Sunday, May 20, 2018

The Shyster Apostle Dave C Pack


Shyster /ˈʃstər/ is a slang word for someone who acts in a disreputable, unethical, or unscrupulous way, especially in the practice of law, sometimes also politics or business.

...or religion


Just a reminder as to the intent of the story of Ananias and Sapphira .  The story is not literally true.  You can't kill brethren in church , haul them out to the dumpster and dispose of them and not expect some inquiry from the Romans who might not take kindly to murder in the Church of God, (The Holy Spirit did it.  Uh huh)  or from relatives who might wonder why their mom and dad, uncle and aunt, son or daughter , grandpa or grandma did not come home from church today.

And too...any other sin, doubt or denial about Jesus can be forgiven or overlooked, but this one on MONIES not  given to the Apostles is a death wish. Imagine that!




While the intent of the story escapes the modern reader, the simple fact is that it would not have escaped the original audience. The story was written to warn the readers in Luke and Paul's community of believers about following Peter instead of Paul. 

If you think Peter and Paul both spoke the same thing and loved each other, you haven't done your homework. Luke was making fun of the "Great Apostle Peter" with a tale for his readers about two church people who said they would do one thing...give all to the church, and did another...held back.  Even as a kid I never understood this withholding of what was theirs to be a crime worthy of death.  At any rate, the irony in the story that it is The Great Peter pronouncing judgment on these folk when everyone also knew that Peter said HE would do one thing...never leave Jesus, and did another...denied  him.

In other words, don't follow Peter.

The idea of all things common was very short lived phenomenon in the early church who thought Jesus was going to return almost any minute.  It was not a long term practice nor did they think it would be.  I am sure many sincere people gave then and lost their shirts to the early Apostles as well as we all know Jesus did not return for them.

As time went on and on and Jesus did not return  the apologetics were written into the cannon such as:

2 Peter 3:
Most scholars agree that 2 Peter is a forgery, or to be more kind, pseudopigraphical, , written long after Peter was gone but in his name. It was written to address the problem of Jesus not having returned and in classic form blamed the members or scoffers who noticed Jesus had not returned and their friends in the church were dying off.  They are accused of being willingly ignorant and should have understood that a day with God is not the same as a day for man.  Of course they were not told this fact until after Jesus had failed to return in a timely manner. This is a pure apologetic written by someone in the name of Peter later in church history when , true to form, the Church could not admit to being simply  mistaken, so they had to rewrite the story which also blamed those who brought Jesus failure to return "soon" to their attention.

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
(They want to disobey God so they scoff.  Just like scientists want to believe in evolution so they can sin. Actually they were just noticing the obvious)


And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
(Which was a perfectly legit question since Paul and the Apostles were very wrong their  own preaching on the topic and it became obvious.  )


For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
(Whatever that means. They weren't really willingly ignorant.  They just spoke up to the obvious.)


Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
(You're just trying to scare us aren't you?  Just admit you were mistaken and drop the fear tactics)


But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
(Well, why did you not tell us that back when we were giving all things common because a day back then was a day. Now you tell us it's not really a day.  Or did you just make this up now?)


The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
(Brethren,  you should be glad.  God is giving us more time.)

In time the idea of "All things common" fell by the wayside and folk went back to living responsible lives in their faith but older and wiser in such matters. As more wealthy, educated and financially savy types came into the church, who would never give their wealth in such a way, the practice faded into history.  

The same lesson will be learned by those in RCG who believe that Jesus is going to return "soon" and obey the foolish Shepherd Dave Pack in the practice of all things common. 

28 comments:

DennisCDiehl said...

Projection psychology definition
Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others. For example, a person who is habitually rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude.

Dave gets caught in his own projection problem by saying that Christians are innocent of the charge of being Christians...but "they will build more buildings" however. And then goes on to say that he is building more buildings.

Foolish Shepherd...

Anonymous said...

Pack does not understand prophecy. Things will not work out as he predicts. Palestinians are having more babies than jews. In 20 years there will be more Arab voters in Israel than jewish voters. Israel will then be arab controlled. Israel has a few hundred nuclear weapons. These weapons are pointed at Europe. That is one of the ways the jews control the west, i.e. through the threat of nuclear annihilation if the West ever lets Israel down. The Jews call that the Sampson option. But soon those nukes will be controlled by Arabs. There will likely be a civil war in Israel. None of this is known to pack (except he probably knows about the nuclear weapons of Israel) because he is a naive joe six-pack who does not read widely on political issues.

