyed. It is no wonder that there is such conflict in "what is written".
Dr VPW set a system by which to interpret the Word of God, and it was not a very accurate system , to say the least !
However, we must not look at the system, but "how" God worked in him to teach us "certain" things. He did lead us into the manifestations of the Holy Spirit, which is called biblically - being baptized into Holy Spirit. He also taught us that water baptism was not necessary for a Christian, and we learned this from the Word of God.
So there are some of the good points, but of course there are the bad points to consider. He also taught the "tithe" which was not addressed to the Church. In this he failed in his spiritual understanding.
I am just thankful for what I received from God through 'his ministry' ! It helped me greatly , from the POV that I was truly a Christian that could manifest power from on high !
With his teachings and his ministry, I have been able to grow from those things that were taught. I also understand that God played a big part in revealing these things unto my spirit. I am also sure many of you feel the same way about certain things, especially pertaining to those things that were taught correctly , so that God was able to also help us understand these truths.
I have said this many times - "@#%$ can the PFAL class, because there is a more spiritual awareness than ever before on "how" to read the scriptures "with" the help of the Holy Spirit. In II Timothy 2:25 it tells us - "In meekness "instructing" those that oppose themselves ; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth"
Three things stand out in this verse #1 - instruction - and the Greek word here is "paideuo" - which means to
nurture as a child, -- because for the most part, the majority of the body of Christ is a babe, or child in the Word.
#2 thing I noticed is that they "oppose themselves" - meaning that they go up against themselves within their own mind battles
#3 thing I noticed in this verse - is that it is up to God to give them repentance "for" opposing themselves, and thus if he does , he will help them understand the "acknowledging of the truth".
All these things are relevant !
You can teach the Word of God until you are blue in the face, and if God is not going to allow their repentance, because of why they oppose themselves, then your message is just not going to get across, and enter into them the understanding of truth !
That goes for all those who are still in twi , and who hold to the PFAL class. As well as all those who have left twi and now have gone off into splinter groups, or back to a local church, or whatever or
wherever.
Truth sets people free, and only truth will allow God to reveal himself to others.
Those plagued by wrong doctrine, and have a desire to cling to wrong doctrine will indeed not come to a knowledge of the truth, because God will need to give them repentance , in order for that to happen. God is looking on our hearts, and we will not be drawn towards truth , unless - first - our hearts are correct before God, secondly it is God's business as to whether or not he will open up the mind of your understanding.
Seek ye first the kingdom of God , and then >>>>
Love IN Christ - TWOsum
Edited by: Twosum at: 9/20/00 9:17:52 am | evanpyle
(9/19/00 8:24:20 pm)
| Re: Separating truth from error
Twosum, you said,
>>"Wouldn't it be nice if we lived nearly 2,000 years ago and had the availability of the scriptures they had back then, to study, as did the Bereans ? ?
What we have now are copies of copies of copies and now what we call translations , that have translated those many copies , and from the Greek, into our known language English
Sound a bit confusing ? It should !!"<<
This echoes the Way® philosophy toward exegesis from the 'text' And The Way™ is by no means alone in approaching the Bible we have today as being nothing approaching a reliable representation of the original.
Perhaps you are not aware of how amazingly well-preserved our Bible is. In fact, copies of the Bible are an order of magnitude more consistent and in agreement than any Shakespeare...written nearly 1500 years later. If it is so corrupted then why are you coming at us with your contrived number schemes? Why claim it as your text for truth?
You make these statements then go straight to a Greek word. Makes no sense to me. You're being inconsistent.
Variant readings cover 2-4% of the Bible. I'm doing well with the other 96-98%. How about you?
| Twosum
(9/20/00 12:16:49 am)
| Re: Separating truth from error
Evan:
The guess that the bible is still 96 - 98 % in tact is nothing more than a guessing game. The truth is , it is more like 90 %. But no one can be
absolutely sure, because no one has the original !!
Let me explain something to you about the "mysteries" within the Word of God. There are many - approx 9 of them that I know about. God being a God of two of everything is just one of them.
Having and understanding these mysteries "were" and "are" that which holds the whole Word of God together, so that it does not fall apart from decay.
The understanding of these mysteries are to be used as "tools" to help "reveal" those hidden things of God , and give us a greater understanding of the spiritual things of God.
I was give the privilege by God to know and understand them. God revealed this first mystery of mysteries, back around 1988. I have worked the Word of God until the pages fall out of my book. They "never" fail - never ! Now how is that for one being sure on one's self ? ?
Everything we see in the OT that is a literal is seen and understood as a
spiritual in the NT -- in a mirror image, which means similar , with a reversal or reversals in the mirror image. The understanding of reversals , is to take a mirror and hold up your right hand and ask yourself which hand the person in the mirror is holding up .
You have heard me speak about the first Adam and the Last Adam. The Word of God uses phrases like this > the first last, and the last first. Even though that is a double double, and there are a few of them also, you only have a mirror image of the other - first last, last first - even the wording is in a mirror image.
