Yeah leave it to me to pick the one fruit example that doesn’t hold up lol.
How about tomatoes? Hot house vs Roma?
Just trying to understand scripture without the influence of multi clitoris snakes. But hey you’ve got something there. Hook up the Australian scientist, and Branham, and you’ve got the whole Genesis sex sin figured out. Now just add a conspiracy theory that they fathered Cain, who is the ancestor of the founder of Canes and you really got it going on.
Hey Charity, laugh away, life is to be enjoyed! Peace!
I just happened to find the funniest thread last night - made me laugh out loud multiple times. It was "1976 corps meetings...fill me in."
Here are a couple of quotes:
Can some of you straighten out some terminology? Were the MAL packs somehow connected with the live chicken outdoor trips? Or were the live chickens part of the LEAD experience? Or were the LEAD trips done with MAL packs? Or were the live chickens part of the "Work Program?"
"The original concept was to strap MAL packs on the chickens in transit to LEAD."
Not very often, but I was tipped off that my name had been mentioned...
I thought it was a good question so I worked on it and asked around. Think I solved it, for me at least. I posted it in this thread, but it was in the heat of battle (as usual) and I may need to tweak it a bit someday.
The TWI definition of it doesn't make sense to me anymore. What does make sense to me is that the unforgivable sin is self-inflicted, i.e., you come to a point that you never seek repentence, never ask God for forgiveness for your sins, so hardhearted that it's a self-imposed destiny.
The most memorable written re-formulation of a doctrine by TWI was in JCPS regarding the star of Bethlehem.
But it was not a written retraction, like what I am proposing to them, when I talk about ECNs, which are Engineering Change Notices used in the tech industries. An ECN has both the old way and the new way explicitly written, sometimes in synopsis form if the full story is too long.
Plus it was a "soft re-formulation" in the sense that VPW or any of the leadership superstars. It was written by Peter B*****ger, who was kicked out of the Corps with great infamy not long after his Way Magazine article on the Star of Bethlehem was published.
The totally changed reformation in JCPS a few years later was NOT accompanied by any written mention of the old magazine article, so it is not as good as a full ECN.
The most memorable written re-formulation of a doctrine by TWI was in JCPS regarding the star of Bethlehem.
But it was not a written retraction, like what I am proposing to them, when I talk about ECNs, which are Engineering Change Notices used in the tech industries. An ECN has both the old way and the new way explicitly written, sometimes in synopsis form if the full story is too long.
Plus it was a "soft re-formulation" in the sense that VPW or any of the leadership superstars. It was written by Peter B*****ger, who was kicked out of the Corps with great infamy not long after his Way Magazine article on the Star of Bethlehem was published.
The totally changed reformation in JCPS a few years later was NOT accompanied by any written mention of the old magazine article, so it is not as good as a full ECN.
So your hope is to elicit a “ECN” from a group who just like “the Fonz” in “Happy Days” cannot actually formulate the words “I was wrong” with the mouth?
The most memorable written re-formulation of a doctrine by TWI was in JCPS regarding the star of Bethlehem.
But it was not a written retraction, like what I am proposing to them, when I talk about ECNs, which are Engineering Change Notices used in the tech industries. An ECN has both the old way and the new way explicitly written, sometimes in synopsis form if the full story is too long.
Plus it was a "soft re-formulation" in the sense that VPW or any of the leadership superstars. It was written by Peter B*****ger, who was kicked out of the Corps with great infamy not long after his Way Magazine article on the Star of Bethlehem was published.
The totally changed reformation in JCPS a few years later was NOT accompanied by any written mention of the old magazine article, so it is not as good as a full ECN.
What was their actual change? I must have missed it.
The most memorable written re-formulation of a doctrine by TWI was in JCPS regarding the star of Bethlehem.
But it was not a written retraction, like what I am proposing to them, when I talk about ECNs, which are Engineering Change Notices used in the tech industries. An ECN has both the old way and the new way explicitly written, sometimes in synopsis form if the full story is too long.
Plus it was a "soft re-formulation" in the sense that VPW or any of the leadership superstars. It was written by Peter B*****ger, who was kicked out of the Corps with great infamy not long after his Way Magazine article on the Star of Bethlehem was published.
The totally changed reformation in JCPS a few years later was NOT accompanied by any written mention of the old magazine article, so it is not as good as a full ECN.
What was their actual change? I must have missed it.
It was totally revamped and had no date for Jesus' birth, if my visual scan 5 minutes ago was accurate. Had there been one it would surely be in bold fonts and a main feature. It was a long article, 4.5 full pages of text, no pictures and other stuff.
It was in the Nov/Dec 1978 issue.
The book JCPS got it's date from Ernest Martin, an independent researcher in Pasadena.
.
*/*/*/*
BTW, I left a sentence missing some words there, back in my post. It should read:
"Plus it was a 'soft re-formulatio' in the sense that neither VPW nor any of the leadership superstars had written it.
It was totally revamped and had no date for Jesus' birth, if my visual scan 5 minutes ago was accurate. Had there been one it would surely be in bold fonts and a main feature. It was a long article, 4.5 full pages of text, no pictures and other stuff.
It was in the Nov/Dec 1978 issue.
The book JCPS got it's date from Ernest Martin, an independent researcher in Pasadena.
.
*/*/*/*
BTW, I left a sentence missing some words there, back in my post. It should read:
"Plus it was a 'soft re-formulatio' in the sense that neither VPW nor any of the leadership superstars had written it.
