Nathan_Jr

“Dr.”

“…doors…keys…” **transactions Malachi sounds transactional, too. Bring the WHOLE tithe (not more) and see if blessing don’t pour out from heaven. Maybe a promise. Maybe a challenge. But the tithe was about food, right? The priests had to eat. Livestock were given to be cooked (sacrificed) and eaten. These animals also provided milk and eggs. The temple money changers, who Jesus rebuked, converted coin to livestock. The livestock was then offered. For sacrifice. To be eaten. The tithe was about food. Do I have this right?

WordWolf: twi keeps track of their members/"followers" and their tithes/money given under compulsion. Try giving less than 10% and see how long you go before someone starts giving you static. Ha! My fellowship commander was faithful to this practice, even though he renounced TWI for deviating from "the original" - the word as it was given to THE Man of God, victor p wierwille. (Bless his heart.) It had been said that my fellowship commander and his wife lived near the poverty line. They themselves never admitted this. Regardless, I always contributed generously to any social event at their house. (This is just my nature with anyone, and I was ridiculed for it.) If I asked what I could bring, they would answer, and I would provide plus plus - happily, it's just how I do it. Over time, with increasing frequency, I took on the role of host - cooking, cleaning, making cocktails, store runs - in THEIR house. (Later I suspected I was manipulated into this because of my generous nature.) Now, these parties were by invitation, but they were not optional. If they said what they needed or wanted, I enthusiastically fulfilled the request. And they were grateful, but not enthusiastically grateful. When it came to giving at fellowship, boy, oh, boy! I usually gave whatever cash I had on me, which wasn't much because who carries cash anymore. However, if I had 3 twenties, a fiver and three ones, I would only throw $8 in the horn. (If I had $60 on me, that money was likely already allocated for another purpose.) Somehow he knew. Probably because my then wife told him. Or maybe he knew exactly what to expect every week from the other regular attendees, as they always gave the same amount. Likely both are true. He never said anything to me directly, but the subsequent daily emails to "the family" and the next week's fellowship "teaching" were all about tithing, abundant sharing and II Corinthians 9:7. The passive-aggressive message to me was clear: I was not a cheerful giver, and God does not love that.

Another example of why literal, word-for-word translations are not helpful and lead to confusion.

That was fun. I am reminded of the word STUDY.

*exasperated sigh* "Used before" is an exegetical fallacy I would expect anyone with a Masters in Theology from Princeton Seminary to avoid. One word can have multiple meanings. How it is used in one context cannot determine how it is used in another context. And language changes over time. All languages. Depending on how you date the LXX and the Pastorals, there could be a 300-500 year difference. Meanings of words change over time. In one of the inexhaustible sessions of CFS, victor says the trees in Genesis represent people because Paul used an olive tree and its grafted branches as a metaphor for groups of people. He says he can't prove it, but something something you've just got to believe it to fit... In this instance, he contradicts his own fallacious methodology, making it even more nonsensical - how it's used LATER will determine how it was used before! Hey! I didn't make this stuff up. Victor did.

Well, I’m convinced. In light of an accurate treatment of the Greek and within the immediate context of verse 21, Vic got it wrong. His error is significant because he ignores his own self-interpreting hermeneutic - CONTEXT. Verse 21 establishes it. While looking into this, I came across Lamsa’s eccentric version of 2Peter 1:20: 20Knowing this first, that not every prophetic writing is made clear in its own book.

The one claiming spiritual authority is the one who does not have it.

No text ever interpreted itself, as no text ever wrote itself. Ever. Even legal texts, in spite of their painstakingly precise composition, require interpretation by the courts. And ancient texts, especially! Ancient religious literature and scripture will be interpreted by the reader, the translator, the theologian, the historian, the profiteer… but never by the texts themselves. Texts have writers and audiences (and editors). To explain a text with this understanding, and in light of its literary and historical context, in light of presuppositions, is exactly… the act of interpretation! A text itself can’t do this for itself by itself. Now, one may assert the CLAIM that a text interprets itself. One may also claim to jump over barns.

It doesn’t bother me if you stay. This forum is open to anyone, but some have an easier time than others. It’s rare to see someone refer to victor as “Dr.” I must admit, the dishonesty is refreshing.

Have you seen the excellent documentary Muscle Shoals (2013)?

Four crucified is emblematic of man’s gullibility, stupidity and dishonesty. As long as it is “taught,” as long as it is regurgitated, I will stand against it. As long as charlatans like Victor Wierwille (not a real doctor), Loy Martindale, Chris Reed and Kat Kerr are defecating into the mouth of God, I will stand against them.

"Whipping Post" Allman Brothers Band Not really playing, so I'll make it super easy, a virtually free post. Duane Allman played on a certain cover of this song. Bonus points for naming the cover artist with whom Duane played. "...don't make it bad Take a sad song and make it better Remember to let her into your heart Then you can start to make it better"

He's Rick James, Bitch!

1 - 4 are non answers, but we agree on #5. Not sure why you are confused.

Maybe. On which of these do we agree? TWI believes four crucified. People no longer involved with TWI still believe four crucified. Four crucified is stupid and refutable. Wierwille was a charlatan fraud. Music is more fun than all the above.

People believe four crucified and flat earth. TWI still teaches four crucified. People who reject TWI still believe four crucified. It's a stupid and easily refuted belief. Wierwille was a charlatan fraud. That's an observation, not hate. Music is more fun for sure. Carry on.

Conspiracy theories came up earlier. That reminded me of flat earth, which reminded me of Bullinger, which reminded me of four crucified. An ironic digression to redirect the discussion away from conspiracy theories and politics and back to the stupidity of wierwille.

Flat earth and four crucified and intellectually dishonest and stupid claims. They require lies to overcome the evidence against them. Ultimately, to argue for either will require conspiracy as a premise.

Four crucified and flat earth are the stupid pieces of bread holding together the bullsh¡t sandwich.

I didn't say anything about a Bilderberg Group. Another red herring.

I should have been mathematically exact and scientifically precise. STUPIDITIES and LIES should be disputed and refuted whenever they arise.

Right. Conspiracy theories are not good. The stupidity of conspiracy theories like four crucified and flat earth should be disputed and refuted whenever they arise.

Waysider is right. Bullinger was wrong. Both of those statements are true and easily proven.

It's not bait. Flat Earth is a conspiracy theory. Seems on topic.