Singular - plural is another
God is a God of no emotion is another.
I better stop here, and let you try and digest this first - or was that last
Love IN Christ - TWOsum
| Danny Mahar
(9/20/00 1:28:11 am)
| Re: Separating truth from error
Actually, Twosum raises a rather interesting concern in view of the fact we have no original copies, in further light of my personal interest in the topic of the state and development of the NT literature and canon during the second century, and the controversies surrounding its development.
Unfortunately, VPW®, for all his lip-service and speculation as to what may have been in the texts
and what wasn't, didn't actually introduce his students to the higher disciplines and research of the Tubingen Scholars and "Dutch Radicals", studies oft placed in the category of "higher criticism".
Rather, he introduced us to the works of those who, for lack of a better expression on my part, worshiped the Bible (i.e., Bullinger), and in the process, more or less
eschewed the works of genuine scholarship that actually do tackle these questions of authorship and textual authenticity. By and large, he appears to have ignored these works altogether, with the possible exception of where any appeal to such works or other disciplines would only serve to back up what he had already hammered out, i.e., "Jesus Christ is not God" where a "patristic" citation as to how a scripture read is appealed (wow).
I mean, considering the fact that the mantra, "The Word! The Word! The Word!" constantly fell from his lips,
indicates to myself at least, that VPW® was not at all a scholar in the same vein as a Baur or a Van Manen or even a Harnack or any other scholar along those lines, who engage themselves in exploring the possibilities of distinguishing "authentic" passages from the inauthentic (or one editor or writer from another).
That was just another fraudulent mask that Wierwille® wore.
Sorry, Evan, I couldn't resist your "trademarks" any longer
Danny
Edited by: Danny Mahar  9/20/00 1:28:11 am
| Twosum
(9/20/00 8:33:26 am)
| Re: Separating truth from error
Danny or anyone:
Have any of you read - "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture" - by "Bart D. Ehrman" ?
I have the book and I believe that the book is not bias in its research of the corruption of scripture. The book helps us understand "how" we received the wording and detail of why certain scripture read in certain manners.
If anyone has not read this book, I suggest it highly. If you have read this book and would like to discuss a few thoughts about what is said within this book, I would be willing to participate. I think many would be interested and enlightened by some of the information laid out within this book.
I will be interested to hear what some of you have to say, or your interest on this subject.
Love IN Christ - TWOsum
| Danny Mahar
(9/20/00 10:25:11 am)
| Re: Separating truth from error
Twosum -
That's a book that's very much on my "wish list" at the moment -that and "Heretics: The Other Side of Christianity" by Ludemann.
But I think I've already blown to hell my book budget for the month. Perhaps another trip to the library.
Or I give up food, but my wife won't stand for that .
Question: Does "The Orthodox Corruption" volume cover extensively the topic of Marcion and his canon?
If so, what is the author's position? Does he think Marcion cut up his canon as accused by his critics,
or does he explore the possibility that the canon was actually expanded in opposition to Marcion?
I would be greatly appreciative of your info on that (please e-mail if you'd prefer so we don't bog up the thread because we're
probably going off the main topic here).
Danny
Edited by: Danny Mahar
at: 9/20/00 10:25:11 am
| Prothimos
(9/20/00 11:16:00 pm)
| Two of everything?
Twosum,
You said God is a God of two of everything....right?
My Bible says the following...or is this part of the 10% error you say exists because we don't have the *originals*?
BTW, With that logic you kind of limit God from being Sovereign don't you? After all, it is His word and His creation and His purpose that is being fulfilled.
1Cor:8:6: But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
1Tm:2:5: For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
Do you see that? one God, One Lord Jesus Christ
How about?
Eph: 4:4: There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5: One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6: One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
7: But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.
BTW that's ONE measure right? you know THE measure, not measures....
And of course there is the following which should put to rest this two nonsense you seem to shilac every chance you get.
Rom:12:5: So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.
One, One , One!!!
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good
| Ex10th
(9/21/00 12:09:04 am)
| Re: Two of everything?
Thank you, Proth for coming around with the simplicity of understanding the things related to God and his son.
Geeeeeze, I try to keep with with all the doctrinal stuff. I am a thinking human, although not of the scholarly bend. And I just keep thinking, that God can't make his word all that complicated. My brain just doesn't go there. Yet, it must be possible to know him intimately without all the twisting and turning and convoluting.
Deep, but not that smart,
Ex10th
| Ex10th
(9/21/00 12:20:14 am)
| Re: Two of everything?
PS to Jerry
You do a great job of explaining things so that even little ole me can understand. Thank you.
| Twosum
(9/21/00 12:31:06 am)
| Re: Two of everything?
Prothimos:
Howdy ! God is a God that changes not - correct ?
There is only "one" God to be worshipped, but two within the Word - the god of this world - correct ?
So if God does not change and there is only 'one' God, does that mean God can not be a God "of" two of everything -
absolutely not !!
