|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 7, 2014 20:46:57 GMT -5
Dmmichgood's quote - "Do you consider JOHN LONG'S journal false as to the exclusivity being the cornerstone of the "TRUTH", the "WAY" as we called it?"Dmmichgood, you have stated you do not believe the newspaper articles, web sites, reports, even government policy and such on euthanasia in Holland.
Yet you will quote from this John Long guy who clearly has an agenda, an axe to grind and engages quite opening in advocacy writing.
You demonstrate a vulnerability to bias. And of course, you, bert, don't have any bias!
You posted this Allegation :
"In Holland they kill people in comas."
Then you followed a long article that did NOT say that they "killed" this young man in a coma.
If one is in a coma, they must be fed be artificial means they might or might not need additional oxygen, they still need to to urinate & defecate, -since they can't move, they need to be position changed often, (or they develope"bed" sores.)
In order to keep them alive they must have a lot of around the clock care. This is fine, -no problem if you know that is what the person would want.
You use the word KILL when all anyone does is with draw the artificial feeding. They are NOT KILLING anyone. They have been keeping them alive artificialy. Withdrawal of the ARTIFICIAL life support is NOT KILLING anyone, They would have already died a long time before without that.
Many of your other sources were anecdotal. That means they were based on or consisting of reports or observations of usually unscientific observers.
So yes, I don't consider anecdotal evidence to be of much use in establishing any factual evidence. As for John Long, I think that we can be grateful for his diary. With out it we wouldn't have the history of the early days of the "TRUTH."
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 7, 2014 20:55:22 GMT -5
The tares are like cancer in the body... If you don't cut it off the cancer will spread throughout the whole body quickly. Well Nathan -- it would seem that you are suggesting Jesus made a mistake when he said what he did in Matt -- and that it is your job to correct him. Whatever!!!!! Matt 13:29-30 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. [30] Let both grow together until the harvest: DO NOT EXCLUDE THEM.Or are you suggesting that you should take over Gods job ... and be the almighty judge? Your quote Edgar does make it sound as though we do not exclude anyone, but like is always the case with the bible, someone can find a contradicting phrase that brings the 1st one into question. As far as I can see in the Bible, you have to do a lot of your own interpretation to get anything like CD is saying about a universal Christ mind or consciousness that is not exclusive. The bible weaves and wanders, sometimes sounding very universal and other times very exclusive. So it's all in the interpretation and because so many people like to think they are saved when others are not, that has become the popular explanation or interpretation. And, I can't say it's out of line.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 7, 2014 20:55:27 GMT -5
If that is true, explain to me what the phrase 'I am the way, the truth and the life. NO MAN COMES TO THE FATHER EXCEPT THROUGH ME' means. Sounds like he felt there was no heaven for anyone that didn't enter the kingdom of God through him. Really can't fathom what else it would mean. Jesus was exclusive and I have to agree with Nathan on this one. Sure, happy to oblige you on that one! Just to be clear, I am not trying to explain the mainstream understanding of this, but the universalist view of it. It is a matter of coming to an understanding of what "I" and "me" means in a useful way. The statement makes no sense to interpret it literally. A statement like "snow is the way" is nonsensical. How can snow BE the way? It takes some mental gymnastics to extract any sense out of it at all. The liberal, universalist Christian views those words as Jesus meaning himself in a metaphorical sense, representing divine love. So replace the words "I" and "me" with "Love", ie "Love is the way, the truth and the life" and suddenly it makes perfect sense and it is no longer a religious exclusivism.....plus it really works. Hate is the way of destruction ( and the way to whatever you may imagine hell to be), and love is the way to life in many manifestations including the way to whatever you may imagine heaven to be whether within this lifetime or beyond life. Here is what one universalist Christian says about it. It is "universal Christ" he uses as the term to portray all the attributes that come from divine love. "You have all heard the statement from the Gospel of John, “I am the way, the truth and the life, no man cometh to the Father but by me.” You have probably heard some hellfire and brimstone Christian preacher use that statement as a supposed proof that Christianity is the only true religion. And for almost 2,000 years the blind leaders of orthodox Christianity have managed to have over a billion people believe in their lie that Christianity is the only true religion. But in truth, the universal Christ is the only true religion, the only true approach to religion, because it is only through the Christ mind that you can attain the goal of all true religion, which is oneness with your source and oneness with your brothers and sisters who are part of the Body of God on earth." The way, the truth and the life is what I am. It helps to put it in the right order. "The way, the truth and the life" is what Jesus wants us to think about. Here's another verse that was translated correctly in the KJV but not in modern editions. Gal 2:15 (KJV) Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. We aren't justified by faith in Christ, which is exclusive, but by the faith of Christ, which is faith in God. This is the faith of Abraham, who did not even know Christ, that was imputed to him for righteousness. Faith in God. Here's another verse. Clearly Paul is looking for progress toward "unblameability in holiness before God" and "to increase and abound in love". It's not you're in and you're done. 1Th 3:12 And the Lord make you to increase and abound in love one toward another, and toward all men, even as we do toward you: 1Th 3:13 To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints. Also, why is it when Jesus speaks of "fruit" we think of good works but when he speaks of "wheat and tares" we think of two groups of people. Why don't wheat and tares represent our good works and our bad works, both of which we effect in life? You could take it either way, IMO, but consider also ... 1Co 3:12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; 1Co 3:13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. Same story as the parable of the wheat and tares.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2014 21:12:35 GMT -5
