Nathan_Jr

Right! Should have put "research" in quotes.

My take-away from this actual manufactured error is vic's glaring hypocrisy and deeply flawed research methodology. Vic claimed to be a Bible literalist and represented himself as a skilled exegete and textual critic, one who arrived at accuracy through exhaustive, precise "research." He constantly rebukes any other interpretation as eisegetical, "private," opinionated, and inaccurate. HOWEVER, here he does exactly what he preaches against: Reading into a text something that doesn't exist. Now, there are theological, Christological, and historical arguments about who Jesus' earthly father is and all the attendant implications historically, religiously, spiritually. Victor doesn't develop any of these arguments here. Perhaps he doesn't really understand how (H-O-W), perhaps he's too lazy, perhaps he's too stupid or "spiritually immature." He is hoping the viewer/reader/listener just won't notice, that they will be too intellectually fatigued from all the repetitive droning. Or that they will be so impressed with the novelty, they will BELIEVE the amazing bull$hit. It's sleight of hand. It's dishonest "research." Its magic. It's hypocrisy. Who would accept any claim of fact about something as serious as The Word of God if anyone made it with: I heard about it somewhere, can't remember where, it's not in the text, but it can be, if you make it fit. Why would one believe this? Who would even utter such an idea? This is insanity. This is your sign! This is only one of many, many self-contradictions in PFAL and collaterals. PFALToday has an ethical, intellectual and spiritual responsibility to correct this and all other errors. Mere omission of an error is not a correction.

I think that was his point in telling it this way. Again, this is how I remember it. Please correct me if my memory is not accurate (scientifically).

Thanks, Sky. I remember reading that thread and all your postings on BATS. Your voice here has been critically important to me over the years. Thank you. I should have been more precise (mathematically). I was referring to victor's story in PFAL about wading through throngs of adoring Indians and finally healing a random man's withered hand. That man didn't accept Jesus Christ, BUT he believed and ol' Vic just healed him. (At least, this is how I remember that segment.) The CORPS "teacher" I endured a few years ago told a story that about this same withered-hand-Hindi's daughter being present in New Knoxville at an advanced class or some event between 1976 and 1986. This is the "India experience" I have no reason to believe. After all, vic didn't have a healing ministry, he had a research ministry.

Yes. It's also a form of gaslighting. It's a control tactic designed to cause self doubt, because everyone is slightly wrong all the time, requiring reproof and correction. One must be "taught" how (H-O-W) scripture interprets itself rightly, otherwise it's man-made private opinion. Don't do it.... Dooon't do it!

"This is a doctrine that was invented in the 19th century in Ireland by James Darby. I wonder if the author meant John Nelson Darby, the inventor of dispensationalism. "...to indoctrinate through his Bible studies..." Gross

Yes. I know this is true.

Haha! No. The cognitive dissonance must be so painful for him.

It seems there's no reason at all to believe the India trip experiences. It's too conveniently inconvenient to verify. After that segment in PFAL, one of the sycophants at my "class" told a story about the "healed" Hindi's daughter being present at an advanced class or something at headquarters. That same flying monkey rushed to show me a photo of the 18th century French cemetery after the 4 crucified segment, as if that was evidence of anything at all. You can't believe your way to Truth. Belief is not required to find out what is true. Only a lie requires belief.

Thanks, Twinky. Your voice here at GSC has always been so encouraging. I can't say it enough: Thank God for GSC, and all the brave voices of Truth here. And for all the voices of bull$hit so we can know what it looks like.

Scripture is sacred text written by humans derived from (preposition) oral tradition. Given. But (conjunction) when is it decided that these words are sacred? And who decides? And must it be ancient? The scripture of 2 Peter is the Torah, right? Or is "Peter" talking about Paul's letters and the Gospels? 2 Peter was certainly written late enough that anything written in the 1st century might have seemed ancient to his audience... Or was Peter talking about scripture from the Far East? Or from Sumer? Or Egypt? PFAL became scripture to some soon after it was published. Who decides?

Yeah, I keep trying to remind myself of this. But (conjunction!) liars make me so angry and nauseous. I crave righteous justice to be visited upon them - and I want to watch! BUT (conjunction) my work is to let go and forgive. My ex-wife is an C-NPD. One of my last, desperate concessions to appease her, to save our marriage, to give her another chance, to trauma bond one more time before I snapped out of it was to take the "class." One of her family members was Corps, "taught" fellowship, and administered the class. So, her flying monkeys are the entire fellowship, comprised mostly of her family, and her stick is the narcissistic Vic Paul.

That's right, Twinky. I didn't call Jesus a bastard, vic did. It's an intentionally demeaning epithet. That was his point. That's why he lied about the whole thing. If he will go to such lengths to lie about and demean the name of Jesus, what else will he lie about? Who else will he demean?

B. G. Leonard is conspicuously missing from this list. The ThD. in Homiletics is conspicuously missing. But (conjunction) I've got to give 'em credit for mentioning Pike Peak. Ballzy move.

I must correct myself, as I think I'm conflating this error with one of the many, many others, including the birth dating. The birth date was not the point here. I am not convinced he lied about the bar mitzvah to prove any dating. But (a conjunction) I am convinced he lied to manufacture error. I now remember my initial astonishment upon hearing this erroneous "teaching." It was that his evidence of the lost document was no evidence at all! And what was his point? That Jesus was a bastard? His point was to disparage Jesus as a bastard Jew - an epithet taken very seriously by Jews of any era.

