H.A.S.
Senior Member
God loves us all. Yes, even you.
Posts: 705
|
Post by H.A.S. on Jun 19, 2009 15:22:08 GMT -5
This history controversy is all down to a simple typo. One of Jack Carroll's secretaries typed in a letter that this way goes all the way back to the shores of Gallilee instead of the"Shores of Galway (Ireland)." Now you know what they say about an untruth. It goes half way round the world before the truth gets going. That's the truth of the matter. That's how the untruth started. Reminds me of the time I bought that discount bible. I spent close to a year praying to Jebus before I figured out it was a typo. Still, that bible was the only one I ever found that included the Gospel of Bark.
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Jun 19, 2009 15:26:59 GMT -5
Bark & Puke?
|
|
H.A.S.
Senior Member
God loves us all. Yes, even you.
Posts: 705
|
Post by H.A.S. on Jun 19, 2009 15:33:24 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2009 4:40:45 GMT -5
Zorro, answer me. Two men: man 1 - starts preaching, right now, 2009 - word for word what is in the Gospel. Says his message goes back to the shores of Galilee.
man2 - says the Gospel should have stayed on the shores of Galilee, this is a changed world and the Gospel should change.
Who would you believe?
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jun 20, 2009 7:38:41 GMT -5
You ask some strange questions and pose some irrelevant scenarios,Bert.
Are you still confusing " message" and "method"?
Your scenario in man2 implies that there are some on this board who would suggest such. Apart from the few unbelievers........anyone? Seems like a bit of a strawman argument.
|
|
|
Post by todd on Jun 20, 2009 8:19:36 GMT -5
I have never not believed that this was established over several years. I'm not sure where you get this idea. I got the idea from reading your posts. Are you really Ilylo? What do you mean that a group could not be cohesive? If they are not doing the same things or going in the same dirrection, they wouldn't be a group. And just to quote Cherie in case you somehow missed it... "no cohesive movement, body or group"... do you notice the word "group" in there? There was no "group". My point in this is that while I believe this happened over a period of years, some will specifically argue that it was 1897 to prove one particular point, but then argue that it was 1901 (or other dates) to prove another point. There is absolutely no harm is asking. Not sure where you got the idea that I would be reluctant to ask. The truth is that it is likely that I know far more than he does seeing I have access to history records and various other accounts via the internet, and I suspect that I could tell him plenty that he doesn't know. I guess I should tell him, even though it is not really that relavant to anything. Seeing he is probably in a position to be asked about this, he might be interested. Once again, I got the idea from your posts.[/quote] Are you able to quote me where you are getting these ideas from so I can learn what I could possibly be saying that is making you get it so wrong. Or is it a case of you having a preconceived idea that you read into my posts? Yes, the history in the bible is important to those who follow things in the bible, but not the period of time that we are discussing here. Some things in history are worth repeating. Are you talking about a particular event here and I have missed it? Nobody is going to be mislead if they don't happen to hear the period of history that we a talking about here. If they only follow the way of Jesus, they will not be mislead.
|
|
|
Post by todd on Jun 20, 2009 8:30:53 GMT -5
I suspect that I could tell him plenty that he doesn't know. I guess I should tell him, even though it is not really that relavant to anything.The history was very relevant when that "history" was the story of the fellowship going all the way back to the "shores of Galilee". Now that it's clear that the "history" only goes back to the shores of Ireland circa 1897, it's no longer relevant. Very convenient. Zorro, The history of Galilee is still as relevant today as it always was, and it is no surprise that this still gets preached. You seem to have a missunderstanding regarding what God wants the workers to preach about. I very rarely hear mention of the period from 1895 to 1920ish because that is quite irrelevant to our salvation, but I hear lots about the time when Jesus was on earth, because this is quite relevant to our salvation. The fact that I have never heard him mention it is a good indication of how relevant he thinks it is (not very), but if it makes you feel better I can get that straight from his mouth if you like. Revisionist version? What does that mean?
|
|
|
Post by todd on Jun 20, 2009 8:41:24 GMT -5
You ask some strange questions and pose some irrelevant scenarios,Bert. Are you still confusing " message" and "method"? Fred, Bert is not the one confusing the message. The workers, who are supposed to be preaching the way that was taught back when Jesus was around, seem to find themselves accused when they do this because people will say "Hey, those liars, this way started in 1897". They are confusing the message. Are you suggesting then that it is quite fine for the workers to continue preaching the Gospel that they have, and continue teaching about the way that began at Galilee? Or should they preach a different Gospel?
