I don't see anything new there... Dr. Wierwille said decades ago that we were labelled a cult because we didn't believe in the trinity.
Can you imagine that there are some folks who actually think we were a satanic cult? It is mind boggling what some of these people actually believe.
Would they say the same about Judiasm? Are they satanic because they don't believe that Jesus is God Almighty?
Of course not! But they have no problem trashing their Christian brethren, we who believe Jesus is God's only begotten Son, the Messiah, the returning the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.
So much for exhalting Satan.
You know, I think this just demonstrates how kooky and extreme some of these trinitarians are.
In a way, I have to agree with Oldies on a lot of this..
I remember debating with people in the seventies and early eighties.. they seemed to have an irrational kind of concern, but they didn't have a clue of what vey doctine was about. I thought they were out of their minds. They would say things like "so you don't believe that Jesus is the son of God.." Nor did they know what day to day life was really like for a follower.. no, we didn't sacrifice babies or small animals. As far as I knew, they didn't at headquarters either.
With who's in charge there now, it wouldn't suprise me though..
I think debating doctrine only fuels the us versus them mentality. It only seems to polarize the two camps. The real issues are abuse and worse. Seems like if you debate, you lose. The guy that started the thread seems to have an issue with being right. It almost has the feel of one of loy's rants, minus the obscenities.
An 8.5 by 11 glossy of the mogster with his pants down would have been worth over a thousand words. I think something like that would be far more effective in persuading somebody to leave the organization..
"see, maybe he can teach the bible, but a pervert is still a pervert.."
I saw a discussion of the trinity but nowhere did I see anyone declare themself to be a trinitarian.
And anyway, so what if they had? Does that automatically make them a "kook" or "extremist"?
Does being a trinitarian invalidate anything else you might present?
Think twice before you answer that last question.
Bishop KC Pillai was a trinitarian. So was Bullinger.
Are you prepared to label them as "kooks" and "extremists"?
Was The Way a Satanic cult?
I don't know. Neither do you.
I do know, however, that they were/are a cult by the definition that is generally accepted by most of the non- TWI world.
VPW once said that the "world" considered us a cult because we rejected the trinity.
It is my suggestion that the "world" called us a cult because that's what we were.
You have seen people recount experiences that just don't happen in Godly organizations. Would a Godly organization suggest that you STONE your children or toss them out of a moving car?
I'm glad that your experience was not as extreme or damaging as some that have been posted here.
That doesn't in any way justify what many here have had to endure.
Please don't minimize the significance of others' experiences
Back when I was first involved, some folks thought TWI was a cult because of the doctrine, some because of the alleged behavior. In my opinion most anti-cult, anti-TWI people back in those days undermined their credibility by getting the doctrine wrong, and in most cases getting the behavior wrong.
You know, I think this just demonstrates how kooky and extreme some of these trinitarians are.
No, it demonstrates how kooky and extreme ant-cult people can be when they are ignorant of the facts. Being a trinitarian doesn't make one kooky (yes I know you said "some") nor is kookiness in this field limited to those who doctrinally disagree.
In my opinion, Wierwille enjoyed the attention of anti-cult fanatics. It helped fuel his contention that it was us against the (evil) world.
Is the link no longer working? I saw the thread earlier but I don't see it now.
BTW,
IMO twi's practices and beliefs stifle people's relationship between them and God. I would consider that satanic. Unless satanic has some specific meaning I'm unaware of.
Ah, yes. Rick Ross. Bill collector and convicted felon (diamond heist) turned self-proclaimed "cult expert." He was consulted as such by the FBI during the Waco standoff. We all saw how well that worked out.
Belle: The following statement isn't directed toward you or to anyone who's posted in this thread, but I have to say that when I see anyone giving any credibility to people like this mercenary bottom feeder, it concerns me that their gullibility level is still way too high to be healthy.
Do a search of Rick Ross and deprogramming. You can skip all the obviously biased sites, like Scientology's and just check out the ones that simply state the facts. Rick Ross, and people like him, give me the major creeps.
It occurs to me that the pagans and wiccans among us could very easily attract the attention of someone of Rick Ross's ilk, if their parents aren't happy with their religious path. Or a Jewish family might give the so-called "exit counsellors" a call if their adult child decides to enter a monastery.
More dangerous, IMO, than groups like twi are groups that kidnap people and do their best to force them to relinquish their religious beliefs, no matter how distasteful those beliefs may be to the kidnap victim's family and/or friends.
Let's see, what WAS on the thread that they considered too controversial to let exist once we were
aware of it?
(Google cache, I choose you!)
==================
Could not find A thread on "The Way" But would like to say I live around Dayton Ohio and the Ways Splinter Groups is Very large and growing every day. If there is another thread on the Way here please contact me asap.
This Sect is very very DANGEROUS, They appear to be Christians, but in turn they are a Satanic Cult, going against almost every thing The Bible Teaches. Brainwashing people out of the truth. They use Koine Greek, Aramaic texts, Textural critizeism.
If you or someone you know has been effected by The Way, I want to tell you there is people that do believe
"The Word of God is The Will of God"
and can help. There is life outside of Vp Wierwille's teachings.
Contact me we can have Fellowship, I do Care about the accuracy of the Word. I will spent time with you on any topic you feel comfortable with. Maybe you are stuck with some of the old WAY teachings ? Post a question.
I have sat under PFAL, Researched "Jesus Christ is not God 1971:72 Ed ", 'God's Magnafied Word", " Jesus Christ our Passover, " Are the Dead Alive Now", "Also'(Ew Bullanger), Many more.
Let me say Wayers or Ex-Wayers offten say
"They Cannot Defend there Case"
Well let me say that is a lie. You will find more detail outside the Way than in. If you take the time to see what the other side has to say you will cash in your chips if you are Meek to Receive James 1:21. Remember: Receive, Retain, Release? Are you ready to receive ?
There is a very detailed teacher in Koine/Mod. Greek Today And published his book in 1967 "WAS CHRIST GOD" (Dr. Spiros Zodhiates) , Wierwille book "Jesus Christ Is Not God" 1971:72. (Dr. Victor Paul Wierwille)
I have a audio copy of "Was Christ God" this is a tool of correction, you can hear the words pronounced properly and would love to let you hear and see what you think. I am Contacting AMG Intl About the Sharing of this audio on the Web so any one who has been effected by VP. Wierwille you can hear and see what Wierwill hid from you. And you will see Wierwille Did not even Know Greek Whatsoever. It is good to know a little Greek and his name is Spiros Zodhiates.
