JeffSjo

One of the things about this thread that is really gelling for me is that TWI leadership was trained to do many things that are damnable in a Biblical sense. I really am not sure why I didn't see Wierwille's error in the blashphemy of the spirit doctrine right away!? I mean the Lord meant exactly what he said as it applied to what the Pharisees were saying about him. It couldn't be any more simple. And later, TWI leadership felt that they had the liberty to use slander and every other dirty trick in the book to put down honest and good people with the spirit of God that were confronting TWI practices. And now , in part, because of the refusal to except just reproof they are forever marked until they are judged by the fact that they said these good people were devilish. And they did everything in their power to destroy the lives of these folks and wreck their reputations too. They blashemed the holy spirit and didn't even know it! But I'm certain that they were warned according to the mercies of a just God. There are many stories here of brave people who tried to get them to see the errors in what they were doing, even at their own peril. IMO it seems clear to me that if the Lord will ever personally reward anyone, it will be the ones who warned TWI leadership at their own peril. GOD BLESS TWI misfits and malcontents! THE LORD IS JUST AND HAS AN EXCELLENT MEMORY.

I am sooo very glad for you Dave that you walked that day. Those things started bad and ended up worse As part of coming out of Momentus I confronted V.B. about bringing us into a movement that freely mixed the Bible and New Age mind games. And I told him that momentus style fellowship led to many things that were bad through the misconception that everything that came out of a person's mouth was of God, no matter how nasty. Many of those prophecies of Pharis did not end up coming true, even though they were very substantial. When I shared mine with my Grandfather along with my then wife, all he said was, "Jeff, you have to be careful with prophecies, they don't all come from God." or something like that. And many did not come true. Four years ago, V.B. was letting folks call him "The Word in th Flesh." It went from bad to incredibly worse.

:) That was great Cheranne. I like the new avatar pic too. The last one was provocative and cool too.

Maybe the folly of ignorantly considering the factors of God's predestination is that we tend to construct our worldviews entirely according to our own misconceptions. If we are inclined to hold on to the memory of a teacher who did such vile things that according to God's word merit complete and utter destruction of most anything that comes from said work that anytime we meddle with God's predestination we can at best only grasp at straws, attempting to believe anything that would tend to keep us in our unwillingnes to face the truth. For those that hold onto TWI teachings, and I count myself to be one of them, I think that is most necessary to be able to look at a very ugly situation honestly. I've had to discard some of PFAL in order to at least think in my own mind that the Bible is true. I'm glad that in my case there doesn't seem to be anything that I can think of, doctrinally speaking, that I haven't been willing to hold on to without having something eating away at me for lack of having a good answer. Wierwille said he asked God for answers that he wouldn't have to back down on, but I have come to recognize that that is not the case with PFAL doctrine. This way I don't have to avoid direct confrontations as is the manner of some. I don't have to put people down in order to lessen the effects of points that I cannot deal with. I don't have to claim victory in a discussion just for effect which only serves to justify the stand of those who happen to already believe the same folly I do. I suspect that Wierwille should have backed down on many things but simply refused. And choosing to be this kind of man, he still to this day carries some along with him in his own folly. Those carried along still in Wierwille's folly are the ones who will even twist God's predestination in order to lessen the impact of the effect of Wierwille's many abuses. I do not see how they can do this in the face of many clear facts and credible testimonies. And I think it is very human to get histerical and accusatory when the facts tend to contradict any belief that has been held for a long time. Especially in this case, if a person wants to believe that because of what Wierwille said, they will never have to back down on PFAL doctrine. I freely quote and think very highly of Willam Tyndale, but I credit him for the things that I've learned from his writings. I'm not vainglorious about claiming his writings as my very own as Wierwille did to many when he stole their works and put his own name on them. Therefore, I'm free to say that even though I believe many of the things that I learned in PFAL I prefer to also get to know the men that Wierwille stole from. IMO they tend to freely credit their sources as I like to do also. But Wierwille did not. Those that will even invoke Calvinist theology in order to lessen the impact of the kind of man that Wierwille really was are only being carried along in Wierwille's folly to this very day. Dear Waysider, I decided to share because I think today I understand that first post of yours a little better. JEFF (edited for spelling)

Bring hither your pregnant wit and high reason to explain away innocence lost, lives ruined, and seek to put your own soul to the pungent salve of your theology. Salve your own conscience, if you can, with high minded reasons for vile abuses. All the better to keep thy path. What matter if your innermost thoughts blame God for Wierwille's actions? (edited for grammar) (added in editing) Dear Waysider, I'm still not sure that I understand the sentence that passed through your braincell though.:) Bye for now.

