What The Hey

The great ADVANTAGE in utility of the internet over the television is that the user CONTROLS THE

EXPERIENCE. He posts and interacts with others, and he determines which of the billions and billions of

websites he is going to spend time on.

You went on and made my case even better than I did WW. That is the main reason why time spent on the Internet has matched and for the most part out-paced the time that used to be spent in front of the TV set - the Internet is far more addictive than the "boob tube" ever was. The reason the Internet is highly addictive is because the "user" can selectively tune out whatever unpleasant elements he or she doesn't like and interact with the more pleasant ones. The addicted Internet user in essence creates their own distorted reality of life by avoiding the conflicts that are inherent in interpersonal relationships. The reality of life is: Genuine relationships contain conflict. That is the inescapable fact of real life here in the real word. That is not necessarily always the case in the virtual world. If there were no conflict, there would be no genuine relationship.

The sad truth is the addicted Internet user ends up paying a very high price for this distorted reality of life and living much like the addicted drug user does. And it is a drug. Now no addicted drug user will ever admit to you openly that they are hooked or addicted. Rather the opposite is the case. Most drug users will tell you they can quit the drug they've been using at the drop of a hat with no side effects. Most Internet users can't go more than 24 hrs. without another "fix" - without "hooking up" and going on-line. We have all heard stories of marriages that have been dissolved and strained because the spouse was addicted to Internet porn. I'm just citing one example where the Internet has made pornography easy and accessible where before the days of the Internet that was not the case. Today one can spare themselves the possible embarrassment of meeting someone they would rather not meet by visiting adult web sites rather than risk meeting somebody coming out of the adult book store that used to be on the shady side of town. Today the Interent has completely taken away that "unpleasant" risk for those addicted to pornography. The Interent has completely taken away the possibility of any conflict out of that relationship today, but it certainly hasn't taken away any of the cost.

Initially I was going to post my reply on the: "What's wrong with the Church" thread, but I posted it on this thread because for many people the Internet is the predominant way many people are connecting with one another. I wasn't criticizing the use of the Internet per se, other than for many people it is and has become a replacement for genuine fellowship.

Because of some people's past experiences (most notably in TWI) some missed the point I was making. Genuine Christianity is not just about meeting together or about meeting frequently in each others homes. It’s not just about eating and drinking coffee or having a doughnut together. All of that is logistics. Now sometimes it can be and it is doing those things together. But at the core of what we do as Christians should always be following the commands the Lord gave us, and there are over 100 commands in the New Testament for us to love one another. The point I was and am making is this: How are you going to practically do what the Lord has commanded?

One can’t practically carry out the Lords commands effectively by chatting with someone on-line or by posting messages on a web site. Truthfully one can’t carry out the Lords commands effectively by meeting once a week in a Sunday service - which predominates American Christianity today. Certainly one can make acquaintances doing those things, but those things are not conducive to producing real and meaningful friendships. I think Elena S. Whiteside addresses the same problem to some extent in the book: "God's Word in Culture" specifically the chapter on "The State of the Union". In that chapter she talks about Tony Manero, the hero of "Saturday Night Fever". The story revolves around Tony Manero, a nineteen year old who works a drab job selling paint - his life consisting of work, hanging out with his buddies and then the high point - dressing up and going to the local disco on Saturday night. It's there in the "disco" where Tony receives recognition, praise admiration and validation - where he can "be somebody". But today the Internet is the replacement for the 1970's disco. It's the place where someone who is typically a nobody can receive recognition, praise, admiration and validation from their peers.

As Elena Whiteside put it, "What is there for the Tony Manero of today?" The answer to that is that today there is the Internet. It's just another one of today's theives, sucking off peoples lives like a vacuum cleaner right out of life and living. "These theives have only as much influence over people as the people allow them to have," as Elena Whiteside put it. But people are subject to these influences, because in contrast, their surroundings are so overwhelmingly drab, dull, secondhand that TV, drugs, and dropping out seem the lesser of two evils. To that strange mix one can add the Internet. Evils, nevertheless, are both alternatives. TV, drugs, dropping out and the Internet just steal from us the experience of life and the reason to develop meaningful relationships with one another.

On the surface there is nothing wrong with the Internet any more than TV. These forms of media can be and are great avenues for learning. But on the other side of the coin, the Internet I believe gives one greater access to "instant gratification" than what TV ever did. That is why time now spent on-line is near or greater than the amount of time that one use to spend in front of the "boob tube". But these are just the conditions of our consumer society, and one can more easily change a condition after it has been recognized and defined.