Maybe you want A one on one discussion, Cool Drop me a e-mail. Or post on this thread.
===================================
Well like to put this on the thread so it can be viewed by others that may have the same question.
"kia Theos een o Logos"
*Notice the order in Greek. not the same as in Eng.
"and God was the Word" Kjv.
*Now look at v2
"Hutos een en archee pros tou Theou
In Kjv
"The same was in beginning with God.
Now together
"and the Word was God the Same was in beginning with God"
*Wierwille showed us to follow the pronouns to the Noun.
"The Same" in Eng. grammar Is applied to "God"
Now this is 100% correct in Eng.
Now let us see what Wierwille hid from us or maybe he did not know?
The Greek word "hutos" is a personal Adjective in 1st person sing. Form.
"and God was the Word "This Person" was in beginning with God"
Lit Trans. ( from the Greek)
This makes "the Word" a person, not an Idea or speech. if Wierwille was right in his clams we would see "Touto" (impersonal Adjective.)- not "Hutos"(personal Adj.)
See this is how we get to the Rightly Divided Word of God, The accuracy of the Scriptures. "Study to show yourself approved unto God"... Yo should know that Verse.
Email me for Questions your identity will be confidential.
================================
*What does The accuracy, the Rightly Divided Word (logos) of God
Teach, that "HE" in V-3 is " Who "
*Was Dr. Wierwille accurate or did he poorly Divide John 1
(see JCNG Book and Dr's Transl. according to usage.)
*Logos is a Big Word now is it not? Now we see the Logos is a person in Jn 1:-v2). We must look at him (Logos) in Context.
A) In the beginning was" thee Word"
B) and "thee Word" was with God
C) and God was "thee Word'
v-2) "He" was in the beginning with God
* Now clearly the subject is "thee Word" in all 3 clauses.
v-3) All things were made by "him": and without "him"
was not anything made that was made.
*Now who is subject in the entire context ?
* Remember Dr. Wierwille Said the Immediate context must flow with
the remote context.
V 4) In "him" was (Had Been) Life:
* in "him" had always been the life see "een"(was) in the Imperfect Tense. (we do not have this in Eng. so it would be hard to Translate this word in Eng.) "een" is an Eternal Verb in this Context.
"Literal Translation according to usage". *Jesus Christ not God Pg.91
"In the beginning (before the creation) God was the word, and the revealed word was in God's foreknowledge (witch was later communicated to man in spoken words, written word and incarnate word) This Word absolutely was in the beginning before the foundation of the world together with the one true God in his foreknowledge yet distinctly independent of him." The Way Intl.
I wanted to post so we will not forget to look it up. and give them a chance to defend there case Some of the Way or ex-wayer's do not know Dr. Wierwille went so far to "Literally" add so many words to just 1 verse.
1) Where is the word support for "Foreknowledge" ?
*Did not Wierwille tell us, when the Translators add to the word we no
longer have a Translation but Mens Tradition ?
(Power for Abundant living )
* Wierwille also told us in PFAL
HOW THE WORD INTERPRETS ITSELF
All scripture interprets itself:
!. In the verse
2. In the context
3. used before
1) Where is the word support for "Foreknowledge" In the Verse?
2) Where is the word support for "Foreknowledge" In the context ?
3) According to Wierwille's own Theology
this is a bunch of Mens Traditions,
because there adding to the Word.
and here he is guilty.
So are we going to move up to the accuracy of the Rightly Divided Word ?
God Bless !
===================
Now you got my att. It has to fit Jr. how does that fit with Heb. 1:2
"God created the world For(Dia in Acc.) Christ..." ?????
IT HAS TO FIT LIKE A HAND IN A GLOVE You remember that jr.
That does not fit, What about the Aramaic????? Jr. you will see Dr. had the accuracy, look at Est. Aramaic and at Psh.text
====================
It is nice that you came forward John. Can you tell us something about yourself? If not that is ok.
Let us get into the Word
v-1) God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets.
v-2) Hath in these last days spoked unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, "dia" whom he also made the worlds.
* "Dia" needs to be "accurately divided" here .
Is Dia in Acc. Case ?
according to Wierwille in JCNG 1st Ed. when dealing with Heb.1:2. "dia' is.
If this is correct then the Father made the world on account of His Son. And his Son did not Create the world.
So let us use Wierwills rule of grammar in trying to divide Heb.1:2
"Dia"-=On account of, The aim of purpose "For".
*Let us use Dr. Wierwilles definition of "dia", in another context, and flip the grammar to Acc. when it is in Gen., see if it makes any sense to you
2 COR.1:14,15
And in this confidence I was minded to come unto you before that, you might have a second benefit; And to pass "for" you into Macedonia, and to come out of Macedonia unto you To be Brought on my way toward Judea.
* It is clear this "dia" is not in Accusative here. Because the Context forbids it for one thing (also the accuracy of Greek grammar). So we are "Forced" into saying this"dia" is in Genitive.
So now look at Dr. Wierwills definition for "Dia" In 1st JCNG when he accurately divides "dia" in JN 1:3
"All things were made "dia" him and without him was not anything made that was made."
Wierwille accurately divides here and taught. " dia" is in Gen. Case. "through, by way of, by means of, the cause of action."
because he feels no threat here prying with the English grammar, so that when he gets here,(following Pronouns) he can apply it to the Father. But he ignores the Subject of the Context "O Logos".
So if we use Greek grammar in V3 to try prove the case, and again in Heb.1:2 we use Greek grammar to divided it. We "must" accept Greek all the way baby lock, stock, and barrel. And we clearly see, that in the opening of this thread. "o logos" is a" hutos' in the Greek.
Remember Dr. taught in order to, "accurately divide" 'lambano, dechomai You must look at them only in the "holy spirit field".
Notice how "dia" is used in creation accounts what do we see?
We seen how it is used in Heb 1:2,And in JN 1:3.
