Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 2, 2014 23:49:48 GMT -5
People here accuse us of not having a "written doctrine." My reply is that "Our doctrine is the same as the one in the New Testament." This is seen as a lame answer, or no answer at all.
So what exactly WAS (is IS) Jesus' doctrine? Quoting "Love" or "thou shalt love the Lord your God will all your heart and mind" doesn't answer the question because that is ONE ASPECT of Jesus' doctrine. "Doctrine" ought to define HOW and WHAT, no?
"Love" can be fine, but many atheists, pagans, Hindus, Muslims, Communists and even axe murderers love other people, or even God/gods. And "love" can be wrong if you love the wrong things or wrong people.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on May 3, 2014 0:24:31 GMT -5
Lots of atheists, pagans, Hindus, Muslims, Communists and axe murderers love other people, or even God/gods. How can that be a bad thing? Isn't it better to condemn unloving behaviors and attitudes rather than label and condemn those who attend a different church? It's no problem to me that a Muslim prays towards Mecca five times a day. I'm not happy if he beats his wife or straps a suicide vest on his son though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2014 2:22:05 GMT -5
Quote - "How can that be a bad thing? Isn't it better to condemn unloving behaviors and attitudes rather than label and condemn those who attend a different church? It's no problem to me that a Muslim prays towards Mecca five times a day. I'm not happy if he beats his wife or straps a suicide vest on his son though."
This further muddies the water.
|
|
|
Post by blandie on May 3, 2014 2:42:07 GMT -5
Why did you leave out the rest of what Jesus said: love your neighbor as yourself?
Doctrine is just the teachings and what is taught. The workers certainly teach and expound and illustrate and formulate and add their take and don't do anything like limiting themselves to just reading the Bible as pure doctrine from the platform. The teachings of Jesus and the apostles are written down. So yeah - why would a writing down the doctrine also be a bad thing? Since teachings=doctrine why not put away the fiction that the F&W's have no doctrine other than the Bible? They do and saying it ain't so doesn't hold water.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on May 3, 2014 5:16:45 GMT -5
People here accuse us of not having a " written doctrine." My reply is that " Our doctrine is the same as the one in the New Testament." This is seen as a lame answer, or no answer at all. So what exactly WAS (is IS) Jesus' doctrine? Quoting " Love" or " thou shalt love the Lord your God will all your heart and mind" doesn't answer the question because that is ONE ASPECT of Jesus' doctrine. "Doctrine" ought to define HOW and WHAT, no? "Love" can be fine, but many atheists, pagans, Hindus, Muslims, Communists and even axe murderers love other people, or even God/gods. And "love" can be wrong if you love the wrong things or wrong people. Here's how the true disciples of Jesus are recognized Bert:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2014 6:02:26 GMT -5
Quote - "Here's how the true disciples of Jesus are recognized Bert: John 13:34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”
I have some friends who belong to the Skeptic Society. And they are atheists. Great guys. Love one another. Are they "true disciples of Jesus" ?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on May 3, 2014 6:09:29 GMT -5
Quote - " Here's how the true disciples of Jesus are recognized Bert: John 13:34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” I have some friends who belong to the Skeptic Society. And they are atheists. Great guys. Love one another. Are they "true disciples of Jesus" ?Only God knows.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2014 6:12:55 GMT -5
It's not only "God knows" because God didn't leave us in doubt about this issue. If He did, then how could you love him?
Who said this? "All whom come to God must believe He is, and He is able."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2014 8:16:00 GMT -5
People here accuse us of not having a " written doctrine." Why is this an "accusation"? You would think there is something wrong with using the bible only. Besides, that, it's an established fact. Or maybe you meant: People here criticize us for not having a " written doctrine." ?