Anonymous said...

Even as a kid I never understood this withholding of what was theirs to be a crime worthy of death.

As I recall, the story makes it clear that they were killed for LYING about it, not for holding back what was theirs.

Anonymous said...

If the account in Acts is 'not literally true' and 2 Peter is a forgery, why this and similar article? If the bible is nonsense, why does Dennis bother with Christianity at all?
He should retire gracefully, spend his twilight years fishing, teaching martial arts, reading and watching YouTube.

As far as the common in Acts, there is no account of it being taught by the apostles. Rather property rights were affirmed by Peter when he said in Acts 5.4 'wasn't the money at your disposal?' In 'Envy a theory of social theory' by Helmut Schoeck, he points out that in over 200 modern day primitive societies, all are egalitarian. Everyone being at the same level (contrary to the parable of the talents) is considered the moral ideal by primitive man. The super egalitarian Spartans are a example that it is an ancient belief. So the new converts assuming common as virtuous is not surprising. But it is not biblical. What is biblical is that one reaps what one sows ie, cause and effect.

Anonymous said...

Dennis wrote: . At any rate, the irony in the story that it is Peter pronouncing judgment on these folk when everyone also knew that Peter said HE would do one thing...never leave Jesus, and did another...denied him.
These are not morally equivalent, I don't think. Peter had every intention of being loyal to Jesus, but he overestimated his courage under fire. The couple willfully, purposefully, and deliberately deceived or lied about what they did. Not quite the same. The setting was different, the latter being the beginning of the church where apparently an example had to be set. And no one could be charged with the crime of killing this couple since they didn't actually perform the execution. As for having "all things in common", this was purely voluntary, not mandatory, imposed upon anyone by the leadership. People were simply willing to share what they had to help others. At least this is my understanding of these passages. But, then again, I was wrong (a member of the WCG and AC student, but for only four and two hears respectively).

Anonymous said...

"Dave gets caught in his own projection problem by saying that Christians are innocent of the charge of being Christians...but "they will build more buildings" however. And then goes on to say that he is building more buildings."

B.b..but the more christain buildings I build, the more people will get to see how much more righteous I am than anyone else!

tongue-in-cheek

Hoss said...

And for the biggest whopper by a COG minister, the Ananias and Sapphira award goes to ...

In Bible Theater, I think the voice of Peter sounded a bit like Ned Flanders.

Connie Schmidt said...

Pack is a shyster, but he certainly is not SHY about it in the least!

Dennis Diehl said...

Should people be killed for changing their minds and being afraid to say they did for some reason? If literally true were they fearful of apostolic rage? Why would Peter allow them to give it all? Did he have no common sense? Why not say "We understand and thank you for all you did share"? Why make it so dramatic by saying they lied? Why not "they changed their minds" Why bring the unavailable for comment Holy Spirit into it? Would members now just be more honest about what they share and what they don't wish to leading to sharing less more honestly? Do we understand Paul and Luke hated the Judas Peter?

Do we believe lost iron axes float as a miraculous personal favor but God drowns the world a few chapters after pronouncing it "good" Yes we

Many WCG members withheld tithes and splinter type folk no doubt do as well when skeptical. Are they dropping like flies?

Don't defend heartless and authoritarian tales that are obscene and stupid. These tales get used to manipulate the sincerely gullible

Byker Bob said...

I’ve witnessed many things in business. I’m convinced that the layers of management in larger companies are needed to control the more aggressive types and the loose cannons. I’ve seen highly paid executives amass war chests, and start their own companies. In some cases, without proper oversight and guidance, the monsters within these individuals ran amuck. Their true and unbridled personalities were allowed to come out. Of course, it was not always the inner money-grabber, the predator, or the little Hitler that surfaced. A few applied greater humanity and a sense of conscience.

It is indeed unfortunate that some of the loosest cannons, some of the worst predators, have risen to the point where they now preside over their own ACOGs, with zero oversight or control. I blame the original mothership for the fact that so many members evaluate authenticity based on strictness, and obsessive compulsive leanings. They not only submit to this, they actually seek it out! Herbert Armstrong established the environment in which people would look to a martinet as being the keeper of the faith. We’ve all heard of Xtreme Sports. Armstrongism was always extremism from its very inception. It veered from the narrow band of safety and balance in the middle, in my opinion, straight to the negative pole. On any topic, you could always anticipate that Armstrongism would take the most radical approach, and rename it balance, or call it “God’s Way”.