And that is why his presence brought the "sword". If you read the rest of Matt 10, the meaning of the sword is quite straightforward. The idea of Jesus running around with a sword and cutting off heads just doesn't fit with the image of the Prince of Peace. No, they don't fit together. But they didn't originate together either. Matthew is a Jewish gospel -- Prince of Peace is a Christian ideal. "Prince of Peace" came from Jewish scriptures and the peace aspect of Jesus was attributed to him. OT "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." NT "by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace,"
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 7, 2014 21:21:08 GMT -5
Well Nathan -- it would seem that you are suggesting Jesus made a mistake when he said what he did in Matt -- and that it is your job to correct him. Whatever!!!!! Matt 13:29-30 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. [30] Let both grow together until the harvest: DO NOT EXCLUDE THEM.Or are you suggesting that you should take over Gods job ... and be the almighty judge? Your quote Edgar does make it sound as though we do not exclude anyone, but like is always the case with the bible, someone can find a contradicting phrase that brings the 1st one into question. As far as I can see in the Bible, you have to do a lot of your own interpretation to get anything like CD is saying about a universal Christ mind or consciousness that is not exclusive. The bible weaves and wanders, sometimes sounding very universal and other times very exclusive. So it's all in the interpretation and because so many people like to think they are saved when others are not, that has become the popular explanation or interpretation. And, I can't say it's out of line. It's not completely arbitrary. There certainly are contradictory verses, and it's difficult to get all the ducks in a row. But it's not quite like herding cats, to use another common animal analogy. The conventional theology of the Bible is based on an interpretation that progressively deified Jesus over a period of some centuries and coalesced at the Council of Nicene. Seminal influences were St. Augustine and much later, Thomas of Aquinas. Sure, there have been skirmishes about some issues since but the basic theology of the Trinity and the Incarnation (God in Jesus) have not changed since 400 A.D. A view that has emerged since the 60s and into the present time is based on considering the Bible text against its historicity. What emerges is a more universalist, less exclusive and less supernatural view. The universalist view isn't a matter of arbitrarily re-reading verses to fit a different theory. It doesn't involve force-fitting verses into a theory as the conventional theology does. Basically, the historicist view is comfortable with errancy, and inconsistency, and does not strive for a totalizing, comprehensive view where everything fits neatly into its pigeon holes. For example, it doesn't care about canonicity. Some books in the Bible are less authentic and more layered, and some books outside of the Bible do have merit. It also doesn't assume the Bible is inerrant. The problem with the various historicist views is that they do take one in different directions; the Bible isn't just a narrative of what happened. In all cases, it is taken as a chronicle of the writer's perceptions, but perceptions grounded in some kind of reality, and perceptions to be taken seriously. In reading historicist interpretations of Scripture, one encounters a variety of views, not a single consistent view. But that's cool. The most compelling writer in this area, IMO, is Marcus Borg. I'm working through his book, "Evolution of the Word; the New Testament in the Order the Books Were Written". This work is a reconstruction of the development of Christianity from Jesus birth to the year 130 A.D. consisting of the text of the New Testament, in historical order, with notes and insights interspersed throughout. The result is compelling, convincing and very profound. It will take a few months to work through, as I'm basically re-reading the entire New Testament and that's not a job to be rushed. I recommend it, though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2014 21:22:16 GMT -5
Sure, happy to oblige you on that one! Just to be clear, I am not trying to explain the mainstream understanding of this, but the universalist view of it. It is a matter of coming to an understanding of what "I" and "me" means in a useful way. The statement makes no sense to interpret it literally. A statement like "snow is the way" is nonsensical. How can snow BE the way? It takes some mental gymnastics to extract any sense out of it at all. The liberal, universalist Christian views those words as Jesus meaning himself in a metaphorical sense, representing divine love. So replace the words "I" and "me" with "Love", ie "Love is the way, the truth and the life" and suddenly it makes perfect sense and it is no longer a religious exclusivism.....plus it really works. Hate is the way of destruction ( and the way to whatever you may imagine hell to be), and love is the way to life in many manifestations including the way to whatever you may imagine heaven to be whether within this lifetime or beyond life. Here is what one universalist Christian says about it. It is "universal Christ" he uses as the term to portray all the attributes that come from divine love. "You have all heard the statement from the Gospel of John, “I am the way, the truth and the life, no man cometh to the Father but by me.” You have probably heard some hellfire and brimstone Christian preacher use that statement as a supposed proof that Christianity is the only true religion. And for almost 2,000 years the blind leaders of orthodox Christianity have managed to have over a billion people believe in their lie that Christianity is the only true religion. But in truth, the universal Christ is the only true religion, the only true approach to religion, because it is only through the Christ mind that you can attain the goal of all true religion, which is