Dave Pack: Our Enemies Are Satanic People!

Someone in Wadsworth is NOT having a good day!

All Splinter Group Ministers Are Like Vultures

Imagine going through life placing your entire identity into a failed dead organization that no longer exists? An organization that has left a trail of damaged and bloodied people in its wake. A trail of untold misery for tens of thousands of people over the decades and yet there are the few that want to resurrect it.

Samuel Kitchen writes:

The identity we received, as the future bride of Jesus Christ, was the Worldwide Church of God. That identifies us SPIRITUALLY.

Now with our ministers going out, after the death of the apostle, and becoming NEW CHURCHES, they knew how to behave like a Church of God. They were taught VERY WELL by the apostle of Jesus Christ! But by creating a NEW and SEPARTE CHURCH, they found themselves without Jesus Christ!

The only tie to Jesus Christ, they have, is back through Herbert W Armstrong and the Worldwide Church of God. As individual ministers and members REMEMBER what they were taught, they reconnect back to their ROOTS. But shortly afterwards, the connection is severed because of THIS SEPARATION. The idea of the necessity of a second or more church of God, is heresy. SO IT CHOKES THE WORD, and the Holy Spirit is constrained and quenched quickly depending on the individual.

The more the individual REMEMBERS what they were taught, the more they go back to it, and reconnect to God. Eventually, if this becomes priority, that individual becomes ONE with the identity of the Worldwide Church of God. Because everything unclean, unholy, and profane is being removed, through a repentant mind seeking obedience to God, they identify more and more with the membership of the Worldwide Church of God, and by listening and supporting Herbert W Armstrong they are becoming ORGANIZED with Jesus Christ IN THIS CHURCH!!!!

This is why some have attempted to control the flow of information. They want to control the collections and libraries of the Worldwide Church of God online, in order to direct the individuals to “other churches”. They continue to propagate the heresy that “another church of God” is acceptable, and that the Worldwide Church of God is no more and dead.

They are like vultures, carrying away part of a carcass, feeding it TO THEIR YOUNG, pieces they've carved out.

A Christmas Polemic: The Armstrongist view on Christmas is really about self-righteousness.

 Christmastide (Fair Use)

 

A Christmas Polemic

By Scout

 

The Armstrongist view on Christmas is really about self-righteousness.  It is not about whether there is a pagan taint to some popular observation.  Armstrongists, for instance, have never examined Thanksgiving.  One could make a superficially plausible argument that Thanksgiving is contaminated by paganism.  The Native Americans who met with the pilgrims were throughgoing pagans.  By Armstrongist standards, so were the pilgrims.  The pilgrims believed in the Trinity.  In addition, Thanksgiving is rooted in sin.  Armstrongists used to believe, and maybe still do, that Native Americans were Canaanites.  And Israel was not supposed to make treaties with Canaanites but was supposed to exterminate them.  So, the first Thanksgiving celebration was a sinful rebellion against God.  So, we have two rebellious, pagan peoples inaugurating an observance in early America that Armstrongists everywhere now cheerfully celebrate.  

Armstrongists do not have a methodology that is applied even-handedly to ferreting out contaminated observances or Thanksgiving, along with Christmas, would not stand.  Hence, the decision against Christmas is not the result of a carefully considered measure that is then applied without bias. One gets the impression that while Armstrongists are serious about the paganism of holidays, they are also selective, for some reason, about which holidays they evaluate. This supports the idea that not observing Christmas is ulterior and just a convenient badge of self-righteousness for Armstrongists. And leveraging Christmas does have value for Armstrongists. Taking a contrarian stand on Christmas also produces a sense of bonding and separateness from the great unwashed masses.   In addition, HWA used to rail about co-workers spending money on Christmas gifts instead of sending the money to the WCG. This was a simply a means of capitalizing on the generosity of the season.  And, of course, there are the pre- and post-Christmas sales.

The fallacy in the Armstrongist reasoning concerning Christmas has a name – it’s a thing. It is called in the discipline of logic the Genetic Fallacy.  This is what Wikipedia says about it:

“The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue) is a fallacy of irrelevance in which arguments or information are dismissed or validated based solely on their source of origin rather than their content. In other words, a claim is ignored or given credibility based on its source rather than the claim itself.”