Extremists always cause damage. They call for unwarranted sacrifice, making promises that they cannot keep. They do not appreciate these sacrifices nor do they remember them. Somehow, it’s all about them, and not the mental, physical, social, emotional, and spiritual health of those who look to them for guidance.

It’s time for the followers of the shysters to ask themselves some serious quality of life questions. Does Mr. Soandso really have the good shepherd’s attitude towards his sheep? Or, are they only of value so long as he can exploit and control them, and actually on perpetual probation, readily expendable at any time? So many have expressed incredulity at how quickly they were dismissed and shunned, whimsically, and without any sort of due process.

The shysters need to realize that expendability works both ways.

BB

Anonymous said...

I can't help noticing how Dennis's new pic has him with his reading glasses on, plus all those books in the background. That's a common ploy used by the XCOG leaders including Herb, Flurry, Tkack and Dave.
Golly, they must be very smart and knowledgeable having all those books in the background. I might do the same by having a pic of myself in a library, a real big library.

Anonymous said...

Thanks, Dennis! You knocked this one out of the ball park!

Or, perhaps "out of the compound", LOL!

Retired Prof said...

Anonymous May 21 at 2:43 AM said...

"If the bible is nonsense, why does Dennis bother with Christianity at all?
He should retire gracefully, spend his twilight years fishing, teaching martial arts, reading and watching YouTube."

Oh great. You want to manage the leisure activities of a man who has broken free of a micromanaging cult. Sheesh.

You need to acknowledge that pretty much whatever games people use to occupy their surplus time is entirely their own affair, as long as they don't harm anyone. Those of us who express our opinions about the structure and meaning of texts are playing the least injurious of games. And that's all we're doing here. Reading squiggles of ink on the page. Tapping out pixels on a screen. No sticks. No stones.

I knew a man who spent his professional career studying and teaching Shakespeare's plays. He knew that dramas involving Hamlet, Antony and Cleopatra, King Lear, Lady Macbeth, and so on were not literally true, but he also knew they were not nonsense. He spent his retirement writing and publishing about them. He would have been bored to death by fishing, and he was too scrawny and debilitated to teach martial arts. What he did was continue to read--and then write a book which expressed the culmination of his teaching and scholarship. Maybe he watched YouTube too. I don't know.

Sounds to me as if Dennis is in a similar situation--playing the very game that satisfies him most at this stage of his life.

And you? Doing the same, like all of us. Apparently what satisfies you most is to gripe about which rare shafts of light others find to bask in during their trudge through the valley of the shadow of death.

Anonymous said...


From a distance, to those who did not know him, David Pack appeared to be getting off to a good start with his Restored Church. From closer up, such as to those working at RCG headquarters, he was bad from the start.

In recent years, David Pack has gone totally nuts. His August 31, 2013 prophetic guess totally failed in spite of his 24 given reasons plus his 32 not given reasons for a total of 56 reasons why it was true. After the failure, David Pack discovered his mistake that he had used the wrong calendar and rescheduled for a spring fulfillment, but that never happened either. What do you think of the intellectual capacity of someone who can come up with literally dozens of reasons and proofs for something and yet be wrong about every single one of them?

David Pack's “130 PROOFS” that he, rather than HWA, is the prophesied Elijah with the power to restore doctrines was also a disaster. Mostly, David Pack just restored his new “COMMON” theft doctrine that everyone must send him virtually everything they have, or no salvation if they don't. The money does not get redistributed to help the poor either. That would be a pointless waste. Everyone in the RCG will be poor when Dave is done with them. What do you think of the intellectual capacity of someone who can write a book proving that HWA was the Elijah but then later delete it from his website and come up with “130 PROOFS” that HWA was actually Moses and that Pack himself is Elijah?

Endless so-called Bible study appears to be futile in the RCG. For all his supposedly great knowledge of the Bible, all David Pack could do was come up with his lengthy “FIRST DOMINION” series of complete nonsense. In the end, David Pack just deleted all the sermons about it. What do you think of the intellectual capacity of someone who claimed he was going to restore what HWA had taught but then comes up with dozens and dozens of sermons full of new prophetic nonsense like that?

