Nathan_Jr

Agreed.

Susan Krakowsky makes a compelling case. I don't know Hebrew, so I won't offer an opinion on how to translate the text. At this time, I can only defer to the experts, which I am not. I think there's a lot of re-contextualizing of Hebrew scripture by Paul -- even more re-contextualizing by modern theologians and preacher men. Generally, MAKING something fit means it doesn't naturally fit. IMO.

Doubt, the Great Virtue.

"The Greatest Problem in the World Today"

"The nine manifestations of holy spirit operate under a basic principle that can be seen in the following verses, which record Jesus Christ prophesying of the gift of holy spirit. Referring to the gift of holy spirit, John 16:13 says, “…for he [it] shall not speak of himself [itself]; but whatsoever he [it] shall hear, that shall he [it] speak….” This implies that your spirit, the gift, hears and learns from God and obeys what He tells it to say. We can see this again in verse 15. Jesus Christ says, “All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he [it, the gift of holy spirit] shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.” This is the first part of our basic principle—God, Who is Spirit, teaches your spirit." =========== I see now. It's kinda like "scripture build up." It's a rhetorical tactic. It establishes the principle as basic (fundamental) before revealing its greatness. Just tremendous! It's also like a wallet forgotten.... kinda...

Like the collaterals (BS), Mike's assumption (postulate) is not even close to being accurate. Based on observations from objective investigations, my conclusion is there were many problems but one SOURCE. That one source is the thief come to steal, kill and destroy, victor paul wierwille.

I was always suspicious of victor's concepts of pistis, faith, believing. My questions were usually met with exasperated sighs by my fellowship commander (FC). He, my FC, asserted the claim that "beleeeving" is something we do and "faith" is something we have - a/the measure of. Juedes reveals victor's superficial grasp of Greek when he briefly explains the objective genitive. I brought up the genitive case dilemma of subjective vs. objective a couple months ago in Doctrinal. Couldn't find any traction there. Juedes also brings up a common, persistent, childish error of victor's: "He (victor) writes, 'the original text read,' ..." A reminder: we don't have the autographs. It's devilishly misleading to assert an opinion as fact the way victor does. The "original text" is a mental invention of victor. To be fooled by his seductive concept requires only that one BELEEEVES.

Wow. Just last night I was listening to an interview with Dr. Joel Baden, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Yale Divinity School. The discussion was on "the original text," manuscripts, versions, translations. The Jewish Bible, is based on the Masoretic Text. The KJV OT is from the Septuagint, right? Also, there are the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Pedangta, and so on... It all depends... There are no original autographs. Every manuscript's has been changed. Every. Single. One. Which translation brings you peace? I like the Chabad.org verlsion. It makes sense.

I believe one day a manuscript will be found that explains.... .....40 x 2 = whatever I need it to be.

I didn't know Genesis 41:43 was the proof text for the 2nd time establishes it! In that case... Luke records two crucified with Jesus. Matthew recorded it first. Luke is 2nd. That establishes it.

I rest my case.

Jocko is the real deal. The principles he sets forth are true. This mindset is as throughly effectual today as it was in Ancient Greece -- and way more effectual than blaming devil spirits for any and everything.

Not a cessation of traumatizing victims, but a slowing of the flow! WITAF!! Wow. Just wow. Mike first admitted to the "oodles and oodles" of errors in PFAL. Then he suggested repackaging the error laden class as a DVD box set in order to continue the deceit of the naïve. Now he admits the traumatizing and victimization persists!! Does TWI even know you are here?

The ridiculous will be ridiculed. An axiom.

As good as that thread is, it is not an exhaustive survey. It leaves dozens, even hundreds, of objectively discerned errors on the table.

Mmmph

Mmmph

Soooo…. It has been established (the 2nd time did it) Victor purchased a ThD in homiletics from an opportunistic, short-lived diploma mill called Pikes Peak Seminary. Given. Now, has anyone read his dissertation? I understand he “wrote” it on Peter. HOWEVER, Peter is not a topic for a dissertation. It would be much more focused and specific than just Peter. Anyone know?

mmmph

What does an ECN for the so-called 1942 promise look like?

I wonder what an ECN on four crucified would look like?

There’s much to do. Lots of prep work. Saddle bags to pack, etc. Wherever that little huckster is, he’s busy.

That phrase seems to be in conjunction with, "how will you learn, unless someone teaches you?" "And what you've been taught is wrong. It's not your fault that you can't go very far. It's not your fault that you are ignorant. Your previous teachers are ignorant. But I will teach you with greater accuracy. I will teach you farther. And that's not all! You will need to be taught the advanced teachings." The irony is that victor paul wierwille taught error. If one chooses to cling and clutch to these errors, one will surely be stuck right where they were taught. All this reliance on teachers is bondage. What Twinky said.