Twinky

I read this thread for its amusement value.

Good one, So_ crates.

From the Wikipedia entry for this man: Mastriano himself has said that he did not grow up in a "strong Christian family", but was led to embrace religion as a teenager by an "on-fire youth pastor" after being invited to a youth group called "The Way".[20] ... He worships at a Mennonite church, likely a Conservative Mennonite Conference church.[20][207] Mastriano has attended events of the New Apostolic Reformation, a movement advocating the restoration of the offices of so-called "prophets and apostles".[208][7] He appears to have some rather strange current beliefs. You're welcome to him. He doesn't seem an outstanding "ambassador for Christ," despite being allegedly evangelical. (Of course, that word has its own special meaning, nothing to do with true evangelism, in the USA.)

Too true. The report doesn't include the smearing of "suppressive persons" (aka those M&A'd) but it would be no surprise if that went on.

This popped into my FB feed today. Might be of interest to some here. You can watch online; a modest fee is payable. John Stott London Lecture 2022 | LICC

Or... In short, you missed all the trouble areas and missed a lot of unique learning experiences. And that's why you can't hear what others say about the real TWI. Did it ever occur to you to study the Bible? In 20 years studying just the gospels or the OT or the epistles, you could really have learned something.

And did they also give you the keys to the city? And did you heal someone of a withered arm brain on the way out?

For a minute or two up at the top of page 20, I thought Mike was developing a real sense of humour.

Goat?

Australian red wines are really good. Better than a lot of French wines. But hey... red wine :)) Champers for breakfast, wow! Caught a plane once, crossed many time zones. Can't think why now, but passengers were offered champagne at some ridiculous hour. Might have been breakfast. Might have been 3 or 4 or 5am. Except that the airline said it was -- an evening meal? Long distance travel can be so confusing!

Using "spirit levels," no doubt. Or are the "optics" bad for that? . . . Ludicrous statement from Mike.

Ah, Nathan, I was thinking of a really rich red of some sort.

Interesting idea, Allan. A grapevine, hopefully. Producing some crackin' good wine.

Thought this bore repeating. Hey! And doesn't just apply to human beings, either. Even animals and birds, domestic and wild, can go way beyond what they have been taught. Only human beings are "smart" enough to willingly allow others to limit themselves.

God gave you a brain and intelligence, so that you could work it out. He also provides a wealth of counsellors to help you "clarify" your ideas. Y'know: iron sharpens iron. Does require holding your own "iron" in the correct manner so that other irons don't in fact blunt it. If you want to understand this more, go visit your local butcher, chef, or similar and see how s/he sharpens knives.

Very long way to go there, Mike. Very, very long way.

Try this for clarifying your idea, Mike. Do what Jesus did. He read, studied in depth, what was available, over many years. He listened earnestly to what his parents told him. Probably listened to Aunt Elizabeth, too (she whom Mary visited in her pregnancy - to find that Elizabeth the barren was herself pregnant with John later known as the Baptist). He listened earnestly to what learned teachers had to say. He respectfully listened to rabbis and other teachers, considered carefully what they said (and did). Learned by rote and by frequent repetition. And he used his considerable intelligence to sort out chaff from wheat; to sort practical error and hypocrisy from simplicity of God's plans for human interactions; to discern distortions and lies from truth. Jesus paid close attention to other people, their words, their wishes, their actions. You'll see that Jesus was astoundingly smart by the age of about 12, following the teaching of rabbis etc in the temple. You'll see a blank period where he was processing what he'd learned, but undoubtedly between 12 and 30 he was continuing to study and ask questions - and listening to the answers. He was learning to listen to, and handle, human beings and their foibles and follies. Yes, Jesus had to be sure, as much as he could - or did he? - that God would raise him from the dead. (That might be a separate topic in its own right.) In any event, don't you recall that only a short period before, he'd prayed and raised Lazarus from the dead? A demonstration, perhaps, of God's willingness to do that for Jesus? If you know you are destined to be a sacrifice, does it matter at all if you "know" you will be raised from the dead? Maybe that's too much of a latter-day construction - or something more "western" in concept. As I said above, Jesus paid close attention to other people, their words, their wishes, their actions. Perhaps if you tried some of the same, you could "clarify your idea" fairly quickly.

Might be better if you were "doing the word" that you learned in the BIBLE. The gospels and the epistles would be a good starting place.

Good post, T-Bone.

He's hurt and badly damaged in this area of his mind, just as we all were. As a kid when it all kicked off, he has some worse maturity issues to tackle than many who post here. To bring this back to the original post - I wonder how the kids of the women who were abused by the temple priests, Eli's sons, felt when/if they discovered the abuse their mums had suffered? Betrayed, hurt, angry? Bewildered and conflicted? Ashamed? How did the cuckolded husbands feel, if they discovered their wives had been abused in this manner? Were they made to feel complicit in some way - say, God would withhold a blessing from them? Maybe excommunication (M&A) was a weapon used against them, too. Old tricks, and well used. We can't possibly know, of course. But I don't think the knowledge of this abuse would have been received with joy by anyone. Possibly there were fights - and we know that Eli's sons were warriors (as were all the men). Lots of potential for threats, and for really messy outcomes.

