Nathan_Jr

26 minutes ago, Charity said:

Many self-proclaimed modern prophets, infected with the need for sensationalism, have given reports of out-of-body experiences, trips to heaven and hell, and face-to-face dialogues with angels, God and Jesus Christ. 

A few are Mike Bickle, Chris Reed, Todd Bentley and Bob Jones who are all close past or present associates of Rick Joyner of MorningStar Ministries and have all given detailed descriptions of their visiting heaven.  

Supernatural Story: Chris Reed Visits Library in Heaven

Jesus took Todd Bentley to the Gates of Hades (Rick Joyner on stage with him)

Mike Bickle: Heavenly Encounter

Rick Joyner

I find it interesting that in the past, preachers would preach scripture.  Nowadays, for more and more preachers, the preaching of God's word comes through retelling their visits to heaven.  Why is this becoming the norm for so many churches?   

I tried watching that video with Chris Reed. Holy Shonta!! What a charlatan fraud!

It’s interesting to me that these “spiritual” trips are so nonchalantly recounted with so much detail conveniently aligned with scripture, yet the DMT trip is indescribable as the most profound vision/experience of someone’s life.  

Those telling stories of these trips to “spiritual realms” are the ones who haven’t been there.

I remain in awe of those who are in awe of these frauds. 

18 minutes ago, waysider said:

Could it be Challenging Counterfeit or Angels Of Light? My copies, if I still have them, are probably buried in a box that's still waiting to be unpacked from my last move. Let's just say that finding them is not exactly high on my list of priorities at the moment. Yes, the mind is a terrible thing to lose. The same cannot be said of books filled with bullshonta.

By someone I meant you, Waysider. Do NOT dig that trash out. It could be one of those titles, but they aren’t ringing a bell. It might not have been published by ACP. It was heavily focused on the paranormal.

My mind is exactly where I left it, probably next to my sunglasses and keys. Once I find it, I’ll remember. Unless someone ELSE remembers first.

Mmmph

I am reminded of that book on ectoplasm and other such phenomena that TWI used to “study.” Wasn’t it published by American Christian Press, but later victor distanced himself from it?

Someone will know what I’m talking about. A mind is a terrible thing to lose - only so much room for bullshonta. 

2 minutes ago, JoyfulSoul said:

I don't know the special environment of every forum.

 

You know how to read? (Snark)

Spend some time doing that. (Not snark)

8 minutes ago, JoyfulSoul said:

It's just soft, I don't want any of it.  Oh, you're hurting my feelings.

I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings.  Whateva...   All good.  All love.  Everybody get some Kleenex.  It'll be OK.

 

You aren’t hurting my feelings. I can dish it and take it. Keep it up. It’s fun. Just don’t be a hypocrite and not expect to be curb stomped for it. But do it in the appropriate forum. 

18 hours ago, JoyfulSoul said:

The mob can dish it out.  Taking it?  Not so much.

I started reading the thread I started to find out why it felt right to be a 'bit' punchy.  Lots of snarky and it didn't start with me.

It's a balancing act.  I'll withdraw from this thread just as I did the other.   It was an interesting conversation.  Now, I'm done.

 

Snark is permitted in the “About The Way” forum. Indeed, that forum is a veritable Petri dish blooming with snark.

The ”Matters of Faith” forum has narrower guard rails. You can read the rules in the pinned post. Few are at greater risk of violation than I, so I try to be extra careful and generally stay out of it.

In your thread, my question about the nature of God was in response to your justification of profit in the name of God. It was a serious question, but devolved into snark through the exchange with Rocky. And that happens all the time in that forum.

As to who started it? Oh, it started ages ago! But in that thread, I think your suggestion that I should visit Tel Aviv, the gayest city in Israel, kicked it off. I must admit, for a middle school lunchroom, that was some high-level, well-played snark. 

You can find more stories like this throughout the board, if you’re interested.

WW summarized it all very well, but I suspect many still miss a critical point he makes.

WW: vpw taught lcm. Among the things he taught him was that lcm was going to have to "loosen up" on the subject of sex and sex acts with women other than his wife if he wanted to lead God's people.   He convinced lcm that vpw was the real thing. So, when lcm did things vpw did, lcm believed they were OK with God Almighty, so he didn't cover his tracks so much..which is why he got caught.

