Nathan_Jr

That's right, Twinky. I didn't call Jesus a bastard, vic did. It's an intentionally demeaning epithet. That was his point. That's why he lied about the whole thing. If he will go to such lengths to lie about and demean the name of Jesus, what else will he lie about? Who else will he demean?

B. G. Leonard is conspicuously missing from this list. The ThD. in Homiletics is conspicuously missing. But (conjunction) I've got to give 'em credit for mentioning Pike Peak. Ballzy move.

I must correct myself, as I think I'm conflating this error with one of the many, many others, including the birth dating. The birth date was not the point here. I am not convinced he lied about the bar mitzvah to prove any dating. But (a conjunction) I am convinced he lied to manufacture error. I now remember my initial astonishment upon hearing this erroneous "teaching." It was that his evidence of the lost document was no evidence at all! And what was his point? That Jesus was a bastard? His point was to disparage Jesus as a bastard Jew - an epithet taken very seriously by Jews of any era.

Right. So who manufactured the error of Jesus' bastard bar mitzvah? Whose faulty, dishonest methodology manufactured this error? Did Raf manufacture this error or did victor? After following the evidence, I am convinced Victor contrived this error to make his opinion of dating Jesus' birth fit like a hand in a glove - a glove that knows how to interpret itself. If victor is wrong about this, what else is he wrong about? Observe with a mind free of indoctrination and conclusions to find out.

I forgot about this. So sinister. It was one of many used against me as a proof text for why I couldn't possibly understand unless I was "taught." The phrase "How can you learn unless you've been taught" was used constantly. And who will be the teacher? The leader who was taught by vic paul who revealed St. Paul who revealed Christ who revealed God. Maybe, once you are taught how (spelled: H-O-W), then the scriptures interpret themselves. All (without exception or distinction) cults absolutely love to "teach." When does a writing become scripture?

Getting back to the original PFAL: Can anyone explain the bastard bar mitzvah? Didn't Vic "teach" that in "Bible times" bastard boys were given their bar mitzvah at a different age than legitimate boys? This is why Jesus and fam go to Juruselem when he's twelve. In Luke, I think. He couldn't remember who told him this, but that didn't stop him from anointing it factual and worthy of "teaching" - this methodology always bothered me. I've consulted several Od/New Testament scholars, Rabbis, Ancient Near East historians, theologians. (I admit I didn't consult the Greek people.) None could confirm the veracity of this notion of bastard bar mitzvah.

When it doesn't fit you've got to MAKE it fit. Force that hand into that self-interpreting glove. You've got to WORK that word into that glove! (Insert OJ courtroom glove meme) Well, just bless your little hearts. If only you could read it in the original where scripture always interprets itself if you make it fit.

An anchor phrase.... genius.... Like when you can't remember the fictional character who told you about a first century "bastard bar mitzvah".... scripture interprets itself. Or when you read a metaphor from Paul's letters back into Genesis - the trees are people!!.....scripture interprets itself. Or when, as a doctor, you have to spell instead of pronounce the Greek after "researching" 18 hours a day for forty years.....scripture interprets itself. Or when you'd rather move verses and chapters around in Genesis to form fit your opinion instead of doing honest spirit-led exegesis......scripture interprets itself. Or whenever you encounter a preposition or conjunction, and your opinion is on the line.....scripture interprets itself. Or when you need 2 to actually mean 4 because of an 18th century cemetery and a flat earth...... scripture interprets itself.

Textual redactions redact themselves, interpolations interpolate themselves, engravings on silver bracelets engrave themselves, prepositions pre position themselves... BULL$HIT Obviously, scripture does NOT and can NOT interpret itself - because it's SCRIPTURE!

Not only does scripture interpret itself, it writes itself and reads itself. Similarly, poetry interprets itself, writes itself and reads itself. Or, art interprets itself, paints itself, views itself. See? Isn't that just wonderful!! Bless your little hearts. I wish you could read it in the original.

