| Author | Comment | Mandii
(10/1/00 7:27:55 pm)
| Re: Death and resurrection part 2
Just one last thought before withdrawing from this particular section.
1. The word does often indicate when Jesus opened his mouth and spoke to them in parables. The Lazarus story is not introduced that way.
2. I know of (could be wrong) of no parable that introduces a person's name. A women who lost silver, a man who lost a sheep, a son who squandered his inheritance. That puts the story of Lazarus in a different category.
3. Why would Jesus use an untruth to convey a truth? All parables, although not true to fact necessarily, does portray a big truth about God. Why would Jesus use a major doctrinal lie to portray a truth if indeed the story of Lazarus was only a parable?
Mandii | JBarrax
(10/1/00 8:49:43 pm)
| Re: Lazarus
Good questions all Mandii.
1)---"The word does often indicate when Jesus opened his mouth and spoke to them in parables. The Lazarus story is not introduced that way."---
As I mentioned, many of the parables aren't labeled as such. For instance, the parable of the fishing net in Matthew 13:47 is not itself introduced as a parable, but it follows a list of things that are. It is one in a group of parables told in sequence. I believe we have the same situation in Luke, in the passage that begins in Luke 14 and goes through chapter 16.
2)--"I know of (could be wrong) of no parable that introduces a person's name. A women who lost silver, a man who lost a sheep, a son who squandered his inheritance. That puts the story of Lazarus in a different category".--
The name used in this parable is a very intriguing one. The beggar taken to Abraham's bosom bears the same name as the dear friend of Jesus whom he would later raise from the dead. And, just as the parable of the rich man and Lazarus was intended to call people to repentance, the witness of the real Lazarus won many people to salvation (John 12:9-11). It is quite ironic that the end of this parable declares that the rich man's friends would not believe even if someone came back from the dead, and that is exactly what John bears out. The Pharisees knew of Lazarus miraculous return from the grave, yet rather than believing on Jesus
Christ, they just determined to murder Lazarus as well.
Of course, you can use all of this information to conclude that Jesus was talking about Lazarus himself and that the record is not a parable. But if you do, you have to conclude that this is just another bible contradiction because there is no other passage in the entire bible that agrees with the content of this record. Personally, I believe it is a parable and that the use of the name Lazarus was done simply to call our attention to the fact that the basic premise of the tale were born out by the raising of Lazarus.
Besides, the fact that none of the other parables use specific names doesn't mean that the use of a name is not allowed. In other words, just because it's not done elsewhere doesn't mean it can't be done.
3)--"Why would Jesus use an untruth to convey a truth? All parables, although not true to fact necessarily, does portray a big truth about God. Why would Jesus use a major doctrinal lie to portray a truth if indeed the story of Lazarus was only a parable?"--
A very good question. This is the one I wrangled with the most. But a review of the other parables revealed that this isn't the only such example. A parable is a tale that both the speaker and the hearer know to be fictitious; it's the biblical equivalent of a fable; a fabricated story designed to communicate a "moral" or important lesson.
Since we go in with this shared understanding, the speaker or author of the parable is not restricted to factual information. We don't dismiss Aesop's fable about the mouse and the lion because a mouse couldn't possible remove a thorn from a lion's paw, we just accept the premise and consider the lesson. Likewise with the parable of the unjust judge, the listeners did not interpret Jesus as saying God is unrighteous and callous. They merely accepted the unjust judge as a fictitious
construction necessary to convey the "moral of the story". And the parable of the ten brides was not intended, as I mentioned, to propound the virtues of
polygamy, but rather to illustrate the need for preparedness and wisdom.
So in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Jesus moved the flame of Gehenna and the bliss of paradise forward in time in order to underscore the lesson to the Pharisees about the perilous road they were on. They understood that he wasn't teaching immediate transport to hell or paradise, but rather the importance of repentance and compassion.
Then again, I could--I say, I *could* be wrong. :-)
Peace
Jerry
| Steve Lortz
(10/1/00 10:42:06 pm)
| Re: Sidebars
Jerry - Thank *you*! "Sidebars to PFAL REVIEW" is a hoot. I've got a few observations to throw into the stewpot here, when we reach "To Whom Addressed".
Love,
Steve
| Twosum
(10/2/00 1:32:20 pm)
| Re: Death and resurrection part 2
Jerry, Jerry, Jerry, what are we going to do with you ?
Here you go again making it look like Dr. VPW made something up , just so he could fabricate his idea to fit into his theories.
Do you know what the word "fabricate" means, and implies ?
Your saying he made up his idea's to fit his theory, which makes what he said , nothing other than a lie !
