Yeah, I was being an extremely, over-the-top and out-in-left-field optimist when I began the post. By the end of my second last sentence, I saw the writing on wall, "Why bother?". I was being facetious when I wrote, "Having said that, maybe they should let a qualified non-member who specializes in cults do the teaching and facilitate the discussion."
Good news - T-Bone brought the tread back on topic
I remember reading on Grease SpotCafé someone shared of a PFAL grad they knew who was convinced they committed the unforgivable sin – so they committed suicide... ...how awful !!!! such tragedy and destruction wrought by wierwille's twisted doctrines!
As a former occultist who was into some pretty evil $#$! --- I dealt with a lot of fear and trepidation thinking I was born of the wrong seed. Suicide was not off the table and I literally thought about it. I mean, if I was born of the wrong seed and had a permanent wedge in my brain that let any spirit in to do whatever they wanted suicide becomes a viable way to pump the brakes and stop the evil. Thankfully those thoughts never became action nor were they incubated very long ... but to be clear I can fully understand how someone who believed this crap (as I used to) could commit suicide.
if we’re still discussing seed of the serpent – just wanted to say I’ve been bugged for a long time about wierwille’s questionable connection of the unforgiveable sin with the seed of the serpent. To me, there’s many issues – for now, I’ll just mention two:
1.It is doubtful that the seed of the serpent – being born again of the wrong seed is actually a thing. Whether it is an actual spiritual seed (whatever that is) or some genetic mutation - there are no Scripture references to support it directly – there’s only allusions, like inJohn 8:44, Ye are of your father the devil.
Theologians as far back as Augustine have interpreted John 8:44 figuratively – that Jesus’ enemies were children of the devilby imitation. A similar figurative interpretation is held by many modern theologians like Albert Barnes, Matthew Poole, F.L. Godet, H.A. Ironside, William Kelly, R.C.H. Lenski, Arthur W. Pink, J.C. Ryle, R.V.G. Tasker, and W.E. Vine ( see also the free online resource Bible Hub commentaries of John 8:44 for some other helpful commentaries ).
2. Biblical specificity of how to commit the sinare somewhat vague:Matthew 12 NIV (biblehub.com), Mark 3 NIV (biblehub.com), Luke 12 NIV (biblehub.com). Usually when Scripture forbids an action there is little room for doubt on what the specific rules are- You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.You shall not bow down to them or worship them;Exodus 20: 4, 5
In the orange book PFAL, chapter 21, The Unforgiveable Sin, after explaining there are two seeds mentioned inGenesis 3:15,wierwille says on page 319:
…let us take a hypothetical John Doe. He is born of body and soul, a natural man. He has no spiritual seed in him. When this man of body and soul confesses with his mouth the Lord Jesus and believes that God raised Him from the dead (Romans 10: 9, 10), he is born again with God’s seed (Christ) in him, John Doe is body, soul and spirit with the love of God and eternal life.
However, there is another possibility for John. Rather than confessing Jesus as Lord, he believes the Devil is the true god. Then John Doe, a man of body and soul, is born again of the seed of the serpent. He is born of seed, and seed cannot be removed. Because this seed cannot be removed, it is an unforgivable sin.
End of excerpt
~ ~ ~ ~
(Shameless plug: speaking of body, soul, and spirit, I started a thread back in October > Human nature and the Falland I’m always interested in the viewpoints of others – come on – it’ll be fun!!!!)
Some of the material I have looked at describe blasphemy against the Holy Spirit as a defiant irreverence and there are numerous interpretations on what that means and if it can still be committed since the days when Jesus Christ walked the earth:
In my opinion the subject of the unforgiveable sin is debatable in many respects. I have a few Christian counseling books on the shelf and the one observation I’ve found in several is that if a Christian worries that they may have committed the unforgiveable sin that concern is probably a good indication that they haven’t.
~ ~ ~ ~
The framework of wierwille’s fundamentalism / spiritualism / Gnosticism supported the assumption that in certain situations there was aLITERAL CONNECTIONbetween the spiritual world to the physical world – “certain situations” would always be contingent upon wierwille’s signature intuition – in other words, if he felt it was convenient to support his idea.
This is evident in how he explained the new birth. I Peter 1:23 says “For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.” wierwille said this referred to a LITERALimperishable seed. However, to me it seems Peter’s image hearkens back to the parable of the sower in Mark 4 , Jesus said in verse 14 the seed is The Word. This parable is a metaphorrepresenting the various reactions to The Word of God. In this allegory The Word is like a potent vessel of nature – holding the entire intelligent blueprint for life.
Seeds can lie dormant for ages before the conditions are ripe for them to burst into life. The conditions are ripe in Mark 4:20 where the seed is sown on good soil, a person hears the word, accepts it, and produces a crop—some thirty, some sixty, some a hundred times what was sown…The new birth of I Peter 1:23 is NOTbrought about by a LITERALseed – that is, the new birth is NOT produced in the same way as a physical birth. The Word of God lives and abides forever and the life it introduces believers to is eternal also. The seed is a symbol for the Word of God.