oneness with your source and oneness with your brothers and sisters who are part of the Body of God on earth." Yes, explained like that there is no exclusivity. The Universal Christ mind or consciousness is not exclusive. It is only about love, love for your neighbor, love for yourself, love for your enemies and last but not least, you are essentially love. But as you also point out, most of Christianity does not see Jesus as Love and do not replace the word Jesus for the word love when they talk about the way, truth and life. So in the end Christianity becomes and is an exclusive religion by the way that is interpreted. Now, I don't see why we are replacing the word Jesus for the word love within what is said in the context of the Bible. Jesus clearly states he is the way the truth and the life. We have to jump to the conclusion that Jesus thinks of himself as love when he says that in order to replace the word love for the word Jesus. That's how I read and interpret what the bible says. I however agree with you if you use the Christ mind or consciousness you can use the word love, but then I believe you also need to do away with the idea that Jesus really existed and was not just a Christ consciousness or concept of pure divine love that many religions embraced long before Christianity. That's how I see it anyway. The Christian religion can't afford to interpret those passages in the non-exclusive sense for a very simple reason: vested interests. That's what all institutions come to sooner or later no matter how well intentioned they started out. Remember Jesus didn't establish an institutional church, he established a "way"....the way of divine love. The institutions came later and the rest is history. Christianity goes through a major upheaval about once every 500 years and it is going through one of those times now. Many of the old, ill founded ideas are being challenged today in this age of information. Things that don't make sense, some ideas even bordering on evil, are now being identified and Christianity will end up in a better place. The whole idea of Jesus flailing swords will get cut down, pardon the pun. The fall of exclusivity will be one of the most difficult changes for it to make because there is too much money and power supported by exclusivity. People will go to great lengths to defend their exclusivity.....fortunately they have quit killing people for it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2014 21:32:14 GMT -5
Well Nathan -- it would seem that you are suggesting Jesus made a mistake when he said what he did in Matt -- and that it is your job to correct him. Whatever!!!!! Matt 13:29-30 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. [30] Let both grow together until the harvest: DO NOT EXCLUDE THEM.Or are you suggesting that you should take over Gods job ... and be the almighty judge? Your quote Edgar does make it sound as though we do not exclude anyone, but like is always the case with the bible, someone can find a contradicting phrase that brings the 1st one into question. As far as I can see in the Bible, you have to do a lot of your own interpretation to get anything like CD is saying about a universal Christ mind or consciousness that is not exclusive. The bible weaves and wanders, sometimes sounding very universal and other times very exclusive. So it's all in the interpretation and because so many people like to think they are saved when others are not, that has become the popular explanation or interpretation. And, I can't say it's out of line. I don't worry about the bobbing and weaving of the bible. It was written by fallible man to express their beliefs and experiences in respect to their concept of God. The bobbing and weaving, the moving between exclusivity and non-exclusivity, the killings and mercy make the bible sound more authentically written, not less authentically written. We are on a truth seeking journey, and both the way ahead and the past we never want again, can remarkably found in the bible. We are beginning to finally understand that love is the way ahead, and it's something that Jesus taught loud and clear.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 7, 2014 21:54:52 GMT -5
Your quote Edgar does make it sound as though we do not exclude anyone, but like is always the case with the bible, someone can find a contradicting phrase that brings the 1st one into question. As far as I can see in the Bible, you have to do a lot of your own interpretation to get anything like CD is saying about a universal Christ mind or consciousness that is not exclusive. The bible weaves and wanders, sometimes sounding very universal and other times very exclusive. So it's all in the interpretation and because so many people like to think they are saved when others are not, that has become the popular explanation or interpretation. And, I can't say it's out of line. It's not completely arbitrary. There certainly are contradictory verses, and it's difficult to get all the ducks in a row. But it's not quite like herding cats, to use another common animal analogy. The conventional theology of the Bible is based on an interpretation that progressively deified Jesus over a period of some centuries and coalesced at the Council of Nicene. Seminal influences were St. Augustine and much later, Thomas of Aquinas. Sure, there have been skirmishes about some issues since but the basic theology of the Trinity and the Incarnation (God in Jesus) have not changed since 400 A.D. A view that has emerged since the 60s and into the present time is based on considering the Bible text against its historicity. What emerges is a more universalist, less exclusive and less supernatural view. The universalist view isn't a matter of arbitrarily re-reading verses to fit a different theory. It doesn't involve force-fitting verses into a theory as the conventional theology does. Basically, the historicist view is comfortable with errancy, and inconsistency, and does not strive for a totalizing, comprehensive view where everything fits neatly into its pigeon holes. For example, it doesn't care about canonicity. Some books in the Bible are less authentic and more layered, and some books outside of the Bible do have merit. It also doesn't assume the Bible is inerrant. The problem with the various historicist views is that they do take one in different directions; the Bible isn't just a narrative of what happened. In all cases, it is taken as a chronicle of the writer's perceptions, but perceptions