So Jerry, God has revealed to you the heart of Dr. VPW when he said and wrote this - correct ? ?
Here is what you wrote in your post > Dr. VPW says this
." He was not taken form one spot up to another place; he was taken from one place over to another "...that he should not see death." The word "see" is eidon, which means to "look at with actual perception with one's eyes" or literally "to see somone die." In checking the Old Testament, we discover that Enoch had never seen anybody pass away...."
Jerry says this >
"This last statement is preposterous. There is no such record in the Old Testament! This statement is utter b.s.; a fabrication designed to support VP's argument that Enoch had died. In fact, the context of the Old Testament record indicates the opposite,"
Hey Jerry: Number one it is not b.s., nor is it a fabrication !!!
In case you haven't noticed yet, it was "revelation". A revealing of understanding ! NOT a "quote" from within the OT.
Guess what, as you are good at guessing !? Dr. VPW was correct and you Jerry are incorrect !!
God did not record Enoch's age at his death for a purpose !
You just don't see that purpose !
And I am not sure if I explain that purpose to you , would you see it then .
One thing I will point out to you , is that - "In Adam "all" die" ! Without exception !
The story about Lazarus and being in the bosom of Abraham is a parable. It coincides with the second death - the Lake of fire . In order to understand the figures of speech within this record in Luke 16:19 thru 25, one must be able to understand who is who in relationship to the names mentioned. Also one must be able to identify with the time frame of the events to fully understand all the figures of speech, within the parable. That includes past, present and future.
I fully understand this parable, but I don't believe any one here would understand , even if I interpreted it for you. The reason being , is the immature spiritual people here would just toss it out as something that is not worth two cents, because they would not understand it anyways !
Assumptions, assumptions - when will they ever end ?
Love IN Christ - TWOsum
| Mandii
(10/2/00 2:09:37 pm)
| Re: Death and resurrection part 2
Hi Jerry and thank you for answering me so kindly. You are truly a gentleman and a scholar.
Anyway, I never read the Talmud. Don't know what books are in there. BUT in case anyone is interested, supposedly, according to my footnotes is that Abraham's bosom, ie, Paradise is mentioned there.
I don't know how recent the Talmud is, how it compares to the Torah, if it's the same thing or what.
I just thought it might be an interesting piece of information IF indeed it is mentioned there how it would relate to Jesus mentioning
it (he was Jewish).
Just food to chew on.
Mandii | JBarrax
(10/3/00 10:18:22 pm)
| Re: Fabricated references
Twosum;
In defense of VP, you said, "...In case you haven't noticed yet, it was "revelation". A revealing of understanding ! NOT a "quote" from within the OT."
The problem, Dear Twosum, is that VP didn't present it as revelation. He presented it as research. He specifically said, "In checking the Old Testament, we discover that Enoch had never seen anybody pass away."
If it was revelation, he should have said, "God told me Enoch had never seen anybody pass away." Since he said "..in checking the Old Testament..." he implied that his statement that Enoch had never seen anyone die was corroborated by the Old Testament record. This is not true! Therefore it is a fabrication added, IMHO, to support his weak theology that Enoch had died. I will not burden the thread further with a reiteration of what I've already posted on the context of Genesis 5, and the Biblical precedent of exceptions, but if anyone with a meek heart cares to read it, he or she might see what I'm getting at.
But no matter what one believes about the fate of Enoch, for Dr. Wierwille to make that statement is misleading at best. You may call it "revelation" if it makes you feel better, but it was presented as
corroborating research, which it was not.
Peace
Jerry
Edited by: JBarrax at: 10/3/00 10:18:22 pm
| Twosum
(10/3/00 12:49:24 am)
| Re: Fabricated references
Jerry:
Here is what you told me in this last thread >"In defense of VP, you said, <quote>"...In case you
haven't noticed yet, it was "revelation". A revealing of understanding ! NOT a "quote" from within the OT."</quote>
<P>The problem, Dear Twosum, is that VP didn't present it as revelation. He presented it as research. He specifically said, "In checking the Old Testament, we discover that Enoch had never seen anybody pass away."
<p>If it was revelation, he should have said, "God told me Enoch had never seen anybody pass away." Since he said "..in checking the Old Testament..." he implied that his statement that Enoch had never seen anyone die was corroborated by the Old Testament record. This is not true! t thread > "
Jerry: When I left the Way ministry in 1987 I did a lot of research, and my research was confirmed , that in certain area's Dr. VPW made mistakes. This I will not argue over with everyone.