~ ~ ~ ~
For someone like wierwillewho boasted of the great accuracy and integrity of the Bible and his in-depth analysis of it as well as his supposedly great experience in discerning of spirits and in casting out devil spirits – he offered very little details on exactly how one would commit the unforgiveable sin and get born again of the wrong seed.
In my opinion this is one of the most questionable and treacherous doctrines of wierwille. The session on the unforgivable sin was already pulled from the PFAL class proper by the time I first took PFAL in 1974 - and was only available for viewing sometime later – after a new student “successfully” completed the PFAL class (i.e. it was observed the grad followed the instructions to speak in tongues) and has been reviewing all the class material and attending Twig Fellowships for a while...
We can only speculate why wierwille yanked it from the class proper – my guess is that it was a doctrine fraught with ambiguity and could cause psychological stress and have some unintended consequences...maybe he was aware of some folks having issues with thinking they might have committed the unforgivable sin... I remember reading on Grease SpotCafé someone shared of a PFAL grad they knew who was convinced they committed the unforgivable sin – so they committed suicide... ...how awful !!!! such tragedy and destruction wrought by wierwille's twisted doctrines!
And though the session on the unforgiveable sin and being born again of the wrong seed was not technically part of the foundational class on PFAL – it practically takes center stage in the Advanced Class on PFAL.
My wife and I took the Advanced Class in 1978. Men and women were divided up and put in smaller Twig-size groupsreflecting The Way Tree hierarchy organizational structure – so my wife was in a small Twig-size group of all women – and I was in a Twig of all men.
One day my wife got in an argument with the Twig coordinator of her group who insisted that in order to commit the unforgivable sin and be born again of the devil’s seed you had to kneel at a Satanic altar and do something along the lines of pledging your allegiance to Satan. My wife stood her ground and argued that wierwille never mentioned any such specific details . This is a perfect example of followers parroting wierwille and in some instances adding more confusion to an already dubious doctrineas it is passed down through the ranks of TWI.
The argument between my wife and the coordinator didn’t stop at that Twig-level. It went up the Way Tree – all the way to the top – wierwille. This disagreement happened to coincide with three 8th corps guys who had “gone rogue” (LCM’s words) on their research papers – apparently, they had ventured off TWI’s bedrock of theology which is PFAL and in effect challenged the very core of wierwille's thought process. The trickle-down-high-volume-reprimand that rained down on all of us later that evening was an attempt to kill two challenges with one group scolding – wierwille’s and LCM’s tirade can be summed up in four words- do not question leadership…a few more details about this are mentioned on another threadhereandhere…In retrospect – this was probably a huge red flag I should have paid attention to – The Way Tree is a culture of dogmatism.
~ ~ ~ ~
Comparing apples to oranges- I think there’s probably more scriptural basis to diagnose levels of demonic influence than there is to assert there’s such a thing as being born again of the seed of the serpent…I got into this on another thread in February of this year – my post was a comprehensive perspective endeavoring to integrate the biblical data with modern psychology – with some wiggle room– see my post >here
~ ~ ~ ~
here's a few other links for thought – I leave it up to your cognitive skills – FYI some of these are really out-there in my opinion:
Another point that stood out to me in T Bones post is the Advanced Class story really illustrates how the Way works with Biblical research.
This timeframe is closer to the heyday in research that penworks talks about in her book.
All research like here is subjugated to the Ways leadership structure. So the twigs were where it was discussed then passed up the chain of leadership to handle the dispute.
VPs ego was so big that he never would allow someone to challenge his work. He would escalate zero to 100 and go postal on the perceived dissenter many times labeling them possessed and kicking them out of programs and mark and avoiding them - instructing all followers to shun them because they are possessed.
In a real ministry and healthy environment for Biblical study there is none of this fragile ego accompanied by scorched earth tactics. There is a functioning household which Christ uses the allegory of the human body to describe.
Another description of research and how it has played out over time is the topic of debt. TWI has been mostly guided by lawyers on this. So to avoid the risk of losing non profit status and their clear overstepping of boundaries in personal lives they have shut down any Biblical presentations views or discussions on the topic. At a region coordinators meeting with all trying to bring it up the BOD shut down the open Q and A session and would refuse to discuss the topic except one on one with Region coordinator couples.
I am personally aware of other personal attempts to get the BOD listen to any scriptural reason, and in each case the person was shut down, and eventually in Way Corps cases retaliated against usually meaning dropping them from a position or shunning them.
The fallout over this and their general strong arm Machiavellian tactics basically gave rise to the RNR group which split off the ministry over this and refusal to consider other points such as a voting voice in Corps assignments, term limits on the top positions and position applications as opposed to the Rosie and Donna rolling dice method or personal whim decisions for placements.