grounded in some kind of reality, and perceptions to be taken seriously. In reading historicist interpretations of Scripture, one encounters a variety of views, not a single consistent view. But that's cool. The most compelling writer in this area, IMO, is Marcus Borg. I'm working through his book, "Evolution of the Word; the New Testament in the Order the Books Were Written". This work is a reconstruction of the development of Christianity from Jesus birth to the year 130 A.D. consisting of the text of the New Testament, in historical order, with notes and insights interspersed throughout. The result is compelling, convincing and very profound. It will take a few months to work through, as I'm basically re-reading the entire New Testament and that's not a job to be rushed. I recommend it, though. I would say there are a lot more that are reading and interpreting the bible and other works in the way you say. As far as the NT being a chronicle of a writer's perceptions, I would agree with that and add also trying to further whatever view or agenda they believed in. That is why it isn't always clear what to take as true when there are conflicting verses. I enjoyed reading John Dominic Crossan and Richard G Watts in 'Who is Jesus? Answers to our Questions about the Historical Jesus'. I think in many ways he would agree with what Marcus Borg says, though not entirely.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 7, 2014 22:16:52 GMT -5
It's not completely arbitrary. There certainly are contradictory verses, and it's difficult to get all the ducks in a row. But it's not quite like herding cats, to use another common animal analogy. The conventional theology of the Bible is based on an interpretation that progressively deified Jesus over a period of some centuries and coalesced at the Council of Nicene. Seminal influences were St. Augustine and much later, Thomas of Aquinas. Sure, there have been skirmishes about some issues since but the basic theology of the Trinity and the Incarnation (God in Jesus) have not changed since 400 A.D. A view that has emerged since the 60s and into the present time is based on considering the Bible text against its historicity. What emerges is a more universalist, less exclusive and less supernatural view. The universalist view isn't a matter of arbitrarily re-reading verses to fit a different theory. It doesn't involve force-fitting verses into a theory as the conventional theology does. Basically, the historicist view is comfortable with errancy, and inconsistency, and does not strive for a totalizing, comprehensive view where everything fits neatly into its pigeon holes. For example, it doesn't care about canonicity. Some books in the Bible are less authentic and more layered, and some books outside of the Bible do have merit. It also doesn't assume the Bible is inerrant. The problem with the various historicist views is that they do take one in different directions; the Bible isn't just a narrative of what happened. In all cases, it is taken as a chronicle of the writer's perceptions, but perceptions grounded in some kind of reality, and perceptions to be taken seriously. In reading historicist interpretations of Scripture, one encounters a variety of views, not a single consistent view. But that's cool. The most compelling writer in this area, IMO, is Marcus Borg. I'm working through his book, "Evolution of the Word; the New Testament in the Order the Books Were Written". This work is a reconstruction of the development of Christianity from Jesus birth to the year 130 A.D. consisting of the text of the New Testament, in historical order, with notes and insights interspersed throughout. The result is compelling, convincing and very profound. It will take a few months to work through, as I'm basically re-reading the entire New Testament and that's not a job to be rushed. I recommend it, though. I would say there are a lot more that are reading and interpreting the bible and other works in the way you say. As far as the NT being a chronicle of a writer's perceptions, I would agree with that and add also trying to further whatever view or agenda they believed in. That is why it isn't always clear what to take as true when there are conflicting verses. I enjoyed reading John Dominic Crossan and Richard G Watts in 'Who is Jesus? Answers to our Questions about the Historical Jesus'. I think in many ways he would agree with what Marcus Borg says, though not entirely. The view of Jesus that is emerging in my reading of Borg, is not one of God personified. Rather he is the person who re-interpreted the God of the Jews in a more universal and less legalistic way ... to the Jews. Paul then took that view of God to the Gentiles. The people that he reached in his early missionary rounds were Jewish wanna-be's. That is, they were Gentiles who hung around the synagogues in places like Antioch and Corinth, and were attracted to the God of the Jews. But the Jews would not let them in ... where have we seen that before? Along came Paul with the Gospel of Christ; yes, the Gentiles could be admitted to worshipping the God of the Jews, through the more humanist and less legalistic and less ritualistic teachings of the man Jesus. This was only 10 to 20 years after Jesus died. The genius of Jesus was in reinvigorating the Jewish tradition in a simpler, more meaningful, more principled and more ethical way. Jesus was ... the first universalist. So then there were Jewish Christians and then these Gentile Christians reached by Paul. A major pre-occupation of the first Christians was how much of Jewish practice to adopt, especially the question of circumcision. Out of this conflict emerged a principle driven religion that rejected the legalism of the Jews. The first written exposition of these ideas were not the Gospels but the early letters of Paul. The Gospels were not needed; everyone knew almost first hand about the life of Jesus. Back then, writing wasn't habitual the way it is today. It was only 30 or 40 years later when some of the Christians began to fear Christ would not return in their lifetimes, that the written accounts of Jesus life came to be.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 7, 2014 22:25:28 GMT -5
