Goey

What does any of the above have to do with Caiaphas and his prophecy? Anything? Judicial Satisfaction? .... Doctrinal transaction? ....Sound like terms that might be used in a soteriology class for lawyers and computer programmers. . Are you here to dump theological dissertations and opinions? Or are you capable of real human discourse and discussion?

A union with Jesus resurrected life would not be possible unless he first died on the cross . The death of Jesus and his resurrection cannot be separated. It's a package deal, Without the remission of sins through the blood of Jesus on the cross there could be no salvation. Caiaphas was the High Priest. Was it not the High Priest''s duty to offer up sacrificial lamb at Passover? Did Caiaphas as High Priest unwittingly offer up Jesus as the Passover :Lamb?

Caiaphas was a Sadducee and High Priest. and was as evil and corrupt as they come. I doubt that God could get anywhere near his heart or teach him much of anything. Jesus was a threat to the religious, political, and social power of the Jewish leaders, particularly the Sadducees who did not believe in an afterlife and denied the resurrection of the dead. Neither did they believe in consequences or rewards after death. Jesus teachings were in opposition to the beliefs and teachings of the Sadducees. Were the all the people to follow Jesus, both the Sadducees and Pharisees feared they would lose their "place". That Caiaphas could prophesy something real from God and then twist it to aid in the conspiracy of murder should be no big surprise.... and has nothing to do with having a good heart or being teachable. Didn't Balaam prophesy God's words? What happened shortly afterward? Did Caiaphas spin the prophesy and influence the cause for the death of Jesus? Seems pretty clear to me that he did. But wasn't this all God's plan in motion? Goey

Well, The NASB was good enough for King David, Paul and Jesus to read, so it's good enough for me !

I have friends & relatives involved with CRF and about three years ago I sat through the CFR "Class" . The class was clearly modeled after PFAL with a similar format and many of the same teachings, the main difference being Hendricks did the monolog instead of Weirwille. There were a few doctrinal differences from PFAL but not many. They have a different take on "reverse believing" and maybe a few other things. Class sessions began with songs and prayer and ended with songs & "manifestations", typical of a 1970's PFAL class. My take on this group is that, at the top, VP's teachings, as interpreted or modified by Hendricks, are the final say in regards to doctrine. I heard quite bit of "Doctor said this" and, "Doctor said that", and even more "John said this" and "John said that" ... suggesting that what these two men said and taught has authority. I don't recall if I heard any "Jesus saids" or not, but there were few if any. I seriously doubt that there is much Biblical or Theological "research" going on. I did not hear anything about a research team or about a research center which doesn't these don't exist. The doctrine seems to be pretty firm so I am guessing that any "research" has to do with biblical study using the "keys" , but within the framework of the existing doctrine, as laid out by Hendricks. I cannot comment upon organizational structure or the day to day experiences and practices of CRF followers because I never attended a meeting or did anything more than take the class. I can say that I did not see any emphasis upon money during my class experience. The people running the class were kind and cheerful and there were no bite marks or lipstick on the coffee cups.

Ex, I did not intend to project my experience upon anyone. I know there were also many kind souls who wanted to serve God. Unfortunately, they just in the wrong place under leaders with a titled agenda that in effect made that difficult if not impossible .

Hi Raf, SIT was something that really bugged me for quite a few years. There was so much emphasis upon SIT, Revelation,Miracles, Healings, et. al. and so little upon the teachings of Jesus Christ and upon Charity and upon sharing the the true Gospel. With so many banging gongs & tinkling cymbals running around, (I include myself) it's a wonder we didn't all go deaf. Or maybe we did? I think so. I couldn't hear or even entertain the "truth" at times for all the noise. Many of us were seeking "power" via SIT, Prophecy, Revelation, etc to launch us to mogdom, wealth, & celebrity, when we should have been seeking true charity. What I ended up with was frustration, disappointment, questions, and a hard-heart . And I spoke in tongues a lot. Goey - Still a work in progress. Good to hear from you Raf. and you too Exxy.