They were all mark and avoided.
Kind of like the LIV golf tour where the rebels were kicked off the PGA right after teeing off in the LIV tournament the mark and avoid happened after they appeared together on a video assembled for the purpose of presenting their reform suggestions.
Hi Twinky, I used this emoji, not because of the rolling eyes, but because of the smile which is the only stand-alone smiley face I can see. I did not mean I was annoyed or bored by your picture.
Would you prefer "ROFLMAO" ("rolling on the floor laughing my behind off")?
I could think TWI laughable. But actually, I think they're pitiful. And pitiable.
No thanks, I've wondered before what some of these combined letters meant, the latest being POV. I figured it out by noticing how it was used in another post. Last night, I had to ask Rocky what FB meant! Nathan replied with the answer. There are other times when I had to look up words - such was the case with "pitiable." The difference in meaning compared to "pitiful" was illuminating! Here's to increasing brain power .
I agree on your assessment of twi being contemptibly poor or small. After reading the above posts about the serpent's seed and reading up to the POP chapter in Undertow, declaring twi as a Biblical research ministry is extremely pitiable. It's to the nth degree.
Holy bullshonta! Branham interfaced with the trees too, same as wierwille.
Holy shonta is right!!
The evidence of victor as huckster counterfeit charlatan is literally everywhere. One doesn't even have to try to find it. It just emerges and arises on its own.
Quote: He recalled that he heard a voice at the age of seven, “Well, I started up the lane again. And I turned to look at this again. And when it did, a human Voice just as audible as mine is, said, `Don’t you never drink, smoke, or defile your body in any way. There’llbeaworkfor you to do when you get older.’ Why, it liked to scared me to death!” –Brother Branham, taped sermon transcript, p. 24
Quote: He recalled that he heard a voice at the age of seven, “Well, I started up the lane again. And I turned to look at this again. And when it did, a human Voice just as audible as mine is, said, `Don’t you never drink, smoke, or defile your body in any way. There’llbeaworkfor you to do when you get older.’ Why, it liked to scared me to death!” –Brother Branham, taped sermon transcript, p. 24
Sound familiar?
Im wondering if wierwille was a secret Branham knockoff.
if we’re still discussing seed of the serpent – just wanted to say I’ve been bugged for a long time about wierwille’s questionable connection of the unforgiveable sin with the seed of the serpent. To me, there’s many issues – for now, I’ll just mention two:
1.It is doubtful that the seed of the serpent – being born again of the wrong seed is actually a thing. Whether it is an actual spiritual seed (whatever that is) or some genetic mutation - there are no Scripture references to support it directly – there’s only allusions, like inJohn 8:44, Ye are of your father the devil.
Theologians as far back as Augustine have interpreted John 8:44 figuratively – that Jesus’ enemies were children of the devilby imitation. A similar figurative interpretation is held by many modern theologians like Albert Barnes, Matthew Poole, F.L. Godet, H.A. Ironside, William Kelly, R.C.H. Lenski, Arthur W. Pink, J.C. Ryle, R.V.G. Tasker, and W.E. Vine ( see also the free online resource Bible Hub commentaries of John 8:44 for some other helpful commentaries ).
2. Biblical specificity of how to commit the sinare somewhat vague:Matthew 12 NIV (biblehub.com), Mark 3 NIV (biblehub.com), Luke 12 NIV (biblehub.com). Usually when Scripture forbids an action there is little room for doubt on what the specific rules are- You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.You shall not bow down to them or worship them;Exodus 20: 4, 5
In the orange book PFAL, chapter 21, The Unforgiveable Sin, after explaining there are two seeds mentioned inGenesis 3:15,wierwille says on page 319:
…let us take a hypothetical John Doe. He is born of body and soul, a natural man. He has no spiritual seed in him. When this man of body and soul confesses with his mouth the Lord Jesus and believes that God raised Him from the dead (Romans 10: 9, 10), he is born again with God’s seed (Christ) in him, John Doe is body, soul and spirit with the love of God and eternal life.
However, there is another possibility for John. Rather than confessing Jesus as Lord, he believes the Devil is the true god. Then John Doe, a man of body and soul, is born again of the seed of the serpent. He is born of seed, and seed cannot be removed. Because this seed cannot be removed, it is an unforgivable sin.
End of excerpt
~ ~ ~ ~
(Shameless plug: speaking of body, soul, and spirit, I started a thread back in October > Human nature and the Falland I’m always interested in the viewpoints of others – come on – it’ll be fun!!!!)
Some of the material I have looked at describe blasphemy against the Holy Spirit as a defiant irreverence and there are numerous interpretations on what that means and if it can still be committed since the days when Jesus Christ walked the earth:
In my opinion the subject of the unforgiveable sin is debatable in many respects. I have a few Christian counseling books on the shelf and the one observation I’ve found in several is that if a Christian worries that they may have committed the unforgiveable sin that concern is probably a good indication that they haven’t.
