“Path of Truth Cult”– Vanity Search

In this post, I share a communication from a Path of Truth insider who identifies [probably] himself as Manny who searched for the phrase “path of truth cult” and landed on my analysis. There are two parts to this post, the first a simple professional email exchange, and the second the detailed back-and-forth comments primarily relating to Manny’s concern at my arrogance and errors. I’ve invested a substantial amount of time into the interchange, enjoyed it and trust that it helps people understand a little more about Path of Truth, myself, and hopefully a little more of the good things of life! SHOCK WARNING: Excessive testosterone ahead!

Background

In 2015 entered into a lengthy email exchange with Paul and Victor who both cast me off. I blogged about Path of Truth Ministries earlier in 2015.

I copy a well-referenced third-party page analysing the theological significance of their teaching (now offline) here.

Email Exchange

On 24 November 2015 at 13:56, [name redacted] <[redacted]@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello Dennis,

My name is [redacted]. You can call me Manny.

Hi Manny. Thanks for contacting me

I came across your website by typing “path of truth cult” into Google. An article that you’ve written came up in the search results. This article is entitled ‘Analysing Victor Hafichuk’s Ministry’. I have red this, along with the correspondence you’ve had with Victor and Paul. I’ve written a commentary on some of the things you’ve said in the correspondence, as in the article. Attatched to this email is the commentary itself, if you wish to read it.

Thanks I’ve perused it briefly

Although I know Victor and Paul, please do not think I have written the commentary on their behalf, or in their defence. My desire in writing it was to neither defend them, nor attack you. My desire was only to challenge falsity. I want you to understand that I am in no way an advocate for men, but a supporter of truth.

I can accept that at face value for the moment Manny

If someone were to tell me that the world is flat, I would want to challenge that view, because it is in opposition to what is actually true. I feel vexed, when any type of falsity is spoken, and I have the strong urge to speak out against it. That is what I’m doing with the words you have written, Dennis. You have made numerous unsubstantiated statements; contradicted yourself in quite a few places, and said things that are false and highly questionable.

Oh dear!

I’m in agreement with all the things which Victor and Paul have said. But I disagree with a great many things you have said. So Dennis, that is why you’ll find (in the commentary) that I’m focusing only on what you have said – because it is you, not they, who have said the things which need to be addressed and corrected. Believe me, if they had said anything questionable, I would desire to point out their error(s).

Well the subject matter was the dead of six million Jews at the hands of Hitler. You accept that as fact, like Paul and (apparently Victor too) does? I don’t for I don’t see the evidence. Before we move into my words let’s go back to the cause of tension, or disagreement shall we?

I want you to know that the commentary has been composed in the hope that you would, at the very least, reflect on some of the things you have said. I would hope that you are open to correction. As for myself, I am willing to be corrected, if I have said anything wrong or incorrect.

That’s basic truthseeking 101 isn’t it?

In regards to the questions that I ask you in the commentary, I do desire for you to provide answers. The commentary is nine pages long, not particularly lengthy. So I would hope that you are able to give it a good read, and answer all the questions.

Sure, I will do – give me a day or so to read through and respond in detail.

And perhaps an exchange can be opened between us, to discuss the matters pertaining to what you have written in the correspondence/online article; and what I have written in my commentary.

Manny

Exchange is welcome Manny. I was sad when Paul and Victor cut me off like they did. A little surprised to hear from you but happy to engage as you so wish.

Regards etc

This is all good stuff. Professional and apparently above board. I found Manny’s introduction on the surface honest, friendly and professional and had no real issues with it. I perused the nine page document, saw that it contained a string of my words quoted with a series of questions, comments and challenges. I skim-read it and knowing that it would take a bit of time to work through, I slipped this interim reply back to Manny.

My alarm bells rang with the second sentence, “I have red this” for the Path of Truth people all replace the past tense English word “read” with the phonetic spelling “red”. It’s not an error – it’s a deliberate play on the English spelling that Victor Hafichuk initiated and that Paul Cohen knowingly continues.

Seeing this I knew then therefore at the outset that Manny was under the influence, one of the team, on the inside or however you want to put it. That wasn’t an issue for me per se, simply an identification of a close relationship with Paul and Victor (P&V).

I was puzzled at the phrases Manny used, “My desire was only to challenge falsity. I want you to understand that I am in no way an advocate for men, but a supporter of truth.”

It was my experience that truthseeking was their claim, however that in regards to the issue of Six Million (the inital issue of conflict I had with them) they didn’t really seem to care and their vitriol in regards to me didn’t match with my self-assessment, so I accepted Manny’s claim “at face value” and for the moment.

All good stuff so far though.

The Commentary/Conversation

Here’s Manny’s commentary, which contains my selected quotes (bold), Manny’s questions (italic) and my answers (standard text):

CONVERSATION START

Hi Manny

My responses below

> ‘They certainly have a holier-then-thou attitude’

> > When you make an objective statement such as this, where is your evidence to back it up? Can you prove what you are claiming here?

This is my opinion. I am an author and investigative blogger. I ask questions, think, then write. That is my calling in life, something I enjoy and do a lot of. I am opinionated largely because of my capacity to think and bravery to speak my opinion. Paul & Victor have judged me and cast me off as a Christian fraud. I consider that sufficient validation of my analysis although their claim of exclusivity towards the truth is also indicative of such an attitude.

> ‘I respect and agree with much of their teaching. Others certainly don’t and I too have concerns paralleling this detractor’s comments on selfaggrandisement’

> > If they were self-aggrandising, what better way to show it than to name a website after themselves (perhaps called ‘Victor and Paul’s Path of Truth’), and make a section called ‘Words of Wisdom’ where their own quotes are featured? Rather like your site, Dennis.

Not sure that I get your drift here Manny but I’ll take a guess that the idea that I agree with some of ‘your’ detractors you find hypocritical when you look at my website? If that is the case then there is a distinct difference, I KNOW that I am opinionated.

Path of Truth however claims NOT to speak opinion but only Truth. If your comments are designed to be sarcastic then I will diffuse this sarcasm or a dig simply with the acknowledgement that I DO claim to be opinionated and am overt about this.

But let’s put this into proper context shall we? First you do not know the EXACT concerns I have for they parallel some detractors. Next you note that you yourself even quote me, that I agree with much? And then the whole thrust of my blog is, what, me? That’s right Manny, my blog, my ideas, my investigation, my opinion, my bio, my history and [shame upon shame] even my quotes in my words of wisdom. If you think that a godfearing man can’t come up with a few words of wisdom then scrub the books of Ecclesiastes, Psalms, Proverbs out of scripture why don’t you?

Have you not ever read Victor’s words of wisdom? He undertook a major writing exercise in this area did he not?

All you do with this sort of thing is just show your bad attitude here. Get over it.

> [my summary redacted]

> > Here you present a constructed, non-factual summary of the correspondence you had with Victor and Paul.

It’s called paraphrasing and I identified it as such. It is a legitimate literary technique used by communicators since the beginning of communication. The problem with paraphrasing is not the fact that we paraphrase but that we can distort the message of the sender. In the Garden of Eden, creation fell into temptation through a distortion of a message. The message could have been paraphrased along the lines that God loved us [and that therefore we should not eat of the tree] or it could be paraphrased along the lines that God didn’t want us to be like Him [and therefore the forbidden fruit was desirable]. The act of paraphrasing is not a false-hood in and of itself.

> > In this summary you attribute words to them which they never actually said.

Not at all, Manny. I clearly mark the section as a paraphrase. Paraphrasing does not attribute “words” to an individual. It ascribes intent, or a general thrust.

> > You present a scripted summary, conceived from your own imagination; your own retelling of the correspondence, in condensed form. You have given your own biased summary of the correspondence.

That’s right! That’s paraphrasing, just the same as Victor, Paul, and I assume you do when you expound a truth. You summarise a concept, or an idea in words of your own, and generally (especially in ‘your’ case) with scriptural references to back up your statements. This is communication 101.

> > Is not what you have done akin to lying, being that you have not presented the truth? Why not present actual snippets from the correspondence itself, instead of making things up? You may well say it is paraphrasing, not lying.

Yes I do say exactly that, Manny! I do this though not to justify paraphrasing but because the paraphrasing was accurate. Now IF (and I am open to correction here) IF I misrepresented P&V’s original intent then sure, I could have “lied” in the sense that I have misconstrued reality – yes, of course, in which case the honourable thing to do would be to correct the error. This is why I give Right-of-Reply to all and only lightly moderate comments.

> > But I do not think what you have done is paraphrasing at all, but rather, putting words into the mouth of others, words which they didn’t say.

You may think what ever you like Manny. That is your opinion after all and you are entitled to it. Now if the general thrust of paraphrasing is wrong or as you say biased then we have several ways to deal with this – post a Comment, contact me directly via email or Skype and let me know your thoughts and what needs to be corrected. I’ll assess the situation and respond accordingly.

> > Besides it didn’t need to be paraphrased,. As I’ve said, you could have combined and presented snippets of the original text.

That’s a value judgement that you’ve made. You are entitled to that opinion but I chose to paraphrase, and for what I believed and still believe was a good reason.

So . . . there are several issues that we’ve covered here –

1. Whether in general paraphrasing is lying at a big-picture conceptual level – I say that if it represents reality correctly and then it’s not lying
2. Whether my paraphrasing was accurate – I claim that it was and is and in the absence of any correction will remain unchanged
3. Whether my paraphrasing included any intent to deceive – I claim not
4. Whether my paraphrasing was wise or necessary in this instance – I say it was

> ‘This is unbiblical judgmentalism based on arrogance.’

> > Another objectively-framed claim, with no evidence or supporting material. If you view their ‘judgmentalism’ as unbiblical should you not have provided some Scriptures to support your opinion; and to counter-act their supposed lack of Scriptural substance?

No. You obviously do not understand the issue that I am talking about.