The opinion I often run into and continually find that most people have is what was stated on another thread:

people of this age will always check things out on the internet.

What it all boils down to is for the "people of this age" the things out on the internet is equivalent to the indesputable "word of God". Welcome to: Church on the Internet. Summing it up briefly (while refering to another thread at the same time) that is exactly what is "wrong with the Church today." What is wrong with the Church is people think they know what God wants the Church to be – basically, that’s what’s wrong with the Church today. People think the Church is all about their worship, about their church programs, their ministry, their meetings, their outreach and other logistics. "Church on the Internet" is a fine example of people attempting to do "church" their own way. Even local churches have web sites for someone to "hook-up" with them.

So many people today, even Christians, are just existing and not really living. They go day to day – from work – to home – to TV – to sleep; then get up - to work – to home – to TV – to sleep – it's the whole thing all over again. The problem is not so much with the Church itself per se, but that people have forgotten what authentic Christianity is about. Authentic Christianity is all about love. It is sacrificially serving your savior with your best friends. It’s not about the form of the Sunday morning service, the church’s programs, tweaking this and tweaking that and whatever other logistics there are. Authentic Christianity is NOT about logistics, it’s about love. Authentic Christianity is not a program or a meeting. Well - we can always tweak this and tweak that, but genuine, authentic Christianity is about sacrificially serving your savior with your best friends.

That’s the part American Christianity has been losing and continues to keep on losing. They’re all about doing their own ministry and doing it their own way. O.K. I’ve got my ministry. Now they are doing it on their own and it is always about them. But what was the example of our Lord Jesus Christ when he was on the earth? To briefly sum it up, his WHOLE life was about sacrificially serving his Father with his best friends. That’s how he lived - in community with other people, specifically his best friends. But in our American culture we are so independent. There are people even saying we don’t need the church anymore. They say the church is outdated and obsolete and that people can be authentic Christians on their own. Not according to scripture. Do you think the church is something man invented? NO! It is something God Himself created. It’s where you “plug into” the body of Christ and if you’re not plugged into the church you’re not plugged into Jesus Christ in a practical way. The “voices” are out there saying the church is dead, that it’s obsolete and one can “do it” all on their own. But God says differently. The church was His invention. Authentic Christianity is about sacrificially serving your savior with your best friends. In doing so you become a living example of the way our Lord Jesus Christ lived while he was on earth.

It’s not so much about what Christian fellowship or what church you belong to that matters. What it is about and what matters is; does the fellowship or the church you attend offer you opportunities to sacrificially serve your savior with your best friends? If not, than not I nor can anyone else for that matter make you devoted to the apostle’s doctrine – to the fellowship of believers; to the breaking of bread and to prayer. If the fellowship or the church you attend does not provide you with the opportunity to pursue authentic Christianity, then perhaps you should question the way you have been living. I know that’s the only way for any Christian to really live, the way my savior lived. The only question a Christian must ask themselves is – how am I going to accomplish that – that is, pursue genuine Christianity? If you try to keep your life to yourself and for yourself, then you’re just going to lose it. There is nothing more important in life than following the Lord Jesus Christ. But if you want to follow him, then you must deny yourself. You must pick up your cross and follow him, because whoever tries to keep his life for himself will lose it. It will only turn out worthless – it won’t matter. But if you lose your life for me, Jesus says, you will find it. (Matthew 16: 24-26)

Look. You don’t have to pray about that, think about that, or even get Christian counsel about that. I can tell you that is God’s will for your life 100 percent. My Christian brothers and sisters this is not a game! This is not a program or a meeting. This is God’s will for your life!!! A day is coming when you and I will both stand before the Lord Jesus Christ and we’re going to know that His Church was not a game. This is His plan, His vehicle, His family, and He, God Almighty meant for you and I both to live authentic, genuine, Christianity. The only question that remains is: How are you and I going to do that? It all starts by fellowshipping with those who want to do Gods Will and will also help you do exactly what it is what God wants you to do. The early church always found a way to do that - to devote themselves to the apostles doctrine - and they didn't have computers or the Internet. The point I am making is the early church found a way to make it happen. One day God will be talking with you and I about how it happened today.

