|
Post by Zorro on Jun 29, 2009 0:25:08 GMT -5
I ask Todd how long he's professed and you ask me this? This has got be good for one of your lists. Bert, You should know the 10 golden rules!!! Here they are again to refresh your memory... 1. If Zorro asks Todd a question. 2. Nobody can ask Zorro a question 3. For the next 28 days. 10. Or else. Put yourself on a list, Bert. Cute.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jun 29, 2009 2:19:37 GMT -5
FWIW, here's my opinion : not naive........... not dumb.......... not deliberately obtuse........... not confecting humour............... though any mix of these would cross one's mind whilst reading the posts.
I believe these posts are from a very deeply programmed mind. Anyhow the company would know, so ID10T would be able to fill us in.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jun 29, 2009 7:18:06 GMT -5
"Jesus said in Matthew 19:27-29 Peter said to Jesus, "Behold, we have forshaken all and follow thee; what shall we have therefore?" Jesus said unto THEM, "And everyone that has forshaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or fathers, or mothers, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundred folds, and shall inherit everlasting life."
Nathan, I've read perhaps 2 or 3 times recently this portion of scripture you quoted and in one of my Bibles, it doesn't include the word "wife" and if we're to believe what Jesus said that "from the beginning it was not so" in separating what God has joined, then we won't be believing Jesus meant for men to forsake their wives to go off across the nation and/or world....that would be defying the very purpose that God had in "making them one"! Now wouldn't it? Now we can go into where Jesus said that if we LOVED our mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, children and our wives more then Him then.....that is another thing....it is the amount of Love we've assigned to each in our life. Otherwords I take it that if our love for another human causes us to turn from God and I'm not saying turning against the 2X2 religion or anyone in it, then we're compromising our personal relationship with our God, now isn't that so?
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jun 29, 2009 7:28:08 GMT -5
"Paul wrote in I Cor. 7:32 He that is married careth for the things that belong to the Lord: But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.
According to the Vaudois, Waldensians apostles/preachers and others like them did sell their homes, some even left their wives for the sake of gospel by following the pattern of Paul and Jesus for 1800 yrs.
The Vaudois had women apostles/preachers and a few were married in the ministry but MOST of them were not married."
Nathan, I think we need to start looking at the time when the people who were converted in Acts and had sold all they had and everything was kept in common so those who needed could have and those who had more shared in a different light as the way things were meant to be for all the next umpteen thousand years. This was a "special" time, a "special need" among a large group of new converts.,....so the "need" was met and that "need" would not always be the same....God has given us brains and He will give us the Holy Spirit's guidance to know what to do when certain things are evident and needful, now doesn't He? There have been times, perhaps selling homes, going forth homeless was possible and that was because the "hospitality" of those they were going forth amongst was a known given....BUT when that "hospitality" and the "need" for itinerant preaches was no longer, then it was time to move onto the "need" of the "times. Don't you think? And the "need" for itinerant preachers perhaps will reoccur over and over again, but it would not remain constant! That much is apparent throughout the history, isn't it? Take for example the children of Israel....they had to travel many many miles and their needs of warriors was great, their need for prophets was great....but there came a time when warriors were not needed any longer because God had given them over to captivity.....but what did they need the most? They needed a Saviour! God gave them that and yet they weren't ready for Him, now were they? It is imperative that humans keep up with the times or we can miss a whole lot of what God wants for us....I think the captivity of the children of Israel, the scattering of the 10 tribes over all the world and then the advent of Jesus' birth, life and death on the cross was NOT meant by a ready children of Israel....thus it brought about the end of the Jewish fulfillment for a time and opened the way for the Gentiles for a time, times and a half.....fi the Gentiles are not ready to meet with the times of God's hand, then they too shall fall away and not benefit from the advent of our Lord and Saviour. Holding to what may have worked in a certain time for humans coming to Christ only renders us ineffectual.....we can not sit still on this, now can we?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2009 7:32:52 GMT -5
I am reminded of what was said at Rochedale Convention one year. It concerned people who ignored a parking sign. The sign was old, faded and a bit rusty - but people ignored that sign at their peril because it stated it had the authority of the Brisbane City Council.
|
|
|
Post by todd on Jun 29, 2009 7:34:25 GMT -5
Any body of people who call themselves a church to separate themselves from other Christians are being exclusive and would therefore be not part of the one church of Jesus (that began in Galilee).You got that right todd! Any group of people that separate themselves from other Christians and claim to be the 'only way' have removed themselves from the true Church. Since the true Church is the people and not a group of any sort, any 'group' that claims to be 'the way' is exclusive and therefore MUST be wrong. Hey!! We agree on something!! Cool huh??? Scott Hey Bro!! No we don't agree. I would have thought it a good thing if you found a group of people who claimed to be preaching the only way, especially knowing that there is only one way, because you would know that what that means is if you are outside that one way to salvation, you don't get salvation. Anybody who doesn't claim to be preaching the one way, you should be wary of. Anyway, I learnt that from the bible so I guess it is true, and I don't know why a claim like that would remove them from the true church.