Is not Jesus Christ "our" Lord ? = 1
Is not God , The Lord God Almighty ? = 2 Lords
"IN THE UNITY OF THE SPIRIT" there is - "ONE" body (body of Christ) ,One Lord (Jesus Christ, One
Spirit (God), One hope (hope of our calling), One faith (faith mentioned in Romans 16:26), One baptism (being baptized into Christ's death - and being baptized "with" the gift of holy spirit), One God and Father( Notice it tells us here that God, is God and Father) --- The total things mentioned here is nine, and nine divided by 7 leaves a remainder of "TWO"
The measure of the gift of Christ - is the "nine" manifestations of the Spirit - again - nine divided by seven , leaves a remainder of "TWO"
Many means many, but we are many in the "one" body of Christ , which is the image of the invisible God. The body of Christ is the wife to Christ - both male and female , as the two have become one
figuratively at this point in time ! ! The literal is the "gathering" ! !
At a normal birth , first there is water , then blood. In our spiritual rebirth (born again) - the "blood" has been shed, and the water is yet to come, and the water is the "cloud" that is mentioned in I Thessalonians 4:17 = Two of everything , and they are mirror images of each other ! !
In Romans 12:5 - there is only "one" body of Christ, but Christ is the head of the body = "TWO" become "ONE" = image of God
The phrase - "and every one members one of another" is dealing with unity within the "one" body of Christ - Read I Corinthians 12:14 - 27.
Here is a freebee for you - At the Last supper what were the "TWO" items Jesus blessed ?
Now look at I Corinthians 10:17 & I Corinthians 12:13
Love IN Christ - TWOsum
Love IN Christ - TWOsum
Edited by: Twosum at: 9/21/00 12:31:06 am | JBarrax
(9/21/00 2:05:00 am)
| Four Crucified: A THIRD look
Hello all. As you've no doubt already gathered, I'm still mulling over the "four crucified"
teaching. It kept bugging me, so I went back and reread the accounts in the four gospels.
As you all know, VP presented the sequence of events in Matthew and compared that with the sequence in Luke and called it an apparent contradiction. Then he taught that the solution to that apparent contradiction was to see the thieves of Matthew and the malefactors of Luke as two
separate pairs of people. We've already discussed the usage of the Greek words heteros and allos. They aren't as specifically used as we were taught, so they can't be cited as proof that the malefactors aren't thieves (or "robbers" if you prefer). So what we have left, as I mentioned a few posts back, is this apparent contradiction between the sequences in Matthew and Luke and the two verses in John (19:18 and 19:32). Although I don't think an airtight case can be made for either position, I think the
preponderance of the evidence leans more toward three crosses than five. Matthew and Luke are actually not at odds, as we will see. Unfortunately, John is.
Let's review. The main premise of the four crucified teaching is the apparent contradiction between Matthew 27:38 & 44 and Luke 22:
Matthew 27:38 & 44
38 Then were there two thieves crucified with him, one on the right hand, and another on the left.
44 The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth.
Luke 23:32 & 40
32 And there were also two other, malefactors, led with him to be put to death.
40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?
Dr. Wierwille declared that this apparent contradiction indicates that there were two malefactors and two robbers crucified with Jesus. This statement is based on an "apples to oranges" comparison. The testimony of two witnesses is true; established. Both Matthew and Mark tell essentially the same story in the same sequence. The differences in the testimonies of Matthew and Luke are not due to "Scripture Buildup", but rather to the divergent portraits presented of the Messiah. As some of you know, Matthew presents Jesus as the King of Israel, Mark as the Servant or Lamb of God, Luke as Son of Man, and John as Son of God. The reason Luke's account diverges from Matthew and Mark is because Luke is presenting a different side of the story.
Matthew and Mark, in presenting Jesus Christ as King and Servant, separate him from the others crucified in order to magnify the singular importance and significance of his death. Luke goes out of his way to present Jesus Christ as a man reaching out to his fellow men. Take a look at the table below, based on the sequence of events presented in Matthew and Luke.