There are accounts here witnessing lcm as a meek and diligent seeker before victor got to him. Idk, but it’s been said. It’s easy to blame lcm. He deserves it. But there is no lcm without vpw. Anakin Skywalker became Darth Vader.

All the wickedness and destruction goes back to the original, victor. All. Of. It.

Well, there you have it.

One of the most private of private interpretations.

37 minutes ago, Oakspear said:

Didn't he take it one metaphorical step further and claim that not only did the trees in Genesis represent people, but they represented their genitals, making the original sin masturbation? 

Probably. I've heard that. You should know better than I. Wasn't sure if Darth Vader Craig invented that or the Emperor victor did.

I turned it off after about 20 minutes when victor uttered such exegetical fallacious bulls hit. Abject stupidity. Plagiarized errors are bad enough, but victor's most egregious errors are in his original "work."

I am in awe of those in awe of him.

LMFAO!!

24 minutes ago, Charity said:

Yeah, I was kind of hoping for one straight answer as to exactly why you left twi or were you kicked out?

I don’t think he ever said. He went to ROA ‘87-‘88, got blessed in spite of being high all the time, tried to go WOW, but the AC rejected his application, then he hopped from charlatan to charlatan and got kicked out of at least one other cult, IHOP.

It’s hard to tell.

Plagiarizing is lying, stealing. A plagiarist is a liar and a thief.

Claiming God taught you, but you really just plagiarized, is a wicked lie.

Is "extremely without joy" a figger of speech? Or is it a Lamsaism?

Either one is without joy or one is not. What are these gradations of without? 

13 hours ago, Raf said:

WW kind of sideswiped a theory I've been working under for the past few years. I've brought it up before but it bears repeating.

I have a suspicion (not enough evidence to call it a theory) that VPW was an unbeliever at heart.

I remember reading your remark about victor not being a true believer. At one time, I seriously considered it a possibility. But now I consider it a probability. It all makes sense with that in mind. His Corps letters, his rambling platitudes of so much nothing (Mmmph!), his overwhelming fear of having to answer questions... It just fits like a hand in a...

13 hours ago, Raf said:

But he was an unbeliever. He KNEW the scholarship about the Bible that people like Bart Ehrman and Dan McClellan are popularizing today. He knew and he stopped believing. And THAT is when the bulls hit started.

Ehrman and McClellan took their academic pursuits much farther than victor was capable of, yet they did NOT lose their faith. (Ehrman has said repeatedly over the years that it was the problem of suffering, not training in textual criticism, that caused him to lose his faith.)

------

To the point about victor's laziness and appetite for big returns on small investments, look at his ThD. Theological and Biblical scholarship was on the rise mid-20th century. More ministers were being academically credentialed than ever before. With credentials comes marketability. The laity confers value and authority to preachers with letters behind their names. Congregations swell, books sell. To meet this new demand for competitive market-readiness, diploma mills started popping up everywhere. Enter Pikes Peak Bible Seminary. Victor's dumb luck was pure genius.

Mmmph

5 hours ago, WordWolf said:

To be bluntly honest, out of all the books carrying vpw's name, that one was so shoddy I would expect it to be the one most written by him

This.

I was raised with a unitarian theology - not the denomination. It was not reactionary doctrine. It was never anti-trinitarian. There was no axe to grind. It was just obvious for plenty of reasons. 

I didn't think the idea radical. I didn't need to be sold, but was reproved and corrected anyway for not being meek, for thinking I already knew something when how else could I learn unless I was taught!

Exhausting.

I couldn't even get through all of JCING, it was so weak, so embarrassing, so cringe. 

Please remind me where in this schema the Family is placed relative to the Body and the Household. 

4 hours ago, Charity said:

I don't get this oldiesman, the devil wanted you to....what?

Oldies can answer, of course, but I read that as TWI saying the devil wanting you to prosper is the only way to prosper without tithing - any prosperity without tithing is counterfeit, devilsh.

Gaslighting all the way down...

“Dr.”  