Look at it in Col.1:16
For in(en) him were all things created that are in the heaven, and that are in the earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, principalities, or powers: all things were created "dia" him and "eis" him.
* Now notice the Greek words here, (cf.Kjv.)
"dia" is in a creation account again " WHO IS THE CONTEXT". Regardless if this a figure of speech here in Col. or not, the Context around this Prep. "dia " proves the case again, "dia" is in Gen.case in Heb1:2 and leads us back to the accuracy, that "all things were made by means of Christ"
because there is ample evidence, that the accuracy in the Greek teaches,
"all things were made by means of Christ Jesus"
So that still leaves with another Question, What about the Aramaic ?
The next thread we will Look at it
=========================
You have something else in mind ? Or did you see problems with the way it was divided ? if so you will need a good "Greek" Concordance.
But you are still stuck with the fact "you must accept" The Koine Greek "NT". is inspired " by instrument of means " of The "Father", to get the rightly divided " Word of God. "
See I want you to know I believe that " it has to fit ",
and you are Just as concerned as me. about the "accuracy of the Scriptures".
And we both agree "the Word of God is the will God"
Let us look at this, Wierwille taught that the New Test was inspired in Aramaic but he tries to prove his "case" in "Greek" many times. Either it is "Greek" or "Aramaic" ?
Notice how Loy Craig Martindale, And Dr. Victor Paul Wierwille, John D. Hendricks, taught how. "the Churches got their Trinity",
" From Council of Nica 325 Ad." (this ia a Watchtower Teaching).
Many Ex-Way followers go on about how:
There is no manuscript support for "Koine Greek" Until after The Council of Nica in 3:25 AD. and the Catholic Church was merging with the Pagan's, and the translators Deliberately "forged the Word" This is how "I" see it MT 28:19 is a "Forgery" Because of men and there "Foul Mouth", "there evil to the bone" ( Father and Son Saviors by Hendricks ).
Now let us keep this in mind and say:
where is the Text support for the Eastrungelo Aramaic "before the Council of Nica" ? (Eastrungelo Aramaic 4th Cent. Check it out I did)
So "aaaaannnnttt" (as the sound from the game show sounds as you miss).
*But Rick Heeter President of "The Ryburn Christian Clarion" A Cult News letter in Every Montgomery County Library. This Ex-Wayer, claims "they just have not found them yet"
(he is saying in short koine Greek is a "counter fit")
So if you still accept the theory "no Greek Text before Nica".
Research it, see if that statement is true. But I will tell you one thing you will not be able to do it unless you, are hungry, and meek to receive , and able to retain with confidence, " You cannot release with boldness "
This is too easy for a Person as your self:
Are a researcher ? If so how can you be let down by
"Inaccuracy of Men"
Not caring about
The "accuracy" in " God's-Breathed Word "
So now we will look at Dr. Lamsa the "Aramaic Scholar" and we know what DR Wierwille Sad about him now don,t we
Did you Know Dr. Lamsa And Dr. Wierwille had a fall out. You know what about "misuse of Aramaic, "Customs", "Manners", "Phrases". Like in Phil.2, Well any way. Let us Get in to
Dr. Lamsa's Translation of the "Pedangta" Text
John 1:1:1-2
"THE Word was in The beginning, and that very Word was with God, and God was that Word The same was in the beginning with God."
*Notice the order of the words here how Dr. Lamsa uses his superior knowlege in the "Pedangta Airamaic "
(In this area) that he seen "God was that Word". And places the Words "accurately in order". Dr. Lamsa Was honest with this, and put the order of words "correctly" in his Translation of the Pedangta. Let us look at this part so you see what I am looking at here. This Translation Is Way more "accurate" in the "order" of the word's than most.
..."And God was that "Word the same" was in the beginning with God.
(Emph. added)
Look at "Dr. Lamsa's" Lit. from Pedangta Aramaic.
Heb. 1:1-2
'FROM out of old God spoke to our Fathers by the Prophets in all manner in all ways: and in his latter days he has spoken to by his Son.
v-2) Whom he had appointed hear of all things, and by ( the instrument of means) whom he also made the worlds. (Emph. added)
*Notice the use of the word "by" here Again, Dr. Lamsa uses his superior knowledge in the "Pedangta Airamaic "
"I admire your research Jr. I have been Digging it to. You attacking my faith. But i still see no threat, regardless of what you have been taught by "mens traditions". think about it Jr. if Christ is God how can he be tempted.
In Heb.4:15 "was in all points tempted as us yet without sin",
but in James 1:13 "God cannot be tempted" See Dr.Wierwille was making the word fit like a hand in a glove. This is one of the problems, you can not make it fit like that because here is a counterdiction in The Christ God thing.
======================
Well Let's Get into the " Accuracy of the rightly divided "
RECEIVE with meekness
RETAIN with Confidence.
RELEASE with boldness
Let us see if we can "dialegatol"(reason). like Paul did with the Jews Acts 17
You bring up a good point glad you did. again I say to you The "Greek" has the answers here too. I know this is taught by Ex-Wayer's but there not hungry for it, or meek to receive. or "they" would have found it by now.
But I think you will move up to the "accuracy".
Let us look at two Greek words translated "Tempted"
Quote:
Apeirastos
This is the word for
Quote:
cannot be tempted
in James 1:13
It is from the Prep. (prefix). "apo" and it is in the Gen. case here.
"apo" here in Gen. is "governing this word "peirazo"
so this is a compound word in Greek. translated "tempt" in Eng.
"Apo" in Gen= the instrument of means, the cause of action, by way of, through, by. It works something like "Ek"= "out of" When in the Gen.
James 1:13
Let no man say when he is tempted, he is tempted of God: for "God "cannot be tempted" with evil, neither tempteth he any man."
"God cannot be "aperrastos" with evil,"
"aperrastos" is a driv. of "peirazo"
now the Eng. Kjv will throw you off track here. Because you do not see "apo" carried over correctly to our understanding here.
does this make any sense if we translate with "apo" in the Eng ?
"Let no man say when he is "peirazo", he is "peirazo" of God: for "God "aperrastos" with evil, neither "peirazo" he any man."
So ask yourself how do we Transl. it ?
