|
Post by fixit on Mar 30, 2015 12:04:37 GMT -5
It doesn't take many posts to twist the conversation from a discussion about church-owned real estate to Christ owning the church to treasure in heaven.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2015 12:31:14 GMT -5
It doesn't take many posts to twist the conversation from a discussion about church-owned real estate to Christ owning the church to treasure in heaven. Yes that is what is called a convenient diversion, a well known and tried tactic; nothing new.
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Mar 30, 2015 16:43:32 GMT -5
Fantastic,since early 1950's we knew Morris(lorry) truck was licensed /registered in the name of incorporated "Christian Assemblies of Victoria", a friendly worked in the then Motor Registration Branch was horrified. You cant cover up everything? I will add more soon.
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Mar 30, 2015 17:10:00 GMT -5
Found this so good we could tell school kids,locals and work mates when asked what church do you belong to. Actually we told these people Christian Assemblies we were telling the Truth and we knew the workers and othere were either blind or dumb decause they would deny it.Gee to be truthful about the name made life so much easier,( must have been hard for workers to lie everytime it was claimed they were nameless) as I liked to always discuss scriptures Years later a supposed brainie worker Bernie Manning said that he was unaware of such a thing and that the details of the sale of D'nong grounds would have to be answered by other as he wasnt fully conversent with the details.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 31, 2015 11:43:41 GMT -5
Fascinating! So the F&W church has owned property in the form of trust under the trusteeship of 3 church members since around 1917? Owned by the Christian Assemblies in Victoria - see last line of page 8 In the country in question, doesn't the trust actually own the property? It sounds like the trust determines who is suitable to sit on the board. If the trust stated that the local bank was to appoint members that would not mean that the bank owned the property.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 31, 2015 14:05:27 GMT -5
Owned by the Christian Assemblies in Victoria - see last line of page 8 In the country in question, doesn't the trust actually own the property? It sounds like the trust determines who is suitable to sit on the board. If the trust stated that the local bank was to appoint members that would not mean that the bank owned the property. Yes, technically the trust owns the property. The trustees are always members of the organisation, and are always appointed by the overseer of the organisation. When the property is sold, the members of the organisation who are appointed by the overseer of the organisation decide what is done with the money. If I gift my home to a trust, and I appoint the trustees for the trust, I can still carry on occupying the home and most people I know would think I own the home. Technically I don't, but for practical purposes I remain the owner.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Mar 31, 2015 16:15:23 GMT -5
Does anyone know how "Christian Assemblies in Victoria" became "Christian Assemblies of Australia" which is the alleged entity that sold the Dandenong convention grounds? Were both names incorporated as legal entities? For the record, I don't know the answer to you question.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 31, 2015 19:09:34 GMT -5
Yes, technically the trust owns the property. So the statement: Owned by the Christian Assemblies in Victoria - see last line of page 8is incorrect. All sounds true. Are you looking at the appearance or the legal facts? What practical purpose? Could you borrow money using your home as collateral? Assuming a discretionary trust, the trustees that you appoint have a lot of control over the trust - at their discression. Perhaps even more than you, as the settlor.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 31, 2015 19:21:10 GMT -5
Yes, technically the trust owns the property. So the statement: Owned by the Christian Assemblies in Victoria - see last line of page 8is incorrect. All sounds true. Are you looking at the appearance or the legal facts? What practical purpose? Could you borrow money using your home as collateral? Assuming a discretionary trust, the trustees that you appoint have a lot of control over the trust - at their discression. Perhaps even more than you, as the settlor. The question folks are interested in is "did the 2x2 church own this property"? Technically the property was owned by a church-owned trust. The overseer appoints three church members as trustees to manage the property. If a local Pentecostal church had their property managed by a similar trust it would be considered by F&W to be church-owned property.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 31, 2015 21:32:34 GMT -5
The question folks are interested in is "did the 2x2 church own this property"? Technically the property was owned by a church-owned trust. What type of a trust would this be? Might it not be that the trustees have legal ownership of the trust property. Beneficiaries have equitable ownership. Of course, church members are not the church. Are you talking about what various people believe about such a trust or the underlying legal principles? Who would pay the taxes?