In my own research, I studied the story of Enoch as well as the story of Elijah. Both men come into question as to what happened to them. My research confirms that "In Adam all die",
and that is without exception. I say this with an absolute positive understanding. How ? Because it was revealed to me that the Word of God can not contradict itself. I also research that ! When someone told me that the Word of God does not contradict itself, I could have just believed it, but instead, I researched it.
I found out that the translations do contradict themselves, but the Word of God does not !
Your correct Jerry, he claimed it was his research, but ask yourself this question. Is our research guided by the Holy Spirit ?
Did Enoch die, yes he did, but how can I confirm that ?
Within the Word of God there is two of everything. Even double doubles are two's.
These two men in the OT, Enoch and Elijah both are not revealed within the Word as being shown as dying or dead. But "IN Adam all die" does show us something < Its a revealing, and this revealing is part of my research. I also found two in the NT who are not shown as dying. One is Christ Jesus - the revealed Mystery. And the other one is the Apostle Paul.
Now I know some will ask, why not the apostle John , or Peter or one of the other apostles. Again you will have to see this in the mirror images, for a complete understanding. But that will take some research.
You see Jerry, even though God has revealed certain things unto me also. I also much do my research to confirm the things God reveals to me.
As I have told you in the past conversations, my research confirms that God is a God of two of everything. But it also was a revealing.
In no way am I trying to make these statements to mislead anyone.
I also believe , that if Dr. VPW saw this truth, he "must" have had it revealed to him also, and his research confirms it.
Enoch died, but never saw death. In mirror images - you have similars with reversals in them. Enoch represents the Apostle Paul in the NT. Paul saw death, and consented unto Stephens death. Then they tried to kill Paul because of this and many other things. Yet Paul did not die. We know Paul died eventually, and we know that Enoch died.
Elijah was taken up into a cloud, a whirlwind. This represents the body of Christ, and Christ as the head, at the gathering. Christ died , and so did Elijah, but there is no record of either one dying. There is a record of Jesus dying , and it is recorded in Acts 2:36. Jesus was the Christ and he died both literally and figuratively. The Spirit can not die literally. Christ is the Spirit of the Son of God. God's word tells us that he put the Spirit of his Son into our hearts. When we die, we will die both literally and
figuratively. But the Spirit of his Son can not die literally. That "Spirit", is Christ in you. But there will be no record in our death certificate of our Spirit of Christ in us, dying. The Christ in us only sleepeth until the gathering. When Christ comes bakc he is coming as a
thief in the night. The world will think that we were like the Enoch or Elijah disappearing act, but will consider us all dead. Our bodies will be found laying around, but our Spirits of Christ in us will be gone, for God took us , by way of his Son , at the gathering.
This is all a revealing unto me, and my research of the scriptures confirms all of it. The Word of God is truth.
So was it research ? Yes it was, and it was a revealing also !
Where Dr. fell short at times , was in his confirmations. He did indeed make mistakes, but not here.
Nor did he make a mistake when Dr. VPW said that the spirit of man is passed from sperm to egg ,and you were born with the spirit of man also. God only formed the spirit of man - "once" ! But all will receive it, by way of God through Adam. The same with Christ. Christ is God's only begotten Son, yet we receive the seed of Christ IN us by way of this one spirit of his Son into our hearts - Christ IN us. Mirror images are similar with reversals . The spirit of man goes back to God. The Spirit of his Son in our hearts does not. It remains.
Love IN Christ - TWOsum
| L Anemone
(10/3/00 9:12:32 am)
| Re: PFAL REVIEW: Part 2
Jerry
II Peter 1:20:
Knowing this first no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
It is very simple to understand that they (The Apostles) were saying that those things which they taught did not come from them, or their own private interpretation, but that the prophecies came from God via holy men of God as they were moved by the spirit.
This verse clearly shows how we got the scriptures. VPW knew this. It is because he knew that God's Word is of no private interpretation and that God unfolds His own Word that we are not to privately interpret or misinterpret it. So, what is the big deal??
If, he is agreeing that the scriptures are not of any private interpretation and therefore we should not make it say something it does not say, then where is he in disagreement with God's Word??? He gives many examples of what it means to misinterpret or to privately interpret God's Word. Read it for yourselves.
There is a misjustice done here. Fair is fair.
Anemone
| Twosum
(10/3/00 3:42:07 pm)
| Re: Fabricated references
Jerry you said > "but if anyone with a meek heart cares to read it, he or she might see what I'm getting at. "
Jerry: Do you , or did you realize that making a statement such as - "if anyone with a meek heart cares", is a prophetic statement ?
Are you suggesting that if I disagree with you that I do not have a "meek heart" ? ?
Have you come to that place in your life, that you are declaring that you are a prophet of and from God ? Or is this "pride" ? ?