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Jun 29, 2009 8:02:14 GMT -5
"The true church" is not in the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by todd on Jun 29, 2009 8:09:04 GMT -5
Ok, fair enough. The Gospel I have read mentions a homeless ministry, but maybe you know of a different "gospel". I'm not sure if you have noticed, but the Gospel talks about more than just Jesus. The Gospel is about Jesus and many things he did. I'm not sure how you could have read the Gospel and missed him walking on water and a few other cool things he did while he was on earth. You know, he sent a homeless ministry back then, so it doesn't surprise me one bit that God is still sending out a homeless ministry today. The fact that this ministry is mentioned in the Gospel is probably to give us the faith that today's ministry is of God, when we see those continuing to be sent as they were back then. This is exactly the type of behavior that I am talking about. It scares me to think that people can convince others that the call of Jesus is into a system rather than a call to Jesus himself. Emphasizing the system, one can easily miss the call of Christ, which is to Him and not to a method or denomination. Oh yah Todd, some verses about homes just in case you missed them. Matt 8:14 "And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever." John 19:25-27 the latter part of verse 27 "...And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home. " These aren't exactly homeless apostles are they? Jesus asked them to go to the house of Israel but I don't recall him asking Peter or John to sell their homes before or after they went. I do recall a young man who trusted in his riches being asked to sell all he had, but none of the apostles were asked this. However, for people who like to believe it is all about a system, or method, we see serious twisting of the scriptures to snare people in the thinking that those who minister must be homeless and go out in 2's. If you don't try to twist the scriptures we can easily see that they had homes, therefore punching holes in your argument that the ministry must be homeless. Hey, someguy, please read what I have said. I didn't say that the ministry MUST be homeless or MUST go 2x2, so it doesn't punch holes in any argument. How many times do I see people on here making wild assumptions about what is said, and I can see why people completely misinterpret what the preachers say sometmes, and then try to quote what they have said but get it comletely wrong and then they go telling others and writing books about how wrong the workers are, when it has just been their own inablity to understand basic language. All I was saying is that it doesn't surprise me that God is still sending out a homeless ministry. That doesn't mean that is all he sends. I know some of his group who have been married and gone on a mission and even bought a house in the country they went to minister, and those who even got jobs, and those who went in three's. And I bet that you know this too because it has been mentioned on this board often enough, but you try to pretend it didn't happen and that there is some sort of rule that it MUST be 2x2 and they MUST not be married and they MUST not have a permanant residence etc. This is not the case, so I really don't know how people can honestly argue that there IS a rule that says these things. Do you mean that the Gospel is more than Jesus but only Jesus... is that what you are saying? Can you tell me the extent of what you think the Gospel is? You say that it is only abut Jesus, but Jesus had some interactions with other men, so are you saying that this can't be mentioned because it is not only about Jesus and Him alone? In your version of the Gospel, can any other people's names be mentioned at all?
