WordWolf

That's it.

Since I'm 100% sure of my answer, here's the next one. "We don't need no education."

"Unchained Melody", by The Righteous Brothers.

That's it. Too easy?

The further into twi you got, the more powerful "the adversary" became, and the less-powerful God Almighty's protection became. A single thought and "the adversary" could get you, but for God to protect you, you needed to tithe, and do increasingly-longer lists of things, and skipping any one of them would negate His protection. So, the more you gave to twi to get the same coverage against :"the adversary". Consider it "adversary insurance", or consider it "protection money" if you wish.

"Easy, Igor, you impetuous young boy."

I am? Oops. Hang on.

So, most of us, after the 1st session, were told to have "Christians Should Be Prosperous" read before the next session (the book was an argument for tithing to twi). twi also taught "abundant sharing." In twi, the tithe was/is MANDATORY, although the Christian's donations are to be freewill and not "of necessity" (in other words, NOT MANDATORY.) Supposedly, 10 percent is the minimum, less than that and "God won't even spit in your direction." (lcm primarily.) That's "the seed." Donations above 10 percent were called "abundant sharing." This got a bit confusing when the tithe (from the word "TENTH") was raised to 15 percent then 20 percent under lcm. Man, THAT didn't last long..... So, people were encouraged to donate directly to twi above 10 percent. Then there's "plurality giving." Ever heard that term outside of twi? In twi, that meant taking your income, subtracting all you need to live on, and donating the rest directly to twi- as in HQ, NEVER locally. So, you were not supposed to save money for emergencies or investments. You were to trust twi that God would cover you in case of emergencies. As for investments like a house, in practice it was expected that you count on inheritences to give you a house, since otherwise you won't be handing all that cash over to twi. Outside of twi - and possibly ex-twi groups- neither the term nor the concept- are taught. Then again, I haven't checked cults. No Christian denomination teaches it. twi, from the beginning, was organized to turn a profit. Pfal was set up to sell the materials at RETAIL prices, guaranteeing a profit. It was held in homes where the locals covered all expenses. It pushed tithing (see above.) Intermediate was even more egregious about retail prices, since you got almost no materials. ROAs were always priced with everything RETAIL. And so on. Everything either had additional costs that weren't covering an obvious need, or was on its own expense. Want to go WOW? There's a flat fee of $200 that twi keeps- and gives back nothing in exchange. The rest of the fee is for you to find housing where you're assigned. The group is chosen with an eye towards who has a car. twi does not transport the groups, nor pay for gas or housing. Any help with housing is out-of-pocket for LOCALS, who ALWAYS pay the check in twi. And the main goal in WOW is to run pfal classes- which run at a profit for twi and attempt to reel in more suckers to get 10 percent or more of their income.

TW- LIL pg-234. "Then Johnny Townsend, another young man who had the class in the army, came here that summer in 1969. He stayed here two years. Like so many of these young people, he'd rather read than work. He learned the Word, and he learned to work and study here. He'd spoil this, spoil that, and then he'd learn. Now he heads the state of Kansas, and he is the spiritual coordinator of the Western Region." I don't know what the army teaches people about working, but I get the impression that they work pretty hard there, even in peacetime. vpw seems to disagree-at least at this moment.

That's him. Victor Frankenstein is Italian-Swiss. I removed Sting from the list because his character was Dr Frankenstein but was not named "Victor Frankenstein."

That's the thing. It's an instance of someone needing to malign people in the Bible- all to claim they were all weak and venal- so that vpw could be said to fit in their company. Finding the need to libel people in the Bible just to try to give vpw a free pass is remarkable, and happened here, as you can all see. It's also wildly dishonest, but honesty is of lesser importance to cleaning up vpw's image.

If you're skimming when looking for him, and you come across a youth mentioning the Army, slow down and go back a page or so- that was JT.

vpw's entire premise of the Bible interpreting itself was based on a False Dilemma- that there were exactly 2 possibilities AND NO MORE- 1) the Bible had no interpretation 2) the Bible interpreted ITSELF Surely, EVEN IF HE HAD BEEN RIGHT, no "private' interpretation would have meant there was a "PUBLIC" interpretation. (That bugged me a long time ago.) All of that's academic- since vpw was wrong about what that meant. Since he used the archaic KJV's wording, he was able to twist things to sound like they meant what he wanted- even if the Greek was completely different or the Hebrew was. In this case, as GSC regulars know, the verses were talking about HOW WE GOT THE SCRIPTURES, their ORIGIN. They said NOTHING about how we are to approach them. The word "interpretation" was an awful translation- which is obvious when vpw claims that "private interpretation" is "one's own letting-loose like you let loose the dogs on a hunt." There was nothing about "interpreting" in vpw's colorful digression into dogs on a hunt.