Hi Waysider, cool thread. I've read a book from a man that was a contemporary of Calvin's by the name of Tyndale. He talks a little about the predestination concept in his introduction to the book of Romans in his 1534 New Testament. Check this out from the 1989 reprinting with modern spelling from Yale University press---- Library of congress number 88037936 (What the heck, at least Tyndale was the real deal) :B) "But here must a mark be set unto those unquiet, busy and high-climbing spirits how far they shall go, which first of all bring hither their high reasons and pregnant wits, and begin first from on high to search the bottomless secrets of God's predestination, whether they be predestinate or not. These must needs either cast themselves down headlong into desperation or else commit themselves to free chance careless." and "For except thou have bourne the cross of adversity and temptation, and hast felt thyself brought to the very brim of desperation, yea and unto hell gates, thou canst never meddle with the sentence of predestination without thine own harm, and without secret wrath and grudging inwardly against God, for otherwise it shall not be possible for thee to think that God is righteous and just." ___________________ I'm thinking that if that is how Tyndale thought about Calvinism, then he would have been enraged by those who blame TWI victims. But then I can't speak for Tyndale, so maybe it is only me. (edited for spelling) (added in editing) Tyndale ran with Luther's crowd.

I've been thinking on this thread a lot. I can't say much now, except RAMIFICATIONS. I hope this thread develops into more later. I probably will expound on the "speaking against the spirit of God" part later.

I mentioned this scripture in the first post- 3John 11 (KJV) Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God. I've been thinking about this verse a lot. John just got done explaining about a man named Diotrephes. Apparently he was a leader in the church. But he wouldn't receive people that were sent to help. He loved to be the big dog. And he was even speaking malicious words against good people and was casting people out of the church for the wrong reasons. In other words, DIOTREPHES WAS JUST LIKE TWI LEADERSHIP. I'm not talking about every individual, but the general manner of leadership that most picked up on from Wierwille. This is the context of John saying, "he that doeth evil hath not seen God." So in this situation the saying applied to leadership who was in terms of truth, a blatant fraud. Diotrephes was a puffed up, self seeking, power hungry bastard. But like TWI leadership he knew how to control people. If John promised to remember what Diotrephes was doing (v10), so will the Lord. And so should we. HE THAT DOETH EVIL HATH NOT SEEN GOD

I think you are right Tom! There are a lot of scriptures that refer to these kinds of things. I think that it is when I consider blatant frauds that these things that I've posted come to mind......hhhmmm. And for those who do many things to hurt many people like top TWI leadership, part of the cure is to burst that bubble of great darkness with vigor. Especially when they still seem to claim living in the Grace of God with such conviction. But even for the best Christian it is a good thing to know the more fearful aspects of the lord's nature, else why would they be written? If not for our benefit. But IMO the many Christians who seem to enjoy bullying the vulnerable with these things are the worst. Wasn't Wierwille good at that too? For the young and tender Christian, give them their due meat in due season I say. I think we get each other Tom. I like the dialogue.

Dear Bowtwi, I'll be sure to tell my son that you think he's cool.

But then again, maybe not. Once when one of my former splinter group leaders told me that they were going to check out a group of Messianic Jews that I had met I recognized where he was coming from immediately and said,"That's o.k., they're used to having high-minded gentiles coming around to check them out." hehehe As this man was stymied for a response I walked away without saying another word. HAHAHA My ex-wife believed this leader and his fellow thugs when they said that I was devilish. notsofunnytome (edited for grammar)

Dear Tom, How about this? If the lord shows the fearful side of his nature then shaking in our boots is not optional, being as how big He is and how small we are. But if someone says that they've seen the Lord but is still as corrupt as before or worse still then they are liars.? As in my first post I still feel that we have the right to say,"He's full of it." Except that now upon further consideration that I consider it more of an obligation in terms of trying to help people. (edited for grammar)