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Apr 10, 2015 21:53:15 GMT -5
DUTIES OF A TRUSTEE. Duties of a Trustee are as follows----!/Being familiar with the will/deed....2/ Obtaining control (not ownership)of the assets.....3/ Adhering to and carrying out the terms of the trust......4/ Acting impartially to the BENEFICIARIES......5/Keeping and rendering proper accounts and to give full information when required......6/ " NOT" delegating the trustee/s duties or powers.....7/ discretion....8/ advice.....9/ Paying and transferring the trust property and the income to the CORRECT BENEFICIARIES......10/ Duty to act gratuitously.....11/ Duty NOT to mix assets......12/ Duty to act unanimously.....13/ Investing the trust funds... # 9/ (NINE) The trustee/s is/are obliged to pay the income and capital of the trust to the BENEFICIARIES"? AS THESE THREE PROPERTIES WERE NOT DISTRIBUTED TO THE THREE FAMILIES OF GENEROUS DONORS (WHO LOANED THE PROPERTIES THEY PURCHASED FOR CONVENTION USE BY THE "CHRISTIAN CONVENTIONS (LATER ASSEMBLIES) OF VICTORIA'S" ESTATES. CALL IT WHAT YOU MAY? THE DANDENONG ASSETS AND SALE PROCEEDS WERE "STOLEN" VIA "FRAUDULENT CONVERSION"(They used a crooked LAWYER who stole some of the proceeds of the sale,who from other of his charges could write up crooked contracts,statements and deeds for a quick $$$$ so did he for a pretty penny or suckers, twist the ownership around to favour then seller "Christian Assemblies of Australia" away from the three families Estates? GEE I AM GLAD "ROYAL COMMISSION RESEARCHERS WHO ARE STUDYING 2x2s AUSTRALIA WIDE CRIMES OF DECADES CRIMINAL CHILD"SEXUAL ABUSE",AND THE OVERSEAS MIRRORING.& CAN SEE THE PROGRESSION OF THE UNATURAL UNBIBLICAL MINISTRY MALE/FEMALE CELIBATE/DRESS DEMANDS OF THE IRVINE DOCTORINE GRADUATING FRON A LATE 19th CENTURY "SECT" TO A MIND CONTROLLING COMPASSIONLESS "CULT". Stop the hypertheticals,rambles and it pays sometimes to engulf facts and not guessing
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Apr 12, 2015 9:12:56 GMT -5
Is this for the TTT site ? I hope so.
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Apr 12, 2015 9:20:22 GMT -5
In the event of any change being necessary through the lapse of time, retirement of any of the Trustees, etc., the Deed of Trust provides that the new Trustee be appointed at the discretion of the "Overseer for the time being" of the Christian Assemblies in Victoria, and that the Trusteeship shall always consist of three of our brethren, who are members of the assemblies, and who willingly accept this charge.Does anyone know how "Christian Assemblies in Victoria" became "Christian Assemblies of Australia" which is the alleged entity that sold the Dandenong convention grounds? Were both names incorporated as legal entities? Ah, I love the smell of a smoke filled backroom deal in the morning. :) I've written this quite a few times- one of the big issues and source of many errors is the position of overseer. Jesus never appointed overseers. All the apostles (who the workers model their ministry after) were to be as little children and not as lords or rulers- with each esteeming the other better than themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Apr 12, 2015 18:29:50 GMT -5
In the event of any change being necessary through the lapse of time, retirement of any of the Trustees, etc., the Deed of Trust provides that the new Trustee be appointed at the discretion of the "Overseer for the time being" of the Christian Assemblies in Victoria, and that the Trusteeship shall always consist of three of our brethren, who are members of the assemblies, and who willingly accept this charge.Does anyone know how "Christian Assemblies in Victoria" became "Christian Assemblies of Australia" which is the alleged entity that sold the Dandenong convention grounds? Were both names incorporated as legal entities? Ah, I love the smell of a smoke filled backroom deal in the morning. I've written this quite a few times- one of the big issues and source of many errors is the position of overseer. Jesus never appointed overseers. All the apostles (who the workers model their ministry after) were to be as little children and not as lords or rulers- with each esteeming the other better than themselves. And, then, Ed Cooney had it right. No overseers, no man telling other men and women where to go to preach... The cost of that approach, of course, is a much less organized and much less prolific ministry, as evidenced by the relative numbers of F&W vs. Cooneyites.
