Nathan_Jr

Yeah. Kinda like that. Paul had visions; Wierwille saw snow.

Been thinking about why Peter and James didn't squash Paul. Who knows... Maybe because they had received intimate, secret training. Maybe they had been taught to guard the secrets and were warned of others' misunderstanding. Maybe they'd been warned not give too much attention, lest they give credence, to blow hard charlatans who just knew that they knew that they knew.

There was at least one other Jesus mentioned by Josephus. And did he mention James, also? Can't remember. Some time ago I stopped trying to sort it all out, but it's all very interesting, still. I believe Jesus probably existed, but most today wouldn't recognize him in his historically factual form, whatever that is. I don't think the Gospel writers thought they were writing historical accounts the way historians would write today. People expected some mythologizing in their literature and their histories. I don't think the contradictions and incongruities were an issue for the ancient audience - they are only problematic for the inerrantist, the harmonizer, and the glove fitter, people who came along much later. If Jesus or Buddha or Socrates are not actual, historical people, that's ok with me. As Norm MacDonald once said of his novel, Based on a True Story: Not a Memoir, "It's true, but it's not factual." Something like that...

Perfect. Brevity is all I can expect. Thank you. I get the point. I am suspicious of Paul for many reasons, bragging about not getting his evangelon from the apostles being one of them. And he admits to lying, if that's what it takes to get converts. I can't remember his position. Does Carrier argue that the Testimonium Flavianum is a complete forgery? Or partially forged?

Though I haven’t read Cartier, I am familiar with him and others (Price, Avalos…) through lectures, debates and discussions on the inter webs. Would you please expound on this sentence? I am increasingly of the belief that there was no historic Jesus, and that if there had been, Paul would never have succeeded as his most influential apostle.

Worth repeating.

Take a number. Here's one. 1463. There are 1462 unanswered questions ahead of yours. ======= Truth is not afraid of being questioned. Hate is born of fear. victor and LCM hated being questioned. When I say hated, I mean they HATED being questioned. Just listen to the tapes or read the transcripts. The accuracy of the evidence of their fear fits like a...

The school bus is merely apparent. When viewed accurately, it's a scientifically precise motor coach. Accuracy is about MAKING something fit, especially when it doesn't. I wish you could see it in the original.

Mmmph

The question as to why victor chose Loy has been explored and discussed many, many times over the years right here on this discussion board, GSC. Though the answer is multi-faceted, one important factor is victor paul wierwille lacked the requisite in-depth spiritual perception and awareness. (Oh, how I've missed you, Irony... been gone too long.)

Right, I get it. I've read the accounts. I was pointing to the hypocrisy, the doctrinal and spiritual dishonesty, the bullshonta. I know. The hypocrisy wasn't the worst part. It was the raping.

Ha! Not necessarily. I've read those stories right here in this café. My questions were rhetorical.

Why would a THE man of god need a security detail? Why couldn’t he just beleeeve big enough for his own security? After all, he beleeeved big enough to provide for national security - if it weren’t for his beleeeviing, the Soviets would have attacked the U.S.

This must have been pre-LCM. Didn’t he hate gays with the same passion as Westboro?

Why would such a charlatan need shielding from sunlight?

What was Westboro protesting?

Have some self respect. You are Mr. God. That’s accuracy and precision as it hasn’t been known since…

Did I mention I’m trilingual in speaking in tongues? Both hypothetically AND actually. I’ve spoken in three different tongues at least twice. So, it’s established.

Mmmph

Mmmph

If one has the impression that the data is not 100% correct, the website offers a way to submit corrections. https://www.cultfacts.com/contact-us

We have the right to choose to pay attention to this. Just look at it. See it for all that it explicitly and implicitly means. Whose brittle ears are we choosing to protect from offense by reporting "sexual assault" instead of rape for the glory of Allah?

Everyone, including myself.

It’s a peculiar stylistic choice. I can appreciate the spectrum of crimes captured by “sexual assault.” I can see a potential utility there, but often the stylistic choice misleads and minimizes. In Israel on October 7, many (dozens? hundreds?) of girls and women were raped by Islamic jihadists. Some were raped to death. Read that again. Raped. To. Death! But many journalists reported "sexual assault" on Israeli girls and women. There are contexts where this stylistic choice moves beyond frustratingly ambiguous to dishonest vulgarity. We need to make better choices.