Enoch died ! IN Adam "all" die !
Is this going to be a stand off, or is one of us going to back down ?
I'm standing ! What about you Jerry ?
Love IN Christ - TWOsum
Edited by: Twosum at: 10/3/00 3:42:07 pm
| L Anemone
(10/3/00 5:33:42 pm)
| Re: Fabricated references
Jerry,
I read your explanation or opinion concerning Enoch. If that is what you conclude in your mind...or if you would go that far to disprove VPW...then I could not trust anything you say because you are full of pride...false pride. What you said about Enoch is a total...and I mean total contradiction to God's Word!!!! In Adam ALL DIE. That's the Word and that's the truth! Wow...it blows my mind how you can throw out just an opinion that is OFF THE WORD...yikes!!!Is God It's rather pretty scary what you said. You also use the "mostly all the great reference number"...remember they all say Jesus is God. So that doesn't pull any weight.
I read your other stuff too and to be honest Jerry I think you got yourself entangled in a web of deception. It's frightening to think that with your reasoning you can fathom yourself doing a better job than VPW.
You are deliberately doing whatever you can to prove yourself the new "guru" or something...but you don't fool people who have studied and worked the Word for years and can recognize when you are bluffing and pulling strings on what was already and accurately researched.
I really think you need help. Sorry, but that's my honest opinion.
By the way, who are you???
Anemone
| Orange Cat
(10/3/00 6:22:12 pm)
| Re: Fabricated references
Oh, I dunno, Anemone, it's not all that hard to do a better job than VP. I'd say more but don't want to pull the thread off topic. I will attest that Jerry is not behaving in a prideful manner. He is honestly re-examining PFAL. Join in!
Orange Cat
| Twosum
(10/3/00 6:26:51 pm)
| Re: Fabricated references
Anemone you said > "You are deliberately doing whatever you can to prove yourself the new "guru" or something...but you don't fool people who have studied and worked the Word for years and can recognize when you are bluffing and pulling strings on what was already and accurately researched. "
Anemone: I would like to point out that Dr VPW was a man, and that every man falls short of the glory of God.
I would point out the apostle Peter as one who asked the Gentiles to become
circumcised. Dr. VPW also researched that the Church should give the "tithe" , and in this he was wrong ! So your statement above is just far enough to say that you crossed the line of stating "accurately researched" the Word of God !
I do not question Dr. VPW heart, but I will also see whether or not those things are so. In his teaching of the "tithe" - it is "not so" that the tithe was taught to the Church.
I do not mind that Jerry research the PFAL material, in fact I would encourage checking it out to see if it is so or not. One mistake could have led to a mulitple of mistakes, and I myself have found some of those mistakes.
When we were in twi, we were ignorant when entering twi, and ignorance is how God's people are destroyed ( Lack of knowledge ).
My suggestion is that we should not take anyone "on their word" over anything that they might have said. And I would not elevate Dr. VPW material as being untouchable.
Correct Jerry where you think he might be wrong, but don't elevate Dr. VPW works above the Word of God itself, and the ability of God to shed more light upon his Word to individual believers !
Love IN Christ - TWOsum
| JBarrax
(10/4/00 12:21:51 am)
| Re: no guru's here
Hi Anemone, God bless
First of all, let me assure you, I don't fancy myself a guru of any kind. I'm just a PFAL grad expressing my opinion about the content of a class I once believed in wholeheartedly. Since Waydale is about sharing our experiences as ex-way folk, I thought I'd share the process of reviewing PFAL. Some have appreciated it, some haven't; and that's okay.
Regarding the Private interpretation problem; it's really a very simple contradiction. VP's backward definition of "private interpretation" is used to advance the belief that "All scripture interprets itself."
"Since I dare not interpret it, or you, or any other person in the world, all Scripture must interpret itself either in the verse or in the context or in previous usage." (page 183)
This is not a true statement. All scripture does NOT interpret itself. You may find this statement upsetting and heretical, but VP himself acknowledges it in the same session of PFAL.
In the very same chapter he says, "If it is not explained, we will never know." (page 194) Now just take a moment and look at those two statements. They cannot both be true. If ALL Scripture interprets itself, then it HAS to be explained so that we know. If it is not explained so that we know, then All scripture does not interpret itself. It's really very simple.
The reason we have this contradictory teaching is because VP took II Peter 1:20 out of its context to teach something it does not say. To read that God's Word was not made of the apostles' own imaginations does not necessarily mean that we cannot interpret it. As has been written above, the same God who gave His Word can also give us the interpretation thereof (II Corinthians 2:11-16). God gives us revelation and wisdom in the knowledge of Him. (Ephesians 1:17).