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on May 3, 2014 9:07:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on May 3, 2014 9:14:51 GMT -5
Why did you leave out the rest of what Jesus said: love your neighbor as yourself? Doctrine is just the teachings and what is taught. The workers certainly teach and expound and illustrate and formulate and add their take and don't do anything like limiting themselves to just reading the Bible as pure doctrine from the platform. The teachings of Jesus and the apostles are written down. So yeah - why would a writing down the doctrine also be a bad thing? Since teachings=doctrine why not put away the fiction that the F&W's have no doctrine other than the Bible? They do and saying it ain't so doesn't hold water. Paul wrote about the "doctrine" that shouldn't be rehearsed.....to the point of binding a person to the satisfying of the flesh, etc I feel that this "doctrine" has been the mantra of the 2x2 workers from day 1......the need for showing one's Godliness in the flesh by absence or containment of certain fleshly attributes, etc Colossians 2: 20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, 21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not; 22 Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body: not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.
|
|
|
Post by snow on May 3, 2014 9:58:41 GMT -5
Quote - "How can that be a bad thing? Isn't it better to condemn unloving behaviors and attitudes rather than label and condemn those who attend a different church? It's no problem to me that a Muslim prays towards Mecca five times a day. I'm not happy if he beats his wife or straps a suicide vest on his son though." This further muddies the water.Of course it muddies the water. Life in general muddies the water. You rarely make a generalized statement that would be true because it's not black and white but a dizzying array of greys and other colors. If love can't be the standard at least I think we are in trouble. Making one church and how they worship the only right way seems very limited and not exactly aware.
|
|
|
Post by findingtruth on May 3, 2014 10:16:13 GMT -5
Bert, you asked the question "What is Jesus' doctrine?" Is this sincerely a question or are you baiting others who do not believe as you are in order to condemn their answers? Based on the posts you've made it would seem that you believe you KNOW what the doctrine of Jesus is. If not, why not be honest about it? There should be no shame in being a bit confused about what it is. Why? Because there are social/religious groups out there who do their level best to twist the words of Jesus or add to the words of Jesus.
I have read Jesus' words many times (likely as many times as you have read them) in an attempt to understand where some of this religious nonsense (I use that word because it seems to best fit my view) comes from. Jesus' message was simple Bert. His word has been complicated by those with an agenda of controlling others for their own selfish purpose.
Furthermore, as has already been pointed out, do NOT quote select words of Jesus without expressing His entire message in order to get your own point across.
|
|
cbs
Junior Member
Posts: 80
|
Post by cbs on May 3, 2014 10:23:20 GMT -5
People here accuse us of not having a " written doctrine." My reply is that " Our doctrine is the same as the one in the New Testament." This is seen as a lame answer, or no answer at all. The problem lies with this statement. "Our" (your) doctrine is NOT the same as in the New Testament. There are many differences in what the 2x2's believe and the doctrine that Jesus taught, probably first and foremost the omission of some teachings while including others to suit the system. Since it isn't written down you can possibly keep from being pigeon-holed. CBS
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on May 3, 2014 10:52:51 GMT -5
People here accuse us of not having a " written doctrine." Why is this an "accusation"? You would think there is something wrong with using the bible only. 2x2 doctrine does not agree with the most basic of Christological doctrine passed down from the NT on - therefore it cannot be correct. If Bible-only provided correct doctrine, all congregations would be in the complete or perfect unity of doctrine for which Jesus prayed. They aren't. If Jesus had intended Bible-only, He would have left a Bible instead of a Church under the authority of his Apostles guided by his promised Holy Spirit.
|
|
|
Post by findingtruth on May 3, 2014 11:17:42 GMT -5
Why is this an "accusation"? You would think there is something wrong with using the bible only. 2x2 doctrine does not agree with the most basic of Christological doctrine passed down from the NT on - therefore it cannot be correct. If Bible-only provided correct doctrine, all congregations would be in the complete or perfect unity of doctrine for which Jesus prayed. They aren't. If Jesus had intended Bible-only, He would have left a Bible instead of a Church under the authority of his Apostles guided by his promised Holy Spirit. I believe the RCC has gone far beyond what the 2x2s have done in "adding to the simple message". I know you see it quite differently and I know that there are many who place more value on the teachings of their church than what is contained in the bible. That is no surprise. Some just do it with far more grandiose than others.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on May 3, 2014 11:36:40 GMT -5
