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.

You are not nitpicking. If something doesn't make sense or seems like a leap in logic it should be questioned. Wierwille used the same argument and logic construct. It looks like this. 1: Paul says ....be followers of me 2: Paul says ... what I wrote are the commandments of the Lord 3: Therefore we are "commanded" to follow Paul 4: Paul spoke in tongues 5: Speaking in tongues is "following Paul" 6: Therefore speaking in tongues is a "commandment of the Lord" VPW used this kind of logic when it supported his case. But as almost anyone can see it is seriously flawed. Some of the verses used are unrelated and in a different context. If we follow this course of logic , we must also conclude that it is a commandment of the Lord for us to do everything that Paul did, not just speaking in tongues. This would be absurd.

Christian Research and Fellowship

Hi, I recently sat in on "The Class" offered by CRF which was formerly led by John Hendricks (now deceased). I believe this class was recorded sometime around 1997. The class theme was "To Know God" but it was pretty much a remake / knockoff of PFAL with a few minor deviations. While John Hendricks seemed to make an effort to "make it his own," it was pretty much just PFAL. Four crucified, Paul's thorn in the flesh, and many other PFAL teachings were presented almost exactly as in VPW's original class. Hendricks even honored VPW by using "thaaaaats riiiiight" and "I didn't write the book" on several occasions, but VPW was never mentioned by name. The purpose of this class is get people to speak in tongues. This is because (according to Hendricks understanding of scripture) the only way to know God and to worship God is by speaking in a tongue or in several tongues. As in PFAL, the "Law of believing" is presented as an indisputable and immutable spiritual law that is more reliable than gravity and that it works in the negative just as exactly and indisputably as it works in the positive. Beginning about session 6 or 7 pressure to want to speak in tongues is subtly applied when certain scriptures are tied together and made to imply that is is a commandment of God to speak in tongues, and not to do so is sin. Here's the logic construct used for that. Paul says, "I would that ye all spake with tongues, ..." 1 Cor 14:5 Paul says, "... I speak in tongues more than ye all" 1 Cor 14:8 Paul says, "Be ye followers of me,..." 1 Cor 11:1 Paul says, "the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord" 1 Cor 14:37 Like some others, when it is convenient for shoring up a teaching, Hendricks changes the "I would" in 1:Cor14:5 to "God would". So when Paul says "I" its the same a God saying "I". Therefore it is God's will that "ye all spake in tongues" and that you do it a lot (14:8) Paul says "be ye followers of me" and since what Paul wrote were the "commandments of the Lord" it is God's commandment that we follow Paul and do what Paul did (speak in tongues a lot). And we all know that to break Gods commandments is "sin". Therefore not to speak in tongues a lot is sin. And of course sin separates us from God. So to not speak in tongues (a lot), separates us from God. Of course if we use this kind of logic everywhere in the Bible then we would have a real mess. With this kind of logic I can prove that God himself speaks in tongues. Just change the "I" in 1 Cor 14:8 to God, like it was done in verse 8. If Hendricks can do it one place, I can do it another. right? This is similar to what TWI and others have done with 3 John 1:2. "Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth." The "I" is changed from John the elder writing to Gaius in a personal letter... to God speaking to everyone in a universal declaration of his will. It is therefore not really "John the elder" writing a personal letter to Gaius, (verse 1) but rather God speaking to all, especially Christians. So it is reasoned and concluded that God, more than anything else, wants all Christians to be financially wealthy and to be in perfect health. (Of course this sometimes can only be done by tithing 10-20 percent to the group teaching this) . Will ye rob God? This kind of intellectually dishonest handling of scripture takes a simple and common greeting used in personal letters in NT times, (be well and prosper) and changes it to become the foremost declaration of God's will for all Christians. It then becomes the foundation for a Christian doctrine/dogma of "wealth and health". This doctrine then becomes the center point and focus for those groups, rather than the true Gospel of Christ. In some groups, Jesus Christ is relegated to little more than a name at the end of their prayers for more money, fancy cars, big homes and nice bodies. Gimme Gimme Gimme. Let me be clear here. My point was to show how the scriptures were handled and not to suggest that CRF is a money oriented ministry. I suspect that it is not. (The CRF ministry is now run by one of Hendrick's daughters.) While Hendricks, like Wierwille, did handle 3 John in the same manner, there was only a little talk of personal wealth. Offerings were made available after session 3 and it was made clear that CRF was not a tax deductible charity. Hendrick's & CRF focus seems to be tongues and manifestations ( power) rather than money. And I sensed among those running the class a real desire to help folks "get to know God." They sincerely believe the best way to do that is to run Hendrick's class. Evidence of PFAL and Wierwille's influence is scattered all through this class. There were a few "that's rights" and other VPW sayings mimicked in the preaching parts . Hendricks even tells some of the same stories VPW told in PFAL as if they were his own experiences. He speaks of having been a teacher at an unnamed seminary school ( TWI/Corps) , then in the same manner as VPW he belittles and mocks seminary schools. I don't think any part of TWI can be legitimately be called a seminary. To me that is less than honest and is unnecessary to make the point he was trying to make which was more or less that seminaries teach people that the Bible is flawed and unreliable. It is quite clear that Hendricks was a big believer in the manifestations and in "all 9 all the time" for everyone. Hendricks mentioned changing the weather and even took personal credit for making a major Hurricane change course and miss the area where one of his advanced classes was running. This kind of talk makes me uncomfortable. Of course, it can't really be proven one way or the other, like the snow on the gas pumps. My conclusion: This class (Audio) by John Hendricks is a good remake of PFAL . Mostly the same verses of scripture were used, and it was taught in the same order and same manner. Heteros and allos were handled better. And "all without distinction" was dropped in favor of a term that made more sense. Some of the arguments made by Hendricks were the same (word for word) as those made by VPW in PFAL. Although Hendricks did seem to try to "make it his own", VPW's theological stamp was all over this class. I f you liked and still like PFAL and TWI/VPW style teachings you will probably like Hendrick's class. As for me, I kept what I found to be good (quite a bit) and disregarded the rest (also quite a bit). I'm glad I sat though it, but doubt that I would do it again. Classes and ministries are not or should be about the teacher or leader but rather about the content and the message. To make them about the leaders is carnal. ( 1 Cor 3:4). Hendricks, like VPW and any other person claiming to teach the word "rightly divided" is human and subject to human errors and biases. While they seem certain and confident that what they are teaching is "indisputable", where their reasoning and logic is flawed, any resultant "indisputable truths" based upon that reasoning and logic will also be flawed. They have no more handle upon the truth and no more ability to"rightly divide" the scriptures than anyone else that is honestly trying to understand the Bible , the Word of God, and ultimately "to know God" I have to believe that anyone truly seeking will find, regardless of whose class they take, whose books they read and whose ministry they choose to associate with. Goey

