|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jun 5, 2009 14:12:10 GMT -5
Because of their relative separation from the Christian world, it seems to me that the f&w movement provides us with a unique test case for studying christianity.
Most of us know the story: A man, or men, rejected much of Christianity's historical teachings, chopped them right in half, refusing to consider as reliable anything that wasn't written in the Bible. A conscious decision was made to start completely over, using only the Scripture.
Some of these men are and were quite intellectual, incredibly well-versed in the Bible. Far from idiots, in my opinion, they just are not influenced by post-biblical religious thinking.
Can the f&w movement, then, give us a clue as to how Christians initially interpreted the New Testament writings? Is this 100-year sample the best possible environment today for a live test run of a new start-up christianity, using only the Bible?
The fascinating result: For the most part, 100 years later, it still has never crossed anybody's mind that Jesus is God.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jun 5, 2009 14:23:50 GMT -5
Because of their relative separation from the Christian world, it seems to me that the f&w movement provides us with a unique test case for studying christianity.Well, it is an interesting view of how (some of the) people reject other Christians and try to hoard God to themselves. Most of us know the story: A man, or men, rejected much of Christianity's historical teachings, chopped them right in half, refusing to consider as reliable anything that wasn't written in the Bible. A conscious decision was made to start completely over, using only the Scripture. I see it as many have rejected certain parts of the scripture and place more emphasis on the letters of Paul written to specific churches than on the teachings of Jesus. Some of these men are and were quite intellectual, incredibly well-versed in the Bible. Far from idiots, in my opinion, they just are not influenced by post-biblical religious thinking.Some of them are absolute idiots and have no clue about what the gospel message is. Can the f&w movement, then, give us a clue as to how Christians initially interpreted the New Testament writings? Is this 100-year sample the best possible environment today for a live test run of a new start-up christianity, using only the Bible?No. They can give us a glimpse into a group of people who feel they have set themselves apart from the world, but in reality have rejected much of the gospel message and set themselves apart from other Christians. The fascinating result: For the most part, 100 years later, it still has never crossed anybody's mind that Jesus is God. Not fascinating to me. Just sad that so many after 100 years many of them still think that a relatively small group of people have an exclusive hold on God and isolate themselves from those who would be happy to be brothers and sisters in Christ. Scott
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jun 5, 2009 14:30:18 GMT -5
scott, you are no fun at all.
Perhaps you can point me to another modern test group, someone else uninfluenced by Christian thinking, who came to the opposite conclusion that Jesus IS God.
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Jun 5, 2009 14:36:38 GMT -5
Valiant effort, DC....but no. If we want insight into the early church, all we have to do is look at it. Read the Bible, read the writings of the early church fathers, etc. The F&Ws fellowship looks nothing like the early church. I'd just refer you to the second post in my debate with GiC for my position on that.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jun 5, 2009 14:38:40 GMT -5
Oh I can be fun for sure!! My statements above are pretty general in nature, as I have found that there is actually a LARGE number in the truth fellowship that are NOT as I intimated above. They see me (and I them) as brothers and sisters in Christ. They do not have God in a box all to themselves, and know that their relationship with Jesus/God doesn't have much to do with where they worship, but is the same (but unique to them individually) personal experience us other Christians have. A far as: For the most part, 100 years later, it still has never crossed anybody's mind that Jesus is God. Not true dc. Many of them DO know that Jesus is God. I can't point you to a 'test group'. If there was such a thing then they certainly wouldn't be following the scriptures now would they? Christians are Christians. They aren't any specific 'group'. They are separated by the traditions and doctrines of man, but not by the separation of exclusivity to that denomination they belong to. If they are separate, then are they really Christians??? Scott
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Jun 5, 2009 14:43:20 GMT -5
Perhaps you can point me to another modern test group, someone else uninfluenced by Christian thinking, who came to the opposite conclusion that Jesus IS God.
In the theology class I took they discussed this. They explained that Polycarp was a disciple of John, and that Irenaeous was a disciple of Polycarp. They then asked who of those three people would know Jesus better....John, Polycarp, or Irenaeous? Of course the answer is self evident. Why then would we expect someone 20 centuries later to understand Jesus better than John? So.....why would we?