~ ~ ~ ~
The framework of wierwille’s fundamentalism / spiritualism / Gnosticism supported the assumption that in certain situations there was aLITERAL CONNECTIONbetween the spiritual world to the physical world – “certain situations” would always be contingent upon wierwille’s signature intuition – in other words, if he felt it was convenient to support his idea.
This is evident in how he explained the new birth. I Peter 1:23 says “For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.” wierwille said this referred to a LITERALimperishable seed. However, to me it seems Peter’s image hearkens back to the parable of the sower in Mark 4 , Jesus said in verse 14 the seed is The Word. This parable is a metaphorrepresenting the various reactions to The Word of God. In this allegory The Word is like a potent vessel of nature – holding the entire intelligent blueprint for life.
Seeds can lie dormant for ages before the conditions are ripe for them to burst into life. The conditions are ripe in Mark 4:20 where the seed is sown on good soil, a person hears the word, accepts it, and produces a crop—some thirty, some sixty, some a hundred times what was sown…The new birth of I Peter 1:23 is NOTbrought about by a LITERALseed – that is, the new birth is NOT produced in the same way as a physical birth. The Word of God lives and abides forever and the life it introduces believers to is eternal also. The seed is a symbol for the Word of God.
~ ~ ~ ~
For someone like wierwillewho boasted of the great accuracy and integrity of the Bible and his in-depth analysis of it as well as his supposedly great experience in discerning of spirits and in casting out devil spirits – he offered very little details on exactly how one would commit the unforgiveable sin and get born again of the wrong seed.
In my opinion this is one of the most questionable and treacherous doctrines of wierwille. The session on the unforgivable sin was already pulled from the PFAL class proper by the time I first took PFAL in 1974 - and was only available for viewing sometime later – after a new student “successfully” completed the PFAL class (i.e. it was observed the grad followed the instructions to speak in tongues) and has been reviewing all the class material and attending Twig Fellowships for a while...
We can only speculate why wierwille yanked it from the class proper – my guess is that it was a doctrine fraught with ambiguity and could cause psychological stress and have some unintended consequences...maybe he was aware of some folks having issues with thinking they might have committed the unforgivable sin... I remember reading on Grease SpotCafé someone shared of a PFAL grad they knew who was convinced they committed the unforgivable sin – so they committed suicide... ...how awful !!!! such tragedy and destruction wrought by wierwille's twisted doctrines!
And though the session on the unforgiveable sin and being born again of the wrong seed was not technically part of the foundational class on PFAL – it practically takes center stage in the Advanced Class on PFAL.
My wife and I took the Advanced Class in 1978. Men and women were divided up and put in smaller Twig-size groupsreflecting The Way Tree hierarchy organizational structure – so my wife was in a small Twig-size group of all women – and I was in a Twig of all men.
One day my wife got in an argument with the Twig coordinator of her group who insisted that in order to commit the unforgivable sin and be born again of the devil’s seed you had to kneel at a Satanic altar and do something along the lines of pledging your allegiance to Satan. My wife stood her ground and argued that wierwille never mentioned any such specific details . This is a perfect example of followers parroting wierwille and in some instances adding more confusion to an already dubious doctrineas it is passed down through the ranks of TWI.
The argument between my wife and the coordinator didn’t stop at that Twig-level. It went up the Way Tree – all the way to the top – wierwille. This disagreement happened to coincide with three 8th corps guys who had “gone rogue” (LCM’s words) on their research papers – apparently, they had ventured off TWI’s bedrock of theology which is PFAL and in effect challenged the very core of wierwille's thought process. The trickle-down-high-volume-reprimand that rained down on all of us later that evening was an attempt to kill two challenges with one group scolding – wierwille’s and LCM’s tirade can be summed up in four words- do not question leadership…a few more details about this are mentioned on another threadhereandhere…In retrospect – this was probably a huge red flag I should have paid attention to – The Way Tree is a culture of dogmatism.
~ ~ ~ ~
Comparing apples to oranges- I think there’s probably more scriptural basis to diagnose levels of demonic influence than there is to assert there’s such a thing as being born again of the seed of the serpent…I got into this on another thread in February of this year – my post was a comprehensive perspective endeavoring to integrate the biblical data with modern psychology – with some wiggle room– see my post >here
~ ~ ~ ~
here's a few other links for thought – I leave it up to your cognitive skills – FYI some of these are really out-there in my opinion:
With regard to the seed of the woman in Genesis, what about vp's teaching that the Holy Spirit coming upon Mary, and the power of the Most High overshadowing her meant God had literally created a sperm (a perfect seed) in Mary which together with her egg, was the conception of Jesus? According to this teaching, it was this perfect seed that made Jesus the son of God?
If, however, the seed of the woman was a symbol for the word of God, then God simply spoke the word and Mary became pregnant (like when God said "Let there by light" and there was light).