You will notice that P&V apply scriptures into a specific situation (like with me and many others) with a “thus saith the Lord”. This confidence to speak the truth is one of the things that I love about their ministry – it operates at the upper levels of confidence and I respect this immensely. You will see that I personally was compelled to dig deeper and to engage as a direct response to this confidence, so I don’t have a problem with people who shoot straight, believe me!

Scripture though only provides the basis for the application of truth. Just like God tells us to love our spouses [the principle] but we must learn HOW to love them individually [the application] so too does Scripture [that expounds the principle] require the Holy Spirit to know HOW to chastise, correct, exhort, and yes at times to judge others. It is the person of Christ through the work of the Holy Spirit who APPLIES that Scripture into any given situation. P&V err in this manner as I point out in my blogging in the extent to which they do this. The Holy Spirit gives us knowledge of Truth and truth applied which gives us the wisdom to judge a given situation.

Casting one man like me aside as a Christian fraud MAY be valid IF I am, but doing this is a high-risk activity in that if there is error flowing from the source of judgement then the potential for egg-on-face is high, and potentially huge ramifications for people less able to cope with criticism than me. I’ve blogged about this very carefully. I believe that P&V have exercised their judgement on me outside of the Truth (thus the claim of “unbiblical judgmentalism”) and that pride is the cause of this error – thus the word “arrogance”.

> ‘The scriptures caution us against doing this, and I DO agree that we as Christians have the right and indeed responsibility to judge others to some extent and in some circumstances. Victor and his team however take this right WAY too far in my opinion.’

> > Indeed, this is your opinion. But is it anything more than that, Dennis?

A great question Manny!

> > What weight does only your opinion hold?

Nothing if it is based on falsehood or is illogical.

Heaps though if it aligns with the facts and is logical.

> > At least bring forth evidence that supports your viewpoint, rather than making baseless, unsupported statements.

Manny, you have contacted me with a request for engagement. I appreciate that and have bothered to reply here in good faith. I reserve the right to make a judgement call and offer an opinion. My blog does that. You have done well to engage, but the tone of this sentence is accusatory and condemnatory. Rather than defend my statement of opinion – note opinion – I will leave this for the moment but will return to it at the end of this reply, for it is an important point and critical part of the big picture of P&V’s ministry.

> > I wonder how much weight your opinion(s) would hold in a court of law.

There is only one court that matters Manny, but in the interests of keeping on topic with your words, and not the court that I am talking about, let’s go through that scenario. In a court of law you will have sued me for defamation, claiming that my statements of opinion are baseless and unsupported.

First in a court of law you will be struck out before even getting a hearing because one of the first defences of defamation is genuine belief. I stated this as “in my opinion”.

Secondly you are seeking a binary issue of right/wrong on a matter of extent (sometimes put as confusing a qualitative issue with a quantitative one), thus you try to convert a matter of objectivity into an absolute. One of the common errors within Christendom is to confuse truth and love, erring in one or other direction when on the cross, Jesus demonstrated both in equal measure.

The phrase used for doing this is called a logical fallacy. This is akin to saying that yellow is good and then someone arguing that black is best. The colours are just the colours – period. A value assessment is a quality issue not a binary right/wrong issue.

Jesus did NOT cast Martha into the pits of hell in favour of Mary. He simply said what Mary was doing was BETTER. Paul didn’t curse all those that chose to marry, he simply said that remaining single was BETTER.

On the topic that I am talking about here (judging others) I have specifically and deliberately highlighted that P&V take the matter “WAY too far”. This is indicative of a scale of behaviour – it is not an absolute. You will note in the redacted section that you quoted it was me who started this subject by stating that I did believe that P&V had a genuine ministry!

How many of their detractors have ever done that? I’ve never seen one, ever, and this is the reason that I blogged about it because trying to force a matter into a binary, right/wrong works only to endorse a human value – it is the eternal judgement seat that matters to Him – nothing else. I blogged about P&V in the way I did for this very reason that others judging P&V, and calling them a cult is the very same error that I highlight in this section when referring to them!

Your request for evidence that proves a quantitative measurement indicates a mindset that is fixed – locked into a right/wrong, binary issue paradigm. I venture to suggest that this has come from P&V teaching.

My assessment is that a court of law would reject your case BUT that if I defended on the facts that you seek then I would say this:

1. You would have to tell me what you considered right, true, good and godly.
2. We would need to establish where on the scale of judgmentalism is NOT too far
3. We would need the court to assess that P&V’s conduct did exceed that

As I have said, this is an impossibility (to divine a binary answer to a matter of quality). You have already told me that you do not consider P&V to have erred in this regard. My opinions therefore clearly mean little to you.

The next section [redacted] you speak many words around the subject of arrogance. I certainly agree with some of what you say but you misunderstand some things and assume other things that are not correct. Before I quote you though I would like to clarify that I talk of conduct born of arrogance. You refer to me calling them arrogant thus when you do not see it in daily living you miss my point entirely. I’ll get onto this more as I go through your words in detail.

> > It is clear that you view Victor and Paul as being arrogant. Do you really have a true understanding of that word, or are you misapplying it by labelling them as arrogant?

You have not read my words and are guilty of putting words into my mouth and treating me as a typical P&V detractor. I’m not. In regards to the word “arrogance” I have basically called them out on one matter only, which is their excessive judgmentalism which is born out of their arrogance.

> > I think it’s certainly the latter.

You are wrong and would be wise to pause momentarily and reread the post(s) considering the possibility that I have a different attitude to the no-doubt many who attack P&V.

> > You have attributed a derogatory and defamatory word to those who are entirely innocent of your baseless charges.

Not at all.

> > By calling a spade a club, you are in fact lying. That means you are a liar.

No and you are twisting the English language. A lie implies mal-intent. I have none. I am opinionated. I speak my mind. Guilty as charged, but in terms of lying – no. If you find that there is no arrogance in P&V, great, enjoy their company and their teaching and by all means state (as you have ably done here) your belief that I am wrong. Go for it! I have my opinion. You have yours.

To call me a liar based on your opinion is foolishness in the extreme, and [wait for it] this is based on your arrogance. You know me little, yet deign to call me a liar based on my opinion that P&V go too far in one aspect of their ministry and that they do so based on pride?

Come on Manny . . . you’re smarter than that!

> > And furthermore, an accuser, providing little (if any) substance, evidence, objectivity or rationality, to back up your accusation. Are you are you aware that it is a sin to lie and falsely accuse?

Yes! Lucky I don’t eh?

> > I have known Victor and Paul for nearly a year now, and though I don’t have the Spirit of God which gives spiritual discernment, I believe I have a natural gift of analytical discernment, and can recognise arrogance in a person.

Manny we all have that gift. The reason is that we are all proud people and when pride is apparent in another, it ruffles up against ours. The point is not whether we are proud or not – we all are. The point is whether we choose to humble ourselves and do what the Master tells us to do.

> > A person’s fruits – how they act, and what they say, indicates whether they are being arrogant or not.

You are right here to a point but you bring another logical fallacy to the discussion for arrogance as a state of being (the pride inherent in us all since the fall) is a separate issue from actions that are based in that pride. This is vital to understand and is much more than simple linguistic gymnastics. Just because P&V act in humility does not mean that they ARE humble, or don’t have pride, the sort of pride that spawns the arrogance that spawns the excessive judgmentalism that I’ve fingered. We all (including P&V) are sinners, all born into sin and are tarnished with it, through and through. We all (including P&V) must be ready at all times to acknowledge the things that we say or do can be tarnished. The greatest saint in the world can achieve enormous fruits but is still human – yes even P&V.

> > I must say I have not witnessed or perceived any arrogance from either Paul or Victor. Rather, what I have seen from themselves and their writings, is sobriety, humility, boldness, authority, frankness, devotion, conviction, and a firm faith in God, whom has given them the message and truths which they speak.

I can believe this Manny, 100%, but this is a red herring because as I have just pointed out, it’s NOT that they don’t do good things; it’s NOT that they do not choose to act humbly with the issues I pointed out.

> > I think that what you mistake for arrogance is in fact conviction, boldness, frankness, authority, or all of these. But none of these make a person arrogant, do they?

You are right. We can agree on that, but in the light of my above words, neither does it preclude the possibility that arrogance does exist and that error has occurred or that wisdom has lacked within the ministry.

> > I think you need to re-think your definition of what constitutes as arrogance; and also your definition of aggression and foolishness, both of which you say they exhibit.

No, Manny, I think you need to understand me and what I am saying better. I believe that P&V extend their aggression too far and I use myself as a case in point. I’ve stood up to their aggression and will continue to do so. I write all this to you to show you that I am real, I do care, I am a man of God and do understand the issues VERY well. I have NOT become a detractor in the normal sense of the word that P& V will be used to and I have NOT responded in kind to their aggression.

I am very happy to adjust my understanding of their ministry as much as you want to do this by sharing and communicating. Kudos to you for doing this but remember, they are the ones who cut me off, and in fine style too BTW!

> > Dennis, is it arrogant to declare the truth?

Not at all Manny. Remember that little and important paragraph right at the outset of my blogging in which I DO endorse P&V? Note that I have more than once specifically aligned myself with some of P&V’s teaching?

Don’t fall into another logical fallacy that just because I criticise P&V in one area of their ministry that I reject everything they say or do!

> > Is it arrogant to say the world is round, or that 2+2 =4? Are Victor and Paul being arrogant by stating and declaring spiritual truths? If you had the truth, would you not make it known to others? To know the truth and declare it, is not arrogance; but something which any loving, and truthloving, person would do. What person who loved truth wouldn’t declare it? And what person who loved others wouldn’t want to see them delivered out of falsity, through spoken or written truth? The spiritual truth, which Paul and Victor preach, sets one free from ignorance. It has the potential to bring faith (if God grants it) to a person, and kick into 1st gear, the life-saving process of salvation.

You are preaching to the converted, Manny.

> > You may say, ‘I don’t have a problem with the truth they are speaking, it’s the way they are delivering it’. Well, Dennis, how should they deliver it? Would you rather they deliver it sweetly and soothingly, and leave a person’s ego intact?

I do not say this and if you read carefully I say the exact opposite! I advise readers to specifically assess P&V’s words and ministry despite the way they speak or do things!