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jun 5, 2009 14:45:26 GMT -5
Valiant effort, DC....but no. If we want insight into the early church, all we have to do is look at it. Read the Bible, read the writings of the early church fathers, etc. The F&Ws fellowship looks nothing like the early church. I'd just refer you to the second post in my debate with GiC for my position on that. It's too late for us, zorro. We are already influenced by post-biblical ideas. "we" can't put ourselves back in the first century. What the f&w fellowship looks like is totally irrelevent; the relevant issue is that they are well-read in scripture yet uninfluenced by 2nd, 3rd, 4th-century thinking.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jun 5, 2009 14:51:02 GMT -5
In the theology class I took they discussed this. They explained that Polycarp was a disciple of John, and that Irenaeous was a disciple of Polycarp. They then asked who of those three people would know Jesus better....John, Polycarp, or Irenaeous? Of course the answer is self evident. Why then would we expect someone 20 centuries later to understand Jesus better than John? So.....why would we? If we are going to believe the tradition that John the Apostle wrote the gospel of John, we should believe the tradition that Matthew, another apostle, wrote his Gospel. Then, we must ask who should we believe...John or Matthew? The opinions of these two could hardly be any more different.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jun 5, 2009 14:53:27 GMT -5
What the f&w fellowship looks like is totally irrelevent; the relevant issue is that they are well-read in scripture yet uninfluenced by 2nd, 3rd, 4th-century thinking. Not relevant how they look to other Christians? I think that it is very relevant. And how about how they look to each other? We read such a difference of opinion here on the board from those who are in the truth fellowship on a lot of different issues. Dress, work, play, marriage, worship, the unchanging way that changes but at a different pace then the world around them.... Which century do you think the are influenced by? The 19th-20th when they came to be? Scott
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 5, 2009 14:57:47 GMT -5
One thing I really like about our fellowship is that there are many who participate in close reading of Scripture without intermediation from so-called authorities. (Even though I'm not really one of them.)
I also find it uncanny how closely the interpretation I hear preached in the fellowship matches that of leading Bible scholars like John McArthur and Matthew Henry, or thorough individualists like Tolstoy or Milton. Lately I've been reading an excellent book by Marcus Borg. I don't entirely accept his non-literalism; I do accept most of what he says about Christ.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jun 5, 2009 14:57:50 GMT -5
Scott, maybe I'm not making my point very well. F&w doctrine or exclusivity etc. is not the point. The point is, will somebody well-versed in the Bible but not knowledgeable of post-Biblical teachings come to believe Jesus is God or not?
Would it be a better test to collect a hundred Chinese who have never heard of Jesus to read the Bible through, and ask THEM who Jesus is? It would be a fascinating study! But probably not as accurate a study as the one we already have in front of us in the f&w's.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jun 5, 2009 15:00:02 GMT -5
Take a look at the difference between yourself and clearday. Toss in Nathan, Bert, Jesse, lin, freespirit, gem.... All of them I consider to be my brothers and sisters in Christ. They may worship differently than I do, but they BELIEVE. For the most part, our differences are WHERE and HOW we worship, not WHETHER we worship..... I wish that more people could set aside the denominational differences and concentrate on our similarities. It sure would make things nicer to not be so caught up in whether others were bigger sinners than others are...... Scott
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 5, 2009 15:00:36 GMT -5
Scott, maybe I'm not making my point very well. F&w doctrine or exclusivity etc. is not the point. The point is, will somebody well-versed in the Bible but not knowledgeable of post-Biblical teachings come to believe Jesus is God or not? Would it be a better test to collect a hundred Chinese who have never heard of Jesus to read the Bible through, and ask THEM who Jesus is? It would be a fascinating study! But probably not as accurate a study as the one we already have in front of us in the f&w's. I mention Marcus Borg because he states that Jesus is not God. And he lectures at all the leading mainstream seminaries. Go figure. He believes that saying Jesus is God makes Christianity too exclusivist.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jun 5, 2009 15:04:28 GMT -5
I mention Marcus Borg because he states that Jesus is not God. And he lectures at all the leading mainstream seminaries. Go figure. He believes that saying Jesus is God makes Christianity too exclusivist. hmmm. After reading this, are we ready to vote on whether it is the f&w's that are idiots or what? I think what. heh, heh! sorry, couldn't help it...