I never took the seed in 1 Peter 1:23 to be a literal seed but as the receiving of holy spirit which gave us everlasting life and made God our Father and us his children. So while the use of the word "seed" in "corruptible seed" does refer to the literal seed involved in our first birth and is not everlasting, being born of incorruptible (seed), meaning the new birth of receiving of holy spirit, is everlasting.
This incorruptible (seed), being the symbol for the word of God, is expanded upon in Romans 10:13,14 where the declaring of, hearing of, and believing in the message of Christ (the Word) leads to the calling on the name of the Lord which results in our salvation (receiving holy spirit) and finally ends with receiving an incorruptible body (1 Cor 15:53 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.)
Please let me know if there are any problems with the above.
With regard to the seed of the woman in Genesis, what about vp's teaching that the Holy Spirit coming upon Mary, and the power of the Most High overshadowing her meant God had literally created a sperm (a perfect seed) in Mary which together with her egg, was the conception of Jesus? According to this teaching, it was this perfect seed that made Jesus the son of God?
wierwille’s teaching may sound plausible – and it could have been divine invitro fertilization. Personally, I tend to shy away from speculating on such details when none are given in Scripture. How did God create the universe? What raw materials did He need? He simply created something out of nothing.
In my opinion, wierwille tended to put God in a box and God can only work within those limitations. How should we go about explaining the miracles of the Bible? What was involved in Lazarus’ resurrection – he had been dead for 4 days, embalmed with spices and wrapped in burial strips in his tomb? What was involved to raise Jesus from the dead and change his body into something glorious and eternal?
1 hour ago, Charity said:
If, however, the seed of the woman was a symbol for the word of God, then God simply spoke the word and Mary became pregnant (like when God said "Let there by light" and there was light).
In Genesis 3, I understand the seed of the woman refers to her offspring…but who knows – what you’re saying might work too – Mary did give her consent – she said “be it unto me according to thy Word”
1 hour ago, Charity said:
I never took the seed in 1 Peter 1:23 to be a literal seed but as the receiving of holy spirit which gave us everlasting life and made God our Father and us his children. So while the use of the word "seed" in "corruptible seed" does refer to the literal seed involved in our first birth and is not everlasting, being born of incorruptible (seed), meaning the new birth of receiving of holy spirit, is everlasting.
This incorruptible (seed), being the symbol for the word of God, is expanded upon in Romans 10:13,14 where the declaring of, hearing of, and believing in the message of Christ (the Word) leads to the calling on the name of the Lord which results in our salvation (receiving holy spirit) and finally ends with receiving an incorruptible body (1 Cor 15:53 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.)
Please let me know if there are any problems with the above.
The only “problem” I see is that you touch upon several deep subjects – and we may find ourselves going all over the map to properly address each topic. You could start a topic or topics in doctrinal forum. I mentioned in my earlier post I started one on Human Nature and the Fall. On that thread I have a few posts addressing if humankind is a trichotomy or a dichotomy…linguistically – many of the biblical writers treated soul and spirit as synonymous (see my posthere)
Also, I’m not as dogmatic as I used to be in TWI when it comes to the Holy Spirit and the church. wierwille taught the holy spirit given to a Christian is separate from the Holy Spirit = God.
Scripturally I can argue that the Holy Spirit – God – comes to dwell in each believer – and The Holy Spirit distributes the gifts / abilities as He sees fit…Your thread How does God work in us was a fresh look at the Holy Spirit – I love that thread! It so refreshing to get out of the cookie-cutter mentality of TWI – where we were all instructed to conceive of God in a certain way – wierwille’s way…and experience the Holy Spirit a certain way – wierwille’s way.
With regard to the seed of the woman in Genesis, what about vp's teaching that the Holy Spirit coming upon Mary, and the power of the Most High overshadowing her meant God had literally created a sperm (a perfect seed) in Mary which together with her egg, was the conception of Jesus? According to this teaching, it was this perfect seed that made Jesus the son of God?
If, however, the seed of the woman was a symbol for the word of God, then God simply spoke the word and Mary became pregnant (like when God said "Let there by light" and there was light).
I never took the seed in 1 Peter 1:23 to be a literal seed but as the receiving of holy spirit which gave us everlasting life and made God our Father and us his children. So while the use of the word "seed" in "corruptible seed" does refer to the literal seed involved in our first birth and is not everlasting, being born of incorruptible (seed), meaning the new birth of receiving of holy spirit, is everlasting.
This incorruptible (seed), being the symbol for the word of God, is expanded upon in Romans 10:13,14 where the declaring of, hearing of, and believing in the message of Christ (the Word) leads to the calling on the name of the Lord which results in our salvation (receiving holy spirit) and finally ends with receiving an incorruptible body (1 Cor 15:53 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.)
Please let me know if there are any problems with the above.
