|
Post by jphillips on Feb 28, 2009 14:05:53 GMT -5
Are there any other faiths that closely mirror the beliefs, ways, guidelines, ... of the the Truth?
|
|
|
Post by rjs on Feb 28, 2009 15:15:22 GMT -5
Some meet in homes. Not sure about the homeless ministry. JWs call themselves the truth also.
|
|
|
Post by ithascome on Feb 28, 2009 17:06:56 GMT -5
Jehovah's Witnesses..., Mormons LDS...., Seventh-day Adventist SDA..... and Nation of Islam Moslems all call themselves the truth.
|
|
White Knight
Senior Member
THE SHADOW KNOWS. In the shadow of the highest is a refuge from all fear.
Posts: 510
|
Post by White Knight on Feb 28, 2009 17:34:06 GMT -5
There is one that is extremely similar to the Truth my great ant left the Truth for yrs ago. She served there for many yrs. And swore it was the right way she was a wiz in knowledge of the Bible, She came back to The Truth after realizing she was only being used as a slave to the other way. She to passed away in this way. They to came over from Ireland in around 1897. I think it was something to do with the faith mission not sure at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Feb 28, 2009 21:41:38 GMT -5
Jehovah's Witnesses..., Mormons LDS...., Seventh-day Adventist SDA..... and Nation of Islam Moslems all call themselves the truth. Yea but not before they call themselves Jehovah's Witnesses..., Mormons LDS...., Seventh-day Adventist SDA..... and Nation of Islam Moslems.
|
|
|
Post by ithascome on Mar 2, 2009 0:33:06 GMT -5
What did the F&Ws call themselves first?
Ebionites or were they the Pauline Christians
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Mar 2, 2009 3:04:35 GMT -5
What did the F&Ws call themselves first? Ebionites or were they the Pauline ChristiansWe didn't did, but do call ourselves just mere followers of Jesus.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2009 8:57:48 GMT -5
JWs and Mormons evangelize 2x2.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2009 8:58:27 GMT -5
What did the F&Ws call themselves first? Ebionites or were they the Pauline ChristiansWe didn't did, but do call ourselves just mere followers of Jesus. Peter went by the name "Christian".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2009 11:26:54 GMT -5
What did the F&Ws call themselves first? Ebionites or were they the Pauline Christians"TORCH" was how they referred to themselves in the early days and even today, on account of the belief they are the only true light in the world today. All other denominations were darkness and only they were beacons of truth. It was a very commonly used phrase.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Mar 2, 2009 12:20:18 GMT -5
It seems very possible there were many throughout history who tried to go back to what they thought was the original blueprint or instructions. Here's a tidbit from a book published in 1879, " History of the Christian Church" by W.M. Blackburn. This book is 130 years old, one has to wonder who has read it over the years and how much of this kind of history has been and/or is being lost in this so-called "information age". Notice the common people seemed to not have copies of the Bible - Peter Waldo's translations might have been the first copies those people ever saw and read for themselves. The established denominations were practically totalitarian regimes holding common people in ignorance of what the Bible actually said. How could the common people have known what the original blueprint was when they knew only what the church leaders wanted them to know? No wonder some of those years were called The Dark Ages, it's good to take time to have a bit of empathy for the many who lived though those years.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2009 13:01:16 GMT -5
TORCH" was how they referred to themselves in the early days and even today, on account of the belief they are the only true light in the world today. All other denominations were darkness and only they were beacons of truth. It was a very commonly used phrase. "TORCH"? That's the first time I've ever heard THAT! Can you give some references? Hi Wanderer, TORCH means The Only Right CHurch ! The fuller version has been used throughout their history, in one form or another, especially in earlier times. "OCCULT" was used to refer to other Christian faiths. Other Christian Churches Usually Lack Truth.
|
|
|
Post by ithascome on Mar 3, 2009 2:13:28 GMT -5
A more important question would be ....what faiths mirror the early Christian church methodology?
The early believers in Christ continued in the traditions of their Jewish forefathers, worshiping as they had in both the Temple and the Synagogue. (Jesus did this also.)
The Ebionites were a Jewish sect that insisted on the necessity of following Jewish religious law and rites . They did not believe in the divinity of Jesus.
The Nazarene sect were an early Jewish Christian sect similar to the Ebionites, in that they maintained their adherence to the Torah, but unlike the Ebionites, they accepted the virgin birth and divinity of Jesus.
Pauline Christianity is a term used to refer to a branch of Early Christianity associated with the beliefs and doctrines espoused by Paul through his writings.
Jewish Christians rejected Paul for straying from "normative" Judaism. Early Christians (Jew and Gentile) appear to have been fundamentally divided over both the nature of Jesus and whether to adhere to the Mosaic Law or not.
Of all the various doctrines which evolved during the formative stages of Christianity, only those who believed in the Nazarene philosophy can justifiably be given preference. These early Christians were taught the meaning of Christianity by Jesus himself.
Interestingly, Paul’s credentials as an apostle were attacked, even in his own lifetime, by those who desired to lead the church into legalism.
|
|
|
Post by kencoolidge on Mar 3, 2009 9:37:41 GMT -5
I believe that at least for me the closest comparison is in the Wesleyan-Armenians doctrine. Many churches send 2 on missionary work in other countries. The Restoration church only meet in homes. So many bits and pieces of the F&Ws Church's traditions are practiced by others. None of these other groups obscure their history.