God did not give us His Word so we could lord it over people and say we're right and they're wrong. He gave us His Word as a guidebook to walking by the spirit. We are not to be ruled by men's traditions, commandments, and doctrines, but by the will of the Lord and the love of God. Chanting "No private interpretation" and teaching that the ONLY way to stand approved before God is by rightly dividing the Word of Truth merely stunts the child of God's confidence in walking by the spirit and empowers those who have intellectual training or linguistic ability to run the lives of those who don't.
There are a great many valuable lessons in PFAL, but there are many deceitful and erroneous doctrines as well (some of which have yet to be discussed). My goal is not to completely discard what I learned in TWI, but to separate the wheat from the chaff, so I can keep that which is good and right and get rid of that which is wrong and harmful. In order to do that, we must be willing and able to see both.
Peace
Jerry
| L Anemone
(10/4/00 12:39:33 am)
| Re: Fabricated references
Orange Cat...I have gone through the threads to see what ingenious work of God's Word you have done better than VPW...I don't see anything.
Anemone
| L Anemone
(10/4/00 4:54:18 am)
| Re: Fabricated references
Twosum,
You said:
"I do not question Dr. VPW heart, but I will also see whether or not those things are so. In his teaching of the "tithe" - it is "not so" that the tithe was taught to the Church."
That's another one that got all twisted and taken out of bounds. The whole heart of what he was saying got chewed up and then spitted out. He was just teaching a basic spiritual principle and HE DID NOT it a law, nor did he say it was a LAW.
"I do not mind that Jerry research the PFAL material, in fact I would encourage checking it out to see if it is so or not. One mistake could have led to a mulitple of mistakes, and I myself have found some of those mistakes."
There's nothing wrong in checking it out, and that is exactly whatI am doing...what made you think otherwise? Twosum.
"When we were in twi, we were ignorant when entering twi, and ignorance is how God's people are destroyed ( Lack of knowledge )."
Many of us wouldn't even know how to pick up a bible and read it and understand it had it not been for VPW. Many people have told me this. VPW taught Hosea 4:6 at the very beginning of the PFAL class.
"My suggestion is that we should not take anyone "on their word" over anything that they might have said. And I would not elevate Dr. VPW material as being untouchable."
Didn't VPW teach us to do Acts 17:11 and to not take his word only for it?
"Correct Jerry where you think he might be wrong, but don't elevate Dr. VPW works above the Word of God itself, and the ability of God to shed more light upon his Word to individual believers !"
I have corrected Jerry. Of course not on everything...at least not yet.
Now who is accusing? Are you saying that I am elevating VPW above the Word of God itself? Aren't we talking about VPW erroneous teachings?? I have every right to state what VPW said in comparison to what Jerry is saying the opposite of. I'm all for God shedding more light...nothing wrong with that. The question is for us to know if it is the true light?
Ironic thing to say that I am elevating VPW over the Word itself...I think especially in light of your defending Jerry, which I think he's capable of doing himself, and in light of what you previously had sent to him as stated below:
"Jerry you said > "but if anyone with a meek heart cares to read it, he or she might see what I'm getting at. "
Jerry: Do you , or did you realize that making a statement such as - "if anyone with a meek heart cares", is a prophetic statement ?
Are you suggesting that if I disagree with you that I do not have a "meek heart" ? ?
Have you come to that place in your life, that you are declaring that you are a prophet of and from God ? Or is this "pride" ? ?
Enoch died ! IN Adam "all" die !
Is this going to be a stand off, or is one of us going to back down ?
I'm standing ! What about you Jerry ?"
Love IN Christ - TWOsum
Anemone
| L Anemone
(10/4/00 4:57:52 am)
| Re: Fabricated references
Jerry,
An Opinion will always and only be just that...an OPINION
"This is not a true statement. All scripture does NOT interpret itself. You may find this statement upsetting and heretical, but VP himself acknowledges it in the same session of PFAL."
I do not find it upsetting because I know what the Word is saying and VPW explained it in black and white in the class. I didn't and still don't have a problem with it as well as others who took the same class.
You said:
"The reason we have this contradictory teaching is because VP took II Peter 1:20 out of its context to teach something it does not say. To read that God's Word was not made of the apostles' own imaginations does not necessarily mean that we cannot interpret it."