|
|
|
Post by todd on Jun 29, 2009 8:30:20 GMT -5
Todd, the Gospel's talk about more than Jesus but the "Gospel" is about Jesus and Him alone. I caution against believing anything that is Jesus plus something else to be salvation." quote I agree...."Gospel" simply is interpreted "good news", isn't it? What is the "good news" of? Isn't it about "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son...."? what does that phrase mean? It means that love is what led Jesus to Calvary's cross where He died for all mankind......it is in some parts of the gospels it says that He would save "many". The "good news" is the fact Jesus came to the earth into a human form, and at the prime of His life, He was sentenced by false witnesses, beat, mocked, scorned and then crucified one of the cruelest deaths known to man! This kind of death was saved for the worst of criminals....the shame He suffered, He had no thought for it, He minded it not....and why? Because through His tasting death and hell for all mankind He has brought salvation by grace to all mankind to those whosoever believes on Him! That is the "good news"! To add anything else to the "gospel" dilutes its' effect, don't you think Todd? I'm not adding anything to the Gospel to dilute it. You mention that he was sentenced by false witnesses, beat, mocked, scorned and then crucified, and this surely did happen at the hands of some nasty people... the funny thing is that the Gospel that I read happens to mention these people names in some cases, just for a bit of fun I guess, and it also mentions more about them than just their names to give us some idea about what he was going through so we understand the full story with the events surrounding him, and comprehend a little bit more of what he actually did for us.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jun 29, 2009 8:30:55 GMT -5
Hey todd! Any body of people who call themselves a church to separate themselves from other Christians are being exclusive and would therefore be not part of the one church of Jesus (that began in Galilee).You got that right todd! Any group of people that separate themselves from other Christians and claim to be the 'only way' have removed themselves from the true Church. Since the true Church is the people and not a group of any sort, any 'group' that claims to be 'the way' is exclusive and therefore MUST be wrong. Hey!! We agree on something!! Cool huh??? Scott Hey Bro!! No we don't agree. I would have thought it a good thing if you found a group of people who claimed to be preaching the only way, especially knowing that there is only one way, because you would know that what that means is if you are outside that one way to salvation, you don't get salvation. Anybody who doesn't claim to be preaching the one way, you should be wary of. Anyway, I learnt that from the bible so I guess it is true, and I don't know why a claim like that would remove them from the true church. I was basing my response on what you said: Any body of people who call themselves a church to separate themselves from other Christians are being exclusive and would therefore be not part of the one church of Jesus (that began in Galilee) My point being that if a GROUP separates itself from Christians it would no longer be a part of the true church, which is not a GROUP of people, but the people itself. The CHURCH is the individuals (Christians) that make up the body of Christ (the true Church). It isn't about belonging to a denomination, it is about the individuals relationship with Jesus/God. I got that from reading the bible! Would you agree that simply claiming to 'profess' or 'proclaim yourself' or 'respond to an alter call' or 'carry a sign' or 'whatever' an individual might do OUTWARDLY will not have anything to do with their salvation? Would you agree that it is our individual relationship with Jesus/God that gains us salvation? What do you say bro? Can we agree on those issues? Scott
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Jun 29, 2009 8:31:50 GMT -5
So what's your point this time, todd?
|
|
|
Post by todd on Jun 29, 2009 8:35:06 GMT -5
Quite a few years. Do you need to know exactly? No, I don't need to know. I'm just trying to figure out if you're naive. Did you work it out, or do you need more info?
|
|
|
Post by todd on Jun 29, 2009 8:41:46 GMT -5
"The true church" is not in the Bible. You look like a trustworthy fella, and I am going to take you word for it.
|
|
|
Post by someguy on Jun 29, 2009 10:29:00 GMT -5
This is exactly the type of behavior that I am talking about. It scares me to think that people can convince others that the call of Jesus is into a system rather than a call to Jesus himself. Emphasizing the system, one can easily miss the call of Christ, which is to Him and not to a method or denomination. Oh yah Todd, some verses about homes just in case you missed them. Matt 8:14 "And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever." John 19:25-27 the latter part of verse 27 "...And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home. " These aren't exactly homeless apostles are they? Jesus asked them to go to the house of Israel but I don't recall him asking Peter or John to sell their homes before or after they went. I do recall a young man who trusted in his riches being asked to sell all he had, but none of the apostles were asked this. However, for people who like to believe it is all about a system, or method, we see serious twisting of the scriptures to snare people in the thinking that those who minister must be homeless and go out in 2's. If you don't try to twist the scriptures we can easily see that they had homes, therefore punching holes in your argument that the ministry must be homeless. Hey, someguy, please read what I have said. I didn't say that the ministry MUST be homeless or MUST go 2x2, so it doesn't punch holes in any argument. How many times do I see people on here making wild assumptions about what is said, and I can see why people completely misinterpret what the preachers say sometmes, and then try to quote what they have said but get it comletely wrong and then they go telling others and writing books about how wrong the workers are, when it has just been their own inablity to understand basic language. All I was saying is that it doesn't surprise me that God is still sending out a homeless ministry. That doesn't mean that is all he sends. I know some of his group who have been married and gone on a mission and even bought a house in the country they went to minister, and those who even got jobs, and those who went in three's. And I bet that you know this too because it has been mentioned on this board often enough, but you try to pretend it didn't happen and that there is some sort of rule that it MUST be 2x2 and they MUST not be married and they MUST not have a permanant residence etc. This is not the case, so I really don't know how people can honestly argue that there IS a rule that says these things. Do you mean that the Gospel is more than Jesus but only Jesus... is that what you are saying? Can you tell me the extent of what you think the Gospel is? You say that it is only abut Jesus, but Jesus had some interactions with other men, so are you saying that this can't be mentioned because it is not only about Jesus and Him alone? In your version of the Gospel, can any other people's names be mentioned at all? The "Gospel" is only about Jesus but the gospel's talk about more than Jesus. There is a difference. We refer to the first four books of the bible as the gospels but the "Gospel" which is also know as the good news is about Jesus. Are you trying to tell me the Good News of Heaven is about more than Jesus? Todd, are you a worker?
|
|
H.A.S.