I faked it. Honestly, after about 6 months in TWI, I had serious doubts about SIT, Prophesy, and the other so-called manifestations as taught by TWI. Looking back I suppose I wanted them to be real, the genuine thing. So I stayed with it, thinking possibly that I was missing something. There was something wrong with me and I just wasn't getting it . Early on, I felt guilty about my doubts since almost everyone else seemed so convinced. I did not express my doubts to anyone for whatever the reasons, but instead promoted SIT as taught by TWI even more emphatically as the real deal. No one ever expressed their doubts to me either. As time when by, I observed that those who were in TWI who SIT a lot ( or claimed they did) , myself included, were not any better off spiritually than anyone else. As more time went by and more observations were made. I finally concluded that SIT ... as taught by TWI was a load of crap. But by this time I was 5 years or more out of TWI. The Bible clearly says that SIT exists or that it at least existed in the early Church. I do not dispute that it may still exits and that somewhere there are folks that may understand it and practice it properly. However, I do not know who or where they are, and honestly am not looking. I don't care. I do not need SIT to be real to have "proof" of being born again or to buiild my spirit or the other things that were taught that SIT did for us. Some of the biggest jerks, meanest people, and phonies I ever knew .... spoke in tongues a lot.

We have biblical accounts of Paul's life and ministry and I think its safe to say he served God quite well. But how can we tell if JL was serving God as he best knew how? We can't. Even so, if the best he knew was wrong and counterfeit then how does that count for much . Guess he gets a reprieve and a kudo for sincerity and zeal? Both changed their minds about certain things ? While very early on while Paul was yet to become a Christian, he certainly changed his mind about Jesus Christ &.Christianity as a part of his conversion ...but what major doctrines did Paul change his mind about AFTER his ministry was in full swing? What counterfeit immutable spiritual laws did Paul once teach as Christian leader .... and then renounce? I can't think of any. I don't get the 14 years comparison unless the "similarity" is supposed to be between Paul's 14 years of learning and JL's 20+ years of teaching false doctrines as a leader and then changing his mind . But again an invalid comparison. Paul was probably not teaching false doctrines during those 14 years. You are "sure" that Paul liked the cheering of the crowd ? How so? What evidence is there of this ? I see no records of Paul having cheering crowds in Acts. Jeering crowds...yes, but no cheering ones. In his writings Paul never mentions that he liked the cheering of the crowd. So how can you be "sure" with absolutely no evidence? 50 percent match? I don't see much past zero percent.

Who really knows where the many talented people involved with TWI might have gone had they not been interfered with by TWI "management". There were many talented folks ...not only in music, but also in art, writing, etc. "Creativity" or artistic freedom was not possible in TWI and many suffered for it. Personally, in my 4- 5 years involvement in TWI, I thought the majority of the music was rather amateurish and poorly produced compared to more mainstream Christian music. But I'm sure the lyrics and melodies were "accurate according to the word". I never understood the glassy-eyed adoration of Good Seed, Pressed Down, et al. I thought they were mediocre at best. Comparing any of these to the Eagles or Crosby, Stills, Nash is a stretch. I did think that Claudette was exceptionally talented and still wonder how she might have done had it not been for TWI. Her rendition of Precious Lord is still the best I have ever heard.

For decades, J.L. willingly and enthusiastically passed out the very counterfeits that he now "teaches" against. Why didn't J.L. include the part where he pushed the counterfeit for years? And if the counterfeit is of the devil as he proclaims, then who was he serving for 20+ years as he passed the counterfeits? By his own reasoning he was serving the devil. Why would anyone give any credence to anything J.L says, one way or the other? It's sad to think that he has any kind of following. As a "spiritual weakling" I was duped in/by TWI for about 4 years and then realized that many of so-called "spiritual laws" were little more than scripture twisting based upon a human created and flawed set of "keys to research", selectively used by a self-proclaimed man-of-God and his obsequious sycophants. J.L. on the other hand, as a trained "spiritual leader" was duped for 20+ years as he promoted these bogus "immutable spiritual laws" that he now exposes as counterfeits. This speaks loudly as to about J.L.'s and other "leaders" historical ability to discern truth from error & good from evil. The collective records are less than exemplary. Some would have us forgive and forget... ignore the past and simply look at the current message, implying ... if not outright saying that not to do so is "judgmental" (as if that is a bad thing). This attitude ignores the likelihood that there may be wolves among the flock and to call a wolf a wolf is somehow wrong ?

Moved to correct thread

Of course forgiveness is possible. Why would be be encouraged to forgive in the Bible if it were not possible ? As I read my Bible, Christian forgiveness is generally conditional upon repentance. Matthew 18: 15 If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16 But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. In The WAY this was pretty much irrelevant because the "church" and its so-called leaders were many times the perpetrators and the source of the sins. This made "forgiveness" a joke. When did a Way Leader ever ask for forgiveness ? When did a Way Leader ever admit sin and show contrition ? I never saw it. Are you still seething, angry or bitter about stuff that happened in The Way years & years ago ? Gotta ask yourself why ? I'm not so sure that forgiveness (in the biblical sense) applies now to those things that happened years ago in a bogus "church" led by exploiters, power seekers and perverts. Some of these people are not worthy of forgiveness. Yet even so, we should not allow them or the memory of their "sins" (regardless of how harmful or atrocious) continue to affect us today in a negative way or even rule our lives.