Now I want you to remember this. Those people, the early Christians were meeting together every day. Where? In their homes! Amazing! I am sure we all think that we’re way too busy for that today. Now I’m not asking any of you to meet me in my home every day. Many of you are too far away! Besides, I don’t want you in my house every day. But those people had families. They had jobs. They were busy too and they still found a way to devote themselves to learning and to applying the apostles teaching. They devoted themselves to their fellowship – to their Christian friendships, and to prayer and to the Lords supper. The point I am making is they found a way to practice authentic, genuine Christianity and the logistics took care of themselves. But today all we Christians do is concern ourselves with the logisitics of the Church, then wonder why we no longer have the time to devote ourselves to the apostles doctrine and the practice of genuine, authentic Christianity.

Retemories? Don't you find it interesting ... that while we were required to recite every single word just as it was written in the King James ... leadership could do something so "creative" as to INVENT the word "retemorie"? ...

The word retemory was indeed TWI terminology, but I'm not sure it was a term "invented" by TWI leadership, or something a Way believer coined at one time and the term just seemed to stick. LCM explained the meaning of the term as to: "retain scripture in the memory" which would make one think it was a term invented by TWI leadership. Unfortunately many people retained scriptures in their memory only as an opportunity to jump down your back whenever you crossed the party line.

I don't think there's anything wrong with retaining scripture in your memory per se. It all depends on the purpose it is ultimately going to be used for that makes it right or wrong. Job's "miserable comforter's" retained scriptures word perfect in their memory as well. But when Jesus Christ was ministering to others however, "He found the place where it was written." I think that's all one need's to know as to where the proper emphasis should be put.

It still blows my mind that some people seek to excuse the capital offenses committed by-and advocated by- vpw, but can strain at a gnat as to how many people were crucified when Jesus was. The only cross that mattered on that hill was the one Jesus was on.

If the only cross that mattered was the one that Jesus was on, then why did the gospel writers bother to write about the others that were crucified - regardless if one believes there were only 2 or 4 crucified with him? The argument you are making just proves some people only care about capitalizing on and magnifing the sins and the weaknesses common to all men, rather than magnifying the Word of God and what the Lord has done.

But hey - that's the Gospel according to the great Talk Show host.

(They're all over don't you know.)

But we are supposed to believe all those Talk Show hosts are somehow "reaching out" and doing God's will & work for Him today. I imagine that, in their eyes, they honestly think they are.

...When you said " open end toward the recipiant" you were referring to the horn of plenty,yes? I never could keep the nouns and verbs straight. "What a diifferance one little comma can, make.

I wonder ... would the comma belong before "," today or after today","?

I will not campaign.

If nominated, I will not run.

If elected, I will not serve.

Now there's the law of believing in operation!

Hmmm... should we worry if you get what you're not believing for?

I think it was a good way to override your own common sense.

What do you mean "overide your own common sense" when we were all (supposedly) likeminded at the time?

And just whose "common sense" were you going to overide back then anyway - without you being ostracized?

All it was - was just a good lesson for someone to be exposed to - to learn and to master: group think!

And some people I see have learned the lesson very well. Some people still love to practice it on others - especially when "they" won't conform to the group think prevalent here.

What's this? Another "PFAL" thread and and the PFAL master hasn't shown up yet?

The assertion was that the Khazar bloodline REPLACED the Jew bloodline entirely in Ashkenazi Jews, and that was what the book said. That was DISPROVEN.

You were/are asserting DNA evidence has provided and conclusively disproven all of this.

The truth is, all existing genetic studies fail to compare modern Jewish population DNA to ancient/medieval Khazarian Judean DNA. Although advanced genetic testing has helped to determine which Jewish communities likely descended from Israelites and which did not, those genetic studies are not conclusive. Additional research is needed, and may take many years to sort it all out.

Jewish Genetics: Abstracts and Summaries

If there is DNA evidence, it would suggest (not prove) that there are some (not all) Eastern European Jews that descended from Isrealite Jews. Kevin Alan Brook (author of: The Jews of Khazaria) shows convincing evidence that Eastern European Jews descended from both the Khazarian and the Israelite Jews.

Are Russian Jews Descended from the Khazars?

A Reassessment Based upon the Latest Historical, Archaeological, Linguistic, and Genetic Evidence

by Kevin Alan Brook

You have my attention. Do you know the reason why? Perhaps to sit at the feet of a successful "schoolmaster" in preparation and hopes of running his own school?

Your probably not very far off the mark on that one. According to the pamphlet "The Teacher" (a freebie booklet given to those who attended the ROA in 1985 - the year VPW passed away) the principles of education he learned from Dr. Lininger became a vital part of the teaching methods found in PFAL, the Way Corps and other academic activities of TWI.