Right. So who manufactured the error of Jesus' bastard bar mitzvah? Whose faulty, dishonest methodology manufactured this error? Did Raf manufacture this error or did victor? After following the evidence, I am convinced Victor contrived this error to make his opinion of dating Jesus' birth fit like a hand in a glove - a glove that knows how to interpret itself. If victor is wrong about this, what else is he wrong about? Observe with a mind free of indoctrination and conclusions to find out.

I forgot about this. So sinister. It was one of many used against me as a proof text for why I couldn't possibly understand unless I was "taught." The phrase "How can you learn unless you've been taught" was used constantly. And who will be the teacher? The leader who was taught by vic paul who revealed St. Paul who revealed Christ who revealed God. Maybe, once you are taught how (spelled: H-O-W), then the scriptures interpret themselves. All (without exception or distinction) cults absolutely love to "teach." When does a writing become scripture?

Getting back to the original PFAL: Can anyone explain the bastard bar mitzvah? Didn't Vic "teach" that in "Bible times" bastard boys were given their bar mitzvah at a different age than legitimate boys? This is why Jesus and fam go to Juruselem when he's twelve. In Luke, I think. He couldn't remember who told him this, but that didn't stop him from anointing it factual and worthy of "teaching" - this methodology always bothered me. I've consulted several Od/New Testament scholars, Rabbis, Ancient Near East historians, theologians. (I admit I didn't consult the Greek people.) None could confirm the veracity of this notion of bastard bar mitzvah.

When it doesn't fit you've got to MAKE it fit. Force that hand into that self-interpreting glove. You've got to WORK that word into that glove! (Insert OJ courtroom glove meme) Well, just bless your little hearts. If only you could read it in the original where scripture always interprets itself if you make it fit.

An anchor phrase.... genius.... Like when you can't remember the fictional character who told you about a first century "bastard bar mitzvah".... scripture interprets itself. Or when you read a metaphor from Paul's letters back into Genesis - the trees are people!!.....scripture interprets itself. Or when, as a doctor, you have to spell instead of pronounce the Greek after "researching" 18 hours a day for forty years.....scripture interprets itself. Or when you'd rather move verses and chapters around in Genesis to form fit your opinion instead of doing honest spirit-led exegesis......scripture interprets itself. Or whenever you encounter a preposition or conjunction, and your opinion is on the line.....scripture interprets itself. Or when you need 2 to actually mean 4 because of an 18th century cemetery and a flat earth...... scripture interprets itself.

Textual redactions redact themselves, interpolations interpolate themselves, engravings on silver bracelets engrave themselves, prepositions pre position themselves... BULL$HIT Obviously, scripture does NOT and can NOT interpret itself - because it's SCRIPTURE!

Not only does scripture interpret itself, it writes itself and reads itself. Similarly, poetry interprets itself, writes itself and reads itself. Or, art interprets itself, paints itself, views itself. See? Isn't that just wonderful!! Bless your little hearts. I wish you could read it in the original.

I didn't have a problem focusing on the good until I "took the class." So much pretense. So many presumptions. So much negativity and evil was preached. I had never heard such effort to divide the Body of Christ, to separate friendships and families. I had never heard of a so-called MOG spend so much energy religiously arguing against other shades of diverse religious doctrine - the truth needs no defense, but, boy, was vic always on the defensive. Yet, he was the one on the attack! I remember wondering: With whom are you arguing?!?! Someone, maybe Babe Ruth, said: Don't throw out the baby with the bath water. Well, if the baby is a deceased corpse, it's going out with the bath water, and the entire tub will be filled with bleach to disinfect. I'm eternally grateful for excellent teachers throughout my life. So grateful. I know what it looks like. Vic ain't it. He's one of the worst teachers and PFAL is one of the worst "classes" I've ever encountered. I know not all are as blessed as I, and for some victor seems impressive. This astonishes and saddens me. But I'm not on any mission to convert followers to sycophants. I work every day to forgive him, even though he doesn't deserve it. That's grace. I hope one day he can thank me for enduring the dozens of hours I spent in "the class." And I hope one day he can read it in the original. Bless his little heart.

Thanks. There are so many published and private Bible translations. I wouldn't ever say one is better than another. They are different. We have preferences. We study. There are methods for study, methods for translation, hermeneutics. All rooted in ancient and contemporary schools of thought and theory on textual translation and interpretation. Horace and Cicero may have been the first to codify a binary translation theory: Word for Word and Sense for Sense. Today the field is more nuanced, complex. So, is it literal OR is it according to usage? I remember reading and hearing vp's literal according to usage and they sounded like paraphrase, freer and more expansive and carnally opinionated than any amplified Bible - neither word for word nor sense for sense, according to the original. (I do wish vic could have read it in the original... bless his heart.) I'm fine with anyone's private interpretation (private inspiration is essential), but the phrase literal according to usage sounds contrived, manipulative. Is it designed to impress? To obscure? As a dilettante would? The phrase sounds so technical, but the actual translation is free form paraphrase full of the very religion vp disparaged. And it was "taught" to me as the most accurate translation ever written. Maybe I've been reading too much Harry Frankfurt lately. Im calling bull$hit.

What does the phase "literal according to usage" mean? VP's text reads like a free translation - nothing literal or according to usage about it. I was usually condemned as spiritually immature for asking such questions or else provided a bull$hit word salad for an answer. It seems to me literal and according to usage are mutually exclusive terms in the work of a translator.