Here is an example of you twisting what he said. He was saying that we are not to "privately" interpret God's Word. This is what he meant when he said the Word of God interprets itself. It's right there where it is written and it's not to be of one's own private or personal letting loose. You can interpret or let loose all you want as long as you are letting loose what God is saying and not what you think he is saying. You know...I think this, someone else thinks that and another one thinks it means something else and so on. So, when you say he said we cannot interpret it, is twisting his words around. He's simply saying let the Word interpret itself. He did not say we can not study or explain or give the meaning of a verse of scripture, but as long as it stays within what God is saying. Pg. 146, he states
For ex. John 3:16: "For God so loved the world he gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
This is what God is saying, it's written right there. It interprets itself. Dr. VPW uses examples in his teaching to show what he means and I mentioned this earlier on to you. He mentions a number of verses to explain exactly what he meant and they were accurate. I see it very clearly. I don't see where the problem is? Did we sit in different classes?
You said:
"As has been written above, the same God who gave His Word can also give us the interpretation thereof (II Corinthians 2:11-16). God gives us revelation and wisdom in the knowledge of Him. (Ephesians 1:17)."
I think you may have made a mistake with II Corinthians 2:11-16. It makes no reference to what you are saying...or perhaps I just don't understand.
Ephesians 1:17 is talking about having the spiritual knowledge and wisdom concerning the truths of His Word already given. It is through God's spirit in us that we receive the "spiritual knowledge and wisdom or understanding of the fullness of God in Christ in us so that "the eyes of our understanding are opened" as it states in the following verse.
I really fail to see what this has to do with VPW's simple teaching on not privately interpreting God's Word. He is saying the same thing the Apostles were saying. That the Word of God came from God and it was not privately interpreted. So, since God's Word is given to us by holy men who were moved by the spirit...then it is not to be of any private interpretation. I do not see any contradiction whatsoever from what VPW was teaching and he did not take it out of context.
You said:
"In the very same chapter he says, "If it is not explained, we will never know." (page 194) Now just take a moment and look at those two statements. They cannot both be true. If ALL Scripture interprets itself, then it HAS to be explained so that we know. If it is not explained so that we know, then All scripture does not interpret itself. It's really very simple."
Dr. Wierwille said (pg 193-194):
Matthew 13:24:
Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field.
"I asked the members in my class, "What is the good seed?" Johnny jumps up and says, "I think the good seed is the Word of God." And I say, "Wonderful, wonderful! Then Maggies says, "Well, I think Johnny's idea is wonderful, but I think the good seed is Christ." And I say, Great. Then I say, "Henry, what do you think it is? And he says, "Well I think that the good seed represents the good works of man." What is wrong with finding out what The Word means by questioning my friends? "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." Johnny, Maggie and Henry all guessed. Each one offered private interpretation. Quit thinking and guessing; say what The Word of God says. Matthew 13:24 simply says, "...The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field." What is the good seed? That verse does not tell us; and if a verse does not tell us; and if a verse does not tell us, we do not know..."
Matthew 13:25:
But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
"What are the tares? We don't know so we just keep on reading until some place, somewhere, sometime, the meaning is going to be explained. If it is not explained, we will never know."
This is what he said and this is what he meant. You took this and twisted it around to mean that he said "Now just take a moment and look at those two statements. They cannot both be true. If ALL Scripture interprets itself, then it HAS to be explained so that we know. If it is not explained so that we know, then All scripture does not interpret itself. It's really very simple.
Your statement is not what he said at all. VPW goes on till he reaches the place in the Word where those things are explained. So, what he was saying if the scripture does not explain it we won't know it. I think you took this and blew it way out of proportion. On pg. 196, He says "How wise they were. The disciples did not guess. They did not say, "I think it is this" or "I think it is that." They went to the Master and they said, "Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field." Jesus explains it in Matthew 13:37-39.
"Could this be made any simpler or more plain? This parable is interpreted in its context. We need guess no longer." Dr. Wierwille was making a point, which is easy to grasp and understand. I do not see where he twisted God's Word to fit his own theory???
You said:
"God did not give us His Word so we could lord it over people and say we're right and they're wrong. He gave us His Word as a guidebook to walking by the spirit. We are not to be ruled by men's traditions, commandments, and doctrines, but by the will of the Lord and the love of God. Chanting "No private interpretation" and teaching that the ONLY way to stand approved before God is by rightly dividing the Word of Truth merely stunts the child of God's confidence in walking by the spirit and empowers those who have intellectual training or linguistic ability to run the lives of those who"
Dr. Wierwille never lorded God's Word over God's people and said he was right and everyone else is wrong. He just taught the Word as he did in the chapters we discussed. He mentions how denominations have taken God's Word and privately interpreted the scriptures. Such as Jesus Christ is not God. Are the Dead Alive Now and so forth. He's shown us the areas where they privately interpret and I know this is absolutely true being raised a Catholic, which put nothing but fear and condemnation in me. God gave us His Word so that we can know the truth, which will set us free from fear and condemnation.