I actually tend to look at Gen 3:15 to be figurative in the gardening allegory. Maybe I’ve got a fixation on it lately lol.
Fuji apples versus Golden Delicious apples. The genetics are in the seed are they not? So if you don’t get all whacko about needing to read into it basically it’s saying that genetically down the road the nature of the offspring is always going to be polar opposite and enemies.
Its all figurative and prophetic referring at least in part to times in the future.
So what is seed of the serpent with those caveats in Gen 3:15? Whoever follows the path of the serpent. It leads in a different direction than the path towards Christ which is prophetically the woman’s seed.
Plant, water, weed and harvest according to one of the two paths. Is it permanent? Well it’s not death or taxes so no.
I just do not read all that complicated bullshonta into scripture any more.
Now back to your regularly scheduled discussion of mental wedges, sex with snakes, and the unforgivable sin.
Fuji apples versus Golden Delicious apples. The genetics are in the seed are they not?
Well, it's complicated. Apple seeds don't grow true to type. In other words, if you plant a seed from a Fuji apple, the resultant tree won't produce Fuji apples. Specific types are grown through a selective process that involves grafting a branch or bud from a specific type onto a rather generic root stock. The same process is used for citrus fruits. Now, how this all applies to Biblical analogies of seeds and grafting is a whole different rabbit hole, if you choose to go there
5 hours ago, chockfull said:
sex with snakes
Scientists in Australia have recently discovered that female snakes have, not one, but two, clitorises. So many questions. So many punchlines in search of a joke. Oh, dear God, what's happening here?
Well, it's complicated. Apple seeds don't grow true to type. In other words, if you plant a seed from a Fuji apple, the resultant tree won't produce Fuji apples. Specific types are grown through a selective process that involves grafting a branch or bud from a specific type onto a rather generic root stock. The same process is used for citrus fruits. Now, how this all applies to Biblical analogies of seeds and grafting is a whole different rabbit hole, if you choose to go there
Scientists in Australia have recently discovered that female snakes have, not one, but two, clitorises. So many questions. So many punchlines in search of a joke. Oh, dear God, what's happening here?
Yeah leave it to me to pick the one fruit example that doesn’t hold up lol.
How about tomatoes? Hot house vs Roma?
Just trying to understand scripture without the influence of multi clitoris snakes. But hey you’ve got something there. Hook up the Australian scientist, and Branham, and you’ve got the whole Genesis sex sin figured out. Now just add a conspiracy theory that they fathered Cain, who is the ancestor of the founder of Canes and you really got it going on.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
77
55
77
53
Popular Days
Dec 11
151
Dec 18
72
Dec 12
62
Dec 10
58
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 77 posts
chockfull 55 posts
OldSkool 77 posts
Nathan_Jr 53 posts
Popular Days
Dec 11 2022
151 posts
Dec 18 2022
72 posts
Dec 12 2022
62 posts
Dec 10 2022
58 posts
Popular Posts
So_crates
Remember what I said about the length of the post directly correlated with the effort to con someone. And like you don't have an agenda? So shall we stop reading your post too? No
chockfull
Just out of curiosity Mike have you had a chance to read penworks book yet? You have a lot of speculation going on about a time period and people that are very well documented in her book. She was t
So_crates
Posted Images
Charity
Is this your way of saying "when pigs fly?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
That's how I took it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
Yeah, I was being an extremely, over-the-top and out-in-left-field optimist when I began the post. By the end of my second last sentence, I saw the writing on wall, "Why bother?".
I was being facetious when I wrote, "Having said that, maybe they should let a qualified non-member who specializes in cults do the teaching and facilitate the discussion."
Good news - T-Bone brought the tread back on topic
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
As a former occultist who was into some pretty evil $#$! --- I dealt with a lot of fear and trepidation thinking I was born of the wrong seed. Suicide was not off the table and I literally thought about it. I mean, if I was born of the wrong seed and had a permanent wedge in my brain that let any spirit in to do whatever they wanted suicide becomes a viable way to pump the brakes and stop the evil. Thankfully those thoughts never became action nor were they incubated very long ... but to be clear I can fully understand how someone who believed this crap (as I used to) could commit suicide.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Another point that stood out to me in T Bones post is the Advanced Class story really illustrates how the Way works with Biblical research.
This timeframe is closer to the heyday in research that penworks talks about in her book.
All research like here is subjugated to the Ways leadership structure. So the twigs were where it was discussed then passed up the chain of leadership to handle the dispute.
VPs ego was so big that he never would allow someone to challenge his work. He would escalate zero to 100 and go postal on the perceived dissenter many times labeling them possessed and kicking them out of programs and mark and avoiding them - instructing all followers to shun them because they are possessed.