See how "accurate God's-Breathed Word" is in Koine GK. The "pnuma hagion" knew that this would delete "MEN AND THERE TRADITION"
the usage of this word cluster ,"aperrastos" here, tells us temptation does not come "by means" of God.
Theos, Elohim, YHWH, Pnuma, can be "peirazo"
Heb. 415 what Greek word do we see here?
"Was in all points "peirazo" like as without sin"
Applied to "Thee Holy Spirit":
Acts 5:9
Then Peter said unto her, how is it that you have agreed to "peirazo"
"ho pnuma Kurios". notice the order of Greek words
("ho" same as "0").
God Bless
============================
Now I would like to take the time here, to tell you of a lot of "Ex-Wayer's"
have started a lot of offshoots of the "Way Intl." They will tell you "We are not in" the Way" or we do not fellowship with them. they are very careful in hiding "The Way International" from young converts, because there is a thing called "the Internet".
Not long ago I was at a PFAL class and I said "the way is not correct in this" I noticed the reaction "sssshhhhh" the leader said in a low voice looking at me, with his back turned toward the Young Potential Convert (which was a 50-60 year old man)
Here I want to say that the term "Ex-wayer" does not mean there "now Christian" and seen the "light". But they do not Fellowship regularly with the "Way International", And still hold to the Dr. VP. Wierwille's "butchering" of the Word.
Now here is "some" Ex-Wayer Web sites
...........WARNING THESE GROUPS ARE A DANGEROUS NON CHRISTIAN CULT'S
If you are Not stable in Christian Teaching you should Stay Out of these links
If you belong to a Cult Awareness Group add these to the "DANGER" List
I can't speak to most of those sites, but to call Overbey's' Word Centered Productions', 'dangerous' is almost as funny as his 'Glad' magazine used to be.
Linda, thanks, I did not know that about Rick Ross - I really just came across the site & thread doing a search for therapists who specialize in cult recovery. The section on his site where he brags about lawsuits filed against him by certain groups was eerily reminiscent of someone who would come on here and do the same thing.... So, while I did not put much stock into Rick Ross himself, he did not participate in the discussion on the thread I linked to. I just thought it was an interesting dialog....
What gets me is how people use doctrine, like trinitarian or not, to label a group as a cult, satanic or what have you.... It's the practices that go with those doctrines that are dangerous, not necessarily the doctrine themselves, imo. Steve Hassan's definition utilizes the BITE model - controlling Behavior, Information, Thought, Emotion Controls.... Doctrine is a very, very small part of what makes a group a cult.
I am quite literal when it comes to labeling a group or an individual as Satanic or a Satanist.
Satanic groups are those who actively worship Satan and repudiate Heavenly Father as the personage deserving of worship. A Satanist is a person who worships Satan as his/her Lord and repudiates Heavenly Father as a personage deserving of worship.
An atheist is not a Satanist because they do not worship Satan
An Agnostic is not a Satanist because the do not worship Satan
Non-Chrisitians are not Satanist nor are their belief systems Satanic UNLESS they worship Satan
Christians who are not trinitarians are not Satanists becasue they do not worship Satan.
Christians who are trinitarians are not Satanists becasue they do not worship Satan
Pagans etal are not Satanists unless Satan worship is what they practice in their form of paganism
This idea that if you aren't a Christian and the correct kind of Chrsitian to boot, you are automatically in Satan's camp defies common sense as well as being scriptually unsound. "neither hot nor cold......." Clearly Heavenly Father recognizes that there is a whole bunch of lukewarmism in the world. That is not saying that God is happy with lukewarm because he clearly isn't, but is also is clear that a distinction is made between luke warm and being part of the "enemy" camp.
I am quite literal when it comes to labeling a group or an individual as Satanic or a Satanist.
Satanic groups are those who actively worship Satan and repudiate Heavenly Father as the personage deserving of worship. A Satanist is a person who worships Satan as his/her Lord and repudiates Heavenly Father as a personage deserving of worship.
An atheist is not a Satanist because they do not worship Satan
An Agnostic is not a Satanist because the do not worship Satan
Non-Chrisitians are not Satanist nor are their belief systems Satanic UNLESS they worship Satan
Christians who are not trinitarians are not Satanists becasue they do not worship Satan.
Christians who are trinitarians are not Satanists becasue they do not worship Satan
Pagans etal are not Satanists unless Satan worship is what they practice in their form of paganism
This idea that if you aren't a Christian and the correct kind of Chrsitian to boot, you are automatically in Satan's camp defies common sense as well as being scriptually unsound. "neither hot nor cold......." Clearly Heavenly Father recognizes that there is a whole bunch of lukewarmism in the world. That is not saying that God is happy with lukewarm because he clearly isn't, but is also is clear that a distinction is made between luke warm and being part of the "enemy" camp.
Maybe just call them devilish. Or blind followers.
Recommended Posts
Lizzy
Thank you, Belle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I don't see anything new there... Dr. Wierwille said decades ago that we were labelled a cult because we didn't believe in the trinity.
Can you imagine that there are some folks who actually think we were a satanic cult? It is mind boggling what some of these people actually believe.
Would they say the same about Judiasm? Are they satanic because they don't believe that Jesus is God Almighty?
Of course not! But they have no problem trashing their Christian brethren, we who believe Jesus is God's only begotten Son, the Messiah, the returning the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.
So much for exhalting Satan.
You know, I think this just demonstrates how kooky and extreme some of these trinitarians are.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
In a way, I have to agree with Oldies on a lot of this..
I remember debating with people in the seventies and early eighties.. they seemed to have an irrational kind of concern, but they didn't have a clue of what vey doctine was about. I thought they were out of their minds. They would say things like "so you don't believe that Jesus is the son of God.." Nor did they know what day to day life was really like for a follower.. no, we didn't sacrifice babies or small animals. As far as I knew, they didn't at headquarters either.
With who's in charge there now, it wouldn't suprise me though..
I think debating doctrine only fuels the us versus them mentality. It only seems to polarize the two camps. The real issues are abuse and worse. Seems like if you debate, you lose. The guy that started the thread seems to have an issue with being right. It almost has the feel of one of loy's rants, minus the obscenities.
An 8.5 by 11 glossy of the mogster with his pants down would have been worth over a thousand words. I think something like that would be far more effective in persuading somebody to leave the organization..
