Things continue to not look well in the Oklahoma empire of Gerald Flurry. The deluded man now has taken a new name on himself, in addition to the other self appointed names he thinks he represents.
Flurry recently made a trip to Jerusalem in his new boondoggle of a jet. The money trap is soaking the Philadelphia Church of God dry, but even so, Flurry decided to fly to Jerusalem, just because he thought he needed to. He now believes he is the father to the nation of Judah and doors were going to open up to him. He still believes he is going to be just like Herbert Armstrong and be given audiences with world leaders and kings. Unable to buy his way in to see these leaders, he has to spend his time trying to find another archaeological dig to get involved with. This will please Lil'Stevie as he won't have to go back to Oklahoma for several more years now.
Church of God News reports:
Gerald Flurry has admitted that his recent trip to Jerusalem was a waste of money.
In his member/co-worker letter, dated 11th March 2019, he writes:
“Perhaps God gave us this miracle with the aircraft to encourage us to expect even greater intervention in the days that would follow.
It was not precisely clear to me what God expected us to do on this visit. Brad McDonald and Brent Nagtegaal had prepared a visit with Dr. Eilat Mazar and a tour of the City of David archaeology site.
Nevertheless, I felt God wanted us to step out and make the trip. Isaiah 22:21 says Eliakim is a father to the house of Judah. I fill that spiritual office, an office by which God gives authority to open and close doors according to His will (verse 22). I felt I needed to do more, which is why I decided to go there myself. Again, we must back our faith with works.”
Perhaps he hoped that there might be an open door to sponsor another archaeological project with Eilat Mazar, but as he admits, the purpose in going there was not clear to him.
31 comments:
With Flurry taking on so many titles of Bible personalities, will he ever admit the truth and acknowledge his identity with the personality described in Mark 5:9?
"My name is Legion, for we are many."
"I'm Batman!"
this is actually just flurry's kneejerk reaction to allegations by a splinter that he has forsaken jerusalem, as well as his son. to prove to the laiety that he still has zion as his focus.
How can he be a "father to the house of Judah" if the U.S. is the tribe of Manasseh?
He's switching tribes almost as fast as other COGs flipped the switch this weekend from the "New Testament Passover" to the Old Testament "Night to be Much Observed."
If Flurry is the father, does he pay child support to all his offspring? Doe this mean he is a polygamist?
Gerald Flurry wrote: "...Nevertheless, I felt God wanted us to step out and make the trip. Isaiah 22:21 says Eliakim is a father to the house of Judah. I fill that spiritual office, an office by which God gives authority to open and close doors according to His will (verse 22). I felt I needed to do more, which is why I decided to go there myself. Again, we must back our faith with works..."
I felt? Will "feelings" really amount to anything? I fill? Gerald fills no such spiritual office. Gerald speaks of "our faith." Yes, that is Gerald's faith: not God's faith! The fruit that is a gift of God: it comes from God and not SELF!
Anyway, back in about Feb 1998 a sermon, Isaiah-An Overview Part 3, was given that explained that Mr. Armstrong was not Eliakim, but went on to explain who Eliakim represented.
Here is a portion of that transcript for that sermon; however, I inserted the [[double bracket]] comments.
******
"...Now we come along and it says:
[[Isaiah 22, verse]]20 “And…
Remember, these are two men in history, but that was the physical. We’re talking spiritual here: and…
“…it shall come to pass in that day…”
What do you mean? What day? Well, in that day that He pulls him down! In other words, the Great Judgment Day: the Great Last Day is beginning:
“…that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah:”
Now Eliakim, the spiritual part of that, is Christ! This is; now, he’s referring to Christ. It says in verse 21!
21 “And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand.”
He’s going to take it all away from Satan. He’s going to give it all to Christ. This is when Christ comes in glory. It’s the only time He comes in true glory on that throne with 144,000 with Him, in that Great White Throne in the Great Last Day, when that second resurrection happens and all mankind will see him standing there in the new heavens and new earth. He’s going to give that government to who? To Christ!
“…and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.”