Senior Member
God loves us all. Yes, even you.
Posts: 705
|
Post by H.A.S. on Jun 29, 2009 13:39:40 GMT -5
The Gospel is about Jesus and many things he did. I'm not sure how you could have read the Gospel and missed him walking on water and a few other cool things he did while he was on earth. You know, he sent a homeless ministry back then, so it doesn't surprise me one bit that God is still sending out a homeless ministry today. The fact that this ministry is mentioned in the Gospel is probably to give us the faith that todays ministry is of God, when we see those continuing to be sent as they were back then. Maybe you didn't notice that Jesus actually commissioned two different gospel messages. One early in his life, and one closer to the end of his life. In Matthew 10 Jesus commissioned the disciples to go out and spread the message that the kingdom of God was at hand in the very person of the Jesus Christ. This was a temporary commission were Jesus said 'Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his hire'. How do we know this was a temporary commission? Because in Luke's gospel, chapter 22, you will see Jesus Christ Himself gives a contrary commandment to the same disciples. I would go so far as to say Luke 22 undoes the commandment in Matthew chapter 10. Luke 22 verse 35: 'And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one'. This is why I think it's so important to look at versus in their historical context. If I just "cherry pick" Matthew 10, I might get the idea that Jesus wants his ministers to go out homeless, in pairs, healing the sick, and casting out demons. However, when I take both Matthew 10 and Luke 22 together and view them in their historical context, I can see that Jesus was getting the disciples ready for a new second gospel message. That second message was the good news that Jesus had paid the price for your sin. The good news was not a message about walking on water, homeless ministers, or anything else like that. It was/is the good news that we all now have a way to achieve eternal life. See what I mean? Two messages, two gospels, two audiences. In my opinion, the workers have confused the two and are trying to follow a commission that is no longer relevant.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jun 29, 2009 13:45:26 GMT -5
How do we know this was a temporary commission? Because in Luke's gospel, chapter 22, you will see Jesus Christ Himself gives a contrary commandment to the same disciples. I would go so far as to say Luke 22 undoes the commandment in Matthew chapter 10. There is a third option. In John, no one is commissioned at all, until after Jesus is risen.
|
|
H.A.S.
Senior Member
God loves us all. Yes, even you.
Posts: 705
|
Post by H.A.S. on Jun 29, 2009 14:03:51 GMT -5
No I haven't asked yet. Do you want me to ask a specific question to see what he answers? Like do you want me to ask about William Irvine, or do you want me to ask about the beginning of our group to see if he mentions William Irvine? Ask him about the beginnings of our group and see if he mentions William Irvine. I know you already know, but I'm curious if he knows. What are you on about?... I just said that the history is important to the church, but not really the period of time we are talking about here. All I'm saying is I think the period of time we are talking about should be important to the church. Thanks for the advice, but you didn't answer the question. By doomed to repeat it, I mean it was not letting people in on the true history of the church from the beginning that caused many to leave in the first place. People will continue to feel lied to and they will continue to leave if your group continues to pretend the history of the group isn't important. Jesus' church which began more than 2000 years ago, would be more than 2000 years old knowing that the church still exists today. That is the only true church. Any body of people who call themselves a church to seperate themselves from other Christians are being exclusive and would therefore be not part of the one church of Jesus (that began in Galilee). I agree 100%. That's why I stopped going to meetings.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Jun 29, 2009 20:59:40 GMT -5
Any body of people who call themselves a church to separate themselves from other Christians are being exclusive and would therefore be not part of the one church of Jesus (that began in Galilee).You got that right todd! Any group of people that separate themselves from other Christians and claim to be the 'only way' have removed themselves from the true Church. Since the true Church is the people and not a group of any sort, any 'group' that claims to be 'the way' is exclusive and therefore MUST be wrong. Hey!! We agree on something!! Cool huh??? Scott Hey Bro!! No we don't agree. I would have thought it a good thing if you found a group of people who claimed to be preaching the only way, especially knowing that there is only one way, because you would know that what that means is if you are outside that one way to salvation, you don't get salvation. Anybody who doesn't claim to be preaching the one way, you should be wary of. Anyway, I learnt that from the bible so I guess it is true, and I don't know why a claim like that would remove them from the true church. it is a good thing if the group preaches that Jesus is the one or only way, not a group - i.e their group. Big difference to preach their group as the only way versus preaching Jesus as the only way.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Jun 29, 2009 21:02:40 GMT -5
Who are you talking to Nathan? You are preaching to the converted.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Jun 29, 2009 21:19:16 GMT -5
Who are you talking to Nathan? You are preaching to the converted. ~~ ;D I was talking to my friend HAS. I hope that's alright with you.ok - I thought HAS was converted!!