2x2 doctrine does not agree with the most basic of Christological doctrine passed down from the NT on - therefore it cannot be correct. If Bible-only provided correct doctrine, all congregations would be in the complete or perfect unity of doctrine for which Jesus prayed. They aren't. If Jesus had intended Bible-only, He would have left a Bible instead of a Church under the authority of his Apostles guided by his promised Holy Spirit. I believe the RCC has gone far beyond what the 2x2s have done in "adding to the simple message". I know you see it quite differently and I know that there are many who place more value on the teachings of their church than what is contained in the bible. That is no surprise. Some just do it with far more grandiose than others. The Bible exists by the authority of the Church determining what was inspired of the Holy Spirit. If Bible-only was the rule - it should have been taught somewhere in the Bible. Correct? Regardless, thirty-forty-some-thousand denominational divisions are indication that Bible-only does not provide the entire teaching of the doctrine of the Apostles in which the Bible says we are to persevere. Nor does it answer why 2x2 doctrine is so different than the doctrine of the Apostles.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2014 11:46:58 GMT -5
Why is this an "accusation"? You would think there is something wrong with using the bible only. 2x2 doctrine does not agree with the most basic of Christological doctrine passed down from the NT on - therefore it cannot be correct. If Bible-only provided correct doctrine, all congregations would be in the complete or perfect unity of doctrine for which Jesus prayed. They aren't. If Jesus had intended Bible-only, He would have left a Bible instead of a Church under the authority of his Apostles guided by his promised Holy Spirit. There are two more ways of looking at it: 1.The answer may be quite the opposite. If bible-only doctrine does not agree with extra-biblical doctrine, then that is a sign that it is true doctrine. And actually, this is one of the fundamental arguments of 2x2ism on the premise that the bible is a perfect doctrinal offering. 2.The third argument is this: if the bible has many errors (which we know now that it does), it requires extra-biblical doctrine and interpretations to correct those errors. In that sense, it would make the 2x2 way quite inferior to others due to the 2x2 reliance on the errors of the bible to inform them.
|
|
|
Post by findingtruth on May 3, 2014 11:57:26 GMT -5
I believe the RCC has gone far beyond what the 2x2s have done in "adding to the simple message". I know you see it quite differently and I know that there are many who place more value on the teachings of their church than what is contained in the bible. That is no surprise. Some just do it with far more grandiose than others. The Bible exists by the authority of the Church determining what was inspired of the Holy Spirit. If Bible-only was the rule - it should have been taught somewhere in the Bible. Correct? Regardless, thirty-forty-some-thousand denominational divisions are indication that Bible-only does not provide the entire teaching of the doctrine of the Apostles in which the Bible says we are to persevere. Nor does it answer why 2x2 doctrine is so different than the doctrine of the Apostles. Anne, I understand your acceptance of the church doctrine you have placed your faith in. Many groups are indoctrinated enough to buy into the absolute "truth"(?) of their church because they've been heavily influenced through tactics of the church. Once again I know you don't share my view but that's OK. I've enjoyed the following website as a result of a post made here a few days ago. Just another group who is convinced through the powerful influence of their organization that they are, beyond doubt, the TRUE church. There are many others just like it. jwsurvey.org/welcome
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on May 3, 2014 12:12:31 GMT -5
2x2 doctrine does not agree with the most basic of Christological doctrine passed down from the NT on - therefore it cannot be correct. If Bible-only provided correct doctrine, all congregations would be in the complete or perfect unity of doctrine for which Jesus prayed. They aren't. If Jesus had intended Bible-only, He would have left a Bible instead of a Church under the authority of his Apostles guided by his promised Holy Spirit. There are two more ways of looking at it: 1.The answer may be quite the opposite. If bible-only doctrine does not agree with extra-biblical doctrine, then that is a sign that it is true doctrine. And actually, this is one of the fundamental arguments of 2x2ism on the premise that the bible is a perfect doctrinal offering. 2.The third argument is this: if the bible has many errors (which we know now that it does), it requires extra-biblical doctrine and interpretations to correct those errors. In that sense, it would make the 2x2 way quite inferior to others due to the 2x2 reliance on the errors of the bible to inform them. Jesus left a Church. The Church He said He would build upon the earthly authority He conferred upon His chosen Apostles, guided by His promised Holy Spirit to teach truth, to settle disputes, to administer the Sacraments He instituted, most especially to administer His Body and Precious Blood that promise eternal life.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on May 3, 2014 12:14:30 GMT -5
The Bible exists by the authority of the Church determining what was inspired of the Holy Spirit. If Bible-only was the rule - it should have been taught somewhere in the Bible. Correct? Regardless, thirty-forty-some-thousand denominational divisions are indication that Bible-only does not provide the entire teaching of the doctrine of the Apostles in which the Bible says we are to persevere. Nor does it answer why 2x2 doctrine is so different than the doctrine of the Apostles. Anne, I understand your acceptance of the church doctrine you have placed your faith in. Many groups are indoctrinated enough to buy into the absolute "truth"(?) of their church because they've been heavily influenced through tactics of the church. Once again I know you don't share my view but that's OK. I've enjoyed the following website as a result of a post made here a few days ago. Just another group who is convinced through the powerful influence of their organization that they are, beyond doubt, the TRUE church. There are many others just like it. jwsurvey.org/welcomeIf a church has not been here for all time - since Jesus conferred his Holy Spirit upon it at Pentecost - then we know it is not the Church Jesus said He would build.