And that hasn’t happened! It’s only going to happen way at the “end,” isn’t it? So we know this is talking about Him!
Isaiah 22:22 “And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.”
Now back in Revelation: I’ll just turn there quick. You don’t have to……
……Well, now, let’s come back to Isaiah and finish this. So He says this about Christ; this is Christ. Eliakim is pictured as Christ.
Now, somebody else has him pictured as Mr. Armstrong [[today, Gerald Flurry]]. Duh! How can any of this apply to Mr. Armstrong [[Or, a Gerald Flurry]]?......"
******
The sermon also explained how "the door" has nothing to do with archaeological anything!
Returning to Flurry's words where he said: "...I felt I needed to do more..." Flurry is all about SELF, ME, I, I, I, ME, ME, SELF!
And do more what? Might Gerald feel like nothing is being done? Perhaps some of Jesus Christ's inspired words will help him:
"If this man were not of God, he could do nothing." John 9:33
And time will tell...
John
Does this mean there are several door openers? Pack thinks he has the power to bind things in heaven, at least that's what I was told last time I spoke with one of his minions. If Flurry has the same power, there must either be more than one door so each person can have one to open or there will be a power struggle over who gets to control it.
So when is Flurry, Malm, Thiel, Pack, Weinland and the rest, going to finally be honest in their "titles" that they appropriate for themselves from the Bible , and just say "I'm the FALSE PROPHET" ??
I believe that these name takers assume that names or titles will give them greater credibility. They don't. The greater audience sees through such clown acts. They are also making a mockery of the original Biblical characters. At least HWA practiced a modicum of restraint. God's Apostle or endtimes Elijah were as far as he would go. HWA's overpowering personality, anger, and ego did the rest.
BB
Sorry Jerry. You don't have a Grotoh or Rader to set up everything for you
The biblical meaning of the name Eliakim is Ressurrection of God. Make of that what you will. Are Dave Pack and Gerald in competition with each other for the biggest ego.
BB
I don't agree that HWA "practised a modicum of restraint" in exalting himself. He used guile instead. I recall ministers constantly speaking his name in reverential tones, and frequently calling him 'The Chosen Apostle.' This, despite Christ's instruction against exalting titles. He was worshipped by many in the church for a reason.
It was my observation that these Herb exalting ministers were the same ones who persecuted the genuine Christians in the church.
Flurry's title would be more appropriately ELIA KIM JUNG UN !
Flurry wants to resume the dig in Jerusalem and open a college there. In essence he will be sending students there to work at the dig site and call it a college....poor kids. Stephen Flurry would never leave Edstone, his castle,and go live in Jerusalem even though he is in charge of that region, he will send his best friend Brad Macdonald instead.
Right now their focus is on increasing their membership and income so they are inviting people right and left without following past protocols. I guess the open door policy may come into effect, haha. Members are told to keep sacrificing more and more, do more fundraising, pray more and put their all into the work....
Anonymous on April 22, 2019 at 9:37 AM said...“Right now their focus is on increasing their membership and income so they are inviting people right and left without following past protocols. I guess the open door policy may come into effect, haha. Members are told to keep sacrificing more and more, do more fundraising, pray more and put their all into the work....”
After Joseph W. Tkach, Sr.'s Great Apostasy in January 1995, thousands of former Worldwide Church of God members tried going with Gerald R. Flurry's Philadelphia Church splinter group, which used Herbert W. Armstrong's name and photograph to attract them and their wallets. When times were good for the PCG (thanks to the sudden blowup of the WCG) the PCG's focus was on kicking people out left and right just for the fun of it. The thrill of thinking that they had the power to play with other people's eternal lives was too much for the arrogant and malicious local goons in the PCG to resist. Back when about 7,000 people were attending with PCG it was announced that more people had already gone through the PCG (left or been kicked out) than were currently attending. Since then, the PCG went on to get rid of about 2,000 more people. Now it is starting to look like having been so mean and nasty to those who fed little Gerald and paid for his toys might not have been such a great idea.