“…doors…keys…”

**transactions

Malachi sounds transactional, too. Bring the WHOLE tithe (not more) and see if blessing don’t pour out from heaven. Maybe a promise. Maybe a challenge.

But the tithe was about food, right? The priests had to eat. Livestock were given to be cooked (sacrificed) and eaten. These animals also provided milk and eggs.

The temple money changers, who Jesus rebuked, converted coin to livestock. The livestock was then offered. For sacrifice. To be eaten. The tithe was about food. Do I have this right?

WordWolf:

twi keeps track of their members/"followers" and their tithes/money given under compulsion.  Try giving less than 10% and see how long you go before someone starts giving you static. 

Ha!

My fellowship commander was faithful to this practice, even though he renounced TWI for deviating from "the original" - the word as it was given to THE Man of God, victor p wierwille. (Bless his heart.)

It had been said that my fellowship commander and his wife lived near the poverty line. They themselves never admitted this. Regardless, I always contributed generously to any social event at their house. (This is just my nature with anyone, and I was ridiculed for it.) If I asked what I could bring, they would answer, and I would provide plus plus - happily, it's just how I do it. Over time, with increasing frequency, I took on the role of host - cooking, cleaning, making cocktails, store runs - in THEIR house. (Later I suspected I was manipulated into this because of my generous nature.)

Now, these parties were by invitation, but they were not optional. If they said what they needed or wanted, I enthusiastically fulfilled the request. And they were grateful, but not enthusiastically grateful. When it came to giving at fellowship, boy, oh, boy!

I usually gave whatever cash I had on me, which wasn't much because who carries cash anymore. However, if I had 3 twenties, a fiver and three ones, I would only throw $8 in the horn. (If I had $60 on me, that money was likely already allocated for another purpose.)

Somehow he knew. Probably because my then wife told him. Or maybe he knew exactly what to expect every week from the other regular attendees, as they always gave the same amount. Likely both are true. He never said anything to me directly, but the subsequent daily emails to "the family" and the next week's fellowship "teaching" were all about tithing, abundant sharing and II Corinthians 9:7. 

The passive-aggressive message to me was clear: I was not a cheerful giver, and God does not love that.

Another example of why literal, word-for-word translations are not helpful and lead to confusion. 

1 hour ago, waysider said:

Try THIS on for fun.

That was fun.

I am reminded of the word STUDY.

4 hours ago, waysider said:

Is this, perhaps, the basis of the "used before" concept?

*exasperated sigh*

"Used before" is an exegetical fallacy I would expect anyone with a Masters in Theology from Princeton Seminary to avoid.

One word can have multiple meanings. How it is used in one context cannot determine how it is used in another context. And language changes over time. All languages. Depending on how you date the LXX and the Pastorals, there could be a 300-500 year difference. Meanings of words change over time.

In one of the inexhaustible sessions of CFS, victor says the trees in Genesis represent people because Paul used an olive tree and its grafted branches as a metaphor for groups of people. He says he can't prove it, but something something you've just got to believe it to fit...

In this instance, he contradicts his own fallacious methodology, making it even more nonsensical - how it's used LATER will determine how it was used before!

Hey! I didn't make this stuff up. Victor did.

Well, I’m convinced. In light of an accurate treatment of the Greek and within the immediate context of verse 21, Vic got it wrong.

His error is significant because he ignores his own self-interpreting hermeneutic - CONTEXT. Verse 21 establishes it.

While looking into this, I came across Lamsa’s eccentric version of 2Peter 1:20:

20Knowing this first, that not every prophetic writing is made clear in its own book.

The one claiming spiritual authority is the one who does not have it.

No text ever interpreted itself, as no text ever wrote itself. Ever. Even legal texts, in spite of their painstakingly precise composition, require interpretation by the courts. And ancient texts, especially!

Ancient religious literature and scripture will be interpreted by the reader, the translator, the theologian, the historian, the profiteer… but never by the texts themselves.

Texts have writers and audiences (and editors). To explain a text with this understanding, and in light of its literary and historical context, in light of presuppositions, is exactly… the act of interpretation! A text itself can’t do this for itself by itself.

Now, one may assert the CLAIM that a text interprets itself.

One may also claim to jump over barns.