Has anyone tested and verified Martin's proposed dating? Does he propose this birthdate as a probability or a certainty?
Has anyone tested and verified Martin's proposed dating? Does he propose this birthdate as a probability or a certainty?
If I remember correctly, he proposed it as a certainty based on the Star of Bethlehem being three astrological events occuring at the same time. He said these events came together only a few times in history and once around Christ's time.
If I remember correctly, he proposed it as a certainty based on the Star of Bethlehem being three astrological events occuring at the same time. He said these events came together only a few times in history and once around Christ's time.
Right. Some of his logic seems compelling, as does the logic of other scholars with different conclusions.
Do you know if Martin bought into the four crucified hoax?
I didn't write it very clear, did I? No, I don't know.
Thanks!
I know Martin was very enthusiastic in his own Biblical research. And he was a contemporary of victor paul wierwille. I'm curious, does anyone know whether or not Martin bought into the four crucified bullshonta?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
77
55
77
53
Popular Days
Dec 11
151
Dec 18
72
Dec 12
62
Dec 10
58
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 77 posts
chockfull 55 posts
OldSkool 77 posts
Nathan_Jr 53 posts
Popular Days
Dec 11 2022
151 posts
Dec 18 2022
72 posts
Dec 12 2022
62 posts
Dec 10 2022
58 posts
Popular Posts
So_crates
Remember what I said about the length of the post directly correlated with the effort to con someone. And like you don't have an agenda? So shall we stop reading your post too? No
chockfull
Just out of curiosity Mike have you had a chance to read penworks book yet? You have a lot of speculation going on about a time period and people that are very well documented in her book. She was t
So_crates
Posted Images
T-Bone
I’ve got an idea for a movie title and tag line:
The Cain Mutiny
it’s CF&S regurgitated …
…and X-rated
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
I just happened to find the funniest thread last night - made me laugh out loud multiple times. It was "1976 corps meetings...fill me in."
Here are a couple of quotes:
Can some of you straighten out some terminology? Were the MAL packs somehow connected with the live chicken outdoor trips? Or were the live chickens part of the LEAD experience? Or were the LEAD trips done with MAL packs? Or were the live chickens part of the "Work Program?"
"The original concept was to strap MAL packs on the chickens in transit to LEAD."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
You mean, kinda like this?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
Close enough
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Not very often, but I was tipped off that my name had been mentioned...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I thought it was a good question so I worked on it and asked around. Think I solved it, for me at least. I posted it in this thread, but it was in the heat of battle (as usual) and I may need to tweak it a bit someday.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Somehow I get the feeling the answer is going to remind me of someone successfully making boogie robots and a fart gun.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Not that theres anything wrong with that...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Kind of like TWI never apologizing to anyone?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Right. Guess they first need to publicly acknowledge that the original teaching was error; and I can't remember if they ever did that with anything.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
The most memorable written re-formulation of a doctrine by TWI was in JCPS regarding the star of Bethlehem.
But it was not a written retraction, like what I am proposing to them, when I talk about ECNs, which are Engineering Change Notices used in the tech industries. An ECN has both the old way and the new way explicitly written, sometimes in synopsis form if the full story is too long.
Plus it was a "soft re-formulation" in the sense that VPW or any of the leadership superstars. It was written by Peter B*****ger, who was kicked out of the Corps with great infamy not long after his Way Magazine article on the Star of Bethlehem was published.
The totally changed reformation in JCPS a few years later was NOT accompanied by any written mention of the old magazine article, so it is not as good as a full ECN.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
So your hope is to elicit a “ECN” from a group who just like “the Fonz” in “Happy Days” cannot actually formulate the words “I was wrong” with the mouth?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
What was their actual change? I must have missed it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
U talking to a region guy?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
It was totally revamped and had no date for Jesus' birth, if my visual scan 5 minutes ago was accurate. Had there been one it would surely be in bold fonts and a main feature. It was a long article, 4.5 full pages of text, no pictures and other stuff.
It was in the Nov/Dec 1978 issue.
The book JCPS got it's date from Ernest Martin, an independent researcher in Pasadena.
.
*/*/*/*
BTW, I left a sentence missing some words there, back in my post. It should read:
"Plus it was a 'soft re-formulatio' in the sense that neither VPW nor any of the leadership superstars had written it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Has anyone tested and verified Martin's proposed dating? Does he propose this birthdate as a probability or a certainty?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
welll....uhh.....because wierwille said it is....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
If I remember correctly, he proposed it as a certainty based on the Star of Bethlehem being three astrological events occuring at the same time. He said these events came together only a few times in history and once around Christ's time.
My mistake: that was JC:PS
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Right. Some of his logic seems compelling, as does the logic of other scholars with different conclusions.
Do you know if Martin bought into the four crucified hoax?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
No.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Naturally.
If victor paul wierwille was wrong about PROS and DECHOMAI and four crucified and the bastard bar mitzvah and.... what else could he be wrong about?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
No, you don't know? Or, no, he didn't buy the bullshonta?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
I didn't write it very clear, did I? No, I don't know.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Thanks!
I know Martin was very enthusiastic in his own Biblical research. And he was a contemporary of victor paul wierwille. I'm curious, does anyone know whether or not Martin bought into the four crucified bullshonta?
Edited by Nathan_JrLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.