The original talk about faithfully following HWA's teachings quickly got crowded out by Gerald Flurry continually talking about himself and his own many new names, titles, offices, and positions that he gave himself. Gerald Flurry “flooded” his PCG splinter group with much so-called “new revelation” that totally warped what HWA had actually taught. Even the true gospel of the kingdom of God got immediately suppressed once again and replaced with a “new commission” for a “new church era” of “warning the Laodiceans” by causing massive division everywhere and refusing to talk to them.
One of the saddest things of all is that many sincere people who wanted to help support and spread the truth of God ended up actually supporting and spreading a bunch of evil.
Anonymous on April 22, 2019 at 4:54 PM said "... who wanted to help support and spread the truth of God..."
The notion of an all-powerful creator who "needs help and support spreading knowledge about himself amongst his own creation" is fundamentally flawed.
Think of a factory QA line: the manufacturer designed and build the product with some specific properties/aspects in place. At the QA line, products are tested against a benchmark and if they don't meet the quality bar, they are yanked off the production line and either discarded or reworked. It would be absurd for a Ford factory to be upset that the cars coming out at the end do not have GM's OnTrack capability in them. It would not be good for business for Ford to later start sending out recall notices "hey, bring your car back so we can fix this defect" especially so if the production line continues messing up over and over again. Sometimes production has to be halted completely and design/manufacture issues addressed before continuing.
Religions who are teaching about an all-powerful creator and spreading knowledge about said creator are essentially trying to service "recall notices" from the said all-powerful creator. If said creator is still issuing the same recall notice hundreds of years later, then something is wrong with the production line.
12:31 Just where did 4:54 say anything about "needs"?
Kevin McMillen
Kevinmcmillen64@gmail.com
Just which of our atheist friends is 12:31pm?
Your dishonesty is glaring. Who said anything about "trying to spread knowledge about himself"?
The job, as quoted in the bible is to preach the gospel, which is the good news that Christ by his death and resurrection and being the Passover redeemed the firstfruits who will be among the first resurrection, and as the Lamb of God died for the forgiveness of the world's sins if accepted.
Preaching that if one repents in this life they too can be among the firstfruits.
That Christ at his return will establish a kingdom where he and the firstfruits will reign for 1,000 years.
That those who don't repent and aren't called in this life will be resurrected in the Great White Throne Judgement, they will be taught the truth, and pruned as I mentioned in another thread, and they too will receive eternal life if the don't totally reject it.
That in a nutshell is the gospel. The overall plan of God is "to make man in our image after our likeness" which began in the garden of Eden and will take 7,000 years to complete.
Jesus, as the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, knew when he created all things that man would sin and he would offer himself for us.
Everything is going along right on schedule. Believe it or not I don't care. It's all biblical and not Armstrongism. Even the 7,000 year plan "theory" didn't come from Armstrong. It came from mainstream Christianity.
God doesn't need us to do anything, he gives us the opportunity to!
Pretty damn good plan coming from a bunch of uneducated, ancient bums who just wrote their own ignorant ideas.
Kevin McMillen
Kevinmcmillen64@gmail.com
https://www.raptureready.com/2019/02/10/7000-year-theory-daymond-duck/
Quoted from above link:
In addition to what a Jewish rabbi wrote in the Talmud, at least 3 famous early Christians taught that the world will go through a 7,000-year cycle (6,000 years of history plus a Millennium or 1,000 years of rest).
Barnabus, the companion of the Apostle Paul, taught it in his writings called the Epistle of Barnabus (Chp.15). (Note: the Epistle of Barnabus is different from a fake document called the Gospel of Barnabus).
Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp who was a follower of Jesus’ disciple John the Beloved, taught it (see Prophecy in the News; 6/08; p.6).
Justin Martyr, also a disciple of Polycarp, taught it (Prophecy in the News; 6/08; p.6).
Kevin McMillen
Kevinmcmillen64@gmail.com
If any of you bible hating atheists on here can show me a succinct plan for mankind, as I stated above at 3:28pm, in any other holy book then I'll honestly consider it.