|
|
|
Post by someguy on Jun 20, 2009 10:27:22 GMT -5
You ask some strange questions and pose some irrelevant scenarios,Bert. Are you still confusing " message" and "method"? Fred, Bert is not the one confusing the message. The workers, who are supposed to be preaching the way that was taught back when Jesus was around, seem to find themselves accused when they do this because people will say "Hey, those liars, this way started in 1897". They are confusing the message. Are you suggesting then that it is quite fine for the workers to continue preaching the Gospel that they have, and continue teaching about the way that began at Galilee? Or should they preach a different Gospel? What Fred is saying (if you don't mind me answering Fred) is sadly enough Bert can't seem to understand that the message about Jesus is not about the method in which it is presented. There are people on this board which are desperately trying to make others believe that the Gospel is also about a homeless ministry. To me this is totally and completely horrilbe as anytime our focus is on anything other than Christ, and we call it "the gospel" we are deceiving ourselves. All it does is divide believers rather than have us unite around a common love for Jesus. Now Todd when you start talking about preaching another Gospel I begin to fear that you may be be one of these people. No one on here (at least I hope no one) wants workers to preach any other Gospel other than Jesus. However, the Gospel is about Jesus the "Way" not Jesus who came to earth to set up a way (home meetings and homeless ministry). It is this focus that seems to have worried Fred and I understand his worry.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jun 20, 2009 10:53:49 GMT -5
Jesus didn't speak of the temple of His body. That was John's commentary written many years later after it became apparent that the physical temple wasn't going to be rebuilt in 3 days . Or did a monk insert that like the Johananine comma? Jhn2:21 Now this John is one amazing guy! Was it really he who Isaiah spoke of, and Moses, Abraham and David? Was it really John who warned the Christians to flee when Rome was about to crush Jerusalem? Did John speak of the Jews being scattered into all the world and crushed under the feet of the Gentiles? Did John somehow foresee the Jews coming back to Israel again in the last times? ... perhaps there was no Jesus, and why not no John either? Maybe the bible is One Big Irvine Plot? Bert, I was under the impression that it was "John the Baptist" not John the Apostle or as some think John an elder in the churches that Paul brought into being, that Isaiah and others prophesied about?
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jun 20, 2009 11:06:06 GMT -5
What do you mean that a group could not be cohesive? If they are not doing the same things or going in the same dirrection, they wouldn't be a group. And just to quote Cherie in case you somehow missed it... "no cohesive movement, body or group"... do you notice the word "group" in there? There was no "group". "What do you mean that a group could not be cohesive? If they are not doing the same things or going in the same dirrection, they wouldn't be a group. And just to quote Cherie in case you somehow missed it... "no cohesive movement, body or group"... do you notice the word "group" in there? There was no "group"."
Todd, I think the "cohesive" word is the key....in 1897 there was NO movement to form a denomination or sect of religion....however through fellowship and alike beliefs there was inadvertently a "group" formed and all new converts soon became "workers" for this common cause......
However, it soon became apparent as the numbers increased that not all of them could be workers, so thus there was a 2 system caste formed.....the way it is today "workers AND "friends", the "worker" status being "over" the "friend" caste!
The need for being top dog has always been within the system and that was "human error", it became very prominent when JK's sermon about the Living Witness doctrine FIT right in with WI's hatred of the clergy! Now WI may have had some reasonable reasons for his dislike of the clergy in general, but once one reads about WI's history then one begins to see that what lead WI into accepting and pushing the Living Witness Doctrine even to the point of excommunicating JL in front of many others...which was a cruel thing to do.....was very "personal" with WI......the sad part of it all was the fact that WI's fellow workers did NOT understand what was pushing WI as their overseer and thus the "facts" of the anti-denominatal hatred crept in the group and has stayed in the group to an excess of "exclusivenism"! If that's a word! LAH!
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Jun 20, 2009 13:53:52 GMT -5
Todd, How long have you professed?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2009 23:15:40 GMT -5
Zorro, answer me.
Two men:
man 1 - starts preaching, right now, 2009 - word for word what is in the Gospel. Says his message goes back to the shores of Galilee.
man2 - says the Gospel should have stayed on the shores of Galilee, this is a changed world and the Gospel should change.