I don't know if that reason alone would have been why he decided to attend Pikes Peak over Oxford University. I think that very likely there were other obvious reasons why he did, of which we may never know.

From Juedes' site:

"Note: The photo shows the entire "seminary," not just some kind of back house. The street address of Pike's Peak Seminary is 41 Lincoln. This picture is taken from Lincoln street. The other side of the house is perched on the side of a semi-wooded hill, and has no street access."

The photo in NO WAY shows the "entire" seminary. This is a huge victorian home that could not be photographed in it's entirety from that angle. This photo only shows the back door of the house which leads to a kitchen just inside that latticework around the back door. I know because I've been there, in front and in back, inside, and out.

Thanks for the clarification on Pikes Peak Seminary here, but I highly doubt anyone from the Juedes site will make the correction that this is NOT the entire seminary. As I currently understand, the only reason VPW decided to attend Pikes Peak (after turning down the offer to do his doctoral work at Oxford University in England years earlier) was that he wanted to study under Dr. H. Ellis Lininger, who was president of Pikes Peak Bible Seminary and Burton College at the time.

Hmmm.... Oxford University or Pikes Peak ... Oxford or Pikes Peak? I really don't think VPW flipped a coin in making the decision on where he should go to get his doctorate - do you? If one wants to study along with the right people, more often than not this necessitates that one must absolutely go where they are located. For example: If one wants to study successful stock investing alongside those at the PHd level, one can't attend any university to do that simply because those people aren't there. One must go where they are. Obviously VPW considered studing under Dr. Lininger was more valuable than attending Oxford at the time. The question I believe one should ask about that would simply be - WHY?

The label PG plainly states parents may consider some material unsuitable for their children, but leaves the parent to make the decision.

To quote: ChattyK.

That was funny Mr. OMalley. But I fear I've gotten older as some of those things that entertain our children give me the willies.

It couldn't be a real party if you never went to: Hellenback!

How about Ron Pompeil?...was he an apostle?

I mean, who else taught us that you could cover up a bald spot with spray paint?

Dontcha know - GLH actually does a better job than some toupee's!

Lord Wierwille???

Sounds as if yo' be talking again about that thar guy with the cold yellow eyes and the red-hot lightsaber.

Who said I was admiting that John Sack's book was even credible?

You implied that you did, when you said...

Not much is said that after WWII there were thousands of Jews who sought revenge for the Holocaust. There were thousands of Jews who set up 1,255 concentration camps for German civilians. ...

The problem you, RAF and others continue to run into and fail to recognize is that the Holocaust industry abounds with many startling facts as well as being replete with utter nonsense - if not sheer fraud. That's the nature of the Holocaust beast. While it is true I have not yet read Mr. Sack's book Eye for an Eye, the reason why I believe Mr. Sacks on this particular point is because that point is recognized by other scholars who have debunked the 6 million Holocaust figure - even if Mr. Sacks himself does not. (For example: how does one come to the conclusion there are figures of speech used in the bible? Does one need to become a trinitarian and/or read every book on the trinity to realize that - just because Bullinger who wrote the book on figures of speech was trinitarian? That is the essence of your arguement. One must agree there were 6 million Jews exterminated in order to agree with Mr. Sacks on this particular point?)

I constantly find that mindset among the Holocaust affirmers - to the point one hardly recognizes any "calm virtue of critical rationality" amongst them. If they can't tell someone the truth about the Holocaust deniers (many who happen to be highly educated professors, some of which are even Jewish scholars) then how is it possible for them to tell anyone the truth about the Holocaust itself?

Many prominent scholars have debunked the Holocaust, but their works usually touches off a storm of controversy among "intellectuals" as well as producing a furious uproar in the media. Why all the furior? Because their works annihilate the Holocaust as well as making a devastating critique of the Judeocentric and anti-Gentile bias central to the Holocaust studies. The Holocaust story as we are told it is used mainly to continue to support Israeli policies in Palestine, as well as to secure funding of the Israeli military by the US Congress. The reason you don't hear the "other side of the story" is because the Gayssot law makes it a crime to "contest" the Holocaust as defined by the Nuremburg Tribunal of 1945-46. Some have already been heavily fined and/or jailed.

