Sunday, December 11, 2016

Dave Pack: Only Ignorant, Unlearned and Unstable People Twist Scriptures, Unlike Me....


Dave Pack just admitted he is "ignorant, unlearned and unstable."  The Church of God has been filled with thousands of men who twist scriptures around to fit their OWN interpretations.  Dave has taken this a step further and created scenarios that no one else has ever come up with.  All lies.

God wants people who tremble at His Word, who don’t wrest it and twist it. I’ll tell you who does that—people who are ignorant, unlearned and unstable. So, brethren, don’t be discouraged if you see someone leave. A tiny number are—and will. The Church is booming. Wonderful things are happening in all directions. But a few people are vetting themselves out, as they have been doing for 2,000 years. Better they’re gone now than we have to watch them leave later. They don’t believe it. All this is laid out before them and they don’t want to be part of it. They don’t believe the Word of God. It’s so absolutely plain, it’s impossible to miss. I wonder how we missed it—except it was not our time.
Dave fails to see this scripture is about himself:
2 Peter 3:16The Message (MSG)
14-16 So, my dear friends, since this is what you have to look forward to, do your very best to be found living at your best, in purity and peace. Interpret our Master’s patient restraint for what it is: salvation. Our good brother Paul, who was given much wisdom in these matters, refers to this in all his letters, and has written you essentially the same thing. Some things Paul writes are difficult to understand. Irresponsible people who don’t know what they are talking about twist them every which way. They do it to the rest of the Scriptures, too, destroying themselves as they do it. 

21 comments:

Black Ops Mikey said...

David Pack obviously doesn't know what he's talking about.

No one can twist II Peter as Scripture, since it is a forged book whose author is unknown -- it certainly wasn't the Apostle Peter, neither was it written by someone who lived in 30 A.D., therefore any attempt at a rational discussion of the book is nonsense.

It's all sort of irrelevant at that point....

DennisCDiehl said...

Black Ops Mikey said: ....the truth of II Peter.


"2 Peter - forgery and fiction

Really?
The New Testament book of 2 Peter is almost universally regarded by scholars as pseudonymous. In other words, it wasn't written by Peter but by someone else and much later. This comes as news to many sincere Christians who are convinced otherwise based on little more than wishful thinking.

Richard Bauckham writes in the HarperCollins Bible Commentary:

2 Peter belongs not only to the literary genre of the letter, but also to that of "testament"... In Jewish usage the testament was a fictional genre... It is therefore likely that 2 Peter is also a pseudonymous work, attributed to Peter after his death... These literary considerations and the probable date of 2 Peter... make authorship by Peter himself very improbable.
Scot McKnight, writing in the Eerdmans Commentary notes that 2 Peter
was probably composed within two decades after his death. No book in the Bible had more difficulty establishing itself in the canon. As late as Eusebius (d. 371) some did not consider 2 Peter to be from the Apostle or part of the canon... doubts continued for centuries (e.g., Calvin and Luther)
McKnight adds:

There is clear evidence that 2 Peter is either dependent on Jude or on a later revision of a tradition used by the author of Jude and then by the author of 2 Peter... The letter probably emerges from a Hellenistic Jewish context, probably in Asia.

Neither Bauckham nor McKnight can be regarded as skeptics, both are firmly within the conservative Christian tent. Bart Ehrman, on the other hand, isn't. He notes that whoever wrote 2 Peter, it was not Simon Peter the disciple of Jesus. Unlike 1 Peter, the letter of 2 Peter was not widely accepted, or even known, in the early church. The first time any author makes a definite reference to the book is around 220 CE, that is 150 years after it was allegedly written. It was finally admitted into the canon somewhat grudgingly, as church leaders of the later third and fourth centuries came to believe that it was written by Peter himself. But it almost certainly was not... As scholars have long recognized, much of the invective is borrowed, virtually wholesale, from another book that found its way into the New Testament, the epistle of Jude. This is one of the reasons for dating the letter itself somewhat later... it is dependent on another letter that appears to have been written near the end of the first century.....

(For the entire article see: http://otagosh.blogspot.com/2016/01/2-peter-forgery-and-fiction.html )

Anonymous said...

Dennis, Christians do not accept the bible on 'little more than wishful thinking.' Christians believe God performed miracles to preserve the bible for mankind. Yes, some translation and copy errors are possible, but repetition and the body of evidence guards against meaningful theological errors.

Anonymous said...