| MATTHEW |
MARK |
LUKE |
| 1)Betrayal in garden 26:47 |
Betrayal. 14:33 |
*Angels Strengthen Jesus
Betrayal: 22:47 |
| 2) Swordfight: 26:51 |
2) Swords 14:47 |
2) 22:50 *Jesus heals High Priest's servant |
| 3) Challenge to Pharisees 26:55 |
3) Challenge 14:48 |
3) Challenge 22:52 |
| 4) Disciples Flee 26:56 |
4) Disciples Flee 14:50 |
4)*No mention of Abandonment |
| 5) To Ciaphas 26:57 |
5) To Ciaphas 14:53 |
5)To Ciaphas 22:54 |
| 6) "Trial" 26:59 |
6) Trial 14:55 |
8) Peter's denials 22:55 |
| 7) Beating by priests 26:67 |
7) Beating 14:65 |
9) Cock Crows 22:61 |
| 8) Peter's Denials 26:67 |
8) Peter's Denials 14:66 |
10) Peter wept. 22:62*Jesus looks at Peter |
| 9) Cock crows 26:74 |
9) Cock crows 14:72 |
7) Beating 22:63 |
| 10) Peter wept 26:75 |
10) Peter wept 14:72 |
6) Trial 22:66 |
| 11) To Pilate 27:2 |
11) To Pilate 15:1 |
11) To Pilate |
| *Only Matthew records the repentance of Judas |
|
*Only Luke records the appearance before Herod |
| 12) Barrabas 27:17 |
12) Barrabas 15:7 |
12) Barrabas 23:8 |
| 13) "Crucify him" 27:22 |
13) "Crucify him" 15:13 |
13) "Crucify him" 23:21 |
| 14) Scourging 27:26 |
14) Scourging 15:15 |
16) Simon of Cyrene 23:26 |
| 15) Soldiers mock 27:27 |
15) Soldiers mock 15:16 |
*Witnesses to women on way to Golgotha |
| 16) Simon of Cyrene 27:32 |
16) Simon 15:21 |
22) 2 others crucified 23:32 |
| 17) Refuses vinegar 27:34 |
17) Refuses vinegar 15:23 |
18) Crucifixion 23:33 |
| 18) Crucifixion 27:35 |
18) Crucifixion 15:24 |
*Father Forgive them..." |
| 19) Parted garments 27:35 |
19) Parted garments 15:24 |
19) Parted garments 23:34 |
| 20) Watched him 27:36 |
20) not mentioned |
20) Watched him 23:35 |
| 21) Accusation written 27:37 |
21) Accusation 15:25 |
24) Rulers mocked 23:35 |
| 22) 2 others Crucified 27:38 |
22) 2 others crucified 15:27 |
17) Soldiers offer vinegar 23:36 |
| 23) Crowd mocks 27:39 |
23) Crowd mocks 15:29 |
21) Accusation written 23:35 |
| 24) Priests mock 27:41 |
24) Priests mock 15:31 |
25) 1 'Other' mocks. 23:39 |
| 25) 'Others' mock 27:44 |
25) 'Others' mock 15:32 |
*Jesus witnesses to other and promises him eternal life |
| 26) Darkness 3 hrs 27:45 |
26) Darkness 3 hrs 15:33 |
26) Darkness 3 hrs 23:44 |
| 27) "Eli Eli..." 27:46 |
27) 'Eli Eli..." 15:34 |
not mentioned |
| 28) Accepts vinegar 27:48 |
28) Accepts vinegar 15:36 |
not mentioned |
| 29) Cries out & dies 27:50 |
29) Cries out & dies 15:37 |
30) Temple Veil rent 23:45 |
| 30) Temple Veil rent 27:51 |
30) Temple Veil rent 15:38 |
29) Cries out & dies 23:44 |
| 31) Earthquake 27:51 |
31) not mentioned |
not mentioned |
| 32) Centurion-"Son of God" |
32)Centurion-"Son of God." |
32) Centurion-"Righteous Man" |
The reason for the apparent contradictions between Luke and Matthew is that Luke's account is not in chronological order. Depending on how you choose to count, there are 8 to 11 differences in the chronology of Luke and Matthew. How many times was the veil of the Temple rent? Only once. But Matthew says it ripped right after Jesus died, and Luke says it ripped right before he died. If we use VP's logic, we have to have four crucified and six denials of Peter. We would also have to surmise that the Jesus' accusation was written and hung twice and that the Temple veil rent twice. I don't think this is a logical approach to this passage.
But why, you may ask, does Luke say only one of the Malefactors reviled Jesus and Matthew and Mark say they both mocked him? Because the salvation of the second malefactor is just one of the nine additions or differences that Luke adds to present Jesus Christ as the Son of Man; as a human saviour. [These additions are noted in the table above by asterisks and italics] Luke presents Jesus at the beginning being in such agony over the impending crucifixion and trials that he sweated "as it were great drops of blood" and an angel came to strengthen him. Then Luke depicts him reaching out to people all the way to his death. From Luke's gospel we know that not only did Jesus suffer and die for us, but he did it with a heart full of love and compassion for each of us. It is perhaps the most moving of all the Gospels; especially the moment when Jesus and Peters' eyes met after Peter's prophesied denials; a moment recorded only in Luke.
Well, I'd intended to discuss some of the details of John's account, but this is too long already and it's almost 2am. Seeya tomorrow.
Peace
Jerry
| Larry P2
WayDale Citizen
(9/21/00 8:58:33 am)
| Re: Four Crucified: A THIRD look
Thank you Jerry, for all your hard work on these threads.
My God, the issue of Five versus three crucified is either a case of feigned willful ignorance, or it is an outright cunningly devised, self-serving fraud.
Take your pick.
To borrow from Jerry, the preponderance of the evidence shows that it must be the second option.
Wierwille couldn't possibly have been stupid enough to have believed there was ANY significant difference between "malefactors" or "thieves," nothwithstanding his sterling reputation as a world-renowned, learned master of Greek and Biblical languages. His painfully-feigned attempts at "harmonizing" "contradictory" passages didn't end there: TWI later grunted out a "harmonization" of the "conflicting" accounts of
Jesus' feeding of multitudes (two incidents), and casting the demons out of the Pig Lunatic (also two incidents).