While one can debate such issues as how much paganism is too much and what condemning pagan historical connections can be found, we lose sight of the fact that the rejection of Christmas is simply an idiosyncratic assertion of self-righteousness in the odd denomination.

And let me state further. Garrison Keillor once said that in Minnesota even the atheists are Lutheran – it’s the Lutheran God they don’t believe in.  Armstrongists have been known to celebrate on December 25th. I recall that we in this region used to go to the WCG District Family Weekend on Christmas Day. It was on a distant college campus. We would eat in restaurants, stay in hotels, have sports tournaments, sometimes a talent show, listen to a special sermonette and sermon, socialize bigly – a kind of custom liturgy all on December 25th. In this celebration of self-righteousness, it was the pervasive influence of mainstream Christianity that we were acknowledging. It wasn’t that we WCG members weren’t attending the Christmas party. Rather, we were the bad kids at the Christmas party.

 

Scout

 

 

Crackpot Prophet: King of Absurdities

 

The fantasy world that the Great Bwama Bob Mzungu Thiel lives in knows no boundaries in absurdities. These are the nutty things he believes he is doing:

There is a remnant of the Philadelphian church left now because:

• The short-work of Romans 9:28 needs to be done.
• Matthew 24:14 still needs to be fulfilled.
• God promised to pour out His Spirit and give dreams and prophecies in the end before Jesus returned (cf. Acts 2:17-18).
• An end time Zerubbabel would be part of the Philadelphia remnant to rebuild the second spiritual temple–which would NOT look anywhere near as impressive as the previous temple physically (Haggai 2:3-4,9).
• All things needed to be restored (Matthew 17:11), and the mantle held. And important truths, such as why God created anything and why He made humans have been restored in the 21st century.
• The full number of Gentiles must come in (Romans 11:25).
• The end time Ezekiel watchman warning must go out (cf. Ezekiel chapters 3, 5, and 6)–and no group has ever done more than what has happened in the CCOG.
• The Philadelphian remnant is targeted by the Beast power before (Daniel 7:25a, 11:29-35; Revelation 12:13-16) before he goes to persecute the rest of the Christians (Revelation 12:17, 13:5-10, 14:12-13).
• Philadelphians are the only one that Jesus promises protection from the coming hour of trial (Revelation 3:10) and that has not happened yet.

Would you give up everything to follow this dude?

Dave Pack: Why Is Jesus Too Stupid To Know When To Return?

 

RCG News Flash – December 15, 2024

David C. Pack Declared Jesus Christ Would Return
on December 16, 2024.
But then taught maybe on January 15, 2025.
Then maybe on December 31, 2024.
Then maybe on March 29, 2025.

The inexplicable madness of The Restored Church of God continues. A prime example of the biblical lunacy the members are willing to endure centers around Pastor General David C. Pack declaring that the start of the 1335 in the book of Daniel brings salvation and Jesus Christ on December 16, 2024.

He taught this with “impossible it’s wrong” proofs during “The Greatest Untold Story! (Part 545)” on November 16, 2024 and promised even more evidence was coming.

--------------------

One week later, during “The Greatest Untold Story! (Part 546)” on November 23, 2024, Dave expressed doubt about the previous teaching by suggesting it could happen instead on January 15, 2024.

--------------------

One week later, during "The Greatest Untold Story! (Part 547)" on November 30, 2024, Dave threw out all he taught about a January 15 possibility to declare the 1335 still occurred on December 16, but salvation would not come until December 31.

--------------------

One week later, during "The Greatest Untold Story! (Part 548)" on December 7, 2024, Dave threw out all his recycled malarkey about a New Year's Eve possibility to declare the 1335 did still occur on December 16… but had to give a "heartbreaking" caveat that "haunted him." Members of The Restored Church of God MAY need to wait until March 29, 2025.

--------------------

To top off the meandering prophetic rollercoaster, David C. Pack declared he is prophesying NOW.