Yeah, I yearn to be back in good old days when Wierwille was boffing naive and vunerable little corps girls in the Motor Coach, Martindale was prancing around in leotards and the "WORD" was moving over the World. Ah yes, the good old days when the vein popping, saliva spewing foot chewings led us to love, humility and a deeper understanding of the Accuracy of the Word. Oh how I wish I was a WOW again, driving a 20 year old car and answering to a 19 year old kid who was ready to drink the Kool Aid. Makes me feel warm and fuzzy all over.

In a certain city in Indiana, sometime in the late 70's, a certain smooth talking musician from a popular Way Band was sent to be Branch Leader. Within days of arriving, he was putting moves on wives, girlfriends, and single women. Quite a few were successfully bedded down within a couple months of his arrival. His "office" was a local bar that he liked to hang out in almost every night. Several husbands and boyfriends became aware of his activities and decided to pay him a visit at his "office". He was told in no uncertain terms that his guitar fingers would be broken and his face rearranged ... if he didn't cease his womanizing among the Way followers. About 1 week later he was suddenly recalled to HQ (so he claimed). Not even a goodbye speech ! Unfortunately his fingers and face were still intact. Goey

Tongues ? Bogus? How dare you ! eh eh eh. It seems to me that tongues is legit for all those who do it. And bogus for those that don't. Personal bias will most likely get in the way of any objective consideration or re-consideration of the practice. Goey's arguable facts. Historically, tongues all but disappeared from very early in Church History. The practice of tongues is not mentioned or debated in any of the Church Councils from Nicea (325ad ) forward. In the second century Irenaeus who was born in Asia Minor ( where Paul founded chuches) and studied under Polycarp had only "heard" of some that may have spoke in tongues. Similarly, Justyn Martyr (died 165ad) had only heard of spiritual gifts. Clearly the practice of tongues as described by Paul had all but ceased by 200 AD. If it was being practiced, it would have been among those known as gnostics or possibly by the Marconites. It was pretty much gone by 300AD. Then, except for some isolated incidents that some considered tongues, the practice didn't show up again until the Pentecostal movement in the late 19th early 20th centuries. And based upon what I have experienced and observed, what the Pentecostals did, and were taught to do In TWI may be two different things. The point here is that we have no standard passed down from the days of Paul that we can compare to modern day tongues, and TWI's version or any other version ... to determine if it is legit or bogus. How can we possibly know? If TWI tongues is legit, does that make the pentecostal version and others bogus ? Or vice versa ? In TWI we were taught that tongues did all kinds of benefical things like build up the spirit, etc. Why would the holy spirit in a person need to be built up? Isn't God's spirit already "perfect" ? Maybe that meant the "spirit of man" which is his soul. Been a long time. Didn't Wierwille go so far as to say in the Advanced Class that "Speaking in tongues is a prerequiste to receiving relevation from God". In other words of you don't speak in tongues (TWI style), God cannnot or will not tell you stuff. That would also imply that almost no one had heard from God for nearly 2000 years until VWP cam along and that today, only a select few can receive any relevation from God. I'm sure that's down to only one or 2 people now. We need to ask Rosalie it there's at least 1 more. IMO whether tongues is legit or not is a matter for the individual to decide. It is not likely that one who practices it and perceives great benefit (whether real or imagined) will even consider the other side of the coin. It is also not likely that one who tried for years and saw no real benefit will be spending hours in the closet speaking in tongues. I have decided that I do not know and that I cannot tell. But it seems to me that if it is legit, it is given way to much weight by many of many of those that teach and practice it. I doub't that a person's spirituality is related to the amount of time they speak in tongues any more so than it is related to amount of time that spend working in a soup kitchen.