> > Perhaps you can give a biblical example of how they should deliver the truth. Is there anyone you can think of, in the Scriptures, whose style (according to you) is the ideal model of truth deliverance?

You are taking this hypothetical situation way too far here because I simply do not see a one-size-fits-all approach to ministry from either the Scriptures or from the way that Jesus conducted His ministry. I will leave this subject because it appears to be related to a hypothetical situation that you have raised that simply doesn’t exist.

> > [scripture references redacted] In similar respect to Gamaliel, I tell you, Dennis, that by opposing these men you are opposing the One who sent them. They are as Christ in this world, and by rejecting them, you reject God. ‘Whoever listens to you listens to Me. Whoever rejects you rejects Me. And whoever rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.” ‘ (Luke 10:16)

There are two issues here Manny – first the acceptance of the principle that opposing or rejecting one whom the Lord sends is rejecting Him, and then application of that principle into my life. I accept the principle but I reject the application into my situation. You can probably never accept this as reality for P&V have cast me off and for you to consider their diagnosis in error would undermine your belief systems that they are without error in their communications with me. I’ll continue though despite your likely a priori assumption.

I live in a society seemingly far away from the presence of God. Samoa is a Christian country with churches coming out its ears yet demonstrates little in the way of genuine faith. I am surrounded by religion yet I too, like P&V do listen to Him and obey Him. I too have watched as those who oppose me end up fighting Him, and those who listen to me and support me in my ministry appear to have divine blessing. I know very well the reality of these verses. It might just be possible that I have been wrongly accused and condemned by P&V.

> ‘I would note that to my way of thinking, not all their judgments are in error – I have been impressed with their capacity to divine error in others many times BUT having been subjected to judgment that I believe is in error, I can speak with confidence.’

> > One can speak with confidence, but what needs to be determined is whether that person is speaking the truth or not. Fools can be very confident, but what often comes out of their mouth is unfounded nonsense.

Agreed. Let’s assess this matter of error in my life later, and we’ll get onto something more easily clarified later as well – the six million figure.

Did you note though that yet again, my words are not blanket accusations or total rejection? You tend to forget this, especially when you get a little more aggressive later on.

> ‘Granted, most of their past and public confrontations have been over other more theological/biblical issues in which they CAN stand close scrutiny on their judgment, but in my case I believe their power-play has backfired on them badly, revealing their true colours.’

> > How interesting that they should have withstood close scrutiny from others, in their past and public confrontations; but when it comes to you, they crumble, and are not able to withstand your power of observation. The statement above is an indicative sign of your pride.

There’s one thing I don’t do Manny, and that is to get into theological arguments. There’s a couple of reasons for this – first I never saw the Master do this. Sure He taught about the Kingdom of God but when drawn into the squabbles and fights of the theologians of the day, He pretty much sidestepped them all, got to the heart of the matter and moved on.

Secondly I’m just not cut out for it. I’m not wired like a theologian. Like you are not wired for spiritual discernment, I’m not wired for theological confrontations. My approach is to let others scrap and argue about it and when they agree, it will make it a lot easier for me to step in and agree with them. That’s a little tongue-in-cheek but the point is not that I’m better than the rest. You ascribe wrong motives to me in my words here. The point is that I stood up to them, got whacked unjustly and I stood up to them again.

You are right that I am a proud man. I hate to lose and especially when I don’t consider that it’s fair but this is my human right to stand against accusers and state my innocence. To belittle my powers of observation in a mocking manner is not Christian love and if you ascribe wrong motives to a man simply defending himself then it’s not Christian truth either.

> ‘It is my conclusion that Victor Hafichuk’s Ministry errs in their method and extent of passing judgment on others, regardless of the validity of their opinions or otherwise’

> > From what I understand, passing judgement would be to do what Christ said not to do, in Matthew 7:1, ‘Do not judge, or you too will be judged’. Whereas executing judgement would be performing the rightful duty of saints, who are supposed to deliver judgement (Jude 14-16). Now, are Victor and Paul passing judgement or executing it? Are they making carnal judgements or doing righteous judgement (John 7:24)?

How can I tell the motives of P&V Manny? What I can tell you is that they have a repeating pattern of casting others adrift with the condemnation in the name of Jesus Christ. That’s VERY serious stuff. Executing or passing or whatever you want to call it, their conduct in regards to me was ungodly. They erred.

> ‘In a nutshell, I’m advising people a victim of their tongue-lashing and judgementalism to attempt to divine the message from the messenger.’

> > Can a messenger be divided from his message?

Yes of course he can for even an idiot can speak the truth at times!

> > Can a teacher be separated from his teachings?

Yes of course he can! When it comes to the person’s integrity of course then when the message matches the conduct of the messenger then this brings increased credibility but the truth Manny is independent from the truth-teller. Truth is the person of Christ of course.

> > Can a sinner be distinguished from his sin (as in the popular conception, ‘Love the sinner and hate the sin’) ? In all these cases, I think not.

Why not? P&V have erred. Does that make them any less fit for the Kingdom of God? Of course not. Look back through Victor’s diary and find the many self-confessed failures in conduct – lack of faith, violence, arrogance, selfishness and greed. You know what that tells me – aside from the fact that he’s not perfect? It tells me that he probably appreciates the love of a Saviour that accepts him despite it all, just as much as I do.

> ‘The way to fixing the problem is what I do’

> > Is there any surprise there? Do what Dennis does. Another example of your pride.

Sarcasm Manny and unworthy of your intellect. Your negativity is growing. You started out placid and respectful. You now move into an accusatory tone that assumes something that isn’t.

Let’s go right back to you own words above, when you were talking about P&V having the responsibility to speak the truth where and when they see it. I agreed with you – they do. So if I do the right thing and tell people to do the same as I do when I do something right, then you condemn me? What a hypocrite!

False humility abounds Manny but it is a sin. Far better to speak it like it is eh?

> ‘– bringing the issues to the surface, putting prayerful thought and time into the issues and working things through logically from the beginning. You have to remove the personalities and the emotional stuff; deal with the issues, and facts and evidence; go right back to the beginning if necessary and extend grace by working really hard to keep relationships alive. This is the art of ‘turning the other cheek’ outworked.’

> > What is all this except the vain, bogus, nonsensical surmising of your own mind? Again, what are you basing your statement on?

Don’t belittle the words I have chosen Manny. It is not just a “statement”; it is 69 words of serious wisdom, multiple concepts wrapped up in no less than three sentences that contain seven clauses, more than a dozen rich words all with direct biblical basis.

> > Experience, Scriptures, revelation? Or is your foundation simply your own ideological conceptions?

The former. Go back and read the words again without the hatred that is welling up inside of you and that blinds you.

> ‘I suspect that they are too proud to do this’

> > It’s interesting how you can recognise supposed pride and arrogance in others, yet you cannot take a good look in the mirror and see yourself for what you really are.

Oh how wrong you are Manny.

One day you might find this out, if you really want to know the truth that is.

I want to show you something that you haven’t picked up on yet . . . you know the basis for which Victor cast me off? Think about it for a minute . . . you’ve read it all . . . “that he loves the sound of his own voice”.

Remember that? And do you know the response from the real me, what I really am?

I said, “Guilty!”

Yes that’s right Manny. I pleaded guilty to the charge. Victor pulled the trigger though didn’t he? Think about it a little as I respond to your comments in the correspondence now.

> > Now, onto the correspondence:

> ‘…I now exude confidence from years of learning to deal with low self esteem which shallow commentators misread as signs of manipulation and control. ‘

> > Just as you say ‘shallow commentators’ misread your confidence ‘as signs of manipulation and control’, could it not be that you’ve misread Victor and Paul by coming to the conclusion that they’re arrogant and overly judgemental and aggressive?

Yes of course that may be the case. Show me how I can come to a different conclusion then and I’ll be delighted to change my opinion. Nothing you have said so far has changed it though. I’ve learned that they’re nice guys to you and are all very humble just speaking it like it is around the house but they still judge outside of their circles do they not? Specifically they still judged me, for having the temerity to love the sound of my own voice and exercising my rights to not only have an opinion on the six million figure but to share it. Crumbs! That’s not very Christian-like is it Manny? [sarcasm]

> ‘To Martin I say, don’t confuse extreme confidence in one subject matter as a result of doing the research with arrogance. ‘

> > I find it rather hypocritical that you tell Martin not to confuse confidence with arrogance, when you have confused Victor and Paul’s conviction (or whatever it might be) with arrogance.

First, I accused them of erring in conduct BASED on arrogance. That is observable and based on a Christian world-view, that pride is the default setting and that is clearly observable in my case from P&V. Secondly you are missing the point that I have done the research, hundreds and hundreds of hours of it too BTW over years!

You can think hypocritical all you like but you’ll change that thinking the moment that you find out the real score with P&V and the deeper issues I’ve raised, promise!

> ‘I don’t have a problem with generalised statements, opinion and matters of principle. I just want to see the evidence though before I accept it all. “God said!” is clearly important to you, but it’s not evidence for me.’

> > Why is it that you need evidence in this matter, when in so many everyday things in your life, you don’t demand such evidence?

Good question. Let me tell you why. It is because a long time ago somebody said something to me that made me question the story I had been and was being fed. Being a truthseeker from the age of five, I determined to find out the facts of the matter and I started asking questions. That’s all Manny. I just started asking questions. No big deal eh? The sort of thing that a child does you know like, “Daddy, who is God?” and “Where did I come from?” Instead I asked simple questions like, “How do they knew that it was six million Jews who died?” and then the more I researched the matter I asked more complicated questions too like, “Why was Hitler so scared of being found out that he hated the Jews that he hid all his commands to exterminate them by using euphemisms?” and “How did the Jewish population bounce back to the same numbers immediately after the war when six million apparently died in Concentration Camps?” Just little questions really that didn’t mean much by themselves but ones that couldn’t be answered and all put together created a picture that was, how shall I put it, just a little distorted?