|
|
|
Post by Annan on May 3, 2014 12:55:50 GMT -5
And "love" can be wrong if you love the wrong things or wrong people. Me thinks there needs to be a definition of what constitutes love. If God is the source of love, how then can an unbeliever be capable of love?
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on May 3, 2014 13:18:36 GMT -5
If a church has not been here for all time - since Jesus conferred his Holy Spirit upon it at Pentecost - then we know it is not the Church Jesus said He would build. The RCC is NOT the only Church Jesus built.... There were SEVEN churches in Asia existed in the book of Revelation. They were 12 and 70 apostles, Matthias, Barnabas, Paul and others like them through the centuries. Paul wrote in Ephesians 2:19-22
Christ Our Cornerstone
19 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord,in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.
Peter is just one of MANY apostles! that Household of God is built on....
The epistles were written by bishops of the NT church (Acts 1:20) to correct any errors of understanding or practice so that the NT church would remain in unity of the doctrine given by Christ and preached by the apostles and their ordained successors. The NT church was under the doctrine of the Apostles - given them by Christ - and handed down by the successors of the Apostles. ... I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen Acts 1:1-2 Just as Acts 1:21-22 tells us it would be - by those who had been with Jesus the entire time and were witnesses of the Resurrection.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on May 3, 2014 13:31:26 GMT -5
The more interesting thing about 2x2 doctrine is where and why it diverged from the traditional teachings of Christianity through the ages - apparently believed and taught (for a time anyway) by the founders and their followers.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on May 3, 2014 14:29:51 GMT -5
The more interesting thing about 2x2 doctrine is where and why it diverged from the traditional teachings of Christianity through the ages - apparently believed and taught (for a time anyway) by the founders and their followers. The "traditional teachings of Christianity" plunged the Roman world into the dark ages and resulted in a great deal of strife and bloodshed down through the ages. The 2x2 fellowship started in Ireland, where both Catholic and Protestant were following "traditional teachings of Christianity" and loved peace so much that they spent all their lives fighting for it. The early workers claimed to be "neither Catholic nor Protestant" and preached the simplicity that is in Christ.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on May 3, 2014 14:37:16 GMT -5
Why are we equating the Bible's doctrine to Jesus's doctrine? Isn't that a bit presumptuous?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on May 3, 2014 14:45:06 GMT -5
Why are we equating the Bible's doctrine to Jesus's doctrine? Isn't that a bit presumptuous? Yes. Early workers used to advertise "gospel meetings". Today's workers seem to prefer to advertise "Bible talks".
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on May 3, 2014 14:53:36 GMT -5
The more interesting thing about 2x2 doctrine is where and why it diverged from the traditional teachings of Christianity through the ages - apparently believed and taught (for a time anyway) by the founders and their followers. The "traditional teachings of Christianity" plunged the Roman world into the dark ages and resulted in a great deal of strife and bloodshed down through the ages. The 2x2 fellowship started in Ireland, where both Catholic and Protestant were following "traditional teachings of Christianity" and loved peace so much that they spent all their lives fighting for it. The early workers claimed to be "neither Catholic nor Protestant" and preached the simplicity that is in Christ. The early workers claimed to be "neither Catholic nor Protestant" They did. Apparently unable to define their own doctrine - they preached against other congregations. and preached the simplicity that is in Christ.They did. Because being unable to preach and practice what is NT scripturally commanded - to preach what was handed down by the Apostles. They developed their own teachings in lieu of what Jesus taught - because they did not and do not have the continuity of teaching that is commanded be taught.
|
|