"see, maybe he can teach the bible, but a pervert is still a pervert.."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Oldies
I read through the posted thread.
I saw a discussion of the trinity but nowhere did I see anyone declare themself to be a trinitarian.
And anyway, so what if they had? Does that automatically make them a "kook" or "extremist"?
Does being a trinitarian invalidate anything else you might present?
Think twice before you answer that last question.
Bishop KC Pillai was a trinitarian. So was Bullinger.
Are you prepared to label them as "kooks" and "extremists"?
Was The Way a Satanic cult?
I don't know. Neither do you.
I do know, however, that they were/are a cult by the definition that is generally accepted by most of the non- TWI world.
VPW once said that the "world" considered us a cult because we rejected the trinity.
It is my suggestion that the "world" called us a cult because that's what we were.
You have seen people recount experiences that just don't happen in Godly organizations. Would a Godly organization suggest that you STONE your children or toss them out of a moving car?
I'm glad that your experience was not as extreme or damaging as some that have been posted here.
That doesn't in any way justify what many here have had to endure.
Please don't minimize the significance of others' experiences
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Back when I was first involved, some folks thought TWI was a cult because of the doctrine, some because of the alleged behavior. In my opinion most anti-cult, anti-TWI people back in those days undermined their credibility by getting the doctrine wrong, and in most cases getting the behavior wrong.
No, it demonstrates how kooky and extreme ant-cult people can be when they are ignorant of the facts. Being a trinitarian doesn't make one kooky (yes I know you said "some") nor is kookiness in this field limited to those who doctrinally disagree.In my opinion, Wierwille enjoyed the attention of anti-cult fanatics. It helped fuel his contention that it was us against the (evil) world.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Is the link no longer working? I saw the thread earlier but I don't see it now.
BTW,
IMO twi's practices and beliefs stifle people's relationship between them and God. I would consider that satanic. Unless satanic has some specific meaning I'm unaware of.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lizzy
I wonder if the thread was deleted because the link was posted here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nottawayfer
BINGO!!!!
I remember hearing people brag that twi was the fastest growing cult in the nation. What pride is in that statement? It's just plain ignorant.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Anyone notice-when it was up-that among the twi offshoots, they listed twi?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I consider the trinity outrage to be a ridiculous diversion that drew attention from the
REAL talking-points.
Quite a few Christians are quite levelheaded and won't label their fellow Christians as Satanic
for disagreeing with them-even if it's for being on "the wrong side" in discussions on the
Trinity.
All it takes, however, is a few extremists, and they get all the attention.
You are aware that there were at LEAST a few nuts in twi down the years, right?
I've heard amazing accounts here about some fellow corps members from some of
the corps grads. One guy prepared to go assassinate someone because vpw or lcm
said someone should kill him. (The suggestion of a leader, in his mind, was tantamount
to a command, after all, which IS what vpw taught. The leader suggested it, so
it was commanded.)
Another guy, when needing to take a bathroom break during a long lcm teaching,
elected to stay seated on a bench instead, relieving himself in his pants rather than
get up.
Others thought it was ok to beat kids with sticks (wooden spoons) until they were 1/2
unconscious, or until they drew blood, or for 1/2 an hour.
Even if those were all the nuts in twi, there were quite a few of those.
Now, if a normal person sees THEM and thinks they're REPRESENTATIVE of the AVERAGE
twi-er, then it would be small wonder they thought twi'ers were nuts.
On the other hand,
if your impression of other Christians is based on some of the people who claim that
twi was satanic, that Dungeons and Dragons is satanic, that Harry Potter is satanic,
that rock and roll is satanic, etc, etc.
then your impression would naturally be that THEY were nuts.
=========
Me, I agree with those that say vpw LIKED that people like that were outspoken and
existed. It made him look better that he could contrast himself with that,
and he could pretend they were the AVERAGE Christian,
and thus that the choices were between people like THAT and twi,
with twi being the only sane ones.
Or, to borrow a phrase, if nuts like that didn't exist, vpw would have had to invent
them to make himself look better by contrast.
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
Ah, yes. Rick Ross. Bill collector and convicted felon (diamond heist) turned self-proclaimed "cult expert." He was consulted as such by the FBI during the Waco standoff. We all saw how well that worked out.
Belle: The following statement isn't directed toward you or to anyone who's posted in this thread, but I have to say that when I see anyone giving any credibility to people like this mercenary bottom feeder, it concerns me that their gullibility level is still way too high to be healthy.
Do a search of Rick Ross and deprogramming. You can skip all the obviously biased sites, like Scientology's and just check out the ones that simply state the facts. Rick Ross, and people like him, give me the major creeps.
It occurs to me that the pagans and wiccans among us could very easily attract the attention of someone of Rick Ross's ilk, if their parents aren't happy with their religious path. Or a Jewish family might give the so-called "exit counsellors" a call if their adult child decides to enter a monastery.
More dangerous, IMO, than groups like twi are groups that kidnap people and do their best to force them to relinquish their religious beliefs, no matter how distasteful those beliefs may be to the kidnap victim's family and/or friends.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I had a few feelings like the guy was trying to call the alarm for people to circle their wagons around his particular dogma..
I could practically see the arrogance.
Imagine.. an anti-cult cult..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I remember the old vicster saying something like he couldn't exist without an enemy..
it was kinda uttered under his breath. Anybody else remember this?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Let's see, what WAS on the thread that they considered too controversial to let exist once we were
aware of it?
(Google cache, I choose you!)
==================
Could not find A thread on "The Way" But would like to say I live around Dayton Ohio and the Ways Splinter Groups is Very large and growing every day. If there is another thread on the Way here please contact me asap.
This Sect is very very DANGEROUS, They appear to be Christians, but in turn they are a Satanic Cult, going against almost every thing The Bible Teaches. Brainwashing people out of the truth. They use Koine Greek, Aramaic texts, Textural critizeism.
If you or someone you know has been effected by The Way, I want to tell you there is people that do believe
"The Word of God is The Will of God"
and can help. There is life outside of Vp Wierwille's teachings.
Contact me we can have Fellowship, I do Care about the accuracy of the Word. I will spent time with you on any topic you feel comfortable with. Maybe you are stuck with some of the old WAY teachings ? Post a question.