So when someone who hasn’t done the research, or who hasn’t asked the questions, and who generally doesn’t even know the questions to ask in the first place tells me that I’m racist, or a fruit-loop or have an agenda or that I don’t know what I’m talking about, I just simply ask to see the evidence. That’s all. No big deal really, but it flushes lots of things out of the woodwork doesn’t it when you do ask for evidence?

> > For example, do you demand evidence that the vote you cast in an election, is actually going to the person you voted for? Do you demand evidence that the person voted into office, is able to govern the country or constituency properly? Do you demand evidence that the food you eat is free from artificial/chemical contamination? Do you demand evidence that the curriculum taught to your children (if you have them) at school is well-constructed, relevant, and beneficial? You surely accept such things as these, without evidence, so why not the Holocaust issue?

Oops! Manny up until now, I’ve been gracious to you accepting you at face value and humouring your innocent initial approach but you are now making a fool of yourself and I’ll graciously explain things to you about me, because I know that you probably haven’t waded through 850,000 words of blogging to find it all out.

Here goes.

I don’t vote. I would have at the age of 18 except I was three months short of being able to register to vote, so even though I was 18 on Election Day I couldn’t register in time. I would have voted for Robert Muldoon who was billed as an economic miracle-maker but who a year or so after the election I found was more of a politician with a snazzy election campaigning spin-machine. I determined then and there to never vote again. When MMP proportional representation arrived in New Zealand I voted for the first time, for people whom I knew personally to be able to and would likely be able to do the job they said they would.

I’ve had my own organic garden, with bees and fruit trees for 37 years first in the city then in Samoa as I have moved countries. I’ve grown as much of my own organic food as possible and minimise packeted foods and drinks as much as possible and always have, baking my own bread for my family for as long as I can remember, even grinding my own flour by hand at times.

I’ve been a school teacher since I was 19 years old, homeschooled my daughter and adopted a foster boy with special needs as a solo parent. I currently have a 5 acre property I’m developing in Samoa into a cross-cultural community of which schooling, a custom curriculum and special efforts in teaching English to third world children using international voluntary labour will play a major part of my future life here.

The answer is Manny, Yes. Yes. Yes. I do demand the evidence. I do this because I am real, I have a brain, I use it and I care.

I research and have researched many topics. I am active, thorough and have no fear. I might not get everything right but there are a few people around the globe who have underestimated me and my investigative skills and now regret it. The Holocaust is one of the easiest frauds to identify, because you can tell by simply asking for the evidence! There isn’t anything and what is offered up as evidence simply provides more evidence of the fraud with just a couple of appropriate follow-up questions! Try it yourself!

To the point then, and your question, “You surely accept such things as these, without evidence, so why not the Holocaust issue?”

The answer is that with most hoaxes, cons, frauds there is usually a large degree of truth wrapped around the deception, and seeking evidence is a distraction for all but the hardcore investigator. As a truthspeaker, you normally therefore have to present big-picture stuff and then only cough up the evidence when people want to dig deeper.

The Holocaust however is different. The story is so much a part of our “common knowledge” that big picture approaches are only suitable for the hard-core investigators. 99.9% of the world however has to start with something very small, letting them smell a rat, then very slowly as they can cope with the paradigm changes required, keep looking at the evidence little bit by bit until they can come to their own conclusions that basically it never happened like it’s been presented to us for 70+ years.

> > Why is the evidence of the testimonies/witnesses of other individuals, and documented information, not enough for you? Will there ever be enough evidence for you?

Years ago I found the possibility that my parents, my teachers, businesses, the politicians, the government, the religious leaders and the media had lied to me quite realistic. I live in a world of religious cults – Mormons are strong here in Samoa. JW’s are friends and a plethora of other storytellers try to con their way into my life. I make it my business to ask questions, think and write about it.

I work with evidence and let that lead me to the truth. You believe the Holocaust story and want me to believe it with you, thus you are wanting me to ‘eventually’ accept your evidence?

Nah! I don’t work like that sorry, especially with newbies to the topic like you.

> > ‘Show me the evidence Victor and I will believe’, you say, in the correspondence. You remind me of the Pharisees, asking Jesus for ‘evidence’ (John 6:30), in order to believe: “What sign then are You going to do so we may see and believe You? they asked. “What are You going to perform? ” Like the Pharisees, you ask for evidence (or evidence upon evidence), in order to believe.

I’ll listen to your opinion on the Holocaust Manny when you can tell me the questions that have never been answered. I don’t even need you to answer them, just tell me the questions that have been asked about it all. You see, when you talk with no real knowledge of the issues you simply make a fool of yourself. You are like a balloon showing off to a child with a pin. Get a grip of reality Manny and just do ten minutes of research and find the questions, that’s all, just the unanswered questions about the Holocaust. Until then I’ll hold my opinion that there is no credible evidence.

Like the Pharisees, you and P&V have no love for the truth. You claim to know it all yet you don’t even do the basics. Truth Manny is not subservient to politics, or social whims, or the leadership of the religious organisations of the day. The truth is the truth and I think that you are scared of it.

I don’t know this, for I’ve never met you but I suspect that if you found out that I was right and that the evidence doesn’t stack up for the Holocaust, then you would have a credibility issue having stated that P&V are straight. You see Paul did the same thing with me if you read the communications very carefully – he wasn’t prepared to consider that the common knowledge of the Six Million might not actually be Gospel. His mistake was not to get fooled by the mainstream message of the day, his mistake was to spiritualise the matter and call me to account for my Christian faith over a matter of secular fact, AND then Victor’s mistake was to associate the Holocaust issue with my spiritual welfare and declare me unfit for purpose. Your other colleague’s mistake was to assume that because I love the sound of my own voice, that I cannot hear and/or do not obey the still small voice of the Spirit of God.

> > You won’t believe the six million figure which is accepted by many. You won’t accept it, because unlike the commoners, you’re too smart to be ‘duped’, aren’t you, Dennis?

No Manny, I’m not smart at all! I found out from my younger sister that Santa’s shopping list was written in my mother’s handwriting. That hurt because she was obviously smarter than me! I read a story in the front page of the New Zealand Herald that I knew was falsified because I was there as an eye witness when it happened. I watched as my friends in business lied to their clients, and found things about political and religious leaders that I really didn’t want to know. I designed marketing materials for companies and indeed observed whole countries misrepresent reality and I know how easily I can get fooled.

So what do I do? I just back myself and say sorry when I get it wrong; I listen to P&V and you and respond – straight even when you guys have a bad attitude towards me.

> > You know better, don’t you? Your research has proven that to be the case, hasn’t it?

Yes. Yes.

> > In regard to the six million number, I think that you’re being obsessively and pedantically Pharisaical about it.

Nope! Six Million; Four Million; Two Million; Two dozen . . . it’s all codswallop. I’ll tell you this – there were more Jews who died by firing squad in the first single train that Goebbels shipped out East than who died in Gas Chambers in the whole entire war. The simple reason was that there simply WERE no Gas Chambers!

> > By unduly focusing on this one detail, you are straining at a gnat, and thus missing the bigger picture. You miss the forest for the trees.

Oh no, not at all Manny, not at all, you see the Six Million figure was the only thing I identified in P&V’s materials. I didn’t know where all this was going to lead in the slightest, but I did know an error when I saw it and it is a mark of my integrity to gracefully encourage a ministry calling itself respecters of the truth to engage meaningfully to correct that error. This gnat was a simple little thing made huge by Paul’s response you will note, if you read back carefully!

> > I do want to ask you, Dennis: what good will it do for someone to know the exact number of Jews killed in the Holocaust?

I’ve told you there weren’t any Gas Chambers so it’s vital that people who claim to represent the truth at least know this. Is it not?

> ‘Hence my massive investment into teaching, helping you here now as a part of my obedience. Now under what circumstances does man’s nature change? It’s the arrival of the presence of God – for better or for worse! Jesus brought out the best and the worst in those who met Him! So, what brings the presence of God? Our humbling and seeking of it according of course to His purposes. Our repentance keeps it. Our pride stops it.’

> > Why do you presume to teach the things of God, when you have much to learn yourself?

What crazy logic are you using with this nonsense? Do not parents teach their children what they know? Can a young man not share what he does know about God to his wife and young family? Or does he have to know it all first? Is it OK for him to teach in Sunday School when he is 40 years old, or does he have to be 50, or 60 or perfected first? Read Victor’s own diary and you can see that he’s been doing great things for God for years even in his imperfection. Likewise me. Thank God that I have the gall to stand up to people like you who deign to knock others.

> > What you need to do is humble yourself. It seems that you do a great deal of spouting and spewing, of your own words and ideas, rather than taking in the truth. You see things only according to your own constructed worldview, and therefore you are self-biased.

You are an amateur at this game Manny. Go away and do the basic research. Establish the truth over the Six Million, then return and ask some questions that you actually want the answer to. You might actually find some sense in this direction.

We are all self-biased Manny. All of us – yes even you, P&V. That is not the issue that matters. What matters is where we are going. Not who we were before we met Him.

> ‘THEN this is the time when mankind has to take that step of faith, find a better way and listen humbly to those who are blessed, who do understand and who ARE living a blessed life in obedience to God’s ordained pattern of/for living.’

> > Would you happen to be one of those ‘blessed’ people, Dennis?

Yes!

> ‘There’s a deception. When we understand that money can never be a commodity and that it is always a measurement, then this has the potential to liberate us to live under and according to a blessed (not a cursed) monetary system.’

> > How will the acknowledgement of money as a measurement, bring liberty; and enable us to live under a ‘blessed (not a cursed) monetary system’?

Well you’ve touched on two issues here liberty and blessing which are in turn based on understanding and obedience. Liberty comes from the realisation that we can create our own credit – this is the natural way of the world after all, where traders extend credit to each other thus issuing money. This gives us the attitudinal and philosophical basis upon which we can escape from enslavement of interest-bearing monetary systems, if we so choose. This is the equivalent in the fiscal world to the recognition that Christ is the Messiah in the spiritual world.

That understanding can give us liberty only when we act on that understanding so when we are use the natural systems that God created then we have His blessing.