David Pack likes to torture numbers and make them lie. He steals more and more from his followers and then tries to tell outsiders that the RCG is growing rapidly, but it is just his own covetousness, greed, and theft that are growing rapidly. What do you think of the intellectual capacity of someone who can only argue and debate endlessly but never treat other people or their property with any respect whatsoever?

So, what do you think of the intellectual capacity of a false apostle, false Joshua the High Priest, false Elijah, false That Prophet, and all around demoniac?


Hoss said...

Out of context, but that's not new: to all those who believed all Herb's Hitler hype, Der Fuhrer really did die in 1945.

Anonymous said...

9.44 AM
'Least injurious of games???' 'Squiggles of ink on the page????' I recall the feminist Germaine Greer make the same defense when accused of breaking up marriages with her writings. She claimed that she was merely spreading ink on paper. Of course what she and you are both hiding is the proverbial 'the pen is mightier than the sword.' For instance, all tyrannies have their 'ministry of Truth' to control their subjects beliefs and maintain power. Ever heard of Karl Marx and his impact?
Dennis in his writings continuously "concept steals" (quotes the bible whose authority he rejects). It is a logic fallacy and intellectually dishonest. Dennis is a literary vandal and a spiritual menace. He needs to get a real life. Perhaps find himself a nice rich widow and travel the world together before he croaks it.

Dumbhead said...

Well it takes too parties as far as who one follows. Why don't people have the good sense to see through someone?

Anonymous said...

Everything is common. Feel free to show up and live in David Pack's house. The property is common in both directions, not just in David Pack's favor. Use his automobile to go shopping or sight seeing. Everything is common. If Mr. Pack calls the police, you know he really does not believe everything is common.

Retired Prof said...

May 21 at 1:19 PM, you seem to accept the notion that Germaine Greer is responsible for "breaking up marriages with her writings."

I am, as my late father-in-law used to say, juberous. No statistical evidence, just an anecdote. My current wife (the same one I started with 49.5 years ago) read Germaine Greer but has stood by me in spite of that. We have repeatedly agreed that as long as we can both put up with the situation, we might as well stay married. Otherwise not. It occurs to me that Ms. Greer's words might have caused a few wives to realize they were not so hopelessly trapped in intolerable situations as they had thought and that an escape hatch was available. If such things happened, then the revelation was a service, not a betrayal.

Can't resist another anecdote. Early in my second semester at Ambassador, I wrote to a friend complaining of the anti-intellectual atmosphere, the regimentation, the stultifying absence of the kind of free-wheeling bull sessions we had enjoyed in high school. He sent me ink squiggles on paper reminding me that I was not committed to the place for life, that I could decline to go back to Pasadena and enroll instead in our state university. He was no literary vandal or spiritual menace; he simply nudged me into making my own life choices without depending on ministerial directives and parental expectations.

I mentioned that we on the forum discuss theology and cosmology for the pleasure involved, like other games. Spectators can follow along, consider what has been said, apply any potential lessons to their own lives, and make decisions accordingly. They themselves are responsible for those decisions, not the people who produced the ink squiggles or pixel arrangements that led them to reevaluate their situations.

DennisCDiehl said...

"Dennis in his writings continuously "concept steals" (quotes the bible whose authority he rejects). It is a logic fallacy and intellectually dishonest. Dennis is a literary vandal and a spiritual menace. He needs to get a real life. Perhaps find himself a nice rich widow and travel the world together before he croaks it."

"
"If the bible is nonsense, why does Dennis bother with Christianity at all?
He should retire gracefully, spend his twilight years fishing, teaching martial arts, reading and watching YouTube."

" Anonymous said...
I can't help noticing how Dennis's new pic has him with his reading glasses on, plus all those books in the background. That's a common ploy used by the XCOG leaders including Herb, Flurry, Tkack and Dave.
Golly, they must be very smart and knowledgeable having all those books in the background. I might do the same by having a pic of myself in a library, a real big library.'



Can do though admittedly reading can lead to "concept stealing." I imagine when you read your Bible you "concept steal" I'll look forward to quietly reading your helpful contributions for all to review.

Aside from the classic "common ploy" the background of the picture was a bit of a joke in a previous contribution. The picture is taken in the Portland Public Library where Herbert Armstrong did his "six months of intensive study" leading to the WCG. I found the most likely spot in the theology section. You can't see from the picture but I am holding Mystery of the Ages UPSIDE DOWN as part of the spoof on going full circle back to the place it all began. The glasses are untypically down in the mode of "well now, what have we here" as I hold the book. I don't really wear my glasses like that nor have the attitude you falsely and ignorantly assign to it. I'll tell the Portland Library Librarian you thought all the books on the shelf were a nice intellectual touch.