By making such superficial "contradictions" a "problem," Wierwille thereby made himself both NECESSARY and subsequently very WEALTHY. As Al Capone would grimly advise, always follow the money, and you'll get at the truth of the conspiracy.
Setting up the Bible as "mathematically perfect" hobgoblin WAS certainly a brilliant multiplication and addition devise - of VPW's bank account.
| Twosum
(9/21/00 11:57:28 am)
| Re: Four Crucified: A THIRD look
Hi Jerry and everyone following this thread:
Was there four crucified with Christ - making five in all ?
Or was there only two crucified with Christ - making three in all ?
The way in which Dr. VPW went about his search for truth can be considered speculative. However - was he right or wrong about there being four crucified with Christ ?
Remembering that we are still dealing with a translation and the errors within those translations.
Where you can take out all of the errors, is by utilizing the knowledge of the mysteries as helpful aids , or you can consider them tools.
The NT is a mirror image of the OT is one of the mysteries.
The OT will help us reveal any misgivings about what is written in the NT.
Galatians 3:13 tells us that - "Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree", and Jesus Christ was hung on a tree to die, which we call the cross.
The "Hebrew" word for tree is "ets" , which was also translated "gallows" in the book of Esther.
In searching the OT , there is not mention anywhere of three being hanged on three trees at the same time. This is called a matter of elimination. However, there are "two" records of five being hanged on five trees.
One such record is in the book of Joshua 10:26, and the Prophet Joshua . As you know, Joshua led Israel after Moses was dead. So he was a Prophet and a servant of the Lord. He took these five kings and smote them and slew them, and hanged them on five trees. This is a mirror image also of Christ being crucified. These five kings in Joshua 10:26 died before they were hanged. And Christ and the other four who were crucified with Christ died after they were hanged. This record in Joshua also shows them being "smote" verses Christ being "smote" and them being "slew" - killed prior to being hanged, and Christ after he had died, they "pierced" his side > John 19:33 & 34 - and out came "water and blood" - the "TWO" significant elements of life !
The other record is in Esther pertaining to the word "gallows" which is the Hebrew word "ets" which means
wood, trees.
We know from reading this record in Esther that Haman was hanged on the gallows built by him for Mordecai. We also know in chapter 9 that the sons of Haman were also hanged, and that he had 10 sons that were hanged. But here is the interesting thing about this record. And I might add, that you must look closely within this record to understand that his ten sons were not hanged all on the same day. I also would like to add, that this is not what one would call a clear record. Meaning that there is room for speculation and guess work. But , if one looks at this record with a clear understanding of its content, one will realize that within the hidden meaning of the words and explanations in this chapter. That his ten sons were hanged on two
different days, and that five were hanged one day and five on another day.
If this needs to be explained in further detail, I will do my best, if asked, to clarify my stance on this understanding. But first, I would like you who are keeping up with this thread , to read this record in Esther 9:13 thru to verse 26 thoroughly.
So was Dr. VPW correct in his round about way of saying that there were four crucified with Christ - making five in all ? Yes he was, but his methods are what come into question.
On an additional note - Peter denied Christ "three" times and not "six", but we can handle that at another time.
Love IN Christ - TWOsum
| evanpyle
(9/21/00 12:15:50 pm)
| Re: Four Crucified: A THIRD look
Very interesting twosum.
I don't think I can accept your exegetical method, though. I have trouble verifying a New
Testament account that does not show five in any way with OT accounts that do. I can accept this method when backing up an unambiguous NT account with the OT pictures that verify the account. See what i mean? Interesting nonetheless.
To me the bigger question is the spiritual meaning of the cross, one that I think is dangerously glossed over in PFAL™. This is surely the kingpin of man's redemption, the central figure of the salvation message, the unique disctinctive of the Christian religion...is it not?
In the way's® system of belief the cross and Jesus' crucifixion were consistently denigrated with the focus being shifted to the
resurrection. Now I'm not down on the resurrection, but without the centrality of the cross, the power of the
resurrection is lost.
Denigrate the cross and you can minimize critical teachings of Jesus, such as:
KJV Mat 16:24 Then said Jesus unto
his disciples, If any [man] will come
after me, let him deny himself, and
take up his cross, and follow me.
Was denying oneself an identifiable Way® teaching? I think not.
| Ex10th
(9/21/00 12:57:53 pm)
| Re: Four Crucified: A THIRD look
Evan
You bring up a great point. Not only was the cross denigrated in the way mindset, but what about the whole theme of suffering? Just the other day, an exwayfer said to me, "Jesus suffered, so I don't have to." Well, that statement is not entirely true. God never guarantees us that we will never have any suffering in this life, in fact, the bible says just the opposite. The way's twisted teaching that if you experience suffering or pain in life, then you are "out of fellowship" or "not believing", I think was extremely devilish and harmful to many.