> > I don’t think you’re seeing the real issue here. The problem is not the monetary system (how can something inanimate be bad?). The actual problem is the corrupted, carnal men who use it. The real issue is with the heart/nature of man.

Yes you are right but you are confusing two things and have made a wrong assumption. The monetary systems of the world are not inanimate. They are built upon interest-bearing systems. Interest is prohibited in scripture. Paul got this totally wrong in our communications and I haven’t argued the point much but there is a blanket prohibition on interest. The one exception was granted Israel to use interest as a form of enslavement against her enemies. The example that Paul quotes in the New Testament parable is often falsely used to justify interest but he’s got the whole thing upside down and has a very shallow but common take on the whole thing. Jesus instructed to lend without interest. This is the heart of the Lord, period. God curses some things and not others. Monetary systems built upon interest are accursed. Those without are blessed. This is the “bad” you asked about.

The second thing you mention though is correct. Absolutely the problem is pride manifested in self-interest and greed. This is how the heart of man works. God says to provide for our families. God says to give and love and be generous. Man takes as much as possible and gives as little as possible. Monetary systems encourage profit that in most cases is a by-product of interest and interest-based systems. We think nothing nowadays of buying low and selling high, charging interest more than we are paying interest, justifying capital gains on the share markets (which of course somebody else pays for eventually) and inverting the entire biblical paradigm. At the heart of all this is pride. The interest-bearing monetary systems simply provide the mechanism by which that pride can consolidate its wealth and power.

> ‘Having done the work, I’ve established a pure currency. It’s active, tested and ready for release but I’ve held it back to date.’

> > Why have you held it back?

The time is not yet right for me personally.

> > Isn’t that a bit like holding back the cure to cancer, if you had it? If this is what can bring people into liberty, shouldn’t you release it as soon as possible; or do you not want to set people free of their ‘enslavement to the cursed money system’?

Yes and no. I have designed and conceptualised it. The blueprint is out there and has been for a couple of years. Anyone could take it and make it happen as it’s all Open Source and ownership in the commons. I’m an author and investigative blogger and while I could take it out to market and do the backend it’s not the right time for me personally. Many others are doing good things in this space, I’ve just taken it a little bit further than others, that’s all.

> ‘Freedom comes at different levels to different people. Obedience (or disobedience) can be understood in different shapes and forms so it’s hard to answer HOW to get people free!’

> > Freedom from what? People need to be free from themselves. As I read the above passage, I thought you were going to state the remedy, the cure, the answer to obtaining that freedom from enslavement. That is, enslavement to sinful passions, desires, mindsets, attitudes, generational curses etc. I thought you were going to say that the answer to obtaining freedom, is obedience.

Free from monetary enslavement by TPTB.

A life in the power of Jesus is freedom indeed. Obedience is the prerequisite, I agree.

> ‘…that is why avoiding the MARK of the beast is going to cost. That is why we have god-given CHOICE in the economic system we use.’

> > Read the following, for an explanation of what the ‘Mark of the Beast’ actually is:

> > http://www.thepathoftruth.com/the-issues-of-life/what-is-the-mark-of-the-beast.htm

> > http://www.thepathoftruth.com/teachings/mark-of-the-beast-seal-of-god.htm

I have. Use the words “Mark of the Beast” as you will.

> ‘People with knowledge and understanding on what the real issues are (i.e. understanding the true nature of money) AND who are tuned in to how that deception is applied in the big wide fallen and falling world can and WILL survive even through the worst of global crashes, even in and under and through THE most corrupt system of economic slavery known to man since the Flood.’

> > Does survival come through possession of knowledge (as you imply), or does it come through faithful obedience to the Lord? Consider Luke 21:17-19: ‘All people will hate you because you follow me. But none of these things can really harm you. By continuing to have faith you will save your lives.’

You make this an either or situation but it’s not. We can live within enslavement and still be winners in society just like we can live under oppression yet still be free through obedience to Him. The Jews still managed to keep their faith and identity even while in captivity. Paul and John were captives in a physical sense yet free in spirit. Likewise with the monetary systems that enslave us – we can “go to heaven” even though we use accursed money but there is greater freedom from exercising increased wisdom in the money we use. Proof of this lack of knowledge is that the majority of Christians (including your Paul BTW) still see stock market gains as normal and healthy; use of credit cards, interest-bearing mortgages and cash all based on interest-bearing systems to not be a problem, whereas I do.

> ‘Now this of course doesn’t mean that we all HAVE to stop trading and jump on a cross to die with only a coat to our name but it’s the general direction and ultimate destination for us all whether we like it or not.’

> > Are you not contradicting yourself by saying we don’t have to, then saying that we will have to (because it’s the ‘ultimate destination for us all whether we like it or not.’) ?

Where’s the contradiction? You summarised it well. We are all in the process of sanctification are we not? God sets the agenda, the scene, the script and we comply now or later – it’s up to us.

> ‘I hate these next words because of preconceptions but this is truly “living by faith”, literally giving EVERYTHING to Him sacrificially and trusting Him in all regards.’

> > It doesn’t appear that you’re living by faith at all, but by works. In fact, you’re not living at all, Dennis. You’re dead.

I do find your constant negativity dreary Manny.

> > Also, what does God say about what you have to give to Him, even if it is EVERYTHING. Consider Isaiah 64:6, which says, ‘For all of us have become like one who is unclean, And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment’.

Consider the words of Jesus and what He told us it would cost us to follow Him. Was it 10% or everything? How much will you be taking with you when it’s your turn to depart Manny?

> ‘It is unusual for me to have intelligent push-back and dialogue…’

> > I read this as you saying that it’s unusual for you to encounter someone who is on your level of intelligence; that there are very few who have been able to intellectually challenge you.

That’s a good way of putting it!

> > In such a statement as this you seem to pridefully place yourself on a pedestal.

Yes, Manny you’re smart . . . I do. I have an IQ of somewhere between 130-140 and I use my brain. I am passionate and opinionated as you know well by now. I have a big ego, am fearless to speak and I give everything a go, living on the edge. Sometimes living like this you fall off but you never miss a minute or an opportunity.

Does it make me better than you, or P&V? No! Does it mean that I miss communicating with a large portion of the public? Yes it does! Does it mean that people like P&V get really snarky with me when I show them their errors in logic or poor conduct? Sure does! Does it mean that Jesus doesn’t love me, or use me as he wants, No! He does! So my advice to you is to get over it. This is reality Manny, just tune out or get with it.

> ‘Thus all mankind are brothers under His authority and it is His role to judge, not ours.’

> > Why is it then that we are told to ‘judge righteous judgment’ (John 7:24)? If it is only His role to judge, as you say it is, why is that He told His disciples they would be judges (Matthew 19:28)? Furthermore, why is that Jesus, said that all judgment is given to the Son? If the Father has committed judgment to the Son, His child, aren’t those who are His children (those begotten of Him) entitled to judge? ‘then we usurp God’s future role of judgement.’ Why do you put His judgment into the future? As if it were something yet to happen. You are wrong by implying that it’s only a future event. God’s judgments have already happened, in a myriad of ways, for different people, both individually and collectively. His judgments have occurred, are occurring, and will occur. If God’s judgment were in the future, why is it, for example, that Jesus said ‘the ruler of this world [that is, Satan] has been judged’ (John 16:11)? ‘He wants us all to UNDERSTAND an issue and then take responsibility in His strength. This is a key part of the process of bringing His Kingdom into affect on earth.’ The kingdom of God comes through understanding/knowledge? Yet again you spew your own ideas, and set them forth as though they were truth. Are there any Scriptures you can give to support this point you have made?

> ‘First He will put people who can hear Him and see the issues clearly from His perspective (i.e. in the light of scripture) – that is the role of prophetic ministry, Then He will put people who have the authority (anywhere doesn’t matter – He just takes and uses what He is given) and who have the faith to act on that understanding.’

> > Again, ideological, unscriptural nonsense, erupting from the fantasy factory of your carnal mind. Once more I ask for Scriptures to back up what you are saying here?

I’m going to ignore these two sections for the moment. If you want me to address it in the future, raise it again and I will invest the time into it for you.

> ‘Jesus UNDERSTOOD the true nature of the temptations thus had a clear grasp of the issues so could choose not to fall.’

> > Jesus didn’t succumb to temptation because of what He understood? Wasn’t it because He had an incorruptible, sinless nature? Wasn’t it because of what He is, not what He knows? You seem to place so much focus on knowledge, and what one understands. To you, knowledge is paramount. You have eaten from the tree of knowledge, Dennis; and it is knowledge which is surely your god.

Understanding is indeed a form of knowledge. Jesus understood the temptation and wasn’t deceived like Adam and Eve were. His capacity to read through the deceptions of the people around Him and the devil in His own temptation gave Him an advantage. This came from multiple sources – Yes His nature was sinless but it was His choice to humble Himself and do the Father’s will that gave Him His power. No, knowledge is not paramount – obedience is. That’s what I said, Jesus “chose not to fall”. He understood who He was. He understood what was being offered. He chose NOT to partake in light of that full understanding, an understanding that came from His relationship with the Holy Spirit.

There is a line of thought within Christendom that we must hear and obey unthinkingly. This is not the way that Jesus operated and it is not the Lord’s will for us. The longer I live the more that I treasure the importance of thinking, and in particular rational thought. I value Paul’s pure logic and see the simple logic that Jesus employed as He went about His ministry. It is too simplistic to just claim that Jesus was perfect so therefore he couldn’t be tempted, and knew all things all at once.

No, He learned as a child; His ministry developed and grew and matured and he came into greater understanding of His divinity and divine purpose. A lot of this came from one-on-one prayer times but it also came from practical living, conflict situations as He first learned to deal with them and then developed His ministry to actually engineer them.

Your claim that my god is knowledge is illogical for knowledge, understanding and wisdom all come to every believer in increasing measure as we undertake the process of sanctification. To deny this learning process is to deny reality. We learn ways to love others increasingly as we mature. We also come to know and understand God in greater measure too as we live, learn and love.