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Mar 3, 2009 12:11:31 GMT -5
We didn't did, but do call ourselves just mere followers of Jesus. Peter went by the name "Christian". The first people to be called Christians was the church in Antioch, wasn't it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2009 12:30:09 GMT -5
Peter went by the name "Christian". The first people to be called Christians was the church in Antioch, wasn't it? Yes, but if I recall, those were "outsiders" who dubbed that name. We don't see an insider using the name Christian until Peter writes it in 1Peter4:16. Much earlier Agrippa tells Paul that "almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian", but again this was an "outsider" using the term.
|
|
|
Post by samantha on Mar 3, 2009 12:39:57 GMT -5
When we were growing up 2x2 were calling themselves "undenominational" They printed it on their visiting cards.
|
|
|
Post by Fred Helferstine on Mar 4, 2009 0:03:45 GMT -5
When I was in the military they asked us what church we went to. I ignored the question untill they insisted as our dog tags had to have that on them. I then said that I was nondemoninational. When my dog tags came back they said protestant. I let that go as it wasn't worth the hassel to change it.
|
|
|
Post by mod7 on Mar 4, 2009 7:32:07 GMT -5
And you're not protestant?
|
|
|
Post by ithascome on Mar 5, 2009 0:59:00 GMT -5
my Dad always siad that we were not protestant because we never protested against the Catholic church. But when I went to meeting seems I remember several times that the Catholic church was belittled.
|
|
|
Post by Fred Helferstine on Mar 5, 2009 10:08:00 GMT -5
When I enlisted in the military I did not go to any church. I was not an athiest as I believed in GOD. Also, I was not protesting anything. I was nondemonational. The clerk in the orderly room changed what I had put down.
|
|
|
Post by landdownunder on Mar 6, 2009 17:42:06 GMT -5
A more important question would be ....what faiths mirror the early Christian church methodology? Please, show me where in scripture God tells us that methodology is more important than things like faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, a relationship with the Father in heaven, and yielding our wills to the will of the Holy Spirit who dwells within each redeemed believer. In fact, strict adherence to a methodology will often clash with these most important aspects of being a child of God. I suggest an unbiased reading of scripture shows that adherence to methodology is not what brings pleasure to God.
|
|
|
Post by landdownunder on Mar 6, 2009 17:46:57 GMT -5
my Dad always siad that we were not protestant because we never protested against the Catholic church. But when I went to meeting seems I remember several times that the Catholic church was belittled. The F&W fellowship is protestant alright. It has its roots firmly in the Methodist Faith Mission and other similar protestant influences of the time. Admittedly they picked up some RC tendencies along the way, but they started very protestant.
|
|
|
Post by déjà vu on Mar 6, 2009 22:27:02 GMT -5
quote by land d. u.
Admittedly they picked up some RC tendencies along the way,
this is from an old post
My family are worker worshipers! They drive the workers from county to county, loan them cars, give them money, drive 3 or more hours to visit workers, serve lunch and dinner to the friends and workers, or take them out to eat, visit friends all over the state, attend every meeting and gospel meeting. Anything for the workers or friends. It's okay to neglect family, according to their Bible teaching from the workers, because I don't profess
IMHO It is true that there are many parallels between the two denominations.
It'd be interesting to see you list those parallels, please?
Here is another parallel
"St Francis of Assisi objected to the friars having books besides the Scriptures,since they were unnecessary !"
this from another thread"
In 1997, BILL MCCOURT, head worker of Western Australia told us we would have to agree to the following four essential items belonging to "the way" in order for us to be accepted back into the fold. 1) "You must believe that the workers are the ONLY ones that can carry the word of God and ONLY through them can people be bought to Jesus". 2) "The authority of the workers is absolute. Jesus established this very ministry on the shores of Galilee and that is the authority they have been given". 3) "You will have to attend more gospel meetings". 4) "Your belief of ** 'once saved always saved' is wrong and will not be tolerated". This was not our belief but nobody had ever asked us what in fact did we believe. It seems that this had been construed from our belief of being saved by Grace. **This was said in the context of believing that you can do anything and no matter what you will be saved. We did not agree to any of the four items because it would have meant dishonoring our belief of salvation through Christ ONLY. NOT ONE thing was said about the Father, Son or Holy Spirit. It seemed that this was totally irrelevant to belonging to 'the way'." +++ Quotes on TTT website.
also the celibate Clergy ,salvation by Grace plus works
|
|
|
Post by landdownunder on Mar 7, 2009 1:06:17 GMT -5
Very perceptive comments, W. Tell. We have taken our very protestant heritage (Methodist Faith Mission roots) and added many elements that are common to the Roman Catholics. Especially the concept of the celibate ministry (akin to the priesthood) and their separation from laity into a privileged position between the ordinary people and God.
Like you say, it would be interesting to compile a list of all the Roman Catholic-like aspects that have evolved amongst F&W.
Easy to see why the early church quickly veered into the glaring errors that we protestants, post-reformation, recognise in Roman Catholicism.
|
|
|
Post by ithascome on Mar 7, 2009 23:49:28 GMT -5
agree with you landdownunder... If you had read my entire post you would see that I do. They could not even agree on methodolog in the NT times.
|
|