Nathan_Jr

I don't know if there is a dedicated thread, but many, many, many threads have shown the origins of victor's "teachings." As you know, and as it has been shown, most of what he "taught" came directly, without credit or shame, from B. G. Leonard, E. W. Bullinger, J. E. Styles, E. W. Kenyon, and George "T6TMOG" Lamsa. Copied and pasted. The balance comes from traditional forms of Christianity, both mainstream and fringe, 19th to mid-20th century New Thought, fundamental seminarian scholarship, and whatever else his imagination could hold. I wouldn't expect a priest or pastor to cite all of her sources during a sermon. But if that minister is pressed by an earnest seeker, I suspect she might, if her answers are unsatisfying, point that seeker to read other authorities (Origen, Augustine, Luther, Bruce Metzger?) who may better articulate an answer. The real problem we have here is that victor himself claimed his only sources were his own inexhaustible, 18-hours-per-day-for-40-years study and God Almighty. Any apparent extraneous sources were merely coincidental. In PFAL he claims he had already come to the conclusions of Bullinger before ever reading Bullinger. Ummm... riiiiiiiight. When one endeavors to find out for oneself with meekness and honesty, one can only discover that the actual sources behind his fraudulent claims of "research" and "study" are often inaccurate themselves. Furthermore, his own private interpretations and "revelations" and hopeful imaginations are the most egregiously, demonstrably errant of all. When I say errant, I mean stupid. I'm not talking about vanilla plain stupidity. No, I'm talking about four-crucified stupidity - the stupidest. And not just five-senses stupidity. No, worse: spiritual stupidity.

Some may twist this phrasing into a validation of victor's "work." Carrier isn't necessarily agreeing with victor, rather, he is agreeing with a position that long predates victor. Victor and Carrier, among others, share this opinion.

“…only sharks swim at midnight” Reminds me of that charlatan.

What's a millennial specialist?

Published May/June 2024. BOD addition Effective August 2024. 2024 began five months ago. Simple math. I’m not very good at it, either.

The article simply says he’s its newest member in August. It doesn’t say he is replacing an outgoing member, though he likely will, if such is the structure of the trust or corporation.

Add Mel Privette to the list. https://www.theway.org/blog/board-of-directors-addition-2024/

Someone on Reddit told me the class is 18 hours, registration is $100, includes syllabus and books. He didn't say which books, only that they are revisions of old books, as the class is a revision of the original, errors and all. (He didn't know what I was talking about when I asked about error corrections.) He said they were holding classes "all over" and would try to connect me with one in my area, if I were interested. I asked if "the class" was available for purchase on Blue-ray or DVD. He said, "It's a class you can take, not something available for sale. Registration is $100..." An answer like that should tell you all you need to know about how old the new one really is.

Someone said “GSC grads.” A gloveless concept. Reminds me of that charlatan.

Oh, Irony. Back so soon? Bless your little heart.

He said ‘one eyed.’ Reminds me of that charlatan.

"Did Abraham actually sacrifice his son Isaac in the earliest versions of the story we find in Genesis 22?" This is the question Dan McClellan asks at the start of this fascinating 3 minute video. Apparently, according to ancient and medieval Jewish scholars, the answer is YES. And textual evidence points to a story changed over the centuries to hide the infanticide. McClellan is scholar of the Bible and a believer. He hosts the podcast Data Over Dogma. This is his latest upload. So timely for what we've been discussing. A miracle!

Right, but he welcomed all comments. Taoists and Buddhists are atheists. Beleef is not part of these traditions as I understand them.

Atheists are not precluded from an experience or conscious awareness of the transcendent, the mystical, the “spiritual.” Nor are they precluded from “a walk endowed with power from on high.” I use these terms and phrases for convenience, in spite of their insufficiency.

I almost forgot! (It was a long post.) Your treatment of Jonah is gold.

“…according to the book Born Again to Serve by the American Christian Press, Pillai and Wierwille worked through every orientalism in the Bible from Genesis through Revelation over a six-week period in 1953.” —K.C. Pillai’s Wiki page Six weeks? Worked through every orientalism in… the… Bible!?!? EVERY? In six weeks? Yep. The ”work” checks out.

*exasperated sigh* I should remind everyone that those gloves, shrunken by a thorough saturation in blood, merely appeared not to fit. In fact, Nicole gifted those gloves to OJ and he wore them the night he slaughtered her and Ron Goldman. Pillai and victor hope you won’t read Leviticus 1, but the writer of Judges and his character Jephthah surely had read it. They knew exactly what a burnt offering meant. Jephthah may have hoped and beleeeved for a goat to bolt out of his front door to meet him, but no, it was his daughter! What luck! Jephthah made a vow and a gamble. A reckless gamble. If Jephthah wanted to purchase that military victory by committing his virgin daughter’s life to service in the temple, he would have said so, but he didn’t. He gambled and he lost. As the lesson of Isaac is about commitment, intention and obedience, the lesson of Jephthah is about honoring one’s vow to God - keeping one’s end of the bargain, integrity of the deal, and honoring bets made, no matter how horrific the cost.

This morning I regretted writing that sentence "I had no idea how polytheistic Christianity was until I took 'the class.'" It was too late to edit the post. Thank you for calling it out. I should have written something like: I had no idea how polytheistic Christianity or pseudo-Christianity could be, until I took the class.

This is as labyrinthine a rabbit hole as how El became Yahweh. There should be plenty of books, articles and videos on the subject. I suspect someone here has an answer, but I think you are on the right track. It seems to me, if I remember correctly, the contemporary Christian idea of Satan is an evolved amalgamation. The ha-satan of Job is not the god of this world Paul writes about, and different still from what people mean today when they say Satan. ———— I had never heard so much daily talk about the devil until I married into that Way family. The adversary received more credit than God - no joke, no hyperbole, no figger of speech. The power of God depended upon beleeef, but the power of the adversary depended on nothing and was an absolute factual certainty. According to them, the devil was everywhere, especially over your shoulder - Look out! God and Christ were absent in another realm. I had no idea how polytheistic Christianity was until I took “the class.”

Well, it was a test. "How far will Abraham go? How deep is his commitment? I've got to find out. Hmmm... a test... a test... rock ridge... rock ridge..." "I've got it!! I'll tell him to make his precious Isaac a burnt offering to me. We don't want him to actually go through with it and slaughter the lad, we just need to see if he would. It's a test, remember? Tell you what, if it looks like he's going all the way, pop up at the last minute and stop him. I'll make sure an animal appears nearby, a goat or sheep or something. Keep your eyes peeled for movement in the thicket. Now, let's get to work..."

Over the years, posters here have said victor paul wierwille is The Man of God, The Seventh The Man of God, and The Teacher. Consider for a moment how offensive those words must be to those who love God and to teachers. How offensive? N-word-with-hard-R offensive, that's how! No one has ever asked those posters to self edit in order to mitigate the risk of offense.

Thanks for the invitation, Raf. Kind of you to consider me, but I must, on principle, decline the invitation at this time. I can't offend anyone. The offended must choose to participate in the offense. Without that conscious participation, how can one be offended?

To say Ken Hamm is an idiot of the highest order is not an insult. It is an observable, demonstrable fact. How idiotic is the highest order? It’s at the level of flat-earth and four-crucified stupidity - the highest level. That someone would be offended by another’s description of a third person is difficult for me to understand. I can conceive of it, but it’s hard to understand. I don’t mean to invite discussion of this. I missed some posts. Not sure what’s going on and it doesn’t really matter, but I couldn’t resist another opportunity to write “four-crucified stupidity.”

Ken Hamm was mentioned.

I never assumed he was anything other than a literary figure.