Gosh, how many times has a seemingly well meaning newcomer, posted Ephesian 4:31-32 here as a response, (reproof/correction) to what they perceive as our bitterness and unforgiveness towards TWI, VPW, LCM and their actions? Must have been hundreds. Little or no forgiveness here. ? That's an eroneous assumption. What is forgiveness? Mike, does forgiveness preclude the discussion and or exposure of evil ? By your reckoning it would seem to. I suspect that you have confused "forgiveness" with sticking one's head in the sand. You have possibly confused forgiveness with "letting it ride" or some other such notion that suggests that bringing up the past is somehow unforgiving and a sign of bitterness. Not so. Ephesians was written to a legitimate "church" founded by Paul, (a legitimate Man of God"). These verses must be understood in that historical context. In contrast TWI was probably not a legitimate "church" founded by a legitimate Man of God. TWI was corrupt at the top from early on. While the engouragement of Paul to the Ehesians to "forgive one another" is certainly good, I do not think it applies so neatly to the TWI situation. It may not fit like a "hand in a glove". I doubt that the top leader in Ephesus was boinking new young converts in his private tent. I doubt that the top leaders in Ephesus were swapping wives or coercing married women to have sex with them. I doubt that Paul copied the writings of others and claimed that he wrote them as God dictated. I doubt that the "Church" at Ephesus was anything like TWI at all. Without making this a bible discussion or verse quoting session , I'll just say that the scriptures are prettly clear about how we are to view people claiming to be men of God and using that position to do evil. You posted: "I don't think I would be reading the continual rehashing of all the pain, the constant blaming, the incessant vitriol, the never-ending condemnation and self-condemnation, the two decades of failure to cope, if there were some forgiveness. You guys can rise above it. You all still can speak in tongues. Christ still resides in you. What pleasure or satisfaction can there possibly be in staying in the frame of mind I read here?. How presumptious, ignorant and arrogant a statement that is. No one here seeks pleasure in the "frame of mind" you have eroneously projected upon the posters here. No more so than you seek pleasure and comfort in your "holier-than-thou" effort to save us all from our "incessant vitriol". We don't need a savior here. What you deem "incessant vitriol" is not bitterness at all. My guess is that you just can't stand to hear anything bad concerning V.P. Wierweille, so you confuse or misrepresent historical and factual discussion as "incessant vitriol" and you whitewash VPW's plagairism as having "no point" . You mistake the eschewal of evil as "condemnation". Mike, I see more "vitriol" coming from you than from all of the posters here. May I suggest you rethink things a bit? Things here are not what you think they are. Cheers

. Here are some of the "rules" found at http://sowersonline.com/about.aspx The S.O.W.E.R.S. program is full time 24/7. Generally, 4 hours work/ 4 hours study per day. Hmmm, 4 hours work and 4 hours study makes only 8 hours, not 24. What are they not saying about the other 16 hours ? You Way Corps folks know. Endless teachings and meetings till 2 am? Sleep deprivation? .... What ? Various challenging program opportunities and projects. Opportunities ? LMAO. Get prepared to work your butt off building a beautiful facility that you are likely to get banned from after its completed. Wonder if they are putting in a fountain or swimming pool ? A Chalet maybe ? Oh and then when you complete the program, you get to go out and believe for "abundance" for the "ministry." Wonder where and to whom the abundance will go? Hmmmm, does Junior have a job? Any volunteer may be dismissed at any time and/or program cancelled at sole discretion of those charged with oversight. Wow, it must be comforting to know that you can get the boot at any time for any reason at the "sole discretion" of the leaders. No Pets Hmmm. Didn't I see a dog in the photo album? Now don't be such a skeptic Goey. That dog is surely a "working dog" could not possibly be pet owned by a leader.... Could it ? Cheers

What kind of Credit unit is it ...... that offers basically no services and hasn't made a loan in well over 10 years ?

We may have hit upon something by looking at the financial statements of the Way Credit Union. The June 1990 Financial Statement says there are 8,000 "potential members" of the Credit Union The June 1995 statement indicates 4000 "potential members" The June 2000 statement inidcates 1500 "potential members" The June 2005 statement inidcates 1020 "potential members" The June 2008 statement indicates 1012 "potential members" Is this reflective of the number of people or families that donate to TWI ? It certainly tells a story of the decline of "members" in TWI ...... Link: http://www.ncua.gov/indexdata.html Enter 66066 for the Charter Number then click FIND