"We are not to be ruled by men's traditions, commandments, and doctrines, but by the will of the Lord and the love of God."...
Didn't VPW teach this very same thing??
"No private interpretation" and teaching that the ONLY way to stand approved before God is by rightly dividing the Word of Truth merely stunts the child of God's confidence in walking by the spirit and empowers those who have intellectual training or linguistic ability to run the lives of those who"
Nice words Jerry, but like I said I'm no fool. No private interpretation and teaching that the ONLY way to stand approved before God is by rightly diving the Word of Truth helps us to grow in God's Word. Rightly dividing by studying God's Word is a wonderful thing and it is God's will that we "ALL" study His Word. Isn't that what you are doing? Or, are you giving only your "private interpretation" or "personal opinion," or just "guessing" at what He says in His Word? I Peter 1:20 and II Timothy 2:15 are the total opposite of what you just stated. You really do not make any sense in your statements. If you're going to teach it, you want to know that it is accurate because many false interpretations can be given...right? You say so below:
"There are a great many valuable lessons in PFAL, but there are many deceitful and erroneous doctrines as well (some of which have yet to be discussed). My goal is not to completely discard what I learned in TWI, but to separate the wheat from the chaff, so I can keep that which is good and right and get rid of that which is wrong and harmful. In order to do that, we must be willing and able to see both."
Have you done II Timothy 2:15? From what I have seen NO you have not. You have done with your other "wheat" what you did with I Peter 1:20 and II Timothy 2:15 and so forth. It's in the manner in which your so called attempt of ridding that which is wrong and harmful is being done. What you are doing is harmful and wrong. Example...taking what VPW taught and undermining what he "REALLY" said and also which I still find appalling your "opinion" concerning "Enoch." What you stated is still the complete opposite of what God's Word says and I really take a stand on that one!
I have gone through what you have posted and I can see in so many places where you have misused what VPW has taught. You have said a lot of things he did not teach. I have read and re-read his books on the subjects where you maliciously say he is off and I have not found it to be so.
Jerry - perhaps you really believe that you are being honest before God in what you are doing. If that is the case, then I apologize for my opening statement. Only God knows what lies in the heart of a man, so, I will not judge your heart. I was in error there.
Well, it is said that this is a place for ex-way people to give their opinion...and that it is. Did Jesus Christ have a navel or not?
Please...someone...tell me a joke! Orange Cat are you around?
Anemone
| Larry P2
(10/4/00 8:16:18 am)
| Re: Fabricated references
Thank you Anenome.
You have performed a valuable public service by reminding those of us who, because of VPW's self-serving lies, boasting and fraud, will never open a Bible again. A substantial majority of Ex-Twiers, I would guess, find themselves in that growing crowd.
In the hands of a dishonest huckster named Victor Paul Wierwille, the Bible was magically changed into an evil, hateful satanic book.
But Anenome, there is one thing you will NEVER understand about Jerry Barrax. Those of us who have been here on Waydale since the beginning have not the slightest reservation about Jerry's intellectual integrity. Jerry and I have disagreed FREQUENTLY and VEHEMENTLY on this site and he has refused to stoop to traditional methods of TWI Gestapo intimidation, even when defending VPW. While I disagree with Jerry's conclusions a substantial majority of the time, I have no qualms about his underlying epistemological integrity.
There is plenty of room to disagree here on Waydale.
| JBarrax
(10/4/00 8:37:49 am)
| Re: Fabricated references
Gosh, thanks Larry.
Twosum: You have taken I Corinthians 15:22 out of context. Yes it says "...in Adam in all die...". But to use this verse as proof that Enoch wasn't translated that he should not see death as Hebrews plainly states, is error. Read the context of I Cor. 15:22 and you will see that there are EXCEPTIONS to that rule.
51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
This mortal must put on immortality. Therefore, we shall not all die. Therefore, there are exceptions to that rule, as I referred earlier. If Jesus Christ returns today, we will not die. Are we better than Enoch? I know I'm not. God is no respecter of persons. Just as God can grant us immortality, God could grant Enoch immortality. He granted it to Enoch by translating him forward to Paradise so that he should not see death. This is born out by the ACTUAL record of Enoch in the Old Testament.
In checking the Old Testament, we discover that all of those in the genealogy before and after Enoch died. but he died not for God took him.