It's fascinating how many Bibles Lamsa sold, all to pfal grads who wanted to show other people ONE VERSE in Lamsa's Bible....... a verse that was later shown to be WRONG by twi's own research department! A lot of people thought twi used Lamsa's instead of the KJV. No, but they sure made up most of the sales of that book....

Thank you for confirming that even you consider the instructions accompanying the class to have been vpw's instructions. We've previously brought up that we were told immediately to read "Christians Should Be Prosperous" once that book was added to the pfal curriculum, and we were told- different people in different parts of the country in different decades- to spend several months reading nothing but pfal books. Those instructions weren't part of the taped class because those books didn't EXIST when the tapes were taped. But vpw gave the orders, and that's how it was. As we all knew and now you've confirmed you know.

Mike, you characterized John the Baptizer as "a weirdo." When asked why, you responded with this- which does NOTHING to actually address the question. What's your criteria for classifying John the Baptizer as "a weirdo"? As for my sister, she could use interaction with someone as moral as John. He, if he were alive and working on his ministry now, would have no time for dating. So, why'd you call John the Baptizer "a weirdo", then duck the question when asked why, Mike?

JT was also around pretty early, from not long after vpw hijacked the hippies. Apparently, they recruited him. JT was quoted back in "The Way-Living in Love".

Lamsa wrote it that way. Lamsa was wrong. It's only considered like that among the "Aramaic primacy" fringe element out there. vpw's adoption of "Aramaic primacy" solely on the basis of being exotic and new and fringe was independent of the truth. After thousands of hours of work, the twi research team, sweating over Aramaic texts, ended up with different results than Lamsa. Under "Aramaic primacy", that's not supposed to happen. "Aramaic primacy" is error.

No. This character is definitely not British, no matter who is cast to play him. Julius Caesar's not British, either, but a lot of Brits have played him.

Leonard Whiting Udo Kier Robert Foxworth Colin Clive Jonny Lee Miller Samuel West Raul Julia Kenneth Branagh Aden Young Peter Cushing Alec Newman James McAvoy Cedric Hardwicke Ralph Bates Barrett Oliver Charlie Tahan Patrick Bergin Michael Bell Thomas Kretschmann David Anders Jeff B. Davis Harry Treadaway Benedict Cumberbatch

The last thing about the cloak was something from the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges. "Now, shivering in some gloomy cell under the Palace, or it may be on the rocky floor of the Tullianum, with the wintry nights coming on, he bethinks him of the old cloke and asks Timothy to bring it with him.’ He quotes also the letter of Tyndale, the translator of the English Bible, from his prison in the damp cells of the Vilvoorde: ‘I entreat your Lordship, and that by the Lord Jesus, that, if I must remain here for the winter, you would beg the Commissary to be so kind as to send me, from the things of mine which he has, a warmer cap … I feel the cold painfully in my head.… Also a warmer cloke, for the one I have is very thin.… He has a woollen shirt of mine, if he will send it. But most of all … my Hebrew Bible, Grammar and Vocabulary, that I may spend my time in that pursuit. William Tyndale.’" In comparable situations, relatively modern men have requested a warm cloak/overcoat. If Paul was a man, a living, breathing, real man, surely he had use for a warm overcoat as well. With Tyndale, it's easy to see, but somehow, all the rules are off when it comes to people in the Bible- they aren't believed to react how a normal person would in the exact same circumstance. OVER-complicating, OVER-thinking, is a side-effect of always seeking some OCCULTED meaning, some SECRET meaning, when a normal read renders everything plain.