Wierwille makes an argument and then comes to a conclusion. He then uses that conclusion as part of the premise for the next argument. And so on and on. Wierwille: "By deductive logic, if God is perfect, then the logos, Jesus Christ, has to be perfect. There is an assumption here. The assumption is that God is perfect. How do we know that ? From the scriptures ...what many of us refer to as "the Word". Wierwille concludes that Jesus Christ is perfect because God is perfect. This is an incomplete logical argument as it has only 1 premise and is therefore an "invalid" logical argument. Very sloppy "deductive logic". However, an invalid argument does not necessarily mean a wrong conclusion. My point is to show the flawed logic. But Let's assume that the conclusion is correct. So now we have Jesus is perfect. Wierwille goes on: Wierwille: If God is perfect and Christ is perfect and The Word is given as holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit, then God's Word must be perfect also. This one breaks down like this. Premises 1. God is perfect 2. Jesus is perfect 3. The word was given as holy men were moved by by the Holy Spirit Conclusion: Therefore ... God's Word is perfect As you can see the argument is completely circular. God is assumed to be perfect because the Word says so. And Word is perfect because it came from God. OK, but let's assume the conclusion to be correct in spite if Wierwille's circular and flawed logic. Let's assume that the Word of God is perfect. But Wierwille changes it to the "revealed word of God and says: Wierwille: " so the revealed Word of God is perfect. Consequently the words which make up The Word must also be perfect. Premises: 1. The "revealed Word" is Perfect .. therefore Conclusion: The words which make up The Word must also be perfect. Wierwille goes on to declare (by fiat) that the order of the words must also be "perfect" . What is the "revealed Word"? It is what you get after you apply the "keys" as taught and endorsed by Mr. Wierwille. But that begs the question .... Are these "keys" perfect ? And if they are is is possible for us to use them perfectly? But again ... we have an incomplete logical argument with only 1 premise and at least 2 conclusions. This is not "deductive logic" It is Wierwille declaring the conclusions by fiat. He was blowing logical smoke, and/or he didn't have a clue what deductive logic really is. But again, because the logic is circular and flawed does not necessarily make the conclusion incorrect. However the case is so logically weak that is pathetic ( from a logical prospective). The fact is. that any logical argument to prove either God or the scriptures to be perfect will be circular. But .... why must the "words" be perfect ? Is human language perfect ? Was ancient Hebrew perfect? Or was Koine Greek perfect? Or Arabic ? Are the "Grammars" that tell us how these languages operate perfect ? Are the dictionary definitions perfect? As was touched on before ... what canon is to be used? And was the canon we accept today as "God breathed" selected perfectly? When Paul says to Timothy "All scripture is given by inspiration if God ... was he referring to his own letters? Was Paul saying to Timothy that everything he wrote was "God breathed"... or was he, as the context suggests, referring to the scriptures that Timothy had know from childhood, the Old Testament? It was not for hundreds of years after the apostles were dead and gone that the letters they wrote evolved into being " holy scripture" in the sense of straight from the mouth of God and therefore "inerrant". So anyway ... Wierwille concludes that if one single word is used imperfectly or substituted (pros) then the whole bible falls apart. Might as well chuck the whole thing, eh ? The only thing that falls apart here is Wierwille's logic & resultant theology. Many of Wierwille's core teachings are based upon his use of flawed logic as in the example above. My point being, there is no way to prove the scriptures/Bible to be "inerrant". Wierwille and (many others) demand that the Bible be either inerrant or totally worthless. This is another logical fallacy know as the false dilemma.

Groucho, Rum, Geisha Thanks for the feedback, It seems like quite a few of the men that VPW considered to be good leadership material were hard, abusive, calloused, insensitive, dictator types of questionable intelligence. VPW also seemed to esteem brown-nosed loyalists quite a bit too. What irked me the most about this "class" was that after he taught the "keys" he would abandon them when necessary or convenient. And then after torturing both English and Greek grammar ( to force things to "fit like a hand in a glove" ), would confidently declare his interpretation to be the "indisputable" or "irrefutable" truth ...... (and therefore the rightly divided word of God.) I sensed some pompous arrogance there and imagined that anyone that got in his way would have been run over in one way or another. If you want to know how a MOG or WOG truly is, disagree with them on something trivial and then wait to see if the fangs come out. If they do, run like hell. Hendrick's daughter Rochelle now runs the CRF ministry and I have heard that she is very kind, loving and compassionate.