Who would you believe?
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Jun 21, 2009 23:17:12 GMT -5
man 1 - starts preaching, right now, 2009 - word for word what is in the Gospel. Says his message goes back to the shores of Galilee. man2 - says the Gospel should have stayed on the shores of Galilee, this is a changed world and the Gospel should change. Sounds like neither one of them are workers.
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Jun 21, 2009 23:36:09 GMT -5
Zorro, answer me. Two men: man 1 - starts preaching, right now, 2009 - word for word what is in the Gospel. Says his message goes back to the shores of Galilee. man2 - says the Gospel should have stayed on the shores of Galilee, this is a changed world and the Gospel should change. Who would you believe? I ask Todd how long he's professed and you ask me this? This has got be good for one of your lists.
|
|
|
Post by moralityagain on Jun 22, 2009 20:34:18 GMT -5
The founder problem is always talked about a lot. Well to founder is not a good thing really. Here are some definitions. One who founds; one who casts metals in various forms; a caster; as, a founder of cannon, bells, hardware, or types. To become filled with water, and sink, as a ship. To fall; to stumble and go lame, as a horse. To fail; to miscarry. To cause internal inflammation and soreness in the feet or limbs of (a horse), so as to disable or lame him. A lameness in the foot of a horse, occasioned by inflammation; closh. An inflammatory fever of the body, or acute rheumatism; as, chest founder. See Chest founder.
So to founder is something like getting filled with water and sinking the ship etc.
Of course the definition most think of is :
Founder One who founds, establishes, and erects; one who lays a foundation; an author; one from whom anything originates; one who endows.
So, founding something is really pertaining to the finding of it. For example if you found something you did not invent it really. You found it. That way you can be a founder. Well, it seems that a certain method of making people follow rules and take their money for accepting the rules is something that can be found. Take Bill Gates for example. You are using his software now. He made the rules and you have to follow them and pay for the use of his rules. Same with William . Otherwise we are looking for a fellowship that got filled with water and sank or someone who stumbled and fell or was a horse with a bad leg. Stuff like that. Anyway being foundering or being a founder is usually not a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jun 22, 2009 21:11:24 GMT -5
I read somewhere in the last day or so, somebody referred to WI as the "originator" of the fellowship! I thought well! I suppose that's as good as any! LAH!
|
|
H.A.S.
Senior Member
God loves us all. Yes, even you.
Posts: 705
|
Post by H.A.S. on Jun 23, 2009 12:49:57 GMT -5
Are you? What do you mean that a group could not be cohesive? If they are not doing the same things or going in the same dirrection, they wouldn't be a group. And just to quote Cherie in case you somehow missed it... "no cohesive movement, body or group"... do you notice the word "group" in there? There was no "group". My point in this is that while I believe this happened over a period of years, some will specifically argue that it was 1897 to prove one particular point, but then argue that it was 1901 (or other dates) to prove another point. I try not to sweat the small stuff and focus on the bigger picture instead. If someone specifically argues it all started in 1897 and another argues 1901 they could both be right and they could both be wrong. Who cares? The point is the church started 100+ years ago and not 2000+ years ago. Once again, I got the idea from your posts. Are you able to quote me where you are getting these ideas from so I can learn what I could possibly be saying that is making you get it so wrong. Or is it a case of you having a preconceived idea that you read into my posts? I got the idea that you were reluctant to ask from the fact that you didn't ask. So... have you asked your Elder yet? Yes, the history in the bible is important to those who follow things in the bible, but not the period of time that we are discussing here. Right, because you don't belong to a group that claims it's the one true Church of Jesus. Nor do you belong to a group that claims its linage back to the shores of Galilee. Yeah, I can't see why the actual history of the church would be important at all. Some things in history are worth repeating. Are you talking about a particular event here and I have missed it? And some things in history are worth avoiding. What ever; it's just some free advise. You don't have to take it. Nobody is going to be mislead if they don't happen to hear the period of history that we a talking about here. If they only follow the way of Jesus, they will not be mislead. And if they ask about the origins, it's not misleading to tell them that this church is a continuation of the one started by Jesus. Got it! When you put it that way, I don't see how anyone could be mislead into thinking that the church is more than 2000+ years old.
|
|
H.A.S.