"What about Paul's cloak?" KJV II Timothy 4:13 "The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments." NASB II Timothy 4:13 "When you come, bring the overcoat which I left at Troas with Carpus, and the books, especially the parchments." What about Paul's cloak? Elliott's Commentary for English Readers: "The cloke that I left at Troas.--The apparently trivial nature of this request in an Epistle containing such weighty matter, and also the fact of such a wish on the part of one expecting death being made at all, is at first a little puzzling. To explain this seemingly strange request, some have wished to understand by "the cloke" some garment St. Paul was in the habit of wearing when performing certain sacred functions: in other words, as a vestment; but such a supposition would be in the highest degree precarious, for nowhere in the New Testament is the slightest hint given us that any such vestment was ever used in the primitive Christian Church. It is much better to understand the words as simply requesting Timothy, on his way, to bring with him a thick cloak, or mantle, which St. Paul had left with a certain Carpus at Troas. Probably, when he left it, it was summer, and he was disinclined to burden himself in his hurried journey with any superfluous things. Winter was now coming on, and the poor aged prisoner in the cold damp prison, with few friends and scant resources, remembered and wished for his cloak. It is just such a request which the master would make of his disciple, who, knowing well the old man's frail, shattered health, would never be surprised at such a request even in an Epistle so solemn. Then too St. Paul, by his very wish here expressed, to see Timothy, as above discussed, hopes against hope that still a little while for work in the coming winter months was still before him, though he felt death was for him very near; no forger of the Epistle had dreamed of putting down such a request." ================== Was it a cloak/overcoat, or some bookcase? cloak φαιλόνην (phailonēn) Noun - Accusative Masculine Singular Strong's 5341: A mantle, cloak. By transposition for a derivative probably of phaino; a mantle. Nearly every version seems to have it-correctly- as a cloak/overcoat (for the modern reader who isn't sure what a "cloak" is). Expositor's Greek New Testament. "τὸν φελόνην: The φελόνης, or φαιλόνης, by metathesis for φαινόλης, was the same as the Latin paenula, from which it is derived, a circular cape which fell down below the knees, with an opening for the head in the centre. (So Chrys. on Php 2:30; Tert. De orat. xii.). The Syriac here renders it a case for writings, a portfolio, an explanation noted by Chrys., τὸ γλωσσόκομον ἔνθα τὰ βιβλία ἔκειτο. But this is merely a guess suggested by its being coupled with βιβλία and μεμβράνας." Cambridge Bible For Schools and Colleges: "13. The cloke] Vulg. ‘penulam.’ The oldest use of the word is traced back beyond the Latins nearly to the time of Alexander the Great, in a fragment of a Doric poet, Rhinthon (Julius Pollux Onomast. vii. 60). Hence the Latin must have adopted it from the Greek, not vice versa. The Roman paenula was a travelling cloak, long, and thick, and sleeveless, made generally of wool, sometimes of leather. Cf. Mart. xiv. 145 paenula gausapina, xiv. 13 paenula scortea." So, those who know the word translate it a cloak, and there's some SPECULATION by those that do NOT know the word that it's some sort of book-case or other container for a book.

BTW, his idea of "seed of the serpent" never worked on paper, and I was aware of that from my first pfal. First of all, they've supposedly been around long before John the Baptist and Jesus, but they're a counterfeit of the post-Pentecost experience. Second, they indicate a "PERMANENT" placement of a devil inside a person, as in it's imprisoned in the person and can't leave until the person dies. That's an enormous jump to make- and all of it without any Scriptural justification. As for everyone he disliked being possessed, none of them evidenced any behavior like seen in the Bible- having no ability to think without a devil taking over, attempted suicide and self-harm becomes routine, etc.

BTW, there have been some threads about lcm in the past. Here's 2 of them. https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/9753-martindale-as-wierwilles-heir/ https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/6468-who-was-l-craig-martindale/

That's the same victor paul wierwille who went to Haight-Ashbury to hijack the Christian hippies of the House of Acts to be his sales force for pfal. While he was there, he spoke privately with J1m D00p. vpw asked J1m what it was like to be at an orgy. J1m mentioned having arrived at one once, leaving quickly. While they were on this subject- which vpw continued discussing, which made J1m uncomfortable- vpw said this on the subject of ORGIES and PARTICIPATION IN ORGIES. "You know, that's all available." He rationalized this by quoting I Corinthians 7:1, which says "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. "He said that if God had not wanted it available, 7:1 would have said "best" and not "good." So, that was how vpw told J1m that God Almighty was all right with ORGIES and PARTICIPATION IN ORGIES. J1m disagreed and said he was glad he was free of that whole scene. He later wondered about the incident, and thought he must have been mistaken somehow in what vpw had said, since it was so obviously and blatantly wrong, to say the least. So, don't think those are isolated statements= in the mindset of vpw, it was all of one piece to say God Almighty was ok with participation in orgies, and sex with someone other than your spouse, and molesting the flock (he also had no problem drugging them, but I'm not aware of any justification he used for that.)