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jun 5, 2009 15:05:59 GMT -5
Take a look at the difference between yourself and clearday. Toss in Nathan, Bert, Jesse, lin, freespirit, gem.... All of them I consider to be my brothers and sisters in Christ. They may worship differently than I do, but they BELIEVE. For the most part, our differences are WHERE and HOW we worship, not WHETHER we worship..... I wish that more people could set aside the denominational differences and concentrate on our similarities. It sure would make things nicer to not be so caught up in whether others were bigger sinners than others are...... Scott thank you, scott, that's very nice! Now, back to the topic....
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jun 5, 2009 15:06:38 GMT -5
Scott, maybe I'm not making my point very well. F&w doctrine or exclusivity etc. is not the point. The point is, will somebody well-versed in the Bible but not knowledgeable of post-Biblical teachings come to believe Jesus is God or not?Ahahh.... Is THAT your question? I thought you just wanted the question answered about idiots.... Would it be a better test to collect a hundred Chinese who have never heard of Jesus to read the Bible through, and ask THEM who Jesus is? It would be a fascinating study! But probably not as accurate a study as the one we already have in front of us in the f&w's.Not really. Those in the New Testament had either Jesus or the apostles or just regular old run of the mill disciples to share what Jesus was all about. Since I think that He is in a personal relationship with each of us, I think it is important to share our experiences with others that do NOT have that personal relationship. That is how the great commission is carried out isn't it? Disciples carrying the message to all the world. (and not just the Chinese...) ;D Scott
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Jun 5, 2009 15:12:32 GMT -5
What the f&w fellowship looks like is totally irrelevent; the relevant issue is that they are well-read in scripture yet uninfluenced by 2nd, 3rd, 4th-century thinking.
I can't begin to count the passages that I've heard interpreted incorrectly by workers. I can't begin to count the inconsistencies I've heard between worker's preaching, elders and friends testimonies. Your thesis that somehow the workers have a knowledge of God that somehow escaped the early church and was rediscovered by WI etal is hopelessly flawed.
I'll give an example from my personal experience. Before I professed I knew nothing of orthodox doctrines, the deity of Christ, I'd never heard of Calvin, let alone any of the early church fathers. The only source of knowledge I ever availed myself of for the next 30 years was the F&Ws teaching, and its influence on my personal study and understanding of the Bible. With that in mind.....
The only way I had ever heard the Scripture describing the one fold, one faith, one baptism, etc is that the F&Ws were it. This Scripture was proof of it. I fully bought into that. Then one day I noticed that wasn't what those verses were talking about at all. They were talking about God uniting Jews and Gentiles - enemies - into one fold, faith, baptism, etc. I thought WHAT IN THE WORLD IS GOING ON.
I discovered the verses discussing "touch not, taste not, handle not" to be similarly upside down. This had always been presented to support the "separation" doctrine. In fact Paul was saying that is NOT the way we should approach our lives.
And then....the fateful day I realized that somehow, someway I'd never actually read Heb 1:8. Any notion that the thesis you are presenting here was true....was gone forever.
Up to that point, I'd never read ANYTHING but the Bible. There is no question in my mind that God helped me to understand the errors of what I'd been taught by the workers.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jun 5, 2009 15:13:24 GMT -5
Not really. Those in the New Testament had either Jesus or the apostles or just regular old run of the mill disciples to share what Jesus was all about. Alright. Between you and zorro, I'm getting the point, and that's that we should assume it is the apostles who wrote the Gospels and that those apostles personally taught later beleivers, who passed the tradition onward, etc. That thought actually never crossed my mind, since I consider all the gospels anonymous. Shows how differently we think
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Jun 5, 2009 15:16:21 GMT -5
If we are going to believe the tradition that John the Apostle wrote the gospel of John, we should believe the tradition that Matthew, another apostle, wrote his Gospel. Then, we must ask who should we believe...John or Matthew? The opinions of these two could hardly be any more different.