I've looked in the Koran and in Buddhist writings, as well as a few others and I've found nothing even closely resembling an explanation of why we're here and where we're going.
If you want to place the bible in the same league as the others you'll have to demonstrate an outline for the purpose of man in them, otherwise shut the hell up!
All that you're doing is demonstrating cognitive dissonance, using irrational thought to make you feel better about throwing all that you previously believed out. All because one man and his enormous ego used you.
It's sad!
Kevin McMillen
Kevinmcmillen64@gmail.com
How accurate is carbon dating?
https://www.labmate-online.com/news/news-and-views/5/breaking-news/how-accurate-is-carbon-dating/30144
Now, in this next link we'll find that even fairly recent carbon dating is inaccurate. Objects dated as only one to three hundred years old have been proven to be off about 20 years, yet we're to rely on dates ten, fifty, or a hundred thousand years ago? Let alone millions of years?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/06/180605112057.htm
Shall we talk about "faith" again? Faith in scientists that is.
Now for some dating a little more believable! Though by their track record I'd say they're off too. But let's just believe them because they're Scientists!
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180709101125.htm
Kevin McMillen
Kevinmcmillen64@gmail.com
Kevin, the rate of C14 decay makes it useless for a longer span than about 50,000 years ago. Greater ages are determined by other means, often in combination. Responsible researchers specify the degree of uncertainty of their method. In other words , they try to be honest about how much they're off. They don't pull the authoritarian trick of expecting people to believe them because they'r Scientists. They expect other scientists to check their work and try to replicate it.
Retired Prof. Being off 20 years in something 200 years old says it all. No matter which isotope they're using, they're assuming the constants.
Here's an interesting tidbit from one of the links that I gave:
"Most concerning, though, is when the carbon dating directly opposes or contradicts other estimates. At this point, the carbon dating data is simply disregarded. It has been summed up most succinctly in the words of American neuroscience Professor Bruce Brew:
“If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely out of date, we just drop it.”"
So much for science being honest and 100% peer reviewed.
Unfortunately there's more assumptions in science than they're willing to admit. Consider the speed of light, how do they know how fast light travels in different sections of the galaxy? Who knows what's really out there influencing light speed?
Same goes for differing isotopes, how do they know what circumstances can effect the half life of an isotope? Especially if that half life is measured in millions or billions of years?
The veracity of the speed of light or the age of the earth can not be peer reviewed. They can "check their work" to make sure the results of various tests are consistent but they can't prove the accuracy of those tests.
Much like the assumption that gravity slows time because cesium atoms oscillate faster the further they are from a mass. How do they know that gravity slows time rather than gravity merely slowing the oscillation and time being irrelevant?
I realize that you're a Professor and I just a High School educated construction worker, I understand my limitations on the subjects but I'm not going to believe anything until it's clearly explained. How do Scientists "know" things that are impossible to verify? Like age and distance? Guessing is one thing, knowing and presenting guesses as fact is another.
Kevin McMillen
Kevinmcmillen64@gmail.com
I am the "athiest from 12.31pm" but I prefer to consider myself agnostic rather than athiest. I consider any religous texts to be just like today's social media posts: the fact that it is written somewhere doesn't mean it is true. If you wanna believe in any of them, go ahead, enjoy. As for me, I live for the now and don't care about the after life. Heck, I can barely plan what the next hour, day, week, month, year etc is going to be like ... why should I expect I can plan the after-life?
I am also an engineer and a great fan of science and its marvels.
"How do Scientists "know" things that are impossible to verify?" How do you "know" about your 7000 year plan? Can you verify it? The beauty of science is that science doesn't claim to know everything and it is open to change and growth: if you can prove your "science" and it can stand to scrutiny, it gets accepted and embraced. Meanwhile, if there is no evidence to the contrary, science accepts 'science.' But science always wants to grow and know more ... hence the continued research and growth of the body of scientific knowledge.