Yes, explained like that there is no exclusivity. The Universal Christ mind or consciousness is not exclusive. It is only about love, love for your neighbor, love for yourself, love for your enemies and last but not least, you are essentially love. But as you also point out, most of Christianity does not see Jesus as Love and do not replace the word Jesus for the word love when they talk about the way, truth and life. So in the end Christianity becomes and is an exclusive religion by the way that is interpreted. Now, I don't see why we are replacing the word Jesus for the word love within what is said in the context of the Bible. Jesus clearly states he is the way the truth and the life. We have to jump to the conclusion that Jesus thinks of himself as love when he says that in order to replace the word love for the word Jesus. That's how I read and interpret what the bible says. I however agree with you if you use the Christ mind or consciousness you can use the word love, but then I believe you also need to do away with the idea that Jesus really existed and was not just a Christ consciousness or concept of pure divine love that many religions embraced long before Christianity. That's how I see it anyway. The Christian religion can't afford to interpret those passages in the non-exclusive sense for a very simple reason: vested interests. That's what all institutions come to sooner or later no matter how well intentioned they started out. Remember Jesus didn't establish an institutional church, he established a "way"....the way of divine love. The institutions came later and the rest is history. Christianity goes through a major upheaval about once every 500 years and it is going through one of those times now. Many of the old, ill founded ideas are being challenged today in this age of information. Things that don't make sense, some ideas even bordering on evil, are now being identified and Christianity will end up in a better place. The whole idea of Jesus flailing swords will get cut down, pardon the pun. The fall of exclusivity will be one of the most difficult changes for it to make because there is too much money and power supported by exclusivity. People will go to great lengths to defend their exclusivity.....fortunately they have quit killing people for it. Yes institutions do have to have an agenda to protect what they believe and they have certainly done that. I agree that Christianity is undergoing another major change. I'm not sure which direction will win though. It is discouraging to see so many people believing in the inerrancy of the bible, believing in creationism etc. On the other hand it is wonderful to see people reaching a more universal message of love being the way. It is important that the universal interpretation comes ahead because if it goes back to the fundamentalist way of doing things, we will see less separation of church and state and we know where that leads. If the church ever has power again, they will very likely abuse it again and those who do not believe will be in trouble. Somewhat like what is happening in fundamentalist Islam today. We need to hope the liberalists in Islam and Christianity gain ground and not the fundamentalists.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 7, 2014 22:33:35 GMT -5
I would say there are a lot more that are reading and interpreting the bible and other works in the way you say. As far as the NT being a chronicle of a writer's perceptions, I would agree with that and add also trying to further whatever view or agenda they believed in. That is why it isn't always clear what to take as true when there are conflicting verses. I enjoyed reading John Dominic Crossan and Richard G Watts in 'Who is Jesus? Answers to our Questions about the Historical Jesus'. I think in many ways he would agree with what Marcus Borg says, though not entirely. The view of Jesus that is emerging in my reading of Borg, is not one of God personified. Rather he is the person who re-interpreted the God of the Jews in a more universal and less legalistic way ... to the Jews. Paul then took that view of God to the Gentiles. The people that he reached in his early missionary rounds were Jewish wanna-be's. That is, they were Gentiles who hung around the synagogues in places like Antioch and Corinth, and were attracted to the God of the Jews. But the Jews would not let them in ... where have we seen that before? Along came Paul with the Gospel of Christ; yes, the Gentiles could be admitted to worshipping the God of the Jews, through the more humanist and less legalistic and less ritualistic teachings of the man Jesus. This was only 10 to 20 years after Jesus died. The genius of Jesus was in reinvigorating the Jewish tradition in a simpler, more meaningful, more principled and more ethical way. Jesus was ... the first universalist. So then there were Jewish Christians and then these Gentile Christians reached by Paul. A major pre-occupation of the first Christians was how much of Jewish practice to adopt, especially the question of circumcision. Out of this conflict emerged a principle driven religion that rejected the legalism of the Jews. The first written exposition of these ideas were not the Gospels but the early letters of Paul. The Gospels were not needed; everyone knew almost first hand about the life of Jesus. Back then, writing wasn't habitual the way it is today. It was only 30 or 40 years later when some of the Christians began to fear Christ would not return in their lifetimes, that the written accounts of Jesus life came to be. I would agree with your timeline of the letters of Paul and the gospels and the reason for them finally being written. It is interesting to hear people say that Jesus never said he would be coming in their lifetime and yet that is the reason why the gospels were not written until after they realized he wasn't returning when they thought he would. I also think that was one reason that Paul said don't marry unless you absolutely have to. It was more important to get ready for Jesus return than to worry about 'worldly' concerns such as getting married and having children. After all it was almost over so why bother. I don't agree that Jesus was the first universalist, but he was one of the first. A lot of what he preached is very much in line with what the Buddha taught. He gave it a Jewish twist, but there are many similarities. Those who say he studied under an eastern master, may have been right. He did seem to be aware of Eastern religious thought.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 7, 2014 22:34:49 GMT -5
Do you consider JOHN LONG'S journal false as to the exclusivity being the cornerstone of the "TRUTH", the "WAY" as we called it? No. John Long's document is very well done and authoritative in my view.