> ‘You’re mistaken that we change the spelling to “red” in letters of those who write to us. I don’t know where you’ve seen that, but do show us any examples you think to have found.’ ‘I DID see one recently in one of the communications. ‘

> > Where is it then? Why didn’t you provide them with the example of the one that you supposedly saw?

The reason that I didn’t was because it was a minor matter and I told them that it wasn’t important. Go and find it yourself Manny if it is so important to you. You know what, I’d do that myself if I thought for just a second that your negative attitude would ever change. I strongly suspect though that even if I did search the whole website and find it, and show it to you, that the last thing I’d get is an apology and certainly not an attitude change!

> ‘You’ll find it I’m sure if you look for it.’

> > Why don’t you bring forth the evidence, seeing as it is you who are making the accusation?

It wasn’t an accusation Manny! Get real will you? This isn’t or wasn’t the Seventh Spanish Inquisition. I simply asked a question, explained what alerted me to it and Paul responded with the explanation. End of story. You’re right – you do lack discernment skills. Let it go.

> ‘Whatever, a truthseeker establishes validation for claims (estimated or otherwise). ‘

> > How do you know what a ‘truth-seeker’ does or doesn’t do? Are you the one to define who or what a truth-seeker is, or does? You do this quite a few times in your writing – presenting, or framing statements in an objective manner, when really they are just your own unfounded, subjective opinions.

And this is your opinion too is it Manny?

How do you define a truthseeker? On what basis can YOUR assessment be valid – on the same basis that P&V accept the six million figure? Poof!

You see Manny, Jesus said He was the way and the truth and the life. I accept that. When He says that the devil lies and is the father of all lies and Paul believes a lie, and covers up for liars, and you come at me saying that you’re independent from them yet you too believe a lie then I get suspicious when people challenge me over the truth. There’s more coming in relation to this Holocaust thing – it will clearly define YOUR walk with Jesus as it has with P&V for a lover of the Truth will only want to deal in the truth eh?

Let’s expose a few lies now eh?

> ‘The result of my extensive research into this figure that there is NO EVIDENCE for this figure.’

> > Just because you’ve done ‘extensive’ research into the issue, doesn’t mean there is no evidence for the figure. And it doesn’t mean that you should arrive at that conclusion – that there is no evidence. Your ‘extensive’ research may only be very little, when the entire scope of the subject matter is taken into account. Your research is relative. You even admit that yourself, in the correspondence: ‘according to my relatively thorough research there is NO evidence to justify the belief that six million Jews were exterminated’.

Oh Dear Lord!

Manny, I said “relatively thorough” that means that relative to your research I know more than you. That’s the whole point of the phrase – I know my stuff – I’ve done the work. I’ve put the hours and hours and hours in so that relative to most people I have done “thorough” research. I do NOT proclaim to be an expert and even experts know that there is more to learn about history and its foibles BUT, just so that there is no mistaking the intent of my words, I DO claim that I know more than most, yes even call me a lay expert if you will.

> > Research is relative to how much information there is in existence; or how much can be found out about the subject matter. Aren’t you aware that your ‘extensive’ research may only just be touching the tip of the iceberg? Have you analysed all the information available? Shouldn’t you come to a conclusion when (and not before) you have analysed all the information? Is all the information even available to you? These are things to consider.

Yes let’s consider them all long and hard shall we?

First, there is a claim. The claim is that Hitler ordered the extermination of the Jews and Six Million of them died by Gas Chambers in Concentration Camps in WW2.

Secondly there is one thing you can be certain of, ANYTHING that validates that claim will be and has been and SHOULD be promulgated. Rest assured that it has been, over the 70+ years it has surely been put out there repeatedly and forcefully in multiple channels. One thing that is totally logical is that if there was ever a document with smoking gun proof of something then we’d have found it by now and we’d all know about it!

So, yes, I’ve had excellent access to all the possible, so-called proof that exists in the world!

Let’s go then into the validation of that claim shall we? After all it’s incumbent upon those who make the claim to validate their claim.

Let’s start with the one Paul had a problem with me contesting – the Six Million figure. Which authority would you like me to use for the six million figure? Hilberg or Dawidowicz? Or would you like to build your own totals? After all it doesn’t matter how you do this because the figure of Six Million will always come out the same anyway. You didn’t know that this is the way it’s supposed to work did you Manny? That will be because you haven’t done the basic research most likely. You see Hilberg claims that we had 2.6m Holocaust victims from the Concentration Camps but Dawidowicz says it was 5.4m but when you add in the other locations then both of them still add up to Six Million! What? Rather convenient don’t you think? It has to of course because that is common knowledge that Six Million Jews died in the Holocaust.

In the real world Manny, this is called a cult. A belief system that has a priori assumptions and validation changes from time to time but the belief system doesn’t. There’s another popular cult that uses this same logic – it’s called Evolution. In this one, the belief system is that there is no Creator and that evolution is the explanation for our existence. The validations have changed enormously throughout the last century but the belief system remains the same nonetheless. Truthseekers however, build their beliefs from the evidence. Oops!

Research the Six Million figure and you’ll be surprised at the significance. It started in the 1800s, was used in the First World War and finally settled in the WW2 story. Funny that eh? Did you know that? There’s a lot more that you don’t know I can assure you!

But we should ask a little more surely because you want me to consider the matters deeply.

So the evidence for Hitler’s instructions to exterminate? Hmm it’s strangely absent! Surely in a country so thorough that we can know the distribution channels and quantities of toilet paper throughout the Reich, there would be some document, or some proof of some instructions to exterminate? But no . . . in 70+ years we’ve never found that missing document! Darn!

Strangely, we can find serious concern, orders and serious expenditure to reduce (yes REDUCE!) the death rates in the Concentration Camps through illness and well documented deaths by illness, disease and natural causes but those damning documents to kill are very elusive! Yeah right!

No matter, even so, the Six Million figure and the Nazi hatred of the Jews are common knowledge so there will be ample evidence of the Gas Chambers surely? Not so Manny. Not so!

The Gas Chambers are a total fiction too! Do the research and you’ll find that the evidence, yes, there’s that horrible word again, the evidence doesn’t stack up!

> ‘I have mentioned that use of a figure that is a falsehood concerns me.’

> > Can you prove that the figure is a falsehood? If the number is wrong, might not you be able to prove that it is so? But consider that you may not actually be able to prove it, for reasons that are not under your control. Do you have, for examples, the resources, access to documentation, and all necessary information, that it would take to disprove the figure?

Manny, dear Manny, do ten minutes due diligence and you’ll be hanging your head in shame.

You are like a little child whom a bird has just shit on blaming the bad boys next door for spoiling her Sunday Whites by throwing mud at her. “But darling there are no boys next door and the little mark looks like bird poop to me!” “You are just protecting the boys because you hate me!” you scream.

Manny, no Jew was ever exterminated in WW2 in Gas Chambers at the hands of a fanatical anti-Semitic Hitler. The so-called Gas Chambers were small delousing facilities designed and used for the delousing of clothes using a hydrogen cyanide pesticide called Zyklon B. The facilities proudly shown to the world at Auschwitz were recreated a decade post the war for your benefit and except for the unthinking walking ones called tourists, they have never seen a dead body in their lifetime!

> ‘I asked for evidence of the six million figure. I’ve done years of research and for the life of me I can’t find any ACTUAL evidence that six million Jews were slaughtered in concentration camps.’

> > I guess what someone will take as evidence for something, another person will reject. Just take nature and creation, for instance. Some see this as evidence for the existence of God. Others reject that evidence. Paul essentially says in Romans that the evidence is clearly there, so there is no excuse for not believing: ‘For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse’ (Romans 1:18-20)

I guess what you say is evidence must stack up eh? After all you wouldn’t be being fooled in any way would you? P&V believe it. It’s common knowledge so only a fool like Dennis would question all that ‘evidence’ eh?

> ‘All the claims I have seen by historians have not stacked up under my intense diligent scrutiny. ALL of them, bar none! It’s not a percentage thing weighing evidence, it is a clear, unequivocal, total absence of it.’

> > Have you refuted any of these historians? I would like to read your refutations, if you could supply me with them.

Manny there are thousands of pages in books, websites, videos and a reams of documents from scholars and historians for over seventy years that scream, “Fraud!” at every turn. Just read Winston Churchill’s documentary tome of the Second World War and you’ll see how important the Holocaust was to him. It’s not even mentioned. You trust the Vatican? Or the Red Cross? Why not accept the simple reports they gave at the time – nothing happened that they were aware of. Go through the Nuremberg trial transcripts like I have and you can see immediately how ludicrous the claims are, clearly nonsense and a total jack-up. What do you want to see? Have you read the diary of Anne Frank perhaps? Which version did you prefer Manny? She wrote nine different versions of it by the way, all done after her death you realise? Ah now that’s real evidence isn’t it. Otto Frank had nothing to do with that evidence tampering of course.

If you want to see what I really think about it you can see it on my website, a summary of how I see the whole thing going down (http://www.dennis.co.nz/?s=holocaust) but with an attitude like you have towards me, why would you want to wade through pages of my words. You are better off going to the Holocaust Museum and feeding your ego. I’ll only make your blood boil.

> ‘but I just want to see the EVIDENCE’

> > Dennis, I really wonder how much evidence it would take to satisfy you.

What’s infinitely more important Manny is not my refutation, it is on what basis you make your decisions, for it doesn’t matter two hoots to you surely anything about me, it’s far more important that YOU work out the truth isn’t it?

If you really want to get something that will open my eyes, try finding me a document from Hitler that instructed his team to exterminate the Jews. That’d be a pretty good start. They’ve never found one so far in over 70 years! Or how about explaining to me how they managed to get a Gas Chamber to work – that would get my attention for nobody has ever been able to do that – it’s a technical impossibility BTW! You could find me something that actually stacks up, like a credible eyewitness or something that! They don’t exist either!

> ‘I only want to know and deal with the truth.’