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Apr 14, 2015 2:25:35 GMT -5
All at one time or another,incorporated,Christian conventions of Victoria as Demi-God Bill Carroll, CHRISTIAN CONVENTIONS OF AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND (WAR TIME),,Christian assemblies of Victoria ,later of Australia,now,Christian Conventions all a continuance of the Bill Carroll time,and incorperated.. Re Church Hierachy instructions were for congregational unity and strength. ,1 Timothy,Ch 3. Think how Jnr preachers felt when they found out nameless was a LIE? Why then didnt they confront it or throw the towel in?
|
|
jscc1
Junior Member
Posts: 175
|
Post by jscc1 on Sept 17, 2016 2:20:14 GMT -5
When Christian Assemblies of Australia got into the media over the sale of Dandenong convention grounds in that name the under some variences since 1930,it was changed!!!!WHY? Because they could once be honest and say we are "NOT" Christian Assemblies!!! Of course the wouldn't tellyou that it was now registered as Christian Conventions of Victoria (also covering Tasmania) "SO" they could still lie with honesty,couldn't they. And the blinded sheep still plod behind one of the dishonest ministeries,and accept that they still can lie by default not knowing they are not a nameless church!!!
|
|
jscc1
Junior Member
Posts: 175
|
Post by jscc1 on Oct 19, 2016 18:18:52 GMT -5
SOMEBODY ON ANOTHER POST ASKED TO HAVE CHARITY DISCRIBED!! GO TO THE FIRST ENTRY HERE AND SEE COPY OF CHRISTIAN CONVENTIONS REGISTRATION OF THEIR CHARITY. ALSO IT IS REGISTERED AND INCORPERATED AS CHRISTIAN CONVENTIONS OF VICTORIA. ALSO GO TO CHERIE KROPPS ENTRY ON TOP OF PAGE 3,THAT NAME HAD CONTINUAL REGISTRATION BY BILL CARROLL FROM 1930. SO TO HAVE A GOOD DISCRIPTION OF CHARITY IT LOOKS LIKE YOUR WORHER/PREACHERS ARE EXPERTS AS THEY ARE A CHARITY REG'D AND INC!!!
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Oct 19, 2016 20:50:25 GMT -5
Ah, I love the smell of a smoke filled backroom deal in the morning. I've written this quite a few times- one of the big issues and source of many errors is the position of overseer. Jesus never appointed overseers. All the apostles (who the workers model their ministry after) were to be as little children and not as lords or rulers- with each esteeming the other better than themselves. And, then, Ed Cooney had it right. No overseers, no man telling other men and women where to go to preach... The cost of that approach, of course, is a much less organized and much less prolific ministry, as evidenced by the relative numbers of F&W vs. Cooneyites. That's not a fair comparison. The bulk of his life's efforts were expended by the time he was ousted. Edward didn't want his "outcasts" to form a rival group, and his wish was that all could be reconciled. He called for a return to what they had in the early days before WI became dictatorial. Assuming that was around 1905, the growth in worker numbers before then was phenomenal. www.tellingthetruth.info/workers_lists/wrkr1905.php
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Nov 10, 2016 17:18:26 GMT -5
G'day Redback. The Convention grounds were auctioned,some was partially aquired for freeway,balance purchased and developed. The rezoning for freeway meant that the future use time was closing in. It was actually stolen from the original donating families by claiming,the original deeds of trust were missing or never existed. Still like your hat,pity Bilsons don't still sell them!!