I didn't have a problem focusing on the good until I "took the class." So much pretense. So many presumptions. So much negativity and evil was preached. I had never heard such effort to divide the Body of Christ, to separate friendships and families. I had never heard of a so-called MOG spend so much energy religiously arguing against other shades of diverse religious doctrine - the truth needs no defense, but, boy, was vic always on the defensive. Yet, he was the one on the attack! I remember wondering: With whom are you arguing?!?! Someone, maybe Babe Ruth, said: Don't throw out the baby with the bath water. Well, if the baby is a deceased corpse, it's going out with the bath water, and the entire tub will be filled with bleach to disinfect. I'm eternally grateful for excellent teachers throughout my life. So grateful. I know what it looks like. Vic ain't it. He's one of the worst teachers and PFAL is one of the worst "classes" I've ever encountered. I know not all are as blessed as I, and for some victor seems impressive. This astonishes and saddens me. But I'm not on any mission to convert followers to sycophants. I work every day to forgive him, even though he doesn't deserve it. That's grace. I hope one day he can thank me for enduring the dozens of hours I spent in "the class." And I hope one day he can read it in the original. Bless his little heart.

Thanks. There are so many published and private Bible translations. I wouldn't ever say one is better than another. They are different. We have preferences. We study. There are methods for study, methods for translation, hermeneutics. All rooted in ancient and contemporary schools of thought and theory on textual translation and interpretation. Horace and Cicero may have been the first to codify a binary translation theory: Word for Word and Sense for Sense. Today the field is more nuanced, complex. So, is it literal OR is it according to usage? I remember reading and hearing vp's literal according to usage and they sounded like paraphrase, freer and more expansive and carnally opinionated than any amplified Bible - neither word for word nor sense for sense, according to the original. (I do wish vic could have read it in the original... bless his heart.) I'm fine with anyone's private interpretation (private inspiration is essential), but the phrase literal according to usage sounds contrived, manipulative. Is it designed to impress? To obscure? As a dilettante would? The phrase sounds so technical, but the actual translation is free form paraphrase full of the very religion vp disparaged. And it was "taught" to me as the most accurate translation ever written. Maybe I've been reading too much Harry Frankfurt lately. Im calling bull$hit.

What does the phase "literal according to usage" mean? VP's text reads like a free translation - nothing literal or according to usage about it. I was usually condemned as spiritually immature for asking such questions or else provided a bull$hit word salad for an answer. It seems to me literal and according to usage are mutually exclusive terms in the work of a translator.

Twinky, this is book is EXCELLENT!! It's occupied space on my desk for years - right next to Strunk and White.

So much Frankfurtian bull$hit, so much word salad. The advanced class was truly advanced bull$hit and gourmet word salad. PFAL and vp's teachings were designed to persuade without regard for truth (BS) by systematically grinding down and exhausting to delirium the natural and spiritual sensibilities (word salad). The PFALT trailer made me vomit.

This!! This deceptive tactic is used ALL THE TIME for "correction" and "reproof" while "teaching." It's a cunningly subtle and sinister form of gaslighting. Just because victor states explicitly or implicitly that any or everything he says is necessarily god-breathed doesn't make it true. What vic says is demonstrably not true, even if he himself claims it to be true. It's not true even if someone believes it. WW, for the record I don't think I said I agreed with Mike. And I never claimed to be an expert. Your insightful posts have been so helpful over the years. Thank you. GSC is immeasurably important, including the foil of Mike's voice. Finding truth sometimes requires contrasting BS.