I have sat under PFAL, Researched "Jesus Christ is not God 1971:72 Ed ", 'God's Magnafied Word", " Jesus Christ our Passover, " Are the Dead Alive Now", "Also'(Ew Bullanger), Many more.
Let me say Wayers or Ex-Wayers offten say
"They Cannot Defend there Case"
Well let me say that is a lie. You will find more detail outside the Way than in. If you take the time to see what the other side has to say you will cash in your chips if you are Meek to Receive James 1:21. Remember: Receive, Retain, Release? Are you ready to receive ?
There is a very detailed teacher in Koine/Mod. Greek Today And published his book in 1967 "WAS CHRIST GOD" (Dr. Spiros Zodhiates) , Wierwille book "Jesus Christ Is Not God" 1971:72. (Dr. Victor Paul Wierwille)
I have a audio copy of "Was Christ God" this is a tool of correction, you can hear the words pronounced properly and would love to let you hear and see what you think. I am Contacting AMG Intl About the Sharing of this audio on the Web so any one who has been effected by VP. Wierwille you can hear and see what Wierwill hid from you. And you will see Wierwille Did not even Know Greek Whatsoever. It is good to know a little Greek and his name is Spiros Zodhiates.
Maybe you want A one on one discussion, Cool Drop me a e-mail. Or post on this thread.
===================================
Well like to put this on the thread so it can be viewed by others that may have the same question.
"kia Theos een o Logos"
*Notice the order in Greek. not the same as in Eng.
"and God was the Word" Kjv.
*Now look at v2
"Hutos een en archee pros tou Theou
In Kjv
"The same was in beginning with God.
Now together
"and the Word was God the Same was in beginning with God"
*Wierwille showed us to follow the pronouns to the Noun.
"The Same" in Eng. grammar Is applied to "God"
Now this is 100% correct in Eng.
Now let us see what Wierwille hid from us or maybe he did not know?
The Greek word "hutos" is a personal Adjective in 1st person sing. Form.
"and God was the Word "This Person" was in beginning with God"
Lit Trans. ( from the Greek)
This makes "the Word" a person, not an Idea or speech. if Wierwille was right in his clams we would see "Touto" (impersonal Adjective.)- not "Hutos"(personal Adj.)
See this is how we get to the Rightly Divided Word of God, The accuracy of the Scriptures. "Study to show yourself approved unto God"... Yo should know that Verse.
Email me for Questions your identity will be confidential.
================================
*What does The accuracy, the Rightly Divided Word (logos) of God
Teach, that "HE" in V-3 is " Who "
*Was Dr. Wierwille accurate or did he poorly Divide John 1
(see JCNG Book and Dr's Transl. according to usage.)
*Logos is a Big Word now is it not? Now we see the Logos is a person in Jn 1:-v2). We must look at him (Logos) in Context.
A) In the beginning was" thee Word"
B) and "thee Word" was with God
C) and God was "thee Word'
v-2) "He" was in the beginning with God
* Now clearly the subject is "thee Word" in all 3 clauses.
v-3) All things were made by "him": and without "him"
was not anything made that was made.
*Now who is subject in the entire context ?
* Remember Dr. Wierwille Said the Immediate context must flow with
the remote context.
V 4) In "him" was (Had Been) Life:
* in "him" had always been the life see "een"(was) in the Imperfect Tense. (we do not have this in Eng. so it would be hard to Translate this word in Eng.) "een" is an Eternal Verb in this Context.
V5) And "the light" shineth in darkness:
* Now who is THE LIGHT ?
God bless you all
=====================================
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
More from the forbidden public posts.....
"*Let us Refresh our memory On Dr's Wierwille's
"Literal Translation according to usage". *Jesus Christ not God Pg.91
"In the beginning (before the creation) God was the word, and the revealed word was in God's foreknowledge (witch was later communicated to man in spoken words, written word and incarnate word) This Word absolutely was in the beginning before the foundation of the world together with the one true God in his foreknowledge yet distinctly independent of him." The Way Intl.
I wanted to post so we will not forget to look it up. and give them a chance to defend there case Some of the Way or ex-wayer's do not know Dr. Wierwille went so far to "Literally" add so many words to just 1 verse.
1) Where is the word support for "Foreknowledge" ?
*Did not Wierwille tell us, when the Translators add to the word we no
longer have a Translation but Mens Tradition ?
(Power for Abundant living )
* Wierwille also told us in PFAL
HOW THE WORD INTERPRETS ITSELF
All scripture interprets itself:
!. In the verse
2. In the context
3. used before
1) Where is the word support for "Foreknowledge" In the Verse?
2) Where is the word support for "Foreknowledge" In the context ?
3) According to Wierwille's own Theology
this is a bunch of Mens Traditions,
because there adding to the Word.
and here he is guilty.
So are we going to move up to the accuracy of the Rightly Divided Word ?
God Bless !
===================
Now you got my att. It has to fit Jr. how does that fit with Heb. 1:2
"God created the world For(Dia in Acc.) Christ..." ?????
IT HAS TO FIT LIKE A HAND IN A GLOVE You remember that jr.
That does not fit, What about the Aramaic????? Jr. you will see Dr. had the accuracy, look at Est. Aramaic and at Psh.text
====================
It is nice that you came forward John. Can you tell us something about yourself? If not that is ok.
Let us get into the Word
v-1) God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets.
v-2) Hath in these last days spoked unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, "dia" whom he also made the worlds.
* "Dia" needs to be "accurately divided" here .
Is Dia in Acc. Case ?
according to Wierwille in JCNG 1st Ed. when dealing with Heb.1:2. "dia' is.
If this is correct then the Father made the world on account of His Son. And his Son did not Create the world.
So let us use Wierwills rule of grammar in trying to divide Heb.1:2
"Dia"-=On account of, The aim of purpose "For".
*Let us use Dr. Wierwilles definition of "dia", in another context, and flip the grammar to Acc. when it is in Gen., see if it makes any sense to you
2 COR.1:14,15
And in this confidence I was minded to come unto you before that, you might have a second benefit; And to pass "for" you into Macedonia, and to come out of Macedonia unto you To be Brought on my way toward Judea.
