|
|
 |
|
Getting Through : Lighten Up
Prophecy slip-up | from enigma - Friday, October 14, 2005
accessed 1607 times I found this the other day while I was checking out some Grapevines on the xfamily site. It is from a few months ago, but I thought it was funny. It seems like they got caught red-handed with a false prophecy and are trying to deflect the blame for it. They say the “channel” was going too fast; but it is not just mixing a couple of words in a verse. The whole prophesy would not make any sense if the verse was quoted correctly. Notice how the poor END staff keeps emphasizing that it is their fault. What happened to “the buck stops here?” It seems like “The Wine Taster” was slacking off. If I were a Family member I would be worried about how many false prophecies get through undetected. I guess this one was so obvious because “Dad” quoted the bible— and they can not have “Dad” quoting Jesus incorrectly. It kind of reminds me of ‘passing the buck’ on the artwork plagiarizing fiasco of a while back.
Grapevine 185, May 15, 2005 (page 3)
By the END team
In END 72, page 6, at the bottom of the article about the flu, there’s an error in the message from Dad—not because Dad got it wrong, but because the channel did. It says, “As the Lord said a long time ago, it’s not what comes out of a man that defiles him but what goes in—dirty fingers, junk food, and even stress and strain, which often leads to a lower resistance. Keep clean, calm, prayerful, praiseful and claim the keys, and that’ll go a long way toward keeping you healthy!”
As several of you have pointed out, the Lord actually said the reverse in Matthew 15:11: “Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man, but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.”
We, the END staff, are very sorry about this mistake, and sincerely apologize for it. When we prayed about it, the Lord said it wasn’t that the message was wrong. The point was right, but because the channel was going too fast and got mixed up in the wording of that little lesson, it was an “influenced” prophecy. (See ML #3304:24-39, GN 905.) We goofed, and the staff of the END feel very bad about it.
The Lord also said He allowed it because the END is a pub that, as we build our Activated Church, will become more and more used to feed (sic) the meat of the Word on current issues to our friends and sheep. Until now, the END has been gone over by just a few people—sometimes only a couple when things were very busy—because we just haven’t had the personnel to devote more time to it….
http://media.xfamily.org/docs/fam/gv/gv_185.pdf |
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from tuneman7
Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 22:33
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Bogusness of the sort not previously imagined possible.
Yeah, I had enough of this foolishness back in 1996. Just too much nonsnese, people editing prophecies and having "spirit stories", I caught them red handed in all kinds of prophetic slip ups. Not to mention their bogusness with Tamar's art, heralding it as all glorious and stuff, until shown to be a sham and then it was the fault of the artist and not those who were looking over the art. Strange, these people must believe in a pretty damn stupid God, etc. ...
In any case, ridiculous foolishness.
(reply to this comment)
| from Curious George
Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 04:36
(Agree/Disagree?)
Please explain to a youngin what is the wine taster.
(reply to this comment)
|  From vixen
Sunday, October 16, 2005, 06:37
(Agree/Disagree?)
Zerby is supposedly the chief 'wine taster' of TF, meaning that God has given her the spiritual power to be able to discern whether a prophecy is, in fact, a true, godly prophecy. It's merely a convenient way of defending her right to vet prophecies to make sure that nothing goes out to the wider family that doesn't support what she thinks. By the same token, any family member who gets a prophecy that doesn't gel with WS views can then be said to have been a tainted vessel, meaning that he or she 'coloured' the prophecy through pride or unyieldedness, in turn making the prophecy a tainted prophecy.
Disclaimer: I haven't been in the family for years, i'm not privvy to the latest terms and definitions, and this is simply my educated guess at the meaning of this term. If I've got it terribly wrong, feel free to correct me.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | from AndyH
Sunday, October 16, 2005 - 04:34
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well how nice. I cannot tell you how amusing it is that this particular passage of the bible has come into contraversy. It has oft been the backbone of conversations I started to lure Christians into angry Debate.
And here we go. According to Jesus, that which goes in to the mouth defilith not a man. Only that which cometh out of the mouth defiles a man. So, logically, Jesus could suck my cock and swallow my load and not be defiled, only by spitting my produce out of his mouth could he be defiled.
This is pure sarcasm. I am no Christian, I speak only based upon biblical logic. Please keep this in mind before crucifying me.
(reply to this comment)
| From nix crucifix
Sunday, October 16, 2005, 17:49
(Agree/Disagree?)
Your interpretation of this scripture would do Berg proud. He was a master at taking a statement completely out of context, with no concern for the intent of the writer or the original audience, and then applying it to whatever situation suited him. Unfortunately, this isn't "biblical logic." This is misinterpretation of a literary form--kind of like reading the Book of Genesis like it was intended to be science textbook or the Gospel of Matthew like it was intended to be a feature story in a magazine.(reply to this comment) |
| | From AndyH
Sunday, October 16, 2005, 18:16
(Agree/Disagree?)
"This is misinterpretation of a literary form"
No, this is an intentional interpretation of a literary form, to make a offensive joke. I do not in any way believe that this was what jesus intended, or that I had found some theological loophole.
I really thought I had made this painfully obvious, but I guess I didn't. I was pretty drunk at the time.
I'm sorry for the confusion. (Not for the comment)(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From AndyH
Monday, October 17, 2005, 22:30
(Agree/Disagree?)