Great verse you brought up in Matt. 16.
Ex10th
| Twosum
(9/21/00 1:43:40 pm)
| Re: Four Crucified: A THIRD look
Well Evan, you make some very good points here. And they should be taken into consideration.
However and wherever the Way ministry and PFAL fell short- and it did , and they did. I never came away from my time in the Way International and PFAL with the understandings, in the way that you do. Maybe its because I looked more at the whole picture, I don't know, and I am not going to judge what you might have seen and what I might have missed during my relationship while being in twi.
However, I will say that being away from twi, I have grown more spiritually than if I would have stayed in twi. Again I can only speak for myself as to why I think this way. But I think that many wrong teachings and many wrong outlooks on certain aspects of God's Word, did in fact, hinder us from looking at the whole picture.
The "cross" was the "tree" and our "cross" is our burdens, and Jesus Christ bear our burdens as well on the
cross (tree). That does not mean we then have no burdens to bear. What it means is, is that our burdens that we bear in our bodies now, are justified by our faith, and our faith in God, through our Lord Jesus Christ . Galatians 6:5 tells us that every man shall bear his own
burdens, and yet in verse 2 it tells us to bear one another burdens, and so fullfill the law of Christ.
In II Corinthians 5:4 it tells us - "For we that are in this tabernacle (our bodies) do groan, being burdened : not for that we would be unclothed , but clothed upon , that mortality might be swallowed up of life"
Verse 5 - "Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God , who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit"
Look at the words in verse 5 that include us with the sufferings of Christ, and how he also gave us the "earnest of the Spirit", which means the "same desires that Christ had when he suffered his burdens on the
cross (tree).
Jesus Christ was baptized with "The Spirit of God" upon him - that means he was "clothed" with The Spirit of God. We are "clothed" also with the "earnest of The Spirit".
We are told in Romans , that when Christ died, we died with him, and when Christ rose, we rose with him "also". WE have been planted "together" in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the
likeness of his resurrection > Romans chapter 6. Our "mortal" bodies , by his Spirit that dwelleth in you ( Christ IN You )shall God quicken our mortal bodies > Romans 8:11.
So his death on the cross (tree) was also our death, and his resurrection was also our resurrection, and his
ascension was also our ascension, and we are seated with Christ at the right hand of the Father.
This is how Paul describes a continuance of bearing the dying of the cross of Jesus Christ in his own body > II Corinthians 4:10 - "Always bearing about in the body of the dying of the Lord Jesus Christ, that the life also of Jesus Christ might be made manifest in our "mortal" flesh" . The "dying" of the Lord Jesus Christ is the "suffering", and that is why one of the fruits of the Spirit is "longsuffering" .
Love IN Christ - TWOsum
| freeatlast
(9/21/00 5:31:39 pm)
| Evan....
Egads, Brother, you're killing me!!!
I haven't even been able to finish reading this thread because of all of your little registered and trademark thingys.
You are too funny!!
| JBarrax
(9/21/00 11:56:24 pm)
| Re: Hence and hence
Hello all, God bless
I mentioned in last night's post that I'd run out of time to delve into the record of the crucifixion in the gospel of John. There's really not much to add; only two points, but I thought I'd toss
'em out there anyway.
Having reexamined allos and heteros and found them to be synonyms, and having seen that Luke's account of the crucifixion is not in chronological order, we have dispensed with most of what Dr.
Wierwille presented as evidence of the four crucified with Christ. All that remains are the two verses in John chapter 19. Verses 18 and 32. Let's start with the latter.
John 19:32 & 33
32 Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him.
33 But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:
As you know, PFAL states that since Jesus was in the center position, the soldiers would have to have passed him to break the legs of the other and that for this reason the verse makes no sense unless there were a total of five crosses. Well I'm not sure the translation we have in the KJV is an accurate presentation. As Twosum has mentioned, we have a plethora of mistranslations in today's Bible. Berry's interlinear has verse 33 in a different tense that indicates that the soldiers could have seen that Jesus was dead before they reached the second malefactor.
"...but to Jesus having come, when they saw he was already dead, they did not break his legs."
The phrase "having come to Jesus" allows for this to have happened prior to the breaking of the second malefactors' legs. "Having eaten Loretta's cooking, Leroy
proceeded to turn pale." But beside the grammatical shading of the translation, there's a more important point to observe.
Here we have another example of the author placing more importance on the people involved than on the chronology of the narrative. I think the emphasis in this passage is not on the order in which the soldiers broke the malefactors' legs or discovered that Jesus was dead. The emphasis is on the reason they didn't break his bones. This was a
fulfillment of a prophecy concerning the Messiah. That's what's important here, not the exact moment of their discovery.
Could they have come to Jesus and noticed this before they broke the other malefactor's legs? I think so. When they discovered this is not as important as the fact that they did so, and that their actions were a
fulfillment of a Messianic prophecy.