John Long Journal
JULY, 1903: After that we went to a Convention in Rathmolyon. From that time all the workers began to baptize, and separate their converts; form them into assemblies to meet together on the first day of the week for fellowship, breaking of bread and prayers. Acts 2:42. Also, they appointed bishops, or elders over them. William Irvine emphasized separation but not exclusiveness.
John Long III
Of course, they were all Christian exclusivists from day 1 and Protestant exclusivists, but did not start to become 2x2 exclusivists until it was reported that Joe Kerr brought it in.
For more information, read the John Long Journal on the TTT:
THEN at the July, 1905, Convention at Crocknacrieve, unexpectedly, Joseph Kerr, who was about 24 years old at the time, altered the course of the Go-Preachers. Joe Kerr was
"...one of the most gifted and talented of the workers got a very prominent place by William Irvine; rather too much so for a novice. He attended a conference, in the Bridge of Allan in Scotland; and he was so disgusted with the way the Clergy preached; that he come to the conclusion that there are no clergymen saved. Without any charitable consideration of the conscience or opinion of others, he preached it at that convention. Irvine defended him, but Edward Cooney opposed him and tried to prove that John Wesley was a born again man. "The unwillingness of Clergymen to conform themselves to the pattern as seen in Jesus is very manifest; and the neglect of faithfulness to their calling and office is to be greatly deplored; and a true and faithful witness who tells them the truth in love is to be admired, but to say that there are none of them born again is not true; and limits the power and grace of God to regenerate whomsoever he will. Then again, regeneration is a thing of the heart and cannot be always measured by external appearance, dress, salary or education. The Salvation of the Soul is by grace through faith to everyone that repents and believes in Christ Jesus; and the experience, testimony and fruits of any clergymen bear witness to the indwelling of the Spirit of Christ. Up to that time they all believed that; nevertheless, Kerr’s New Doctrine introduced somewhat of what seemed to be absurd, and that the honest hearted could not believe without a violation of conscience and which hindered a true witness against error and wrong; and injured their own testimony..." (From: John Long's Journal)
This is indeed a very interesting note.JULY, 1903: "After that we went to a Convention in Rathmolyon. From that time all the workers began to baptize, and separate their converts; form them into assemblies to meet together on the first day of the week for fellowship, breaking of bread and prayers. Acts 2:42. Also, they appointed bishops, or elders over them. William Irvine emphasized separation but not exclusiveness."
I wonder what THATmeans?
Did individual workers baptize & separate each of their own converts or did they all together "baptize, and separate their converts; form them into assemblies?"
I would hope that it was the second.
Would Irvine have emphasized separation within the fellowship into assemblies, but not exclusiveness between the workers converts?
I grant you CD, that it certainly seems that it was Kerr’s New Doctrine which introduced exclusiveness.
"The Salvation of the Soul is by grace through faith to everyone that repents and believes in Christ Jesus; and the experience, testimony and fruits of any clergymen bear witness to the indwelling of the Spirit of Christ.