10 And Enos lived after he begat Cainan eight hundred and fifteen years, and begat sons and daughters:
11 And all the days of Enos were nine hundred and five years: and he died.
14 And all the days of Cainan were nine hundred and ten years: and he died.
17 And all the days of Mahalaleel were eight hundred ninety and five years: and he died.
20 And all the days of Jared were nine hundred sixty and two years: and he died.
21 And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah:
22 And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:
23 And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years:
24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.
[The italicized "was" is supplied because there is no Hebrew word there. This is the figure of speech ellipsis or ommission. Actually, it says, "and he not for God took him." Literally it means, "and he died not for God took him."]
27 And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died.
So for the last time, Enoch did not die. God translated him that he should not see death. That's what the Old Testament record actually says. We have a LOT more territory to cover, so I don't think I'll post anymore on Enoch.
Peace
Jerry
| Twosum
(10/4/00 9:02:12 am)
| Re: blindness never reveals
Anemone you said > "That's another one that got all twisted and taken out of bounds. The whole heart of what he was saying got chewed up and then spitted out. He was just teaching a basic spiritual principle and HE DID NOT it a law, nor did he say it was a LAW."
Anemone: There is "no way" to twist the tithe ! Either it is Law or it is not. You can not have it both ways ! But Dr. VPW tried to have it both ways ! Why ? I don't know, but he did !
That's right Anemone, he did not say it was a LAW ! But the problem is, is that it is a part of the LAW, and in some blind manner, this teaching tried to change that by introducing it to the Church as a part of the doctrine of the Church, and for the Church ! If you do not believe me, read "Christians should be Prosperous" .
Many many error's and spiritual lies came from teaching the tithe ! And when I say many, I mean many ! I am not saying that Dr. VPW lied with understanding, but the spiritual battle of lies has been drawn. Either it is was to be taught to the Church or it was not to be taught to the Church. Which is it ???
Everything in the OT (written aforetime) is for our learning - not doing !!
Paul taught that circumcision profiteth nothing and uncircumcision profiteth nothing, then with the same reasoning, the tithe profiteth nothing also !!
Water baptism profiteth nothing !
A communion service profiteth nothing !
Literal sacrifices profiteth nothing !
Building buildings profiteth nothing !
Ministry with ownership of land profiteth nothing !
Presidents in a ministry profiteth nothing !
Calling leadership "Reverands" profiteth nothing !
Burnt offerings profiteth nothing !
Teaching the "tithe" to the church profiteth nothing !!!!!
House of his healing presence profiteth nothing !!
Having ministers wearing "robs" profiteth nothing !!
A way tree profiteth nothing !!
Following Moses to the promise land in the church age profiteth nothing !!
The list is getting long, and even though Dr. VPW did not teach water baptism and did not have burnt offerings, check the list out and see which one's were done in TWI.
What you must understand about what I told Jerry is his usage of his words that indicated that all those who did not follow his advice etc. etc. etc. It was prophetic or pride. That does not mean he continually does this, but I have seen him want others to follow his reasoning. This was one example. I did not defend the man Jerry ! I defended certain spiritual rights that we all have according to the Word of God - "see if those things are so or not" to see if they are true or not. We are
encouraged to search the scriptures. That is what I defended !
Galatians 5:6 tells us that - "faith which worketh by love"
God wants our hearts by faith , and faith worketh by love. Teaching the "tithe" is "not teaching faith which worketh by love" !!!
Galatians 5:8 - "This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you" !!!!!!
Love IN Christ - TWOsum
| L Anemone
(10/4/00 9:44:10 am)
| blindness never reveals
Twosum,
I just spoke my heart and mind to you do you do to me. You seem a bit angry in your posting.
Dr. VPW was not teaching "tithe" per se. He did not say we must tithe. He was talking about the spiritual laws involved, and he makes a lot of sense. He was explaining that giving equals receiving and that is a principle from God's Word. So, yes, once again, his words are being distorted.
Believe what you will.
You give from the heart and because of love and that's that. That's something we each work in our own hearts and minds.
Most of your examples of "profits nothing" needs to be pondered on. A communion service for example is very profitable because it brings to remembrance or gets one to focus on that which Jesus Christ accomplished for us on the cross and what his resurrection brought about...it's not a law. You do it because you want to do it. If anyone makes it a law...well, then it's their problem. So what's that got to do with anything??
Applying principles from God's Word is not the law nor and does it interfere with our freedom in Christ, if one understands what that fully means. So I don't think Galatians 5:6 applies in this situation...at least not with me because I am very far from putting any one under the law...and mostly myself. So don't make it look that way, Twosum.
However you defended him makes no difference. You did to me what you accused him of doing to you and there's no getting around it. I'm not saying this to make you mad, I don't judge your heart either. I just thought it was an ironic act on your part.
Anemone
|
|