> > If the truth was staring you right in the face, do you even think you’d recognise it? Were the Pharisees able to recognise the Truth, that is Jesus Christ, when they encountered Him?

I started truthseeking at the age of five, Manny. I met Him at the age of 20. I have spent the best part of four decades living with Him and learning to love and serve Him. I’ve now spent the best part of a day responding to someone with an attitude on the other side of the world who has the gall to quiz me on something that he knows nothing about; who has cherry picked a whole bunch of quotes from communications with his friends and accused me of arrogance when I dared to speak the truth about a couple of guys in his Ministry who got it wrong. Yes, I DO think that I would recognise it if it stared me right in the face. What about you?

> ‘This statement is NOT evidence of the death of six million Jews at the hands of the Nazis in concentration camps’

> > Who are you to determine what is or isn’t evidence?

What planet are you on? My name is Dennis and I choose what I consider credible evidence based on my god-given right to work reality out for myself. One thing you can be very sure of is that when the roll call happens up yonder, your (plural including P&V’s) names or thoughts will have nothing to do with my calling or destiny.

Note that God tapped Adam’s shoulder, not Eve’s or the Serpent’s. He got to them in due course but we’re each individually responsible for our own destiny before Him. Likewise with me. I’m responsible before Him for my life, not you or P&V.

> > You do often put forth your judgment and opinions as if they were the objective law of the land. Whatever you say is true, because you say it… isn’t that so? Have you not set yourself up as a king in your own eyes?

Yes Manny I am king in my own eyes. I open them. I look. I ask questions. I think. I determine reality as I see it to the best of my capacity and then declare it, and this is what I see and declare:

1. Truth is the person of Christ. He claimed to be the Way the Truth and the Life. I concur!
2. P&V have declared me unfit for the Kingdom of God yet they believe in a fairy tale that ends with Six Million!
3. You Manny, have sought engagement with a proud man who has acknowledged that he loves the sound of his own voice yet one who claims to be a truth-speaking Christian so you have a choice – believe the prophets P&V and the Six Million Myth, or do the basic research yourself and find that [OMG!] there isn’t any credible evidence for the biggest fraud of the 20^th Century, the common knowledge they call the Holocaust.

If you ever do this and find that there is just a morsel of validity to my words, don’t take it out on or give up on P&V for they are sure to be good people, it’s just that [between you and me] they’re human like the rest of us.

Thanks for bothering to communicate. It’s more than some care to do.

Having now responded to your “evaluative commentary” which is actually more a work of selecting the parts of my post (and communications) that you take issue with, I will provide you with my “commentary” which evaluates the whole picture.

Your attitude (unless it has changed since the time you wrote yours) is such that this will be simply that this is more of the ‘same old, same old’ from Dennis and thus meaningless to you however there may be someone, somewhere, sometime who gains benefit from my work.

Apart from the possibility that you might learn, grow and see the value of my words, that is the reason that I blog the way that I do. Not only that people can see what I say, but also how I bring logic into the emotionally charged issues of culture, monetary systems and in the case of P&V whether or not Path of Truth is a cult.

This may be hard for you to accept and understand but P&V and I have the exact same modus operandii. I believe that we love, serve and worship the same God, and that their condemnation says more about them than it does about me. In this regard, my confidence exceeds theirs for they terminated communications; I haven’t and am not likely to either, as indicated by my lengthy and thorough reply to you here.

You see, P&V have closed minds, and I’ve shown that their treatment of the Six Million figure is akin to that of an Ostrich. They seek in-depth truthseeking from their adherents yet when challenged are unwilling to walk the talk and personalise matters instinctively to defend. They do this very well – in their own eyes. I can only interpret this response with assumptions because I can’t read their minds but it is logical to me that when someone challenges you, that you deal with the issue challenged.

P&V however chose an ad hominem attack and to terminate relationship. This is a logical fallacy.

I note that Jesus spoke with the ultimate in logic. I note that the entire planet runs on logic, that the Word of God is indeed the best demonstration of logic in practice.

To put our entire communications into a paraphrase (please correct me if I am wrong) I picked up on one detail (the Six Million figure) that indicated a deeper belief system of error (subscription to the well-peddled Holocaust story) from a ministry that claimed to know and speak only the truth (yours). In reply, however I received no interest in examining the issue, personal attacks and finally trashing as “not one of us”.

So my analysis of the situation stands for public scrutiny. Where I have sinned through arrogance, strong opinion and/or loving the sound of my own words, I plead guilty. Where I have failed to apply logic onto fact; let me know.

Personal Advice

I now move into personal advice and provide commentary about you as an individual. Understand that this is a ‘first whack’ at getting things right and that I could perhaps be a little off-the-mark in some areas as I’ve only ever had this one communication from you.

First, I like the fact that you bothered to communicate. This shows me that you care. My lengthy and detailed reply is my way of saying thank you and recognising this.

Secondly, while your opinions bordered on contempt, especially towards the end of your communication, you did speak respectfully especially at the outset. I like that and again this shows me that you care. Responding in kind is my way of saying that I respect you and your right to have an opinion.

Thirdly, where I felt that you erred or passed judgement on me unfairly I pushed back, but deliberately did not reply with interest or in kind. Yes, at times I was direct but it was only in appropriate context. As I said in my blog post, I consider this an important lesson that (as far as I found in my research) ALL your detractors fail to take heed of – calling Path of Truth Ministries a cult is NOT conducive to the propagation of Christian truth AND love. There may be aspects of cultishness to what P&V do but hammering truth at the expense of love is self-defeating. Your detractors (and potential detractors) should take note of this so that they do not fall into the same trap of judging unfairly.

Fourthly, you appear to want to know the truth. Sure, your questioning was contained in a ‘hit-piece’ but you did ask me questions. Your introduction indicated that you simply wanted to engage – that is a great sign of a genuine truth-seeker. That you have found and appreciated the teaching of P&V is also a sign of a thinker, someone who does seek the truth. Your confession of lack in one area is also the sign of a genuine truth-seeker, something that I believe P&V should take to heart and learn from you for I don’t see confessions of weakness emanating from their offices.

Fifthly you have not grasped the significance of logic based on fact. Yes you know the identity of Truth but you have yet to identify the full nature of Him. In this regard you will need to look back over this document and note the parts in which I have identified a failure in logic based on facts. P&V are very strong in the ‘personal department’ – they have finely honed skills in being able to zero in on specific failings of a personal nature and to ‘nail’ issues with biblical justification, but as I have shown, they lack in other areas so their ministry is off-kilter. Note that I have NOT said “invalid”, just “off-kilter”, i.e. lacking balance. More on this in a moment, but the issue here is that logically, if you have not done the research and I have (or claim to have) and if there is a dispute about a matter of historical fact, then logically you would think that the person who hadn’t done the research would perhaps do it, and preferably before making value judgments on the nature of the other party, wouldn’t you? Logic based on fact is a very powerful as Jesus demonstrated to His accusers at His trial.

Sixthly, and this is a difficult one to put into words for it hits to the heart of your recent identity as a supporter of P&V, you have a very strong genetic spiritual imprint of P&V’s, specifically Victor’s leadership. I note this in multiple places in your words, attitudes and conduct. This is a perfectly natural thing and it is the way that God designed the world BUT when things are off-kilter in your leaders’ lives, this will flow through to the followers. I hasten to add here that this is an observation, not a criticism of you personally. Yes, I do believe that it is possible to separate the sin and the sinner. You may not, which is almost certainly why you and P&V personalise everything but I speak this for what it’s worth. It is an area that logic will likely prevail as (or if) you do the basic research I recommended above.

Where to from here?

The first thing is that I’m not interested in what you think about me, nor what P&V do. They’ve cast their lot and made it clear what they think. If they’re right then they’ll be celebrating eternity free from my presence. Good on ’em if that is the case. If they’re wrong then we’ll be sharing the party, and we’ll all be having a beer and a good laugh about it all. We’ll know for sure in a Millennium or two.

Cross Roads

Then we come to you personally. The way I see it, and I alluded to this above, is that you are at a cross-roads. P&V’s words to you sound good. Mine don’t. I think I understand your motivation and purpose for writing. If I had spent a year getting to know P&V like you have I too would be interested, and concerned about what others said of them. I am aware of a little of what your detractors say and it’s not very nice. Being called a cult would hurt, especially when you know P&V as nice humble guys, simply doing and saying what they believe. I too went through a relatively thorough time of research (specifically that means that I did a little more research into Path of Truth than most will have) and was mesmerised by some things that P&V said and did and got up to. I found it an enjoyable experience, eye-opening and generally a positive time.

I engaged, as you know and things happened that have filled out the picture well for me so that I can blog and talk about with quite a degree of confidence having been on the tail-end of their tongue-lashing and written about it.

The cross-roads for you then (as I see it) is two-fold, thus:

• To what extent is the binary, right/wrong judgment of P&V towards me valid?
• What is the significance of this in terms of your own relationship towards P&V?

The answer to the first question is simple – if you see only more of the same-old, same-old from me in this communication and you believe that either the Six Million figure is valid (or that it doesn’t matter) then your poor assessment of me will match that of P&V and therefore has validity.

If on the other hand you do some due diligence, find that indeed what I have said about the lack of evidence is born out in your research, then you can also see that it may have been possible for you to have erred in your assumptions about me and my character (and thus my likely genuine Christian faith) then perhaps P&V’s judgment may have been an error.

You know my opinion on this all for sure, as I’ve made it perfectly clear, but just like what you think about me doesn’t really matter to me, what I think about you doesn’t or shouldn’t matter to you in the slightest, should it? You need to do the research, the thinking, and the divining of truth for yourself.

Now the significance of your research has HUGE ramifications for you – not so much P&V unless they humble themselves and reassess their attitudes towards me – and certainly very little to me, other than just interest in your conclusions.

Having read this far, you will no doubt be becoming very aware now that this is a profound issue as it relates to your attitude towards P&V and their claims of an exclusive lien on the truth. Showing them up for what they are, as fallible, will likely change much in your current relationships. That’s your business and until you grant me an audience to hear my opinion on the truth, it’s not some where that I will go either, but it is definitely likely to have an influence.