December 16 will be the 90^th recorded prophetic failure for David C. Pack since being tracked in March 2022. When nothing happens tomorrow, he will once again publicly prove himself to be a blaspheming false prophet. He is not God's servant, and God is not working through him. But Dave refuses to see that.

David C. Pack said that “liars and satanic people” are attacking him. The fact is that David C. Pack attacks himself just by opening his mouth. Let his own words stand witness against him.

Who the “liars” are and what they are saying about RCG is unknown to me. If you know, please write exrcgwebsite@gmail.com.

Marc Cebrian
exrcg.org

David C. Pack - Herbert W. Armstrong Is A False Apostle

 

During "The Greatest Untold Story! (Part 548)" On December 7, 2024, David C. Pack of The Restored Church of God gives an update on the recent broadcast he filmed for Worldwide Church of God splinter groups. His goal was to have members in the splinter groups leave and join RCG, but it looks like this failed drastically... no surprise! 

He claims he can't be a false prophet because he's not the only one who sets dates. Indeed, Herbert W. Armstrong did set a date, which makes him a false apostle and prophet, too. But it is not recorded in the Bible that any of the 12 Apostles set dates. David C. Pack has been setting dates continuously for a decade or more. He's a false prophet not only because of this but also because of his title claiming. He has claimed 34+ titles in the Bible and many pertaining to Christ.

exRestoredCOG

The Cosmos as Seen by the Ancients: Armstrongism in Contention with the Cosmology of Genesis

A Hebrew Cosmology (Fair Use)

The Cosmos as Seen by the Ancients:

Armstrongism in Contention with the Cosmology of Genesis

By Scout

 

“Why haven't scientists compared the record of Genesis with the facts of geology? NEVER has there been an age like this one. An avalanche of scientific information is pouring down upon specialist and layman alike. No one is able to keep up with the torrent of new knowledge. But is man the wiser for all this new knowledge? Are the latest conclusions of geology, of archaeology, or history any nearer the truth? Or are we being crushed by the sheer weight of new ignorance new superstitions, this time garbed in the respectable clothes of Scientific Knowledge?”  - Herman L. Hoeh, “Genesis vs. Geology,” Plain Truth Magazine, July 1966.

 

When I was a kid, if found the first chapter of Genesis to be very confusing. The discussion it contained of “waters” and “firmaments” seemed odd.  This is because the Ancient Cosmological Model (ACM) used by the author of the first chapter of Genesis does not comport with what we know of the Cosmos today.  It is, rather, an ancient model that had currency in the Middle East at the time of the composition of Genesis.  A version of this same model entered the Greco-Roman world. Herman Hoeh’s anti-science statement above is not an apologetic for this scriptural ACM.  Rather, in his comprehensive article on Genesis, cited, he provides an alternative explanation for the events of Genesis.  Hoeh omits any reference to the ACM.   Why the omission?  We can only conjecture on this.  Since Hoeh overlooks the critical data concerning ACM, his exegesis is then rendered incomplete and inaccurate.

This essay will make the case that Genesis uses the ACM.  Hoeh did not admit this fact or address it that I can find in my research.  And how does the use of the ACM affect the validity of the Bible? 

The Ancient Cosmological Model

In ancient Semitic cosmology, the Cosmos looked a lot different than it does to us. They believed in a Three Story Universe: Heaven, Earth and the Underworld. We have the modern science of astronomy and they, back then, did not. They envisioned the sky as a ceiling of solid material. Apparently, they thought it was transparent because they believed that the ceiling (firmament) held back water and the water is what made the sky blue. They also believed there were windows or floodgates in this ceiling that permitted water to come down out of the sky.  They also believed that the ceiling was not that far away, hence, the attempt to reach it by building a tower. And above the vault of heaven, above the waters, was where the Throne of God was located.

So, to these ancient people, the Universe was shaped like a big plate with a bowl inverted over the top of it. The plate was the Middle Story or the earth. The bowl was the Top Story which is the vault of heaven and beneath the plate was the Bottom Story or the underworld which also held water. And there was empirical evidence that supported this view. The ancients could see the circle of the horizon. Rain fell out of the sky.  And if you dug into the ground deep enough you found water. This ACM is what was described in the Book of Genesis.

