Leaderboard

It makes sense to me. One populates a Petri dish with a culture that.. one is *intellectually* interested in.. what is it going to do.. or.. a culture from which one anticipates a monetary return of investment.. then there is the experiment gone "wrong" where the spores, through procedural incompetence are released into the environment..

this one fits slightly. More closely resembles the moneyhands *assignment* to the UK.. gawd have mercy on them..

heebiee jeebie, the spirits are about to speak. Moose and Squirrel on the loose. yeah, Wierwille was the Brain and Martindale was Pinky

Another part of this whole mixed bag is this, IMO - some folks treat the Book of Acts (and the rest of the Bible) as if it were journalism, recording the activities of THE one and only, authentic Christian activity going on at the time. For me, the idea that TWI was in any way, shape or form like the "first century church" is a fiction that existed only in VP's delusional mind. It is ridiculous, as pointed out already in this thread. Wierwille made a bogus claim by even using the phrase, "the first century church." One major reason is because there was no unified "first century church." Pick up any book on the history of early so-called Christianity and you see that right away. This topic gets far more complicated, I think, when we consider how "orthodox" Christianity was sort of firmed up (but not really) HUNDREDS of years after Jesus died and still is scattered around in a multitude of forms called denominations. Let's not kid ourselves...it's doubtful anyone knows "without a shadow of a doubt" exactly what Jesus intended his followers to do since we have so many translations and interpretations of the N.T. Usually the Sermon on the Mount is a good place to start to figure out what he intended but who really understands statements like: the meek will inherit the earth? Much less how to "apply" that "truth" in their lives? Paul, bless his heart, further muddied the waters by forming his own version of Christianity (the one Luke wrote about), Barnabas went off somewhere when Paul disagreed with him (who is to say Barnabas was wrong since we don't know what really happened), and James and company stayed in Jerusalem doing their thing. Not to mention the Gnostics, etc. who had their own views. It was a diverse time, it was the best of times, it was the worst of times...still is IMO. One good source for info on this is: Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths we Never Knew, by Bart Ehrman. It may be of use to some of you. I believe there are a bunch of threads here on GSC that have some good background info on this, too. Cheers.