The final verse we have to look at is John 19:18. I've saved the most challenging point for last, so these verses are not in um...chronological order. Just in case you hadn't noticed. :-)
Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst.
You may remember from PFAL, that VP made much of the addition of the word "one" to the words of the Greek text in this verse and said that the reason the word "one" was added was because of the influence of religious paintings. Again, the work of the King James translators was denigrated and VP's skill as a researcher exalted.
An interlinear translation of the Stephens Text, from which the King James was translated, reads in john 19:18, "and with him, others two on this side and on that side." Then there is the word "one" in English, but no
corresponding Greek word is above it. To indicate that the translators added the word "one," it was put in brackets. The King James translators, therefore, also added the word "one." If the word "one" is not in the critical Greek texts, why is it in the King James? Because by 1611 the Western world had been so indoctrinated by a picture showing Jesus on a cross with one evil-doer on either side of Him that, when the translators were translating this particular verse of the
nineteenth chapter of John, they inserted the word "one."
Actually there's a legitimate grammatical reason for the insertion of the word "one". And an error in VP's next statement regarding these words.
Take out the commas and the word "one", and read the verse again. "Where they crucified him and two others with him on either side and Jesus in the midst." The same words, enteuthen kai enteuthen, are used in Revelation 22:2
In the midst of the street of it, and on either side
of the river...
Enteuthen kai enteuthen is translated "on either side." These are the same words as in the Gospels..."
Actually, these are not the same words, although they are very similar. But we must remember, similar words are not identical and identical words are not similar. The words used in Revelation 22:2 are actually enteuthen kai ekeithen. This is an important distinction because it sheds light on the translation of John 19:18. The second word in Revelation is not enteuthen, but ekeithen, which means "thence". This of course begs the question, 'what does enteuthen mean? It means "hence" and is translated that way in Matthew 17:20, Luke 4:9, 13:31, 16:26, and John 2:16, 7:3, 14:31, 18:36, and James 4:1; every place it is used except John 19:18 and Revelation 22:2, it is translated "hence". Hence means from here. Let us go hence
means let us go from here.
If I were to say, "Let me go hence and play Frisbee", you would know what I was talking about. However, If I were to say "But first remove the
Rotweilers that sit hence and hence of the Frisbee", you might be a tad confused. I would guess most of you were a little confused at the subject line of this post. The phrase 'hence and hence' means nothing in English, so the King James translators had a challenge. Rather than translating enteuthen kai enteuthen "hence and hence and Jesus in the midst", and leave people scratching their heads, they translated it "one either side one".
Dr. Wierwille's charge that they added the one just because of art tradition is misleading and not a little insulting to the work of the translators. At the same time, it also built in us the (false) notion that he was imparting to us secret
knowledge not held by the average Christian, thereby further inflating our egos and
separating us from the mainstream.
And now for the final piece of the puzzle; the word "midst". Dr. Wierwille stated that it is grammatically impossible to have one man crucified in the midst of two. If it had been Jesus and two others, grammatically, he would be "between" the malefactors, not in their midst. And, on this point, I believe he was correct.
The word "midst" is translated from mesos. It is always used of something or someone in or near the center of a group or a large expanse of some kind.
Matthew 10:16
Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.
Matthew 13:49
So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among [mesos] the just,
Matthew 14:24
24 But the ship was now in the midst of the sea, tossed with waves: for the wind was contrary.
Matthew 18:2
And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,
Matthew 18:20
For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
There is a Greek word metaxu, which is translated "between" and almost always denotes a position in the center of two. So the use of the word "midst" in John 19:18 referring to Jesus in the middle of two malefactors is
grammatically incorrect. And it is inconsistent with the rest of the Scriptures regarding the crucifixion. Indeed if it weren't for the veil of the Temple rending twice and the accusation being written twice, I might find this word reason enough to keep the four crucified doctrine.
But the preponderance of the evidence points not to two robbers and two malefactors, but to just two malefactors [one of which changed his mind and became the last person saved by the undaunted love of Jesus Christ]. So what we have here in John 19:18 is more evidence that the Bible does not "fit like a hand in a glove" and that attempts to make it do so will ultimately prove futile, and may lead us to extreme doctrines that lead us, as Evan, Ex10th, and Twosum have testified, to attitudes far removed from what Our Father and Our Lord would approve.
Well I suppose we've finally done a thorough study of the "four crucified". Arise, let us go hence and see what else we can (un)learn.
Jerry
| Twosum
(9/22/00 10:22:57 am)
| Re: Hence and hence
Hi Jerry:
I just wanted you to know that I have been following along with your study. I just finished reading your last post, and I notice that you make a declaration of belief at the end of this post, that only two were crucifed with Christ.