Am I furious? No. Holocaust indoctrination is nothing but "thought control" to which many have succumbed - like a cultic religion. The wartime suffering of the Jews has been elevated to a secular religion, and is likewise treated with sacrosanct historical uniqueness - while all the time there remains an abundance of scientific, scholarly and technological evidence that debunks the "Six Million" story, including wartime aerial reconnaissance photos! I don't know what book you've read on the Holocaust (whether affirming it or denying it) but in my book that beats an uploaded line drawing of a silly map with numbers printed on it to a discussion forum on the internet any day of the week.

BTW,

John Sack believes 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust. I suppose you'll admit they were, now?

Who said I was admiting that John Sack's book was even credible? For the record, I don't own his book - Eye for an Eye. Afterall, why should one risk losing $12.95 over a book 5 major publisher's were willing to shell out $40 grand for - but then they all got scared off? It sounds more like a tabloid marketing technique. Even I recognize a "sales blurb" when I hear it.

As far as disproving the 6 million, there are many credible sources one can refer to on that. Anybody who disagrees is just plain and simple ignorant of the facts. If this thread has proven anything WW, it is that there are many fanciful stories on both sides of the issue as there are credible ones. If anything, this thread has certainly proven that: "The myth of the 6 million" is NOT an invention of TWI which therefore makes them an exclusive group on the Holocaust, which you and apparently everone wants to insist upon. Like I stated, there are many fanciful stories on both sides of the issue. Of course, one can always go with whatever suits their fancy. If your someone who is looking for a more credible source on the myth of the 6 million (not just the one provided by TWI) maybe this one is more to your fancy. Did Six Million Really Die?: Report of the Evidence in the Canadian 'False News' Trial of Ernst Zündel

Well - just whose story are you gonna believe now? It all depends on if one is willing to shell out $12.95 or $50.00 for someone's book on the subject I guess. Naturally the more $ one is on the hook for, the more willing they are to argue their side of the issue. Everyone wants to argue their point. It all depends on how much they are on the hook for, and how much they are willing to invest in it.

Someone just uploaded a map with a bunch of numbers on it. I am sure that was a major investment for them. I suppose they want someone to now argue with them on this "hard evidence" on the Holocaust? How convenient it says: "Holocaust Deaths" at the bottom of the map. One could just as easily be looking at a map of square mileage (or kilometers) as Holocaust Deaths. Even if the map were refering to "Holocaust Deaths", is one talking about the Jews murdered by the Germans, or the Germans who were murdered by the Jews? I guess it all depends on whose book you've read lately. Either way, I wouldn't go betting money on it.

It is amazing to see how some people can get all hot and bothered and worked up and ready to pop a vein over the Holocaust. I wonder if those same people could get that passionate over the German Holocaust? Not very likely, I think.

Not much is said that after WWII there were thousands of Jews who sought revenge for the Holocaust. There were thousands of Jews who set up 1,255 concentration camps for German civilians. German men, women, children and babies were also whipped, beat, tortured and murdered by the Jews! I'm sure that probably sounds to fanciful to be true to many of you. It's documented in: Eye for an Eye: The story of Jews Who Sought Revenge for the Holocaust by: John Sack. FYI - this book is NOT a TWI publication! (GEEESH, why do some people push this issue as something that is exclusive to TWI?)

BUT THE BOOK IS A FRAUD! (I am sure that may be the contention of some people.) If the book is a fraud, why would three major publishers, a major newpaper and a major magazine offer $40,000 for such a book? Their naivety? Hardly. Apparently they were all scared off. (The only question I have about that would be is - by who?) This book became a best seller in Europe but only became: "The Book They Dare Not Review" in America. Both 60 Minutes and the New York Times have corroborated what the author wrote as the review states.

It would appear that the Holocaust completely backfired on the Germans in more ways than one if you ask me. The only problem I see with the Holocaust agenda is that the Gemans today just don't receive the same sympathy for it that the Jews do - even though the Jews are quite capable of returning an: Eye for an Eye: The Story of Jews Who Sought Revenge for the Holocaust

What is absurd? What is absurd is seeing the Holocaust become an object of worship because of the in-humane acts of Hitler against the Jews.

It's been said: The Holocaust cult has it's own tenants of faith, rites and shrines. [Rabbi Michael Goldberg].

It takes the spotlight off the Jews for their own in-humane acts against the Palistinians. Even as far back as 1948 Jewish forces had expelled thousands of Palistinians from their villages. Hundreds of thousands fled in fear. The purpose was simply to create a: pure Jewish state - ethnically cleansed of the original inhabitants who had lived there for centuries before.