* It is clear this "dia" is not in Accusative here. Because the Context forbids it for one thing (also the accuracy of Greek grammar). So we are "Forced" into saying this"dia" is in Genitive.
So now look at Dr. Wierwills definition for "Dia" In 1st JCNG when he accurately divides "dia" in JN 1:3
"All things were made "dia" him and without him was not anything made that was made."
Wierwille accurately divides here and taught. " dia" is in Gen. Case. "through, by way of, by means of, the cause of action."
because he feels no threat here prying with the English grammar, so that when he gets here,(following Pronouns) he can apply it to the Father. But he ignores the Subject of the Context "O Logos".
So if we use Greek grammar in V3 to try prove the case, and again in Heb.1:2 we use Greek grammar to divided it. We "must" accept Greek all the way baby lock, stock, and barrel. And we clearly see, that in the opening of this thread. "o logos" is a" hutos' in the Greek.
Remember Dr. taught in order to, "accurately divide" 'lambano, dechomai You must look at them only in the "holy spirit field".
Notice how "dia" is used in creation accounts what do we see?
We seen how it is used in Heb 1:2,And in JN 1:3.
Look at it in Col.1:16
For in(en) him were all things created that are in the heaven, and that are in the earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, principalities, or powers: all things were created "dia" him and "eis" him.
* Now notice the Greek words here, (cf.Kjv.)
"dia" is in a creation account again " WHO IS THE CONTEXT". Regardless if this a figure of speech here in Col. or not, the Context around this Prep. "dia " proves the case again, "dia" is in Gen.case in Heb1:2 and leads us back to the accuracy, that "all things were made by means of Christ"
because there is ample evidence, that the accuracy in the Greek teaches,
"all things were made by means of Christ Jesus"
So that still leaves with another Question, What about the Aramaic ?
The next thread we will Look at it
=========================
You have something else in mind ? Or did you see problems with the way it was divided ? if so you will need a good "Greek" Concordance.
But you are still stuck with the fact "you must accept" The Koine Greek "NT". is inspired " by instrument of means " of The "Father", to get the rightly divided " Word of God. "
See I want you to know I believe that " it has to fit ",
and you are Just as concerned as me. about the "accuracy of the Scriptures".
And we both agree "the Word of God is the will God"
Let us look at this, Wierwille taught that the New Test was inspired in Aramaic but he tries to prove his "case" in "Greek" many times. Either it is "Greek" or "Aramaic" ?
Notice how Loy Craig Martindale, And Dr. Victor Paul Wierwille, John D. Hendricks, taught how. "the Churches got their Trinity",
" From Council of Nica 325 Ad." (this ia a Watchtower Teaching).
Many Ex-Way followers go on about how:
There is no manuscript support for "Koine Greek" Until after The Council of Nica in 3:25 AD. and the Catholic Church was merging with the Pagan's, and the translators Deliberately "forged the Word" This is how "I" see it MT 28:19 is a "Forgery" Because of men and there "Foul Mouth", "there evil to the bone" ( Father and Son Saviors by Hendricks ).
Now let us keep this in mind and say:
where is the Text support for the Eastrungelo Aramaic "before the Council of Nica" ? (Eastrungelo Aramaic 4th Cent. Check it out I did)
So "aaaaannnnttt" (as the sound from the game show sounds as you miss).
*But Rick Heeter President of "The Ryburn Christian Clarion" A Cult News letter in Every Montgomery County Library. This Ex-Wayer, claims "they just have not found them yet"
(he is saying in short koine Greek is a "counter fit")
So if you still accept the theory "no Greek Text before Nica".
Research it, see if that statement is true. But I will tell you one thing you will not be able to do it unless you, are hungry, and meek to receive , and able to retain with confidence, " You cannot release with boldness "
This is too easy for a Person as your self:
Are a researcher ? If so how can you be let down by
"Inaccuracy of Men"
Not caring about
The "accuracy" in " God's-Breathed Word "
So now we will look at Dr. Lamsa the "Aramaic Scholar" and we know what DR Wierwille Sad about him now don,t we
Did you Know Dr. Lamsa And Dr. Wierwille had a fall out. You know what about "misuse of Aramaic, "Customs", "Manners", "Phrases". Like in Phil.2, Well any way. Let us Get in to
Dr. Lamsa's Translation of the "Pedangta" Text
John 1:1:1-2
"THE Word was in The beginning, and that very Word was with God, and God was that Word The same was in the beginning with God."
*Notice the order of the words here how Dr. Lamsa uses his superior knowlege in the "Pedangta Airamaic "
(In this area) that he seen "God was that Word". And places the Words "accurately in order". Dr. Lamsa Was honest with this, and put the order of words "correctly" in his Translation of the Pedangta. Let us look at this part so you see what I am looking at here. This Translation Is Way more "accurate" in the "order" of the word's than most.
..."And God was that "Word the same" was in the beginning with God.
(Emph. added)
Look at "Dr. Lamsa's" Lit. from Pedangta Aramaic.
Heb. 1:1-2
'FROM out of old God spoke to our Fathers by the Prophets in all manner in all ways: and in his latter days he has spoken to by his Son.
v-2) Whom he had appointed hear of all things, and by ( the instrument of means) whom he also made the worlds. (Emph. added)
*Notice the use of the word "by" here Again, Dr. Lamsa uses his superior knowledge in the "Pedangta Airamaic "
Now what problems ?
===================
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
(Yet more from the forbidden posts)
======================
"I admire your research Jr. I have been Digging it to. You attacking my faith. But i still see no threat, regardless of what you have been taught by "mens traditions". think about it Jr. if Christ is God how can he be tempted.
In Heb.4:15 "was in all points tempted as us yet without sin",
but in James 1:13 "God cannot be tempted" See Dr.Wierwille was making the word fit like a hand in a glove. This is one of the problems, you can not make it fit like that because here is a counterdiction in The Christ God thing.
======================
Well Let's Get into the " Accuracy of the rightly divided "
RECEIVE with meekness
RETAIN with Confidence.
RELEASE with boldness
Let us see if we can "dialegatol"(reason). like Paul did with the Jews Acts 17
You bring up a good point glad you did. again I say to you The "Greek" has the answers here too. I know this is taught by Ex-Wayer's but there not hungry for it, or meek to receive. or "they" would have found it by now.