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Apr 21, 2017 8:09:28 GMT -5
Around 1930 Bill Carroll registered the Christian Assemblies of Australia (documented)Later Dolph Schultz and Norm Rewalt were with a third person trustees in management of this (stolen from the original trusting families because of laxed paperwork). Yes the truck at Dandenong was registered in this name. Some of the land was Gov't aquired for freeway work and the balance advertised auctioned and sold to developers for a huge sum. The solicitor used stole some of the money,and guess what? it got into the daily news papers. "SO"the name got quickly changed to "Christian conventions of victoria" (same as Western Australia's name) Last time I mentioned the former name I got a rebuff "we are not Christian Assemblies",deception but true,what a twist of a lie. The last time I saw the denominational registration (not the charity one) Colin Storer,Alan Bird can't remember the 3rd other honest nondenominational trustee on the Christian Conventions registration and inc' form. Someone might be able to put the Church rego paper on here. So since 1930 all the junior workers went out to sell a no name only way. Poor things imagine how they felt when they found out that was a "big" lie.(Remember Evan Jones called themselves the Christian Convention at the coroners court at the time of the childrens suicide,said it was used on letterheads!!) But would they be game enough to challenge the Bishop and his merry men,you bet not...ps,Thought it was time to dig up an old but important subject.
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Apr 21, 2017 8:14:06 GMT -5
The third trustee with Norm Rewalt,Dolph Schultz was non other than a great advocate for the no name doctrine he was Gordon Gunst. How could these men sit in front of a preacher who was saying we have no name,as with the current trustees on the denominational registration documents???.Magpie
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Apr 21, 2017 17:58:37 GMT -5
The third trustee on current registration was mentioned to me it is Arthur Robertson
|
|
|
Post by PrueBert on Apr 22, 2017 6:49:50 GMT -5
Magpie. In countries where early home churches were created we can be sure civic authorities required them to register. In areas where there was civil upheaval, or persecution, this was par for the course. Roman administration became increasingly wary of the Jesus churches, particularly with the growing power and rivalry of apostate Christian groups who not only were a threat to the Apostolic Church, but to other religions as well. That doesn't mean the Apostles had a secret name for their church. They did even call themselves Christian. If the law stated they needed to register a name, then a name they would register. They did not internalize such names to themselves.
|
|
|
Post by blandie on Apr 22, 2017 21:28:41 GMT -5
Magpie. In countries where early home churches were created we can be sure civic authorities required them to register. In areas where there was civil upheaval, or persecution, this was par for the course. Roman administration became increasingly wary of the Jesus churches, particularly with the growing power and rivalry of apostate Christian groups who not only were a threat to the Apostolic Church, but to other religions as well. That doesn't mean the Apostles had a secret name for their church. They did even call themselves Christian. If the law stated they needed to register a name, then a name they would register. They did not internalize such names to themselves. No they didn't have a secret name for their church - they gave it the name 'church' or 'ekklesia' - which was a name unique to them and different than other jewish groups at that time - and called their members 'christians' - and they not only acknowledged those names but used them among themselves and peter said to glory in that name. The romans didn't require registration and they didn't persecute them for having a name or not having a name but they were persecuted because the government didn't recognize the church as being a legitimate religion and so they lost the possibility of exemption from the requirement to burn incense in worship of the deified imperial family cult. People who didn't belong to an officially recognized exempt religious group and also refused to worship the deified emperors were considered rebels against the state and subject to enslavement or death - and spreading the rebel ideas was even worse. It didn't have anything to do with a name. Old constantine merely recognized christians as another one of the recognized religions and as part of that process the government had to come up with a definition of what basically constituted 'christianity' and called together christians from all over to write up the consensus definition for him - an agreed common confession or creed - and he didn't dictate it and the evidence that he ever was a christian himself - tho his mother was - is improbable at best tho the roman catholic church claimed a deathbed conversion. Sure constantine sometimes used christian symbols and he also used symbols of the traditional roman gods and even those of non-roman gods - and yes he underwrote building some churches but he also built temples to the traditional roman gods and a few newer non-christian ones including on the acropolis of his new capital city. The ancient historians tell us that when they became a legit religion in the eyes of the roman government they were allowed to practice freely and could rebuild the church buildings destroyed in earlier persecution episodes so the odd claim that church buildings only began under constantine is also unsupported just as is the claim that the church and christians was some nameless secret group - they were well known and grew continuously all through the persecutions.