In a real ministry and healthy environment for Biblical study there is none of this fragile ego accompanied by scorched earth tactics. There is a functioning household which Christ uses the allegory of the human body to describe.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Another description of research and how it has played out over time is the topic of debt. TWI has been mostly guided by lawyers on this. So to avoid the risk of losing non profit status and their clear overstepping of boundaries in personal lives they have shut down any Biblical presentations views or discussions on the topic. At a region coordinators meeting with all trying to bring it up the BOD shut down the open Q and A session and would refuse to discuss the topic except one on one with Region coordinator couples.
I am personally aware of other personal attempts to get the BOD listen to any scriptural reason, and in each case the person was shut down, and eventually in Way Corps cases retaliated against usually meaning dropping them from a position or shunning them.
The fallout over this and their general strong arm Machiavellian tactics basically gave rise to the RNR group which split off the ministry over this and refusal to consider other points such as a voting voice in Corps assignments, term limits on the top positions and position applications as opposed to the Rosie and Donna rolling dice method or personal whim decisions for placements.
They were all mark and avoided.
Kind of like the LIV golf tour where the rebels were kicked off the PGA right after teeing off in the LIV tournament the mark and avoid happened after they appeared together on a video assembled for the purpose of presenting their reform suggestions.
Dictators gonna dictate.
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Oh but they are all better now that new people are running it.
Prove it.
Rumors are cheap. Actions speak louder. Take even one step in the direction of accountability and reform if you dare.
Or get back on the knees before your golden VPW idol.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
Hi Twinky, I used this emoji, not because of the rolling eyes, but because of the smile which is the only stand-alone smiley face I can see. I did not mean I was annoyed or bored by your picture.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Hey Charity, laugh away, life is to be enjoyed! Peace!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Would you prefer "ROFLMAO" ("rolling on the floor laughing my behind off")?
I could think TWI laughable. But actually, I think they're pitiful. And pitiable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
No thanks, I've wondered before what some of these combined letters meant, the latest being POV. I figured it out by noticing how it was used in another post. Last night, I had to ask Rocky what FB meant! Nathan replied with the answer. There are other times when I had to look up words - such was the case with "pitiable." The difference in meaning compared to "pitiful" was illuminating! Here's to increasing brain power
.
I agree on your assessment of twi being contemptibly poor or small. After reading the above posts about the serpent's seed and reading up to the POP chapter in Undertow, declaring twi as a Biblical research ministry is extremely pitiable. It's
to the nth degree.
Edited by CharityLink to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
See! Educational, this site!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
boop beep bop - beep bob beep boop
rrriiiiiiingg rrriiiiiingg
<click>
Hello, is this… the Topic Police?
Oh good, you’re hard to find.
Um, I want to report a derailed thread.
Yes, the topic was lost about 20 hours ago.
No, no discussion of it since then.
It’s really bad! Someone should come here to see it.
What?
No, not me. I didn’t do anything.
In fact, I left the thread just to help it get back on topic
NO! I did NOT derail it, and then run!
I’m just reporting it. Or trying to.
No, I didn’t mean any disrespect there.
What did you say? Are they what?
Oh… no. Just the opposite.
They seem real happy about their posting.
No, I must not be saying it right, then.
The topic is seriously derailed.
Don’t you care about that?
But… But what does them being happy have to do with it?
Oh!
No, I don’t see anyone rocking the boat there.
But what does that have to do with derailing?
Oh! You mean rocking the boat is a greater offence?
But I thought…..
But they said….
Oh, ok. If that’s what your orders are.
I’m a little surprised, but …
Who me? Oh.. um…
Well I guess I do rock the boat some, but…
But we actually agree on LOTS of things.
Ok, I get it. As long as they are happy…
But it’s been like 20 hours since the topic came up.
Yikes! The derailing charge is only what?
Ohhhhh. You mean just to get rid of boat rockers?
Now it all makes sense!
What about trolls?
LoLoLoL
So everybody is a derailer with that way of looking at it!
Oh, so the important thing is they be happy, and…
So what about free speech?
No, officer…
I’m not trying to tell you how to do your job.
You mean… “free speech” is BS ?
Ok, I get it. They only want to be happy.
I thought they wanted to discuss truths….
Right. Definitely no laughs in some truths.
What if I rock the boat “creatively” ???
Ok, have a nice day.
<click>
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Holy bullshonta! Branham interfaced with the trees too, same as wierwille.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Holy shonta is right!!
The evidence of victor as huckster counterfeit charlatan is literally everywhere. One doesn't even have to try to find it. It just emerges and arises on its own.
The comedy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Quote: He recalled that he heard a voice at the age of seven, “Well, I started up the lane again. And I turned to look at this again. And when it did, a human Voice just as audible as mine is, said, `Don’t you never drink, smoke, or defile your body in any way. There’llbeaworkfor you to do when you get older.’ Why, it liked to scared me to death!” –Brother Branham, taped sermon transcript, p. 24
Sound familiar?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Im wondering if wierwille was a secret Branham knockoff.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
He learned where he could. It was putting it all together - that was the original work.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
With regard to the seed of the woman in Genesis, what about vp's teaching that the Holy Spirit coming upon Mary, and the power of the Most High overshadowing her meant God had literally created a sperm (a perfect seed) in Mary which together with her egg, was the conception of Jesus? According to this teaching, it was this perfect seed that made Jesus the son of God?