Up to that time they all believed that; nevertheless, Kerr’s New Doctrine introduced somewhat of what seemed to be absurd,"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2014 22:40:14 GMT -5
you forgot the 3rd verse to that one... Mat 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn. you do know the tares are doomed right and we can call them tares? and God also said that out of concern for the wheat and not the tares right? So who are the reapers? And how does this fit with "judgement day" scenarios? good question it could be the angels(most likely)... when God/Jesus comes back his angels(army) will be with him and they will go about gathering in the crop. if you believe in the rapture this will happen in one of two ways pre trib, or mid trib(i am not necessarily a rapture person). then god comes back a second time after the tribulation and judgment day begins...if your not a rapture person then God comes back after the tribulation and judgment day begins right then. this is a very brief explanation of the two different outlooks. EDIT: Mat_13:39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 7, 2014 22:47:33 GMT -5
I've read it and from the metaphor, a tare looks like the wheat it dwells among. That's probably a good reason why human beings shouldn't be exclusive. We're not only incapable of knowing the difference but the worst part is that dividing and separating is hurtful even if you could tell the difference. The idea of Jesus' teachings is to bring people together as one in love, not blow them apart. In the example Jesus used, the servants of the owner, DID know the difference between the wheat and the tares. It was concern for the wheat that they were instructed to let them grow together. Maybe the lesson in the verses is to not live separated in communes or such but to live among all people - live and let live (including let "2x2" live). Also wheat and tares apparently look much alike - maybe as those among us who have the right appearance, but don't produce the right fruit? I mostly agree, but while the servants knew there was wheat and knew there were tares, the only explanation for not uprooting the tares is because of not being able to distinguish which is which. And you say as much, tares that look like wheat is how I take your last line, but also, Jesus often saw wheat where we see tares - the publican, the woman taken in adultery, the Samaritan, not to mention lepers and the lame. When you come down to it, though, who is 'all' wheat and who is 'all' tares. We all have sown some tares in our lives. I think you rightly equate wheat and tares with fruit. But I take the deception and illusion to be how we see individual works and judge them versus how God recognizes true heart service. We know there's a difference between the two, because it's an individual struggle, but only God knows one from the other in others. I see the distinction of wheat and tares around individual deeds and how each deed will be judged, rather than each person as a whole. And then the verses from Corinthians I quote above back up that view - that each man's work will be tried in the fire, to remove the disingenuous works. The one clear distinction Jesus does make is between goats and sheep. That's based on those who don't help the needy and the poor. People who were insensitive to genuine human need filled Jesus with disgust. The rich man and Lazarus is an illustration of the same thing. Jesus hated inhumanity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2014 22:48:08 GMT -5
No. John Long's document is very well done and authoritative in my view.
John Long Journal
JULY, 1903: After that we went to a Convention in Rathmolyon. From that time all the workers began to baptize, and separate their converts; form them into assemblies to meet together on the first day of the week for fellowship, breaking of bread and prayers. Acts 2:42. Also, they appointed bishops, or elders over them. William Irvine emphasized separation but not exclusiveness.
John Long III
Of course, they were all Christian exclusivists from day 1 and Protestant exclusivists, but did not start to become 2x2 exclusivists until it was reported that Joe Kerr brought it in.
For more information, read the John Long Journal on the TTT:
THEN at the July, 1905, Convention at Crocknacrieve, unexpectedly, Joseph Kerr, who was about 24 years old at the time, altered the course of the Go-Preachers. Joe Kerr was
"...one of the most gifted and talented of the workers got a very prominent place by William Irvine; rather too much so for a novice. He attended a conference, in the Bridge of Allan in Scotland; and he was so disgusted with the way the Clergy preached; that he come to the conclusion that there are no clergymen saved. Without any charitable consideration of the conscience or opinion of others, he preached it at that convention. Irvine defended him, but Edward Cooney opposed him and tried to prove that John Wesley was a born again man. "The unwillingness of Clergymen to conform themselves to the pattern as seen in Jesus is very manifest; and the neglect of faithfulness to their calling and office is to be greatly deplored; and a true and faithful witness who tells them the truth in love is to be admired, but to say that there are none of them born again is not true; and limits the power and grace of God to regenerate whomsoever he will. Then again, regeneration is a thing of the heart and cannot be always measured by external appearance, dress, salary or education. The Salvation of the Soul is by grace through faith to everyone that repents and believes in Christ Jesus; and the experience, testimony and fruits of any clergymen bear witness to the indwelling of the Spirit of Christ. Up to that time they all believed that; nevertheless, Kerr’s New Doctrine introduced somewhat of what seemed to be absurd, and that the honest hearted could not believe without a violation of conscience and which hindered a true witness against error and wrong; and injured their own testimony..." (From: John Long's Journal)
No. John Long's document is very well done and authoritative in my view.
John Long Journal
JULY, 1903: After that we went to a Convention in Rathmolyon. From that time all the workers began to baptize, and separate their converts; form them into assemblies to meet together on the first day of the week for fellowship, breaking of bread and prayers. Acts 2:42. Also, they appointed bishops, or elders over them. William Irvine emphasized separation but not exclusiveness.
John Long III
Of course, they were all Christian exclusivists from day 1 and Protestant exclusivists, but did not start to become 2x2 exclusivists until it was reported that Joe Kerr brought it in.