Suffice to say that I now do not submit to another ministry for the very reasons why P&V have shown the world. There is only one source of truth that I know, love and respect. He gives us that through faith. I call myself a non-denominational Christian and in this third world ESL language environment I say it like I don’t “go under” anyone else, such as a church, denomination, church leader or similar.

I finish with a word of advice on the one matter you confessed and that is the lacking in spiritual discernment. I strongly suggest that this analysis had come to you a lot stronger in the last year and that it is influenced by witnessing something in P&V that you don’t have. I consider this perfectly valid and if I’m right then this is good, and healthy – a natural part of the sanctification process where as we mix with others we learn, grow and mature in Him.

But there’s another aspect to this Manny that I wish to share with you, and it is that I too am like you. I too considered myself lacking in this area. I felt the lack particularly when I was around the Assemblies of God churches and there were people much more ‘spiritually attuned’ than I was. But I also want to tell you what I’ve learned about people like P&V, and my friends of the past that had something I didn’t think I had . . . they often lack in the areas that you and I excel in – the ability to think logically is one of mine, and your ability to identify BS/arrogance/pride is yours, apparently.

When we look at something that others have and we don’t we tend to look up, but this is not biblical. I see this in the culture that I live in – I am a square peg in a round hole here in Samoa. I live like the locals with pigs, a plantation and no money, yet they look up to me because of the colour of my skin. This is understandable but not wise. Likewise in the country of my birth, especially in business we look up to a guy with an American accent, naturally because they have a confidence and a presence and a capitalistic outlook on life that we Kiwis (New Zealanders) aspire to. We’re a much more laid-back less in-your-face people than the Americans.

But the more you live and learn, the more you see that we’re actually all the same and especially in God’s eyes. Sure P&V have finely tuned skills in certain areas but it is NOT exactly as they claim, Therein lies your problem, for while you know instinctively and probably quite rightly that they have something that you don’t, you, (if you do the research and listen to me talking about myself with even half an ear) will have a greater insight into the blogger from Samoa, the true nature of the Holocaust and a greater understanding of their errors in approach.

For the record, their general error is one of excessive judgmentalism. Their specific one in my case was to ignore the subject and personalise.

For the record also, their correct biblical path back to restored relationship with another believer is to de-personalise the differences (that means dealing with the issue at hand not my character or salvation) and then revisit their judgmentalism. From this they would then have cause to re-evaluate their conduct in a general sense having learned from my specific case.

What I have found is that the more I listen to Him; the more I respond to Him, the more I find myself gradually exercising the gifts of intuition and revelation that seem to come so naturally to others.

This then is the process of maturing, a natural one and is indeed the beauty of the diversity in the Church. We complement each other, and conflict based on excessive judgmentalism (even to the point of the exclusivism justified by P&V) is not conducive to the sharing of both the truth and love.

For your sake I hope that you can humble yourself to do due diligence; and that you can learn to see the real me, which will hopefully help you trust my judgement. I also hope that your relationship with P&V matures and grows as well. Many detractors would want to divide you and claim that you are under their spell and that they have a cult-like grip over their adherents and you have to get out to save yourself.

I understand that thought well and why they would (and do) think it but I don’t believe that for a minute. There is definitely cult-like conduct in and around P&V, that’s for sure but this is common in ANY social setting, religious or secular. It’s just a little more overt and visible with people like them (and me too) who “hang it all out there”!

What’s infinitely more important though is not whether P&V get their act together and change to meet what I or other detractors think is desirable, it is that you know Him and can hear His voice and that, most importantly you have the faith to do what He wants.

 

CONVERSATION END

Wrapping Up

Manny found this website through searching for the phrase “Path of Truth cult“. Vanity searching like this is wise in this day and age. Victor and his team know well the power of Search and the Internet. They are active online and always have been.

To that, I say, “Good on ’em!”

Path of Truth is certainly widely accused of being a cult. There are good grounds for this accusation:

• Victor himself writes that they are indeed a cult, and he explains this well by explaining that Jesus too was a cult by the very definition of the word!
• They hold to an extremely religious, even to the point of offensiveness, stance on their adherence to the Truth. This dogmatism is polarising, but matched by many other staunch adherents to their faith. The Catholics to the Pope, Muslims to Mohammed  and many other fanatics can all be called to account for cult-like behaviour and attitudes. Dogmatism is certainly present within Path of Truth circles, as Manny describes himself when he talks of P&V’s commitment to what they believe in.
• Their extreme defensiveness in the face of real or perceived attacks on their credibility is indicative of the siege mentality common within cults. Expecting attacks on their uniqueness or differences prepares those within to defend. Continued attacks simply reinforce belief in the cult’s uniqueness. P&V personalise matters VERY quickly so that they can defend effectively.
• Openess to correction; a willingness to accepting error are claimed but are not borne out in practice. This double-talk is seen in Manny’s own assessment of his commentary which belies the self-evident reality. His leaders’ words appear infallible to him, thus a detractor must be in error. The proof of cult will be when, if or how he responds for it will be strong indications of Manny’s involvement in a cult if he returns with a still 100% glowing endorsement of his leaders’ conduct, when I have proven error logically.
• Distortions of scripture. The belief that mankind can be infallible (and therefore by implication P&V are) is a distortion of scripture. This is the breeding ground for cults and cult-like behaviour. I don’t know P&V, nor Manny personally but there does seem to be a strong belief in the infallibility of their leadership. Paul Cohen wrote this specifically of Victor’s infallibility in regards to the Holocaust. Manny wrote of his total acceptance P&V’s words. Manny himself struggled/struggles with the concept of a sinner being a separate matter from sin, a concept that is perfectly acceptable to those of us who do not claim perfection.
• There’s more on scriptural interpretation, but I don’t want to claim a cult on the basis of scripture. Others can and have done that.

But the point to me is not whether Path of Truth is a cult or not, it is how we divine the truth, and what we do with that knowledge. This is the point that Manny alluded to when he suggested that I worship knowledge. Knowing something is one thing, but it is the application of that knowledge into a specific situation and a specific point in time that demonstrates wisdom.

I define wisdom as knowing the heart and mind of God in a specific situation.

You see this in Jesus’ conduct in His ministry. People accused Him of mixing with the sinners, and accepting the outcasts. What He did was to differentiate the sinner from the sin skillfully and with incredible understanding. He knew that the woman at the well had more than one husband, but drawing her out past that fact into a greater role as a preacher of truth was a demonstration of His wisdom.

Likewise with Mary and Martha as I mentioned to Manny. He knew Mary’s shady past, but at that time, He knew that what she was doing was a natural expression of a love inspired from the Father’s love.

The point for me is not whether P&V have a cult, the point is whether they are prepared to love truth as they say they do. In this regard, if they deliberately ignore a warning from a fellow believer that they are in error, then they show that there is something more important to them than truth.

That’s the core issue for me – integrity and specifically Paul Cohen and Victor Hafichuk’s refusal to even start the basic due diligence on the subject of the Six Million. Despite the Path of Truth’s approach, values and as Manny has shown passion to believe in themselves, it actually doesn’t matter who’s right, but the willingness to “go there” and divine truth together DOES.

In this regard I find Path of Truth Ministries to fail the litmus test of integrity.

I want to conclude by addressing the (as I said) widespread accusation that Path of Truth is a cult. I have noted both Catholics and Protestants hold this view. My question to you is why you hold differing views on something so much more important – the role and function of the Pope, and Catholicism vs Protestantism – when you accuse another. To agree that another small ministry is a cult, i.e. therefore wrong when you have not even reconciled your own differences is JUST as foolish as a small group of passionate people operating under the influence of a strong leader who may not have everything right all the time.

Your fight has global ramifications and has continued for centuries at great cost, and yet you point the finger at others? And for the Protestants who have it all together and P&V don’t – have you agreed on all matters amongst yourselves. “Go and fix your own dirty laundry then come back and have a go!” that’s to paraphrase Jesus talking to those who want to accuse someone [who was obviously guilty, BTW!]

What accusers have done, and continue to do with their accusations of a cult, is to reinforce the siege mentality that feeds errors that the Path of Truth ministries fails in. As I said to Manny in this document, indeed, giving the guys a break, turning the other cheek is the godly thing to do, THEN when or if the Lord works a miracle in their life and they reconsider their stance, I or somebody else who cares can perhaps help them through their excessive judgmentalism. Perhaps they might then be able to listen and adjust their conduct to something a little more like that of Christ.

Of course that’s their choice and it would take a miracle to happen but I can assure those who attack that it WILL never happen under duress, and nor SHOULD it either, for respect can never be forced on another.

I conclude with my brutal assessment of the Path of Truth Ministries operation. Victor Hafichuk has a strong influence on and over Paul Cohen who has latched onto Victor and a strong soul-tie exists based on past events. So far so good. Others too have latched on to the truth that Victor expounds and ‘joined the party’. Again so far so good HOWEVER Victor has such a strong focus on TRUTH that the LOVE misses out. PRIDE has crept in over the years and this imbalance has been essentially locked in stone. Detractors have fueled the fires as their defence mechanisms have been honed, refined and sorely tested thus reinforcing their values. Strong personal relationships are the glue that holds it all together.

TRUTH and LOVE are only found in equal measure on the cross of Christ*. When truth becomes more important than love you have a brutal harshness born of pride. This is exemplified by Path of Truth and goes back to the man Victor, personally. When love becomes more important than truth you have a feelings-based system once again born of the emotions based in pride. This is exemplified by the mega-church phenomenon, the seeker-sensitive movement and their early foundations in the experiential waves of renewal.

Clearly both have their place and role in Christendom. Path of Truth is simply at one end of the spectrum. This is not how they see things, but this is not their blog!

I hope you’ve learned something, or gained something of benefit from reading this post. Thanks for swinging by.

 

* As an aside, I’ve noticed that while you can err towards more or less of truth/love with a representation such as 20%/80% or say 60%/40% when you get the mix right is not 50%/50% it’s actually 100%/100% truth/love.