If, however, the seed of the woman was a symbol for the word of God, then God simply spoke the word and Mary became pregnant (like when God said "Let there by light" and there was light).
I never took the seed in 1 Peter 1:23 to be a literal seed but as the receiving of holy spirit which gave us everlasting life and made God our Father and us his children. So while the use of the word "seed" in "corruptible seed" does refer to the literal seed involved in our first birth and is not everlasting, being born of incorruptible (seed), meaning the new birth of receiving of holy spirit, is everlasting.
This incorruptible (seed), being the symbol for the word of God, is expanded upon in Romans 10:13,14 where the declaring of, hearing of, and believing in the message of Christ (the Word) leads to the calling on the name of the Lord which results in our salvation (receiving holy spirit) and finally ends with receiving an incorruptible body (1 Cor 15:53 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.)
Please let me know if there are any problems with the above.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
wierwille’s teaching may sound plausible – and it could have been divine invitro fertilization. Personally, I tend to shy away from speculating on such details when none are given in Scripture. How did God create the universe? What raw materials did He need? He simply created something out of nothing.
In my opinion, wierwille tended to put God in a box and God can only work within those limitations. How should we go about explaining the miracles of the Bible? What was involved in Lazarus’ resurrection – he had been dead for 4 days, embalmed with spices and wrapped in burial strips in his tomb? What was involved to raise Jesus from the dead and change his body into something glorious and eternal?
In Genesis 3, I understand the seed of the woman refers to her offspring…but who knows – what you’re saying might work too – Mary did give her consent – she said “be it unto me according to thy Word”
The only “problem” I see is that you touch upon several deep subjects
– and we may find ourselves going all over the map to properly address each topic. You could start a topic or topics in doctrinal forum. I mentioned in my earlier post I started one on Human Nature and the Fall. On that thread I have a few posts addressing if humankind is a trichotomy or a dichotomy…linguistically – many of the biblical writers treated soul and spirit as synonymous (see my post here )
Also, I’m not as dogmatic as I used to be in TWI when it comes to the Holy Spirit and the church. wierwille taught the holy spirit given to a Christian is separate from the Holy Spirit = God.
Scripturally I can argue that the Holy Spirit – God – comes to dwell in each believer – and The Holy Spirit distributes the gifts / abilities as He sees fit…Your thread How does God work in us was a fresh look at the Holy Spirit – I love that thread! It so refreshing to get out of the cookie-cutter mentality of TWI – where we were all instructed to conceive of God in a certain way – wierwille’s way…and experience the Holy Spirit a certain way – wierwille’s way.
Edited by T-Boneadd emojis
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I actually tend to look at Gen 3:15 to be figurative in the gardening allegory. Maybe I’ve got a fixation on it lately lol.
Fuji apples versus Golden Delicious apples. The genetics are in the seed are they not? So if you don’t get all whacko about needing to read into it basically it’s saying that genetically down the road the nature of the offspring is always going to be polar opposite and enemies.
Its all figurative and prophetic referring at least in part to times in the future.
So what is seed of the serpent with those caveats in Gen 3:15? Whoever follows the path of the serpent. It leads in a different direction than the path towards Christ which is prophetically the woman’s seed.
Plant, water, weed and harvest according to one of the two paths. Is it permanent? Well it’s not death or taxes so no.
I just do not read all that complicated bullshonta into scripture any more.
Now back to your regularly scheduled discussion of mental wedges, sex with snakes, and the unforgivable sin.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Well, it's complicated. Apple seeds don't grow true to type. In other words, if you plant a seed from a Fuji apple, the resultant tree won't produce Fuji apples. Specific types are grown through a selective process that involves grafting a branch or bud from a specific type onto a rather generic root stock. The same process is used for citrus fruits. Now, how this all applies to Biblical analogies of seeds and grafting is a whole different rabbit hole, if you choose to go there
Scientists in Australia have recently discovered that female snakes have, not one, but two, clitorises. So many questions. So many punchlines in search of a joke. Oh, dear God, what's happening here?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Yeah...well nothing tops the Duckbill Platypus because God had leftover parts and BAM!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Yeah leave it to me to pick the one fruit example that doesn’t hold up lol.
How about tomatoes? Hot house vs Roma?
Just trying to understand scripture without the influence of multi clitoris snakes. But hey you’ve got something there. Hook up the Australian scientist, and Branham, and you’ve got the whole Genesis sex sin figured out. Now just add a conspiracy theory that they fathered Cain, who is the ancestor of the founder of Canes and you really got it going on.
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.