Just where did the Jews get that idea? What idea? This idea:

- The forced mass expulsion of a people

- countless citizens imprisoned for political reasons

- multiple massacres

- demolition of homes and villages so the previous inhabitants could never return.

Ya'all still think it is an idea exclusive to Hitler!

The Holocaust is not: a Jewish tragedy being remembered.

It is: a Jewish power to which homage is continually being paid!

That's what I find absurd. (expletive deleted).

There’s only one answer: PFAL!

....

there always more then one answer

God's Word = KJV, RSV, NKJV, NIV, NASB, - ETC., ETC., ETC.

But God's Word Rightly Divided = PFAL and ONLY PFAL. (Mike's claim.)

"…Since we have no originals and the oldest manuscripts that we have date back to the fifth century A.D., how can we get back to the authentic prophecy which was given when holy men of God spoke? To get the Word of God out of any translation or out of any version, we have to compare one word with another word and one verse with another verse. If it the Word of God, then it cannot have a contradiction for God cannot contradict Himself. Error has to be either in the translation or in one's own understanding. When we get back to the original, God-breathed Word – which I am confident we can – then once again we will be able to say with all the authority of the prophets of old, 'Thus saith the Lord.'…

And we've all been shown at least 22 cases so far of "Thus saith the Lord" on the previous PFAL thread. Supposedly there are even more? Well even if the Lord did say it, that sure doesn't obligate one to believe it.

In this study on Power for Abundant Living in which we are interested in the accuracy and integrity of God's Word, we must get back to that original Word which was given when holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. We must strip off the translators' theologies which have come about with man-made devices and once more discover the perfect God-breathed Word."

This is the claim PFAL makes regarding itself. But PFAL is only VPW'S comparing of the scriptures - one word w/ another word - one verse w/ another verse so that there is: NO CONTRADICTION as: "God cannot contradict Himself". VPW didn't make an exclusive claim on this. Anyone can do it and it is more an issue of one's own desire to do so.

In my opinion, the above method ignores textual research, scholarship, hermeneutics, and the illumination of the Holy Spirit and assumes VPW's theology is the standard of reference.

Fine. That may indeed be your opinion regarding PFAL, but those are not necessarily the facts regarding PFAL. Your statement only makes one aware that you value your opinion(s) more than the textual rexearch, scholarship, and the "illumination of the Holy Spirit (whatever that might mean to you) etc.

I also see where Mike pulls his outlandish claims from – like the one about the ancient scriptures being inaccessible & etc.

I am not sure what you mean here by "inaccessible", as anyone can purchase a Strongs or a Youngs Analytical Concordance (there are sources on-line as well) an Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, Bullinger's Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, Bishop K.C. Pillai's Orientalism of the Bible - i.e., "Light Through an Eastern Window" to name just a few. That hardly makes searching the scriptures to anybody: "inaccessible". But where all these biblical tools fall short is in the FACT that they DO NOT (as VPW sates in PFAL) Compare the scriptures - one word w/ another word - one verse w/ another verse so there is NO CONTRADITION. Only PFAL makes this claim. Mike's claim is that PFAL has already done that job for us, and because of that there is no need for us to: "reinvent the wheel". That doesn't mean one can never do it, it's just that it is no longer necessary for one to do so.

From what I've seen so far, Mike's method of getting back to authentic prophecy is an erroneous adaptation of VPW's erroneous method. The key phrase in this statement here, of course, is: "what I've seen so far". That again is one stating their own opinion on the matter. Apparenlty they can't get beyond the "what I've seen so far" which leads them to the conclusion that VPW's method is erroneous. I might ask: How did one arrive at that conclusion when VPW may have used a better microscope than what they may have currently available to them?

It's like making photocopies from photocopies. They keep getting lighter and lighter – except in this case it's farther and farther from the truth.

Who said we are making "photocopies?" Getting back to the scriptures and comparing them - word for word - verse by verse is more like beeing able to see which one has the "greater resolution." That process hardly makes the end result "lighter and lighter - or less vivid." As VPW further explains: "The more high-powered the microscope used to observe the works of man, the more imperfect the object appears. On the other hand, the more high-powered the microscope used to look upon something God formed or made [in this case, His Word] the more perfect and orderly it appears. The closer the scrutiny of God's Word, the more obvious become its beauty and perfection. It is only a man who uses a poor microscope who never sees the greatness of God's Word. He does not observe it to see its perfection. [from: "Order My Steps In Thy Word" - 'God's Blueprint of Creation' p.26 by: Victor P. Wierwille]