I'm really glad that you brought this topic up in your post What The Hey. As I considered your post it seemed a very good point to run with in the doctrinal section. After all, God only knows that a lowly intermediate class grad like me can use some good old fashion lernin. In Mt 12:24 the Pharisees accused Jesus of working through the devil. But check out the last part of the Lord's answer in Mt 12:31,32...... speaking AGAINST the spirit of God is unforgivable. I know that this may be hard for PFAL advanced class grads to take in but the Lord meant exactly what he said....duh! When anyone is working by the spirit of God and people claim that it is devilish they will be punished. In Acts 13:9,10 Paul spoke directly at a child of the devil and God's hand was with Paul for all to see..... so where is your beef What the Hey? In Acts 19:15 the devil itself mocked these ones who took upon themselves to speak at them in the Lord's name. ________________ What The Hey, As I've responded directly to you when you've put people down before it seems really good to me to now point out to you that speaking of devils when you just want to put folks down is playing with fire.

Those seem like good considerations of Mary Magdalene's life Twinky, Thanks. The only thing that bothers me about speculating about Mary's life is when it only exposes the folly of the one's who speculate. Like the gnostics who think she bore the Lord's child. Which if it didn't appear to be completely unscriptural I would be willing to consider that He might have chosen to have kids. And their speculation only robs us all from the awesome and inspring records that do tell us of the words and relationship that really was between them. I agree with you that if she was a single woman in those days it would be remarkable. I don't mind thinking of her as a remarkable woman at all. But she might have been married still, how can one say for sure?

And it seems sound at one level to say that there was a difference between what was said and what was taught. It's just a question of working out the specifics IMO. I can't speak directly to Wierwille, even though I've heard enough to believe that as it was with Wierwille, so it is in my former splinter group..... The cult of personality was fataly woven into the fabric of what living "the mystery" is suppose to look like. Why should it surprise anyone that Wierwille's knowledge of the mystery was faulty too?

Dear Tom, The apostle John had a longer and closer relationship with the Lord than either of us when he fell down like a dead man upon seeing some of Him in that vision. Paul said that he knew the Fear of the Lord, and his vision was not for the faint of heart either. But Wierwille boasted of knowing his will, but did evil. Therefore, Wierwille was a liar. His version of fear of the Lord amounted to no more than Wierwille saying," I am He, fear me." The same IMO for my former splinter group leader. Dear Geisha, The Lord promised lowliness and meeknes to the lowly and the meek. He spoke of blessing to the brokenhearted and the downtrodden. In many different scriptures he promised a fearful revenge on the oppressors. No, I've never read any of the writers that you've mentioned, but as I've PM'd you, I like hearing about brothers who are handling these issues too. :) (edited for spelling and :) )(grammar too)

PAUL'S DOCTRINE WAS PLAINLY STATED THAT WE ARE CHRIST'S BRIDE. How simple is that? Who would want to say Paul was wrong, not me. I quoted my previous post because it is relevant to the point that I want to make, and to re-tell it with my typeing speed would be a big waste of time. It is easy to say like PFAL said that the gospels were not written to us. It is also easy to say that our calling is different than Israel's calling. It is also easy to say that we are the body of Christ and not the bride..... BUT IF THE SCRIPTURE'S DO NOT PLAINLY SAY THESE THINGS THEN IMO THEY ARE OPEN FOR DISCUSSION AND COMPARISON. Examining these things is not easy, but I have had to unlearn PFAL doctrine to be honest with the scriptures, for example... Ephesians 3:4-6 (KJV) by which, when you read, you may undestand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ). which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to his Holy apostles and prophets: that the gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel, _______________ We were brought into the same body, the same gospel as was preached to Israel...fellowheirs....etc It is not a different body with a different hope, it is the same body. "One Lord, one faith". The only thing that was hidden was that us gentiles would be brought in. So PFAL WAS WRONG! (edited for spelling)

Dear Bowtwi, My boy just got your post read to him by me and he's feeling a little shy. Maybe it's the Dolly picture? That's just speculation mind you. JEFF