You say you are a construction worker. I expect you deal a lot with measurements i.e distance. As a construction worker, you have probably seen or used a laser rangefinder. That darn little thing works by using the fact that laser/light travels at a specific speed. Using the simple formular of Distance = Speed * Time, the ranger finder uses the known "speed of light" and the time it takes for the light beam to be reflected back to calculate the distance the beam travelled. Go ahead and pull out your tape measure and verify the veracity of the speed of light next time you use a laser rangefinder. Try it in different mediums and see.
Now, science tells me that energy cannot be destroyed: it can be transformed from one type to another. My mere existence as a living being is energy in action. When I die, my energy will be transformed into something else. I don't know what that something else is. Religion wants to tell me what that transformation is but religion has no way of verifying its claims to me. As a believer in science, I dismiss the claims of religion and, instead, wait to see i.e carry out an experiment. Am I taking a gamble? Sure, I am. The major religions of this world are relatively new: my great grandmother had no knowledge of chrisitianity, islam, budhism or whatever. Is she doomed because she had no such knowledge hence could not accept it?
Kevin, I admire your skeptical take on things. The fact that I was a professor makes very little difference in cases like this because I was not a professor of physics, astronomy, or cosmology. I have an amateur's interest, which stimulated me to read science magazines when I was not reading for my own profession. Nowadays I check out science Web sites too, and have recently discovered the "Ask Ethan" column in Forbes Magazine. He answers questions sent in by readers like us, and his answers are easy to read even for an amateur like me. You might enjoy checking them out. You may even decide to send him questions yourself.
Flurry or Pack really ought to have personal q & a columns in their recruitment magazines: “Ask Elijah!”
BB
10:54 So why don't you just start signing your posts Atheist from 12:31 so we know which anonymous we're dealing with on different threads?
No I can't prove a 7,000 year plan, never said that I could. If you've read any of my past posts you'll know that I can't "prove" God or the bible either, that's where faith comes into play.
As far as the speed of light on earth, or in a vacuum, I never once claimed that science hasn't determined that. My question is how do they know it doesn't speed up or slow down in different areas in the vastness of space. Space isn't an absolute vacuum and some parts have more molecules than others. So?
Why are you asking me if your great grandmother is doomed? This is an anti HWA/WCG blog, don't you know the teachings about the Great White Throne Judgement?
I don't even believe that you're doomed even if you maintain your disbelief to your death (hopefully that won't occur for a very long time).
No, religion has no way of verifying any claims, I've known that for a long time. And until God allows me to resurrect someone from the dead, or heal a cripple, or... I'll always have doubt that he exists. That's where faith comes into play.
There are people here who have a problem with my honesty, I don't care. I try not to play games, and I try to be as honest as I can. One reason that I give my name on here, I'm sure there have been some readers who know me, or at least one day there will be. I have nothing to hide.
Kevin McMillen
Kevinmcmillen64@gmail.com
Prof. Thanks. My daughter sometimes gives me the look when I question the ethics of some scientists, but I know human nature and as the quote that I posted, if something isn't always consistent, some scientists "just leave it out".
If you don't remember from past discussions here, my daughter has her PhD in Immunology and Microbial Pathogenesis and for what it's worth, shes a Sabbath and Feast keeper as is my Civil Engineer son.
I'm obviously a very proud father.
Kevin McMillen
Kevinmcmillen64@gmail.com
I have to remain anonymous for the simple reason that people very close and dear to me have chosen to break PCG rules and keep in touch with me as long as I don't draw too much attention to myself or them. It sucks, but, family and long-term friends are dear to me.
In your last two statements, you implied that you have known that religion has no way of verifying any claims and that you will always have doubt God exists until you can heal or resurrect someone. I agree with you 100% on this and for the same reason, I consider myself an agnostic rather than athiest.
As for light speeds, yes, science does teach us that light travels at different speeds through different medium. Space is not entirely a true vacuum. Different regions of space have different temperatures and this affects the speed too. Given the law of large numbers, and given that the speed of a light in a true vaccum is 3*10^8m/s (a very large number), the changes encountered in the non-vacuum space are negligible for most purposes.
Do you mind sharing which COG your daughter associates with (if any)?
7:18 Feel free to email me at above address.
Post a Comment