It is only in this process - the comparing of word to word, scripture to scripture that constitutues one having a "more powerful microscope". The KJV, NKJV, and later translations do not allow for it (now one may get a different rendering of one verse compared to another translation, but that does not necessarilly produce any greater insight on a biblical topic or subject) nor do any of the biblical tools available to study the bible do that. All the translations and bible study aids available on the market are not pre-occupied with the end result of: "NO CONTRADICTIONS" in the overall revelation of the Word of God. However they are very concerned with the bible backing up their theology or some political church doctrine they subscribe to, even to the end of seeing it preserved in this latest: "new translation".

The Ashkenazi Jews for the most part share a genetic link with other Jews, proving the very common background ck claimed would not be found.

Somewhere between five and six million Jews were killed during the Holocaust.

Even the Jews do not agree on either of those points (and they don't even agree amongst themselves since the definition of "who is a Jew" varies based on religious, sociological or ethnical approaches to that identity) and in recent years the term "Ashkenazi Jew" has taken on a completely different meaning in Israel. Distinctions that were perhaps clear a generation or two ago are rapidly vanishing.

There is no ruling body in Judaism that determines "who is a Jew". Jewish law or Halaka does not define who is Jewish by faith. Nor does membership in a local Jewish community or synagogue make one a Jew. Furthermore, a person who does not wish to be considered a Jew any longer is still considered Jewish, whether they do it through apostacy, atheism, a hidden identity or renunciation. There are many famous Ashkenazi Jews who have denied being Jewish, among them being: Felix Mendelssohn (converted to Protestantism), Karl Marx (became atheist), Madeleine Albright (did not know of her Jewish identity until she became an adult, but was already a professing Catholic) and Bobby Fischer, the international chess star who has also claimed the Holocaust is a Jewish invention and a lie - they are considered Ashkenazi Jews.

The definition of "Ashkenazi Jew" is blurring with the reintegration of Jews from around the world. The label "Ashkenazi" is often applied to all Jews living in Israel or European origin, including those whose ethnic background is Sephardic. Jews of non-Ashkenzai background have come to be lumped together as Sephardic - and because of intermarriages between Ashkenzai and non-Ashkenazi partners, they either self-identify or reject those labels.

Like I (and so many other people) said before, all this push for the focus on the Holocaust is so that it never happens again!

That's essentially the same message of the JDL (Jewish Defense League) and members of the "holocaust cult". Their campaign reflects an arrogant view of Jews as being a special and superior people. Why is it that the non-Jewish victims of genocide, oppression and war do not merit the same consideration as do the Holocaust’s Jewish victims? There are no comparable museums, memorials or solemn ceremonies to commemorate, for example, the vastly greater number of victims of Soviet and Chinese Communism.

As historians acknowledge, the non-Jewish victims of Soviet Russian dictator Joseph Stalin greatly outnumber the Jews who perished as a result of Hitler’s policies. Authoritative estimates of the number of Chinese who perished as victims of repression, famine, and forced labor under the Communist regime of Mao Zedong range from about 30 million to more than 60 million.

The Holocaust remembrance campaign deserves scorn, not support because it is an insincere and one-sided effort that serves Israeli interests and bolsters Jewish-Zionist power, an ungodly alliance between Israeli extremists and Christian fundamentalists. Their siren call and amplified bullhorn masks the greater scandal, this peculiar mixture of prophecy and politics.

As Grace Halsell further explains: (this was taken from the IHR website: Israeli Extremists and Christian Fundamentalists: The Alliance)

What is the message of the Christian Zionist? Simply stated it is this: Every act taken by Israel is orchestrated by God, and should be condoned, supported, and even praised by the rest of us.

"Never mind what Israel does," say the Christian Zionists. "God wants this to happen." This includes the invasion of Lebanon, which killed or injured an estimated 100,000 Lebanese and Palestinians, most of them civilians; the bombing of sovereign nations such as Iraq; the deliberate, methodical brutalizing of the Palestinians—breaking bones, shooting children, and demolishing homes; and the expulsion of Palestinian Christians and Muslims from a land they have occupied for over 2,000 years.

My premise in Prophecy and Politics is that Christian Zionism is a dangerous and growing segment of Christianity, which was popularized by the 19th-century American Cyrus Scofield when he wrote into a Bible his interpretation of events in history. These events all centered around Israel—past, present, and future. His Scofield Bible is today the most popular of the reference Bibles.