But I think you will move up to the "accuracy".
Let us look at two Greek words translated "Tempted"
Quote:
Apeirastos
This is the word for
Quote:
cannot be tempted
in James 1:13
It is from the Prep. (prefix). "apo" and it is in the Gen. case here.
"apo" here in Gen. is "governing this word "peirazo"
so this is a compound word in Greek. translated "tempt" in Eng.
"Apo" in Gen= the instrument of means, the cause of action, by way of, through, by. It works something like "Ek"= "out of" When in the Gen.
James 1:13
Let no man say when he is tempted, he is tempted of God: for "God "cannot be tempted" with evil, neither tempteth he any man."
"God cannot be "aperrastos" with evil,"
"aperrastos" is a driv. of "peirazo"
now the Eng. Kjv will throw you off track here. Because you do not see "apo" carried over correctly to our understanding here.
does this make any sense if we translate with "apo" in the Eng ?
"Let no man say when he is "peirazo", he is "peirazo" of God: for "God "aperrastos" with evil, neither "peirazo" he any man."
So ask yourself how do we Transl. it ?
See how "accurate God's-Breathed Word" is in Koine GK. The "pnuma hagion" knew that this would delete "MEN AND THERE TRADITION"
the usage of this word cluster ,"aperrastos" here, tells us temptation does not come "by means" of God.
Theos, Elohim, YHWH, Pnuma, can be "peirazo"
Heb. 415 what Greek word do we see here?
"Was in all points "peirazo" like as without sin"
Applied to "Thee Holy Spirit":
Acts 5:9
Then Peter said unto her, how is it that you have agreed to "peirazo"
"ho pnuma Kurios". notice the order of Greek words
("ho" same as "0").
God Bless
============================
Now I would like to take the time here, to tell you of a lot of "Ex-Wayer's"
have started a lot of offshoots of the "Way Intl." They will tell you "We are not in" the Way" or we do not fellowship with them. they are very careful in hiding "The Way International" from young converts, because there is a thing called "the Internet".
Not long ago I was at a PFAL class and I said "the way is not correct in this" I noticed the reaction "sssshhhhh" the leader said in a low voice looking at me, with his back turned toward the Young Potential Convert (which was a 50-60 year old man)
Here I want to say that the term "Ex-wayer" does not mean there "now Christian" and seen the "light". But they do not Fellowship regularly with the "Way International", And still hold to the Dr. VP. Wierwille's "butchering" of the Word.
Now here is "some" Ex-Wayer Web sites
...........WARNING THESE GROUPS ARE A DANGEROUS NON CHRISTIAN CULT'S
If you are Not stable in Christian Teaching you should Stay Out of these links
If you belong to a Cult Awareness Group add these to the "DANGER" List
Off Shoots of the Way International
Akribos Theological Fellowship.
Quote:
http://www.akribos.org/
Christian Family Fellowship.
Quote:
http://www.cffm.org/
Ryburn Christian Clarion.
Quote:
http://www.godslivingroom.com/
The Way International.
Quote:
http://www.theway.org/
Try-God.
Quote:
http://www.try-god.com/
Word Centered Productions.
Quote:
http://wordcentered.com/index.html
Cortright Fellowship.
Quote:
http://www.cortright.org/
Another Way Ministry.
Quote:
http://www.awm.org.au/
Christian Family Fellowship Mid. Michigan.
Quote:
http://www.cffmm.org/
Positive Word Ministry.
Quote:
http://www.posword.org/
Ministry of Reconciliation
Quote:
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/mor2/
Powerfilled Ministering
Quote:
http://www.powerfilledministering.com/
Jamie & Debb's Place
Quote:
.http://www.hairys.demon.co.uk/
Ray and Donna's web Site and Bible studie's
Quote:
http://members.iquest.net/%7Eszkotak/
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hiway29
I can't speak to most of those sites, but to call Overbey's' Word Centered Productions', 'dangerous' is almost as funny as his 'Glad' magazine used to be.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Linda, thanks, I did not know that about Rick Ross - I really just came across the site & thread doing a search for therapists who specialize in cult recovery. The section on his site where he brags about lawsuits filed against him by certain groups was eerily reminiscent of someone who would come on here and do the same thing.... So, while I did not put much stock into Rick Ross himself, he did not participate in the discussion on the thread I linked to. I just thought it was an interesting dialog....
What gets me is how people use doctrine, like trinitarian or not, to label a group as a cult, satanic or what have you.... It's the practices that go with those doctrines that are dangerous, not necessarily the doctrine themselves, imo. Steve Hassan's definition utilizes the BITE model - controlling Behavior, Information, Thought, Emotion Controls.... Doctrine is a very, very small part of what makes a group a cult.
WordWolf, thank you for your ingenuity!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"Doctrine is a very, very small part of what makes a group a cult."-----Belle
Amen to that!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
I am quite literal when it comes to labeling a group or an individual as Satanic or a Satanist.
Satanic groups are those who actively worship Satan and repudiate Heavenly Father as the personage deserving of worship. A Satanist is a person who worships Satan as his/her Lord and repudiates Heavenly Father as a personage deserving of worship.
An atheist is not a Satanist because they do not worship Satan
An Agnostic is not a Satanist because the do not worship Satan
Non-Chrisitians are not Satanist nor are their belief systems Satanic UNLESS they worship Satan
Christians who are not trinitarians are not Satanists becasue they do not worship Satan.
Christians who are trinitarians are not Satanists becasue they do not worship Satan
Pagans etal are not Satanists unless Satan worship is what they practice in their form of paganism
This idea that if you aren't a Christian and the correct kind of Chrsitian to boot, you are automatically in Satan's camp defies common sense as well as being scriptually unsound. "neither hot nor cold......." Clearly Heavenly Father recognizes that there is a whole bunch of lukewarmism in the world. That is not saying that God is happy with lukewarm because he clearly isn't, but is also is clear that a distinction is made between luke warm and being part of the "enemy" camp.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I wonder if they yanked it because of possibility of libel..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
hmm. vic pretty much claimed that the trinity was satan in disguise..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Maybe just call them devilish. Or blind followers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
We just always called 'em "egg sucking".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.