Good for you. Your happiness, power, results and rewards are not tied to evangelizing victor's private, spirituality immature interpretations. But, hey, believe whatever you want. Be about it, don't talk about it, and don't try so hard to convert others - no rewards whatsoever in that. Free advice. Take it or leave it. God revealed to me many times (the first two times established it) that He didn't teach Vic and that PFAL is NOT God-breathed and that I will get more rewards for forgiving Vic than for following him. So I work to have pity and forgiveness for this little charlatan. There's a lot of good in Saul's letters, but he wasn't accurate about everything, either. And vic mishandled LOTS of it. Unlearn what you've learned, endeavor honest research and find out for yourself. The dispensational treatment of the Bible is novel and neat-o and even appears advanced to the immature hungering and thirsting after Truth, but, alas, it's mere religious, man-made private interpretation. It's a distraction, a sleight of hand. Belief has no place where Truth is concerned. The words are NOT the Word.

Babe Ruth wasn't accurate about EVERYTHING.

If they were right, then you's lose the hubris you detected. Huh?

I would not say expert. I used to study language seriously, academically, a long time ago. It's an interest of mine. I've probably forgotten more than most know.

I remember well this passage from page 83. With a open heart and mind I used to open vic's books at random, believing for my spiritual suspicions to be proven wrong. This quote and the one about roosters behaving differently during "Bible times" stands out. (JCOPS/JCOP?) It means what it says: Not ALL of what vic writes is God-breathed, but MOST of it is. (Surgical grammatical analysis is not required to explicate anything written by vic.) I remember gasping at the hubris of his asserted claim. What a cunning thing to write, to say. So subtle in its nuanced deception, obfuscation. He who claims to have the Truth surely doesn't. Thank God for GSC. That includes you, too, Mike. I mean it.

According to victor and his sycophants, the law of believing works for saint or sinner, positively or negatively, rightly or wrongly, unless devil spirits override the believing? I was "taught" that victor was martyred for his recording PFAL. For this I should be extra-thankful to him. What martyred him? His lack of believing? His wrong believing? His negative, fearful believing (surely not TMOG!) Or was was it the fault of devil spirits?

I Maybe belonging to the human race: friends, family AND scoundrels. That's why I defined my use of belonging for this context. The culty cult ethical cult thread. But If one's relationship is based on Truth/Love, to whom does one belong? Who is the possessor? Who is the possessed? In my experience true relationship in Love is not a function of desire for pleasure, nor of possession, nor of co-dependence. Sure, we feel good when we are loved by our friends and family. But is this a fulfillment of desire? Or is it something greater and true, defying description, beyond Koine Greek. I've been reading these threads for a couple years. There are many very bright, courageous, thoughtful, strong voices here. Everyone here got caught. I got caught, too. (A few are still caught.) Real suffering and destruction ensued, as did triumphant redemption. Inquiry into motivations and endeavoring to examine the self can be liberating. Perhaps I'm hyper vigilant in guarding against repeating the suffering caused by joining a cult, ethical or culty. What's the difference?

Rocky, mention of that book is reminding me... I'm not convinced that the desire to belong to anything is biological or natural or inherent. When I say belong I mean cling, clutch, bond, co-dependently in order to feel secure, to feel pleasure. Why are we not fulfilled? What is not fulfilled? The identity I've constructed for myself? I know (no believing required) that in my happiest, most powerful, effective and free days, I belonged to nothing and everything at the same time. I felt zero compulsion to accept or reject admission into any group. Yet, my life was full of loving, friendly people, and scoundrels, too! And I neither wanted nor needed anything at all. Not even red drapes. I'm embarrassed to even attempt to articulate this because words are insufficient. (The words are NOT the Word... for those who have ears of that type.) At some point we become conditioned, indoctrinated, taught that we are missing something, that we have a void only a lover or money or drugs or dogmatic doctrine can fill. Us vs. them is a condition subtlety cultivated, not a natural state, definitely not an enlightened state, nor a primordial state. That which is eternal belongs to no group. I'm trying to remember how I glimpsed this - how I found out. And I assure you, that's all it is. A glimpse. I cannot give it to you because I don't have it. It is nothing to be possessed.

It's probably time for me to read Peck again. It must be. I first read that book twenty-four years ago. It was part of a massive revolution in my life at that time. The best years of my life followed. "Life is difficult." Isn't that the opening sentence of The Road Less Traveled?