Read the book and feel your burden lighten with every paragraph. When I first read it, I thought: "These guys must be ex-TWI; they really know what it was like!" No. They just know what cults are like. If you really want "release from your prisons," read this book.

That's what this site is about. Exposing the falseness of TWI. That's also what Waydale was about, as I understand it. I'm sorry that somehow you were hurt. That is NOT the fault of Waydale or any other website. That's the fault of manipulative, lying hypocrites and enablers, keen to obscure the truth; and (it seems) frightened outsiders who were always concerned about their rather odd neighbours. You have also to understand that many others were freed, liberated, shown the truth, about TWI when Waydale operated.

Consider Saul/Paul. We understand him to be a really high-up Pharisee. Educated at the best places, absolutely steeped in tradition, with the greatest respect due to him due to his position. For way more than 20 years, he sat in judgment on others. He ordered the deaths (not just M&A'ing) of Christians. Hard to imagine even the start of his intellectual journey to the polar opposite in his thinking. He took several years out so as to evaluate all he knew. Likely that involved much study of scriptures: as Jesus said, "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me" (John 5:39) - though the gospel of John may not then have been written, it's likely it had become oral tradition - so, search the scriptures to understand both the prophesies for Jesus's coming, and "the heart behind them." But what scriptures would Jesus have meant people to study? The OT scrolls! Likely also there were extensive discussions with people already involved with the new way of thinking, examining, evaluating and perhaps picking holes in that thinking (that was the tradition of teaching, and what Saul would have done at the feet of Gamaliel); trying out what people had told him to see if it "worked" both in practicalities of life, and in conjunction with the whole of what he knew. Later, perhaps, he made discreet attempts to contact some of his former colleagues on the Sanhedrin to run ideas by them and, who knows, perhaps even convert them to the new thinking (no record this worked). A lot of introspection for Saul too: where and how did he get it so wrong? What had he been badly taught? What foundational principles (or to use Mike's own language, what "postulates") were wrong? Saul knew he was absolutely and unquestionably "right" - and now he was finding he was dead wrong. A wise man wants to know where things went awry so as to avoid falling into the same hole again later. Many of us here have started on that journey or examination and re-evaluation; we're at different places in that journey. Some have even turned their backs on Christianity, on organised religion, on matters spiritual. Mike in particular is a huge proponent of PFAL and associated written material. Absolutely steeped in PFAL materials and traditions. I have no doubt that he is sincere in what he says and believes. Unfortunately for him, his sincerity is badly misplaced. And deeply regrettably, he does not search the OT scriptures to see what testifies of Jesus; he searches material collated millennia later, which purports to testify of Jesus, but rarely does; rarely references any OT material in this respect. How good would it be if Mike could have a "Damascus moment" that caused him to re-evaluate all he knows of PFAL! He could become such a skilled debunker that he would put T-Bone and WordWolf in the rear view mirror. Instead of hanging on to "postulates" that he cherishes, he could examine those to see if, where, they are awry. Stop building on sand, and build on a rock. Instead of "teaching" people here, he could reach out to all those PFAL grads whom he purports to know, and really show them the light. He could reach out to all those Pharisees still in TWI whom he purports to be in touch with, and show them what the scriptures really say. He could promote the Lord Jesus Christ and his accomplishments to the world and truly become the Ambassador for Christ that he is supposed to be.

Jeepers! 22 pages and growing! I think I got to about page 6 or 7. Is there anything worth reading on the following pages?

I haven't been following this thread but had a peek. This whole thread is absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the canon of scripture. But I did note the following, originally posted by our great scholar Mike. This is the cover to the book that many of us may have purchased. Can I invite you to look at the name of the translator at the bottom of the photo. How is the name spelled? Yep, that's right. LAMSA. Not "Llamsa" (like a llama, perhaps, but not as cute). I always had suspicions about VPW because he paid no attention to the obvious. He made basic and idiotic mistakes, about English, about grammar, about many things. He did this not once or twice, but consistently. And what that causes me to think is: If this person makes such a big mistake about what's very, very obvious - what sort of mistakes is that same person making with less obvious matters? Luke 16:10 (NIV) “Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much. You could read "sloppy" or "careless" (etc) instead of "dishonest." You get the point. Overlook the obvious => overlook the less obvious, the hidden, the harder to understand parts. Spelling and grammar errors (for example) are easily picked up on and corrected (heard of spell-checker, anyone? Hint: it's not just for Halloween). Once or twice: forgivable. Consistently: shows ignorance (lack of education) and no desire to be better educated; or lack of regard for the subject matter, and for their audience. And relating that back to this thread, where I see someone overlooking the very, very obvious when posting, I find myself again wondering what sort of mistakes is that same person making with less obvious matters?