In Source Criticism, the description in Genesis 1 is attributed to the Priesthood. I think they were the educated class in ancient Israel.  At its origin this concept may have been provided by Moses and only curated by the Priesthood.  No doubt, Moses, educated in Egypt, was familiar with the ACM.  So, it is not surprising that their view of Genesis was pretty much what was found broadly in the Middle East.

An interesting statement of this history is found in the following video by The Bible Project:

Hoeh’s Omission

Herman Hoeh posited a different idea entirely about Genesis 1.  This was the idea that the creation took place billions of years before Genesis 1 and then a great destruction occurred.  And the “Creation Week” was not that at all.  In the Hoeh cosmogony, it was more of a “Housekeeping Week.” It was a clearing of the chaotic environment surrounding the earth, already created, to some depth in space.  While this theory can be made to fit some parts of Genesis 1, what Hoeh does not do in his theory is account for all the Genesis data.  We have the following on the Second Day:

“And God said, ‘Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.’  And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.  And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.  And God said, ‘Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear’: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called the Seas: and God saw that it was good. (KJV, Genesis 1:6-9).”

First, this is a creation activity not a housekeeping activity.  Next, this description from the KJV corresponds to the ACM.  In this model, God creates heaven and this separates two great oceans.  One in the Top Story and one in the Middle Story.  Then God exposes land in the Middle Story by concentrating the waters in certain locations.  At other places in scripture, we find “The Pillars of the Earth” and “The Fountain of the Deep” that also fit with the ACM.  

But the publications of the Worldwide Church of God (WCG) nowhere address this important data in Genesis 1:6-9 that I have been able to find.  The term “firmament” does not appear often in WCG publications and it does not appear in Hoeh’s article cited above at all.  Hoeh writes of the clearing of the Earth and its celestial environment but does not write of the direct connection of Genesis to the ACM.  He is in contention with scripture but it is subtle rather than explicit.  He simply does not exegete Genesis 1:6-9.  My guess is that Hoeh knew that the ACM was an ancient theory about the organization of the Cosmos and that it did not agree with modern scientific findings. There is no great ocean of water being contained behind the vault of heaven.  The earth is not a disc and the sky a half-dome.  And the world does not float on the waters of the Great Deep.  But, perhaps, it was easier to let sleeping dogs lie. 

The Impact on the Validity of the Bible 

One reason Hoeh may have ignored a direct reference to the ACM is that it connects the Bible to a model of the Cosmos that ancient peoples believed in but which science has demonstrated to be incorrect.  In Genesis 1:1 there is even a description that corresponds to the Primordial Chaos of ancient Semitic cosmology.  The Bible, however, presents the creation event in stark abstraction (q.v., Jewish Study Bible) that does not portray the drama found in Semitic cosmology.  But should the use of the ACM lead us to invalidate the Bible?

It is important to recognize that the Bible spoke to people in terms that they recognized. You could not write a treatise on modern quantum mechanics and expect the readers at that time to understand it without some preparation in modern physics.   For that matter, we probably could not now understand a treatise on the Cosmos written a couple of thousand years in the future. What was to the Ancients state-of-the-art cosmology has perforce become to us now allegory. This ancient view has staying power throughout this transition from cosmology to allegory because the spiritual principles carry forward and have not changed. I have no doubt that when the Priesthood wrote or redacted this physical description of the Cosmos, they actually believed their view was realistic and accurate. It was based on the astrophysics of their day.  Their hard science now serves us as poetry and allegory.

Summation

The fact that the Bible contains the Ancient Cosmological Model does not make the Bible antique or irrelevant. Genesis is not in contention with geology. Only certain interpretations are in contention with geology.  The Bible is foremost a work of theology – a work of spiritual principle.  These spiritual principles may be carried in a physical framework that is subject to revision as human knowledge grows.  Even now we are people who only know the “observable” universe.  Much is yet to be revealed. To avoid the constraint of the growth in human knowledge, the Bible would have to become totally abstract.   Instead, it is a book of an ancient people and their behaviors in their time and place, yet comprehensible to us based on our lived experience.