|
|
|
Post by PrueBert on Apr 24, 2017 23:31:51 GMT -5
The WWII Germans called Aussie soldiers in Libya the "rats of Tobruk" and the name stuck. Just like the soldier term "digger" stuck after WWI. And the Protestant name stuck after they were called the "protesters" by some Catholics. So too with "Christian" at Antioch. Acts mentioned the church "known by a variety of names, including "Followers of the Way," en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_AntiochThey did not call themselves Christian, the name was given to them. It was not the practice of the Apostles, Jesus or even John the Baptist, to provide a name for their church. We can argue all we like over the REASON, but the fact is - they didn't have a name. Yes, Constantine "restored" damaged churches. But were those church buildings Apostolic churches, or Apostate Christian churches? The in-fighting amongst themselves, and brutal warfare during and after Constantine should answer that question. Romans didn't persecute "Christians" because of a naming issue. I didn't say that. Greek for church is just a body of people. Doesn't make sense - you say they were called "Church" and then "Christian." Yes, Rome would require registration, particularly in Palestine, where open civil war was about to engulf the country. They kept tabs on all the sects - and if they asked you who you were you better have an answer. If the law requires a name then you obey the law and give them one. There's a lot of reproach in not having a name - what reason would you have for NOT having one?
|
|
|
Post by PrueBert on Apr 26, 2017 7:40:47 GMT -5
Quuote - "Why do they bother to argue these points when they don't follow them?"
Why bother arguing these points when you know they are disingenuous?
Quote - "You aren't serious are you in saying there is a lot of reproach in not having a name. People who say this obviously have no idea what reproach is."
Oh there's reproach all right. Reproach in anything and everything outside the norms of mainstream religion. What reproach does an Anglican face?
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Apr 26, 2017 8:37:00 GMT -5
OH-pruBert,Get a grip since 1930 Christian Assemblies of Australia has been registered(by Bill Carroll) as an inc'denomination by Bill Carroll,lies or no lies it has. When it got into the "media" that the Auctioned Dandenong Convention grounds were Auctioned in that name (for lot of money)it was instantly changed to Christian Conventions of Victoria. (Then they could say as a deception that they were not Christian Assemblies of Australia)Even though Evan Jones said they had Christian Conventions of Victoria on their letter heads at the Coroners inquest at the suicide of those two beautiful young children. Now on the "2x2s" gossip tree that they feared further CSA from workers,this is a 2x2s theory,not outside it.Points are NOT argued they are debates. Do you argue or are you a rational christian debater. The Later is biblical, arguing ain't,is it. PS, Current trustees of Christian Conventions of Victoria (Don't Know who West Australia's trustees are in the same Christian Conventions Reg'd name is) But here is Collin Storer, Alan Bird & Arthur Robertson (Brother of 2x men of worker history and both having doubts and "known" by reliable 2x2 people of their children attractions) ....pruBert,listen please,what does "He" the HOLY SPIRIT want of you,pray about that. With love and concern.Maggie. .
|
|
|
Post by blandie on Apr 26, 2017 18:01:47 GMT -5
It's hard to fathom why workers would tell people that they "sell all" and go without money, bank accounts etc when it is not true. It's also hard to fathom why they put so much emphasis on home worship when their main meetings every year are not in a home. Why do they bother to argue these points when they don't follow them? For some years there've been workers who have credit cards and you don't get those without some sort of credit history or as part of a bank account - and there have been bank accounts and suitcases of cash long before that. And lets not forget the senior workers - probably only a few but still - who've bought or at least have been granted exclusive use of 'their' homes and the many more who rent an apartment 'bach' that is as much their home as is the home of any of the friends who rent but can't afford to own their home. The false front is a recruiting point and some who bought into it find it easier to come up with all sorts of rationalizations rather than to take a peek and discover whats boiling under that lid and the repeated false claims is just enough of a flimsy thread to grasp onto and keep the illusion going.
|
|