Senior Member
God loves us all. Yes, even you.
Posts: 705
|
Post by H.A.S. on Jun 23, 2009 13:00:27 GMT -5
However, the Gospel is about Jesus the "Way" not Jesus who came to earth to set up a way (home meetings and homeless ministry). It is this focus that seems to have worried Fred and I understand his worry. Excellent response! Being B&R in the 2x2's, it took me forever to grasp this concept. That's why I have a lot of tolerance for those who don't see the difference yet.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jun 24, 2009 7:13:40 GMT -5
If that is so, Nathan, why are the 2X2's not more connected to these groups? I know there are Vaudois still in the Italian mtns. who've made themselves open to visitors in the last few yrs. I suppose they've been reluctant to call much attention to themselves because of all the persecutions their forefathers suffered under the Catholic regimes!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2009 7:25:53 GMT -5
Here is sad story about Jesus being a "way" and his group being a works based, 2x2 ministry.
Luke 18: 18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? (interminable ramblings about works... ie no adultery, stealing, blah blah blah) And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up. Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing (drum roll...) : sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me (more blah blah blah...) And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich. And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! (more of the same judgments ...) And they that heard it said, Who then can be saved? And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God (and clearly Jesus can't grasp these men ARE ALREADY SAVED) Then Peter said, Lo, we have left all, and followed thee. (more worker worship garbage...) Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake, Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting. (apparantly Jesus gets carried away with this worker sacrifice thing again...)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2009 7:48:54 GMT -5
the rest of the story:
"and bert, sorrowfully, left Jesus because he would not sell all he had, give it to the poor, leave his family and follow Jesus...."
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Jun 24, 2009 7:54:26 GMT -5
New workers had to give all their money to William Irvine. Was Irvine penniless? Nope.
Bill Carroll, during his gray years, had a house which was outfitted with young brother workers to tend to the garden and young sister workers to tend to him. Sounds like the life of Riley.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Jun 24, 2009 18:08:21 GMT -5
~~ Jesus is the way, the truth and life and no man comes unto the Father but through him. Jesus came to show us the way to eternal life. Jesus came to be the way.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Jun 24, 2009 18:11:44 GMT -5
~~ The early 2x2s workers tried to "Return" or "Continue" the apostolic ministry and way of worship Jesus and apostles started 2000 yrs ago.
By the way, there were other believers who have continued going forth as Jesus sent forth his messengers in the gospels and in the book of Acts for 1800 yrs prior to the 2x2 workers. The word continue in this context is a lie, because it gives the impression of apostolic succession.
|
|
|
Post by september on Jun 24, 2009 18:14:49 GMT -5
~~ From my own understanding, observation and reading the Vaudois of today is NOT the same as those faithful martyrs true believers of Christ for 1800 yrs who stood up against the false teachings of the Catholic Church. They have departed from the teachings of Jesus when they joined with the reformation movement, teachings, practices by the late 1800's. The same could be said of the fellowship today. Do you think the "mantle" as one Irish worker spoke of, could have been passed from the fellowship at this point? That's if one believes it ever had it in the first instance...
|
|
|
Post by september on Jun 24, 2009 18:15:50 GMT -5
~~ The early 2x2s workers tried to "Return" or "Continue" the apostolic ministry and way of worship Jesus and apostles started 2000 yrs ago.
By the way, there were other believers who have continued going forth as Jesus sent forth his messengers in the gospels and in the book of Acts for 1800 yrs prior to the 2x2 workers. The word continue in this context is a lie, because it gives the impression of apostolic succession. "Return" is questionable too!
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jun 24, 2009 18:40:38 GMT -5
If that is so, Nathan, why are the 2X2's not more connected to these groups? I know there are Vaudois still in the Italian mtns. who've made themselves open to visitors in the last few yrs. I suppose they've been reluctant to call much attention to themselves because of all the persecutions their forefathers suffered under the Catholic regimes! ~~ From my own understanding, observation and reading the Vaudois of today is NOT the same as those faithful martyrs true believers of Christ for 1800 yrs who stood up against the false teachings of the Catholic Church. They have departed from the teachings of Jesus when they joined with the reformation movement, teachings, practices by the late 1800's.I have seen pictures of those living in the Italian mtns. and they would put 2X2's to shame with their modest clothing!
|
|