“God wants people who tremble at His Word, who don’t wrest it and twist it. [Which is why wresty, twisty Dave has been rejected.] I’ll tell you who does that--people who are ignorant, unlearned and unstable. [Like crazy Dave, for example.] So, brethren, don’t be discouraged if you see someone leave. [Rather, be encouraged by their wonderful example.] A tiny number are--and will. [Because there are only a tiny number of people in the RCG.] The Church is booming. [The RCG is exploding to pieces.] Wonderful things are happening in all directions. [People are fleeing for their lives in all directions from the RCG.] But a few people are vetting themselves out, as they have been doing for 2,000 years. [A few people are saving themselves while they still can.] Better they’re gone now than we have to watch them leave later. [Better for them to escape now rather than later.] They don’t believe it. [Of course not!] All this is laid out before them and they don’t want to be part of it. [They never would have gone with the RCG in the first place if all this crap had been laid out before them at the beginning.] They don’t believe the Word of God. [They don't believe the lies of Dave.] It’s so absolutely plain, it’s impossible to miss. [It's so absolutely garbled, it's impossible to understand.] I wonder how we missed it--except it was not our time. [The Devil had not yet put it into Dave's head]”--DCP

Black Ops Mikey said...

Pseudonymous can be thought of as 'forgery' although technically pseudo means bogus, sham, phony, artificial, mock, ersatz, quasi-, fake, false, spurious, deceptive, misleading, assumed, contrived, affected, insincere and nymous has to do with name; so it means, pretty much, false name.

Is this some sort of euphemism? Somebody probably thought it sounded better coming from theologians as pseudonym rather than, oh, I don't know, forgery.

With religion, as with so many things, it's all in the branding.

Anonymous said...

It seems that "Kool-Aid Liberation Day" won't be enough for the bombbastic David C. Pack.
The Church is booming. [Suicidal zombie-bombers shall spread the word of GAUWD to save the Weir-illd.]

Didn't get the joke?
Z Nation Season 1, Episode 6, "Resurrection Z":
The group arrives in Hannibal, Missouri and takes shelter in a base led by Garnett's former squadmate, Joe Williams. A cult led by a man named Jacob has been indoctrinating people to do their deeds. Several cult members manage to infiltrate the base by returning and pretending they've renounced the cult. In the cafeteria, the cultmembers all get on top of the tables and proceed to slit their own throats turning themselves into zombies. As zombies and Jacob's people overrun the living in the compound, Garnett is killed by Jacob while blocking a bullet for Murphy.

Junk food and junk tv is fun, you just can't live off it ;)

Byker Bob said...

Would any Armstrongites be willing to concede that members of the deity inspired the Catholic fathers to canonize the right books?

I don't know. I do know that different of the antenicene fathers had varying opinions as to which books were authentic. Revelation didn't get a lot of votes.

Different parts of the Roman Empire had different canons. Some are missing books that are in the KJV and its derivatives.

Bottom line is that during WW II, there weren't enough Bibles to go around to all of the soldiers. Soldiers were often given a single page from the Bible on several occasions, and that was sufficient to inspire and sustain them spiritually for the duration of the war, some even as prisoners of war. So, whatever is left is sufficient. There have been vast expanses of history during which scripture was not available to the masses, and believers found ways to worship and to be encouraged.

We should also remember that what we call the Apocrypha today was part of the Bible used by Jesus and the disciples during the early Christian era. So, this thing about possible or even probable pseudonymous writings is only a stumbling block if you make it so. The materials in the allegedly pseudonymous writings are consistent with Judeo-Christian ethics and values, which is why they were included by the Catholics who compiled the canon.

BB

DennisCDiehl said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Dennis, Christians do not accept the bible on 'little more than wishful thinking.' Christians believe God performed miracles to preserve the bible for mankind. Yes, some translation and copy errors are possible, but repetition and the body of evidence guards against meaningful theological errors."

The phrase nor the body of the posting is not mine . It is a quote from Gavin Rumney's article on the II Peter which he wrote when getting his theology degree in Australia a few years back. I understand your sentiment but there are many errors and contradictions in the text.

Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, and Titus are considered my most scholars to be pseudopigrapha (forgeries) written by unknown authors in the name of Paul about church issues that would have been far too down the road to have been written during Paul's life. It was a common practice.

Byker Bob said...

This pseudoepigrapha stuff would be a big Armstrong killer if, let's say, the only New Covenant sabbath command were contained in 2 Peter. As it is, there is no New Testament sabbath commandment, and only one passage which specifically states that any followers of Jesus kept the sabbath (Gallilean women following Jesus' crucifixion).