Scofield said that Christ cannot return to earth until certain events occur: The Jews must return to Palestine, gain control of Jerusalem and rebuild a temple, and then we all must engage in the final, great battle called Armageddon. Estimates vary, but most students of Armageddon theology agree that as a result of these relatively recent interpretations of Biblical scripture, 10 to 40 million Americans believe Palestine is God's chosen land for the Jews.

Has the power of the Christian Zionists diminished?

I do not think so. Rather, we are seeing how the Christian Zionists, motivated by religious beliefs, are working hand in glove with politically motivated, militant Jewish Zionists around the world. It is the Christian support of Zionism that emboldens Zionists to believe they can dictate to relatively weak and dependent countries such as Austria, whom they may choose as their president.

It is the Christian support of Zionism that allows Manuel Noriega to remain the strongman in Panama, misusing his power, regardless of what harm he causes to the United States, his neighbors, and his people.

It is the Christian support of Zionism that enables the militant Israelis to take over Palestinian homes surrounding the Al-Aqsa mosque in pursuit of their well-documented plan to destroy Jerusalem's most holy Islamic site, sacred to a billion Muslims around the world—one-fifth of humanity.

Christian Zionists and the Iran-Contra Scandal

Remarkably, it was this Christian cult of Israel that brought us the Iran contra scandal, perhaps the most self-destructive act in the history of the United States. Marine Col. Oliver North, the perpetrator of this misguided series of actions, is a Christian Zionist. A born-again charismatic figure, he endeared himself to the militant Israeli Zionists who plotted Iran-contra. "He is more Israeli," said one Jewish general, "than we Israelis." This is often the case. In his zealotry, the Christian Zionist can become more Zionist, more militant, than the Jewish Zionist.

In the Iran-contra hearings, Sen. James McClure (R-ID) explained to North that the US had a stated policy of neutrality in the Iran-Iraq war. That policy differed radically from Israel's policy of selling arms to Iran. Yes, agreed North, the two policies were not the same. The question, to which McClure's efforts yielded no response, then becomes: Why would the US forego its American policy to pursue Israeli policy?

The answer, unfortunately, lies in the belief system of Christian Zionists: They believe that what Israel wants is what God wants. Therefore, it is perfectly acceptable to give the green light to whatever it is Israel wants and then conceal this from the American people. Anything, including lies, theft, even murder, is justified as long as Israel wants it.

Another perfect example of a Christian Zionist is Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI). Throughout the hearings on the Iran-contra scandal, the Hawaiian kept the focus on the contras and steered determinedly clear of any criticism of Israel. If, in answer to questions, witnesses sought to explain the seminal and continuing role of Israel, Inouye abruptly broke off the line of questioning that had led the hearings to this unwanted destination.

Despite the political problems created by its lay practitioners and the scandals that rocked some of its TV ministries, this belief system—this cult of Israel—has not been diminished.

Indeed, I hold that Christian Zionism threatens not just the lives of Palestinians and other Arabs, but the very existence of the United States. Because of the cult of Israel, we have become a nation that does not have its own Middle East policy, but the policy the government of Israel tells us to have.

Despite the terrifying aspects of the alliance of militant Christians with militant Jewish Zionists, I find some encouraging developments. In my visits to colleges, clubs, and churches around the country, I have found strong support for the message and warning in Prophecy and Politics. It has come not only from liberal congregations, but from across the whole spectrum of Christianity, including those Christians who call themselves fundamentalists. These supporters see Christ as the bearer to humanity of God's message of peace, brotherhood, love, and reconciliation. These Christians do not endorse either the cult of Israel or its killings and beatings of Palestinians.

I have found many such Christians in my frequent visits to my home state of Texas. There and all over this slowly-awakening land of ours, I have found a small but increasing number of ministers and lay people who are deeply alarmed by the cult of Israel and willing to stand up and speak out about it.

--------------------------

Grace Halsell's book,Prophecy and Politics. The Secret Alliance Between Israel and the US Christian Right is available through the AET Book Club Catalog to readers of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.

(This article was adapted by author Grace Halsell from her speech at the North American Regional Non-Governmental Symposium on the Question of Palestine held in June 1988 at the United Nations headquarters in New York.)

Disclaimer: Not all the opinions held by Grace Halsell are indicative or represent my belief/opinions, but have highlighted aspects where we do agree.

Sounds like you ended up becoming affiliated with another (although different) group of Christian-Zionists to me.