Anonymous said...

Some have noted the Acts 5 story as a crude paraphrase of Josephus (Antiquities 20: 204)

"[204] Now as soon as Albinus was come to the city of Jerusalem, he used all his endeavors and care that the country might be kept in peace, and this by destroying many of the Sicarii. But as for the high priest, Ananias 1 he increased in glory every day, and this to a great degree, and had obtained the favor and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner; for he was a great hoarder up of money: he therefore cultivated the friendship of Albinus, and of the high priest [Jesus], by making them presents; he also had servants who were very wicked, who joined themselves to the boldest sort of the people, and went to the thrashing-floors, and took away the tithes that belonged to the priests by violence, and did not refrain from beating such as would not give these tithes to them. So the other high priests acted in the like manner, as did those his servants, without any one being able to prohibit them; so that [some of the] priests, that of old were wont to be supported with those tithes, died for want of food."

Anonymous said...

4.01 PM
"They .. are responsible for those decisions, not the people who produced the ink squiggles."

Ever heard of deceit, guile, mis-leading, slander, poisoning peoples minds. Because of a evil report, Israel turned back from entering the promised land. I have read that millions of people have been robbed of their dreams by poison tongue comments by people they confided in. So it is not as simple as you claim. I have heard that it is legally a messy, complex matter when it goes to court.

Alllen Dexter said...

Take all the swipes at Dennis you want to. Me too. All you religious slaves want is for we who have seen through the crap to shut up and not point out the drivel, the falsehoods and outright lies common to religion. Sorry, we just aren't going to do it. As long as we can comment on here, we'll keep on having our say. We're both just ornery that way.

Anonymous said...

Dennis
Concept stealing refers to using concepts from a false theory or belief to prove ones point. It logically does not make sense. One cannot use a false idea to prove the validity of a alternate idea. Meaning, if the bible is nonsense in your view, juggling the bible to 'prove' your points is illogical.

Anonymous said...


Here's another example of fabrication of Christian 'history' using Josephus?

Antiquities 19.8.

"Now when Agrippa ... came to the city Caesarea ...

He put on a garment made wholly of silver, and of a texture truly wonderful ... being illuminated by the fresh reflection of the sun's rays upon it, shone out after a surprising manner ...

Presently his flatterers cried out, one from one place, and another from another ... that he was a god; and they added... "we henceforth own thee as superior to mortal nature."

Upon this the king did neither rebuke them, nor reject their impious flattery. But as he presently afterward looked up, he saw an owl sitting on a certain rope over his head, and immediately understood that this bird was the messenger of ill tidings, as it had once been the messenger of good tidings to him; and fell into the deepest sorrow.

A severe pain also arose in his belly, and began in a most violent manner. He therefore looked upon his friends, and said, "... I, who was by you called immortal, am immediately to be hurried away by death. ...

And when he had been quite worn out by the pain in his belly for five days, he departed this life ... his generosity was boundless."




Acts 12.18-23.

"Then he [Herod agrippa] went down from Judea to Caesarea and spent time there ...

On an appointed day Herod put on his royal robes*, took his seat upon the throne, and delivered an oration to them.

And the people were shouting, "The voice of a god, and not of a man!".

Immediately an angel of the Lord struck him down, because he did not give God the glory, and he was eaten by worms and breathed his last."


* Why would the author of Acts mention the donning of the robe at all, if he was not consciously following the story in Josephus?


Eusebius' version of Josephus:

" 'The king did not rebuke them, nor did he reject their impious flattery. But after a little, looking up, he saw an angel sitting above his head. And this he quickly perceived would be the cause of evil as it had once been the cause of good fortune, and he was smitten with a heart-piercing pain.' ...

I marvel greatly that Josephus so fully agrees with the divine scriptures."

You bet he does! – Church History, 2.10.6,10.

Byker Bob said...

When I saw the word shyster, I automatically thought of schizomycophyta. Dave definitely seems to be a member of that phylum!

BB

Byker Bob said...

Who is John Galt?

BB

Anonymous said...

BB
Wisdom is where ever you find it, be it John Galt, Jordan Peterson, or Aristotle.