BB

ashley froud said...

I read in several online articles about the arguments on 2nd Peter, and I am convinced that they are all bogus, and lacking in substance. I also came to the same conclusions my self about the authorship of 2nd Peter being Peter himself. Some of which were presented in the counterpoint arguments on these points of dogma.
Some of these "higher critics" are ill motivated, and seem to appeal to the hostile and spiteful people among us. ... Not a good thing !

DennisCDiehl said...

We'll inform all theologians and academics of your findings Ashley.

Anonymous said...

BB
On more than one occasions Christ was criticized by the religious leaders for healing on the Sabbath. Christ had every opportunity to state that He rejected the Sabbath. Rather he explained that His actions conformed to the Sabbath. So Christ confirmed the Sabbath.
This is what happens when people don't do their Christian homework by studying their bibles.
Folks, teach your kids to study hard and do their home work.

Anonymous said...

Dennis, you can trust academics about science and physics since they have no incentive to lie. But that is not the case with religion and morality. There is every incentive to rig to rules in order to actualise some vision of their ideal society. Consider how the Pharisees and other religious groups messed things up.
Today most secular theologians and college academics are neo communists or outright Marxists.
They don't deserve to be trusted or respected.

Byker Bob said...

Accredited scholars of theology with real degrees would be quick to point out to you that the New Covenant did not begin until Jesus Christ was crucified and resurrected. During the time of His discourses with the Pharisees, they were all still under the Old Covenant.

I agree: Teach your children to study hard and to do their homework.

BB

ashley froud said...

If one is in the flesh, then one is in the old Covenant. The new Covenant has been qualified for but it has not arrived yet. One may look to a new priesthood, the true priesthood, a priesthood that will never die, but one is still in the old covenant while in the flesh. I would not give ear to the "scholars".

Byker Bob said...

Ashley, my perspectives regarding the New Covenant come from my understanding of the epistles of St. Paul. Although, I realize that HWA, who never preached much from Paul, taught that the New Covenant wouldn't start until the return of Christ. That is why in Armstrong theology there is still so much emphasis on the law, or at least on the pick and choose parts of it that HWA retained and taught.

I also realize that some today teach that Paul never actually existed, but was a composite invented by the Catholic Church. The New Testament has historically been under greater attack than the Old Testament.
Many Christian churches and cults outside of the mainstream attempt to downplay or elliminate different books in the NT to justify their own theology. Learned atheists pick up on this as well, in their work to invalidate the Christian faith.

BB

Anonymous said...

BB said:"Many Christian churches and cults outside of the mainstream attempt to downplay or elliminate different books in the NT to justify their own theology."

So, are you saying the mainstream has it as being the most accurate?

DBP

ashley froud said...

Yes I understand Byker Bob. I'm pleased we can differ with one another with out the "God's Government" thing encumbering us. Some who comment here would show hostility. Thank you Byker for allowing both of us our space.
It grieves me to see so many hostile naysayers in positions of "higher intellect" treading their fellows with great alacrity, and disregard. ...Ashley

Byker Bob said...

The mainstream has been tried and tested by time. There is much to be said for that. Also, there are incredible records that have been maintained and curated over the centuries by the Vatican. We know that HWA was driven off course by foolish theories that now seem ridiculous. Most of us only had the poo poo'd version of the mainstream that HWA created as a strawman to ridicule. We didn't have access to the research and body of knowledge that the mainstream had to support their system of beliefs. Now, having broken the WCG taboo, and having done much of my own research, I've come to realize that the mainstream got a lot more of the details right than HWA did. I'm not saying that the mainstream is generic, monolithic, or that it is 100% right, but it ends up being much less toxic or damaging than Armstrongism.

By the way, if you've got the latest TNIV or New American Study Bibles, the well researched and very frank footnotes pretty much confirm the pseudoepigraphic nature of some of the books in the NT. The footnotes differ from Dennis's opinions somewhat in the informed speculations regarding the writing dates of the books, but these things were known and discussed and written about from the time of the second generation antenicenes who were personally taught by the original disciples/apostles.

BB

Byker Bob said...

That's why we all have held Gavin in such high esteem, Ashley. He is of higher intellect, and does respect the opinions of others without trouncing them.

BB

Anonymous said...

"I'm not saying that the mainstream is generic, monolithic, or that it is 100% right, but it ends up being much less toxic or damaging than Armstrongism."

So true. Freedom of thought is required for The Law of Requisite Variety. Thanks for your further explanation.

DBP