Dear Tom, What I'm hearing in your post is that for you it is a relationship with the Lord. You realize that he's bigger than you can take, but you've also made your peace with where you are now. For whatever it's worth, I really like that. There is a promise in 1John that basically says in reference to Jesus Christ that someday we'll be like him, for we'll see him as he is. That is an awesome promise for sure, but in the mean time I think that we'd at best handle it no better than John did in the beginning of the book of revelation. John the Baptist spoke of the Lord Jesus Christ wielding fire and the fan to burn away the chaff. IMO this is simply a prophecy that foretells an aspect of the Lord that is fearful..... plain and simple! Paul spoke of fire in terms of judgment to the Corinthians also. Peter also spoke of this fire being taken into account when we consider the kind of people that we should be too. None of these things are easy to handle. Most that do merely use these things as a hammer to bludgeon those that they look down on. Some like Wierwille fail to take into account the Fear of the Lord when they decide that it would be o.k. to turn fine young people into their beotches or worse......f'n idiot. But then, if Wierwille had seen or perceived the Lord he would not have done that....AS IT IS WRITTEN.(see earlier post on that one) (added in editing) Wierwille would not have done the things that he did if he took to heart these things. My reference was to the end of post #1. Sometimes I wonder if at the end of his life that he knew his own actions had brought it all to nothing, as if there might have been a little moment of clarity at the end.

Dear Tom, Sometimes I think that Christians may miss out on certain things by how they think of them. For instance, there may be times when it is important to let a Christian know that they have the right to be loved, because Christ loved us first, and as such we don't need to be afraid of God. I get that. But when we actually look at the EXPERIENCE of seeing the Lord as recorded in the scriptures, whether in a vision or a physical phenomenon they have a history of being nigh impossible to physically bear. I think that opposed to Wierwille's version of "The Fear of the Lord" this is a good consideration. JEFF

After laughing out loud in the library and receiving a couple of dubious looks I decided to post this one here. Thanks Waysider

Says the snail while taking a ride on a turtle's back................................WWWHHHEEEEE!!!

One of the things that I was hoping for when I started this thread was to confirm or deny that even TWI research department knew of PFAL errors in 1983 or so when I heard such things. I'm not looking for a doctrinal discussion so much as just remembering what is for me to be common knowledge in the eighties. I know that there are many folks here who took part in TWI research meetings and I'm mostly hoping to hear from them. The point that I specifically remember from back then is that PFAL was incorrect in teaching that the Lord's cry from the cross was a cry of victory, but instead a quoting of part of a Psalm. I think that we can discuss the truth (or not) of the matter in the doctrinal section. I suspect that TWI was very careful to keep the research departments work under cover. I also suspect that TWI was very careful to completely dominate the people that worked in research. I am hoping that some of these folks would be willing to share their recollections and experiences. (added in editing) Dear Nottawafer, Personally, I think Martindale's teaching about Eve is one of the stupidest things that I've ever heard.

I hear you Tom, I think one of my main points on this thread is that God is soooo awsome that we can't see him without realizing how awesome he is and realize also that we are not. This IMO is a fearful type of experience, to face anything up close that is tremendously bigger than we are. But as if in these visions on this thread, the Lord gets us up, comforts us, and loves us we will get through the experience. JEFF

Here's a thing for me that reveals a blatant PFAL error. It is a simple point in the scripture, but for me it has represented years of learning how TWI leadership actually worked because of how my former splinter group leader handled this information. I think I'll go into these events some more on a different thread. Anyway, here's the point.... Ephesians 5:25-32 (Lamsa version) Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved his church and gave himself for it, That he might sanctify and cleanse it by the washing of water and by the word, In order to build for himself a glorious church, without stain or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So should men love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no man ever yet hated his own body, but nourishes it and cherishes it, even as Christ does for his own church. For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this reason shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined to his wife, and they to shall be one flesh. THIS IS A GREAT MYSTERY; BUT I SPEAK CONCERNING CHRIST AND HIS CHURCH. _____________ Now that I've seen this point get started in a group I feel very confident in saying that if we are "the church the body of Christ" that is very evident that we are his body as we are also "the church of the bride of Christ." IT ISN'T A DIFFERENT CHURCH. IT IS TWO DIFFERENT WAYS OF REFERING TO THE SAME LORD WITHIN THE MARRAIGE ANALOGY. We are his bride, his flesh and his bones.