I understand the text just fine. It refers to David eating the showbread and other such minor infractions of ancient law. Jesus was expressing that these things are not as important as what a man says.
I can appreciate you elitism, but cut me a break. I was just being an crude asshole, I'm not a fucking scholar, just an atheist with a huge chip on his shoulder.
You are obviously leagues ahead of me in knowledge of these matters, you should have just passed me off as a troll and not stooped to my level. I'm sure we on the same page, lets not argue.
BTW: Thank you Fist, I do my best.(reply to this comment) |
| | From nix crucifix
Wednesday, October 19, 2005, 11:31
(Agree/Disagree?)
No problem with being an atheist with a huge chip on his shoulder. You're actually pretty funny. I shared your scriptural interpretation with some other eggheads, and it got a laugh.
Maybe it was unfair of me to use your commentary as an opportunity to make my point, which really wasn't intended for you as much for a general audience at this website who MIGHT have an interest in understanding scripture in a rational way. I realize that's a long shot given the way it was taught by Berg & Company--or the way it's handled in these wacked-out "Jesus speaking" prophesies. There's this notion of "cultural literacy" that depends in some measure on understanding how biblical texts are foundational to the development of western society. Your situation is something like being raised as an extremist Moslem with a poor contextual understanding of the Koran because you were introduced to the texts in a deviant subculture. Actually, that's one theory being advanced for the development of the radical fundamentalist Taliban in the Pakistani madrassas.
It's better you turned out an atheist who likes to drink than a true believer with short-circuiting dopamine receptors. Just think, YOU TOO could be going into prophetic trances and getting screwed-up scripture references. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Fist
Sunday, October 16, 2005, 20:31
(Agree/Disagree?)
How do we know what Jesus "Christ" meant? No one on earth can claim to know what he meant and frankly I dont think anyone sensible really cares.. How can misinterpret a literary form and understand the true context when Jesus spoke through the medium of paradoxes and crude hand gestures?
Interpret all you want AndyH.. Most entertaining.. Thank you..
Nothing your with drunkeness.. Thank you for that as well..
(reply to this comment) |
| | From nix crucifix
Monday, October 17, 2005, 13:08
(Agree/Disagree?)
Believe it or not, there is such a thing as scientific biblical text analysis. We can't know exactly what Jesus meant at the time he spoke, but we can deduce a number of things about the intent of the the gospel writer. It's as simple as determining who Jesus is talking to in the story and who the historical audience for the text was. In the case of the reference from Matthew 15, the story audience are "pharisees & teachers of religious law from Jerusalem." The discourse begins with a question about ritual purity from Jewish scholars. It appears in Matthew's gospel because that book was written for a group of Jewish converts, who were greatly concerned about the relationship between the Mosaic law and the teachings of the Nazarene rabbi Yeshua.
The particular verse in question is spoken directly the crowd in defiance of the pharisees and experts in Jewish law. A newer translation says, "It is not what you eat that defiles you; you are defiled by what you say and do." The original Aramaic expression is literally "not what goes into the mouth, but what comes out of the mouth that defiles." However, this is a metaphor that appears in other Jewish writings of the same era, so we can start to deduce what the metaphor implies. What if I say, "I got stoned" to mean "I got inebriated"--? Then, 2,000 years from now, some literalist decides to interpret "I got stoned" to mean "a bunch of rocks were thrown at me." The way a scholar of late 20th century American English would know the literalist has made a bad translation is to look at all the other references to "getting stoned" in literature from my historic period.
Like other 1st century rabbis, Jesus used many literary forms to teach, including parables, which come with a distinct set of expectations. Paradoxes are often confused with parables, but expectations of the two forms are different, with parables being a distinctly middle-eastern form of pedagogy. (It's Zen Buddhists who use paradox to teach, btw.) And where is your evidence that Jesus taught by using crude hand gestures? Perhaps a reference in one of the gospels where Jesus writes something in the dirt? Please cite your evidence if you're going to assert something as a statement of fact. Most historic evidence suggests the oral tradition for Jesus' sermons were a typical of 1st century rabbis.
Many literary scholars, historians, and linguists who study biblical texts are agnostic about their belief in Jesus "Christ". Holding a set of religious beliefs about what a text means and doing scholarly analysis of ancient texts are two different things.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Fist
Tuesday, October 18, 2005, 01:20
(Agree/Disagree?)
I use the term paradox in most extreme vagueness.. It was not a mistake when I referred to christs teachings as paradoxes instead of parables.. It also seems to be the case that a parable may become literary paradox ,therefore your argument that paradox and parable are easily distinguishable and adhere to certain religions is false under the " example " that parable may be a paradox..
The reference to crude hand gestures was my pretentious attempt of humour..
If your so interested in the Esoteric pretentions of Christian Doctrine and Theology read some Paul Badham.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | from monger
Saturday, October 15, 2005 - 17:08
(Agree/Disagree?)
That's some funny shite.
Reminds me of what a former second gen WS member told be about their time with the folks. This person was so determined to "do a good job" in their task to receive a prophecy for a GN that they went out and "researched" (aka plagiarized) a significant portion of it from across the Web. Later, all was confessed, but since it was already published worldwide, the shepherds reasoned that it didn't matter and that if the "wine taster" had approved it, it must've been a real prophecy anyhow. If there's some form of logic in that, it was known only to the shepherds (this person ended up leaving TF).
(reply to this comment)
|
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]