Nathan_Jr

Hunt Close, yes. But wasn’t there another book about how to raise a child? Maybe I’m misremembering. Got to renew my mind…..

I'm so sick of this. My ex-wife used the wooden spoon to discipline our son when he was very little - under five. I only remember her using it two or three times, but she carried one in her purse and one in her car as preemptive threats. (I think I've suppressed a lot of these memories.) I know she was taught this by the FC and his wife. They had that book. What was it? How to Train Up a Child Like a Dog? I know we argued about this abusive tactic. Once, she's handed me the spoon and instructed me to use it on my precious son. I put it down and refused. My refusal was revealed to her Way family. It cost me lots of "teachings." Fvck these people and the trash man who taught them.

This is the pat cop out for wierwille apologists. This was the same excuse offered by my FC when I inquired into the plagiarism. The argument is a red herring of sorts. It's a distraction. A deflection. It is designed to obfuscate the issue. If it's accurate, if it's true, what does it matter? 1) It literally matters EVERYTHING. It's about a man's integrity. His honesty. The INTEGRITY of a man who claims to teach the truth. A liar is teaching the truth? This doesn't matter? Why do you think it's the truth? Oooooooohhhhh.... right, the liar said so... 2) His teachings are false. He even plagiarized falsehoods and inaccuracies. Four crucified is one of HUNDREDS of inaccuracies he taught - a plagiarized inaccuracy. If he taught anything that is true and accurate, it had already been taught by others for thousands of years. If it hadn't been TAUGHT by others, it had been KNOWN by others. Find out for yourself.

A trauma-triggered flashback... The three younger members of my fellowship mockingly snickered when pronouncing Jesus's name. They called him Jay-EEE-zuss. Of course, this was acceptable because Jesus was but a mere bastard Jew. They were "rightly dividing" whatever they were taught by their man of god, the FC, who stood smugly on the shoulders of victor paul wierwille. I'm not making this up. This is NOT a joke.

I don't own the clothes I'm wearing And the road goes on forever And I've got one more silver dollar But I'm not gonna let 'em catch me, no

I don't own the clothes I'm wearing And the road goes on forever

My memory and text messages say the same. My FC said TWI/PFAL/VPW is not a religion. He said he did not consider himself a Christian nor self identify as religious. I asked, "What is religion?" He answered, "Man made." ** I rest my case.

Uh-oh

Maybe. But the same could be suggested for other current topics. It's not really doctrinal, it's technical, academic. It's about the Bible, which TWI claims to know better than anyone since the first century. It's about free, critical thought -- a theme running through several currently active threads in this forum. This podcast shows what one can learn when one chooses to go beyond what one is taught in PFAL. It deals with how translators work, how language changes, what textual criticism actually is. These are issues victor paul wierwille was afraid to address because of his ignorance. At least one sycophantic poster here is still very confused about these issues. I don't think the Way International, Inc. or victor paul wierwille would want anyone to listen to such a podcast. Why wouldn't they? Devil spirits? If you feel it's not relevant to this forum, make an appeal to a mod. It won't hurt my feelings.

This was a very quick 59:10 minutes! A fascinating discussion on how Bible translations come to be. (Hint: selling copies is not a factor, as victor paul wierwille claimed.) Plus, hapax legomenon. I'm sure many here who study the Greek NT already know what this means, but for those who don't... listen to the pod.

Stand, R.E.M.

Right. I recognize the metaphor and the parody... was just trying to beleeeeve for a bit of realism.... guess I just can't beleeeve big enough....

Serious question: Did Mrs. W. really cook fried chicken, biscuits and fried apple pie? Was she Southern?

Agreed.

Susan Krakowsky makes a compelling case. I don't know Hebrew, so I won't offer an opinion on how to translate the text. At this time, I can only defer to the experts, which I am not. I think there's a lot of re-contextualizing of Hebrew scripture by Paul -- even more re-contextualizing by modern theologians and preacher men. Generally, MAKING something fit means it doesn't naturally fit. IMO.

Doubt, the Great Virtue.

"The Greatest Problem in the World Today"

"The nine manifestations of holy spirit operate under a basic principle that can be seen in the following verses, which record Jesus Christ prophesying of the gift of holy spirit. Referring to the gift of holy spirit, John 16:13 says, “…for he [it] shall not speak of himself [itself]; but whatsoever he [it] shall hear, that shall he [it] speak….” This implies that your spirit, the gift, hears and learns from God and obeys what He tells it to say. We can see this again in verse 15. Jesus Christ says, “All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he [it, the gift of holy spirit] shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.” This is the first part of our basic principle—God, Who is Spirit, teaches your spirit." =========== I see now. It's kinda like "scripture build up." It's a rhetorical tactic. It establishes the principle as basic (fundamental) before revealing its greatness. Just tremendous! It's also like a wallet forgotten.... kinda...

Like the collaterals (BS), Mike's assumption (postulate) is not even close to being accurate. Based on observations from objective investigations, my conclusion is there were many problems but one SOURCE. That one source is the thief come to steal, kill and destroy, victor paul wierwille.

I was always suspicious of victor's concepts of pistis, faith, believing. My questions were usually met with exasperated sighs by my fellowship commander (FC). He, my FC, asserted the claim that "beleeeving" is something we do and "faith" is something we have - a/the measure of. Juedes reveals victor's superficial grasp of Greek when he briefly explains the objective genitive. I brought up the genitive case dilemma of subjective vs. objective a couple months ago in Doctrinal. Couldn't find any traction there. Juedes also brings up a common, persistent, childish error of victor's: "He (victor) writes, 'the original text read,' ..." A reminder: we don't have the autographs. It's devilishly misleading to assert an opinion as fact the way victor does. The "original text" is a mental invention of victor. To be fooled by his seductive concept requires only that one BELEEEVES.

Wow. Just last night I was listening to an interview with Dr. Joel Baden, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Yale Divinity School. The discussion was on "the original text," manuscripts, versions, translations. The Jewish Bible, is based on the Masoretic Text. The KJV OT is from the Septuagint, right? Also, there are the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Pedangta, and so on... It all depends... There are no original autographs. Every manuscript's has been changed. Every. Single. One. Which translation brings you peace? I like the Chabad.org verlsion. It makes sense.

I believe one day a manuscript will be found that explains.... .....40 x 2 = whatever I need it to be.

I didn't know Genesis 41:43 was the proof text for the 2nd time establishes it! In that case... Luke records two crucified with Jesus. Matthew recorded it first. Luke is 2nd. That establishes it.

I rest my case.

Jocko is the real deal. The principles he sets forth are true. This mindset is as throughly effectual today as it was in Ancient Greece -- and way more effectual than blaming devil spirits for any and everything.