I believe them both. If one person told you that an apple was green would you believe him? If another person told you later that the same apple was red, would you believe him? Did one of them lie? Did they both tell the truth? How?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jun 5, 2009 15:20:06 GMT -5
Not really. Those in the New Testament had either Jesus or the apostles or just regular old run of the mill disciples to share what Jesus was all about. Alright. Between you and zorro, I'm getting the point, and that's that we should assume it is the apostles who wrote the Gospels and that those apostles personally taught later beleivers, who passed the tradition onward, etc. That thought actually never crossed my mind, since I consider all the gospels anonymous. Shows how differently we think Anonymous? And here I thought they were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Last I checked though Mark and Luke were not apostles.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jun 5, 2009 15:22:45 GMT -5
I can't begin to count the passages that I've heard interpreted incorrectly by workers. This means, of course, that they cannot begin the count the passages that you interpret incorrectly, though this is irrelevant to the topic. Nor can I begin to count the inconsistencies between first-century writers. Again, irrelevant to the topic. huh??? I thought you knew me better than that.... I bet for 30 years you never considered Jesus to be God. Why, are you an idiot? I'm trying hard to resist saying this...trying...oh, I give. It's very unlikely that those who wrote the gospels had read Heb 1:8 either. Nor had the the first three read John. Nor Titus, which probably wasn't written until the second century!
|
|
|
Post by mrleo on Jun 5, 2009 15:32:08 GMT -5
I don't think the F&W are a very good sample for this question because the notion that they only ever used the Bible or were influenced only by the Bible is just not true. I realize this is the claim they make, but I also know in our household growing up we had more than one translation of the Bible plus a Crudens (sp?) Concordance. Even with those extra-biblical texts, however, we weren't much concerned with the doctrine of the Trinity.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jun 5, 2009 15:32:14 GMT -5
If we are going to believe the tradition that John the Apostle wrote the gospel of John, we should believe the tradition that Matthew, another apostle, wrote his Gospel. Then, we must ask who should we believe...John or Matthew? The opinions of these two could hardly be any more different. I believe them both. If one person told you that an apple was green would you believe him? If another person told you later that the same apple was red, would you believe him? Did one of them lie? Did they both tell the truth? How? Oh, I get it! Jesus grew up (ripened?) between the writings of Matthew and John! well, duh, lol.
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Jun 5, 2009 15:35:28 GMT -5
This means, of course, that they cannot begin the count the passages that you interpret incorrectly, though this is irrelevant to the topic.
What are talking about? You asked if the workers have some inside track to understanding scripture due to their void of understanding the early church teaching. The answer is no. I have heard countless times when they had it obviously wrong and I gave specific examples. Apparently you need more? This was from an elder....everyone born before Jesus was lost, including Moses, Abraham, and David.
And you say inconsistencies of workers teaching is irrelevant to the topic? OK. I'm thinking that if God gave them some type of inside track on Scripture, they'd all come to the same conclusions. But maybe you're wanting to focus on the Jesus is God thing. OK. Explain how some believe Jesus was God and some don't. Then answer your own question posed in the OP.
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Jun 5, 2009 15:38:53 GMT -5
Oh, I get it! Jesus grew up (ripened?) between the writings of Matthew and John!
well, duh, lol
You know, you are literally all over the map. First you say that Mark, Matt, Luke didn't understand Jesus deity, and later John came to understand it more fully and wrote about it. To Mark, Matt, Luke the apple was green. To John the apple was red. In other words, writers describing Jesus' humanity were correct. Writers describing Jesus' deity were also correct. duh.
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Jun 5, 2009 15:40:17 GMT -5
I bet for 30 years you never considered Jesus to be God. Why, are you an idiot?
Yes.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Jun 5, 2009 15:41:50 GMT -5
You asked if the workers have some inside track to understanding scripture due to their void of understanding the early church teaching. The answer is no. eeeek! you are correct, the answer is no. But you are incorrect, I never posed that question.
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Jun 5, 2009 15:45:20 GMT -5
Some of these men are and were quite intellectual, incredibly well-versed in the Bible. Far from idiots, in my opinion, they just are not influenced by post-biblical religious thinking.
Can the f&w movement, then, give us a clue as to how Christians initially interpreted the New Testament writings? Is this 100-year sample the best possible environment today for a live test run of a new start-up christianity, using only the Bible?
You asked if the workers have some inside track to understanding scripture due to their void of understanding the early church teaching.
I never posed that question.
That's the way it translated to me.
|
|