You said >"But the preponderance of the evidence points not to two robbers and two malefactors, but to just two malefactors [one of which changed his mind and became the last person saved by the undaunted love of Jesus Christ]. So what we have here in John 19:18 is more evidence that the Bible does not "fit like a hand in a glove" and that attempts to make it do so will ultimately prove futile, and may lead us to extreme doctrines "
Here is a problem that I am having with your methodology of discovery . You are falling into the "same" trap that Dr. VPW fell into, in working the Word of God by use of certain word meanings and thus have justified your attempts in correct interpretation of the scriptures. By eliminating the comma's,and the word "one" you feel that your discoveries became more weighted in accuracy by this act of removal. Especially when you then attempted to go into the Greek meanings and usages of certain Greek words. Then you attempt to give us an example by the use of a mind picture to set your example of the confusion that "could" and possibly "should" be considered ( dog and frisbee story ).
You are using the exact same type of ploy, that you are teaching against, in your discussion about "how" Dr. VPW handled the Word of God. Dr. VPW used the painting issue, and you used the dog and frisbee method, and justified your methodology by confounding the usage of Greek word comparisons.
First and foremost, we must realize that we can not do this type of research you are attempting to do ! That is because of the additions and subtractions, and omitting of words, changing of the words, punctuation marks etc, etc, etc !
You have given us an authoritative view , which is all your own, as to why the translators did this or that. This is an attempt to show us that you know why the translators did this and that, and then come up with your own conclusions as to why and how.
What you fail to see and understand, is that the Word of God is like
mathematics. There is a checks and balance system that will always give us the correct answer every time!
2 X 2 = 4 -- and there is a way of checking to see if our answer is correct or not. You can use two methods - #1 you can divide 4 by 2 and see if your answer is using the same numbers. The answer should be 2 , thus using all of the same numbers. #2 you can use addition to check the answer also, because 2 X 2 is the same as 2 added twice(2 + 2), and the answer should be 4 , thus using all of the same numbers.
The same with 2 X 3 = 6 will work in the same way. Either using 3 two times or 2 three times in addition. And in division, 6 divided by 3 should equal 2, and thus we have utilized all the same numbers.
Algebra works exactly the same way. Except in Algebra you use formulas to help make coming up with the answer more simply.
The same is with the Word of God ! The Word of God uses checks and balances, so that the adversary of God could not totally destroy the Word of God, which was with God and Was God !
Dr. VPW came close with his statements - "or its been used before" - "the Word fits like a hand fits a glove". Close however, gives no one the first place trophy .
Remember that the "Mystery" was hidden ? And then revealed . Guess what ? The "Mystery" was within the OT, only hidden amongst the wording of the whole OT. This is God's checks and balances. The translations will lie to you according to the influences during the times of the translation. No matter how much effort that went into translating the Greek into English, there were always influences that played a factor as to what we have now in our translations.
All you have done is to try and attempt to justify why the translators did this or that, and from that, you came up with your conclusion. By doing this, there are "no" checks and balances ! ! Your conclusion and Dr. VPW conclusion carries no weight whatsoever in your attempts towards accuracy.
Even though Dr. VPW got it right as far as how many were crucified with Christ, his methodology and your methodology is not the proper method , by which to come up with a conclusion ! !
What we need to (un)learn, is your method as well as Dr. VPW method is the wrong method, and that God's Word has checks and balances within his Word, and were put there so that the adversary of God could not destroy "His Word" ! !
Twice establishes ! Genesis 41:32 - "And for that the dream was "doubled" unto Pharaoh "twice" ; it is because the "thing is established" by God"
God "established" - "His Word" - by doubling everything within his Word. It is part of God's checks and balances !
Love IN Christ - TWOsum
| plissken07
(9/22/00 1:04:26 pm)
| Why does it matter?
This teaching of the 4
crucified or 2 in PFAL caused a lot of confusion for me. I studied it, ripped it apart, looked at it from both sides, studied the word usage, and then came to the conclusion, "why does it matter?" My point is, so what if 4 were crucified with Christ or if 2 were, the important thing is that Jesus was. Does it really benefit me spiritually that I know if there were 4 instead of two or vice-versa? No. Personally I think that VPW spent so much time on this to establish his claim about God telling him He would show him this and that if VPW would teach it, thereby
anointing him as an apostle. The same thing applies to Peter's denials. It doesn't matter if it was 3 or 6, the point is Peter did it, felt horrible for doing it, repented, and then stood up in front of thousands one day and spread the Word of God! Jerry, I respect the work you have done on this topic, and I really enjoy reading your posts dealing with the PFAL class. My personal opinion is that PFAL was nothing more than a means to boost an individual's ego, as horrible as that might sound. Twosum, even though I can't say I agree with everything you post, I do think you have a good heart towards God because I do see in a lot of your posts that you don't blindly follow something just because VPW said so (unlike many who went through PFAL), you do your homework even though I may disagree with your findings sometimes. It's all these petty differences that was at the foundation of the Way, all this 'special knowledge' that glorified man instead of God. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's so much more enjoyable to think about the simplicity of the Word and not get caught up in the 'detective Joe Friday approach' as I heard it called on another website. I do think these posting for PFAL are important, so please keep doing them because I want everyone who was exposed to that class to be presented another side so at least they have an option on what they want to believe.
God bless,
Splissken
"call me saint" |
|