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Jun 29, 2009 21:25:38 GMT -5
No, I don't need to know. I'm just trying to figure out if you're naive. Did you work it out, or do you need more info? No, I'm still working on it. So, I'll cross off naivety. I was thinking maybe you are a youngster, but your mastery of the double entendre makes that unlikely. Worker maybe?
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jun 30, 2009 7:35:05 GMT -5
Howdy Nathan! ~~ My point is ONLY a few apostles were married but MOST of them not married for the sake of the gospel.I am not sure what point you are trying to make. The bottom line is that it was not a requirement to not have a wife in order to be an apostle. In fact Paul also referred to the fact that some had wives with them while out preaching. 1 Corinthians 9
5Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas? g? Paul wrote in I Cor. 7:32 He that is married careth for the things that belong to the Lord: But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.Yep.... although Paul wasn't married he understood the importance of taking care of your wife and how we are supposed to treat them He wrote of this importance in several of his letters didn't he? According to the Vaudois, Waldensians apostles/preachers and others like them did sell their homes, some even left their wives for the sake of gospel by following the pattern of Paul and Jesus for 1800 yrs.Just like a lot of groups that carry the gospel huh? SOME left their wives. That was what they were called to do. Not all did that, so again, I don't see the significance of that. It is an individual choice, not a requirement. The Vaudois had women apostles/preachers and a few were married in the ministry but MOST of them were not married.Again SOME were married and some weren't. Not a requirement to be a preacher, so I don't see how this is a point of contention with you. Also, I am not sure what the significance here on the TMB is about what the Vaudois and Waldensians did or did not do. They were a group that had their own way of carrying the message, but don't have anything to do with the truth fellowship. Jesus said in Matthew 19:27-29 Peter said to Jesus, "Behold, we have forshaken all and follow thee; what shall we have therefore?" Jesus said unto THEM, "And everyone that has forshaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or fathers, or mothers, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundred folds, and shall inherit everlasting life."We've discussed this passage several times on the board, and have different views on what the word forsake means. I don't think it means you have to get rid of anything. I don't think Jesus wants us to turn our backs on our family or our possessions, but rather to put Him in first place in our lives. Scott
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Jun 30, 2009 10:30:40 GMT -5
NOT all can be workers! ;D then there are no homes for Sunday morning meetings to commemorate Christ's Passover. Most importantly, no one to support those in the ministry. This is not according to the New Testament church in the 1st century. Funny you should mention that it isn't according to the NT, given this is precisely how the 2x2 church started.
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Jun 30, 2009 11:40:36 GMT -5
Funny you should mention that it isn't according to the NT, given this is precisely how the 2x2 church started. ~~ Well, God revealed to them eventually... NOT everyone should be workers/Itinerant preachers of the gospel so they changed. Thanks, goodness for that.Yes. Good thing, since God did not reveal to them at the outset. That pesky God.
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Jun 30, 2009 13:11:05 GMT -5
That's nice. Now back to the workers....
|
|
|
Post by JO on Jul 1, 2009 1:40:09 GMT -5
~~ N9: My point is ONLY a few apostles were married but MOST of them not married for the sake of the gospel.Besides Paul, which apostles were not married?
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Jul 1, 2009 2:02:14 GMT -5
~~ N9: My point is ONLY a few apostles were married but MOST of them not married for the sake of the gospel.Besides Paul, which apostles were not married? The one's without wives possibly all those who wives where not shown for. How many had wives/were married?
|
|
|
Post by JO on Jul 1, 2009 4:13:58 GMT -5
You build a doctrine around "possibly" Looks to me like most of them had wives... 1 Corinthians 9:5-6 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?
|
|