For more information, read the John Long Journal on the TTT:
THEN at the July, 1905, Convention at Crocknacrieve, unexpectedly, Joseph Kerr, who was about 24 years old at the time, altered the course of the Go-Preachers. Joe Kerr was
"...one of the most gifted and talented of the workers got a very prominent place by William Irvine; rather too much so for a novice. He attended a conference, in the Bridge of Allan in Scotland; and he was so disgusted with the way the Clergy preached; that he come to the conclusion that there are no clergymen saved. Without any charitable consideration of the conscience or opinion of others, he preached it at that convention. Irvine defended him, but Edward Cooney opposed him and tried to prove that John Wesley was a born again man. "The unwillingness of Clergymen to conform themselves to the pattern as seen in Jesus is very manifest; and the neglect of faithfulness to their calling and office is to be greatly deplored; and a true and faithful witness who tells them the truth in love is to be admired, but to say that there are none of them born again is not true; and limits the power and grace of God to regenerate whomsoever he will. Then again, regeneration is a thing of the heart and cannot be always measured by external appearance, dress, salary or education. The Salvation of the Soul is by grace through faith to everyone that repents and believes in Christ Jesus; and the experience, testimony and fruits of any clergymen bear witness to the indwelling of the Spirit of Christ. Up to that time they all believed that; nevertheless, Kerr’s New Doctrine introduced somewhat of what seemed to be absurd, and that the honest hearted could not believe without a violation of conscience and which hindered a true witness against error and wrong; and injured their own testimony..." (From: John Long's Journal)
This is indeed a very interesting note.JULY, 1903: "After that we went to a Convention in Rathmolyon. From that time all the workers began to baptize, and separate their converts; form them into assemblies to meet together on the first day of the week for fellowship, breaking of bread and prayers. Acts 2:42. Also, they appointed bishops, or elders over them. William Irvine emphasized separation but not exclusiveness."
I wonder what THATmeans?
Did individual workers baptize & separate each of their own converts or did they all together "baptize, and separate their converts; form them into assemblies?"
I would hope that it was the second.
Would Irvine have emphasized separation within the fellowship into assemblies, but not exclusiveness between the workers converts?
I grant you CD, that it certainly seems that it was Kerr’s New Doctrine which introduced exclusiveness.
"The Salvation of the Soul is by grace through faith to everyone that repents and believes in Christ Jesus; and the experience, testimony and fruits of any clergymen bear witness to the indwelling of the Spirit of Christ.
Up to that time they all believed that; nevertheless, Kerr’s New Doctrine introduced somewhat of what seemed to be absurd,"
That note from 1903 was simply when they first started forming "meetings". It was at that time they first became "separate" but not "exclusive" as John Long points out about about Irvine's view. So where did the converts go after all the missions from 1896 to 1903? They were all sent to local churches.......there were no meetings. Once they started up the meetings and baptisms in 1903 (there is a conflict on that date and some meetings may have started as early as 1901 if I recall), the stage was set for exclusivism. Already Irvine didn't like the clergy, whether it was on the basis of his 1898 Matt10 study, or whether something else happened to make him biased against all clergy, which he clearly demonstrated more stridently as time went on. I place the date of the institutionalizing of exclusivity on the 2x2's at 1907, the moment that John Long was kicked out for being non-exclusive, and had only one supporter out of 200 at a convention. That was it, the foundation of exclusivity was completed and never strongly challenged since except when Cooney reverted his reluctant exclusivity and challenged it in the early 1920's which became part of his excommunication in 1928. Since then, non-exclusive dissidents were picked off individually and thrown out as they arose.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 7, 2014 22:50:48 GMT -5
The view of Jesus that is emerging in my reading of Borg, is not one of God personified. Rather he is the person who re-interpreted the God of the Jews in a more universal and less legalistic way ... to the Jews. Paul then took that view of God to the Gentiles. The people that he reached in his early missionary rounds were Jewish wanna-be's. That is, they were Gentiles who hung around the synagogues in places like Antioch and Corinth, and were attracted to the God of the Jews. But the Jews would not let them in ... where have we seen that before? Along came Paul with the Gospel of Christ; yes, the Gentiles could be admitted to worshipping the God of the Jews, through the more humanist and less legalistic and less ritualistic teachings of the man Jesus. This was only 10 to 20 years after Jesus died. The genius of Jesus was in reinvigorating the Jewish tradition in a simpler, more meaningful, more principled and more ethical way. Jesus was ... the first universalist. So then there were Jewish Christians and then these Gentile Christians reached by Paul. A major pre-occupation of the first Christians was how much of Jewish practice to adopt, especially the question of circumcision. Out of this conflict emerged a principle driven religion that rejected the legalism of the Jews. The first written exposition of these ideas were not the Gospels but the early letters of Paul. The Gospels were not needed; everyone knew almost first hand about the life of Jesus. Back then, writing wasn't habitual the way it is today. It was only 30 or 40 years later when some of the Christians began to fear Christ would not return in their lifetimes, that the written accounts of Jesus life came to be. I would agree with your timeline of the letters of Paul and the gospels and the reason for them finally being written. It is interesting to hear people say that Jesus never said he would be coming in their lifetime and yet that is the reason why the gospels were not written until after they realized he wasn't returning when they thought he would. I also think that was one reason that Paul said don't marry unless you absolutely have to. It was more important to get ready for Jesus return than to worry about 'worldly' concerns such as getting married and having children. After all it was almost over so why bother. I don't agree that Jesus was the first universalist, but he was one of the first. A lot of what he preached is very much in line with what the Buddha taught. He gave it a Jewish twist, but there are many similarities. Those who say he studied under an eastern master, may have been right. He did seem to be aware of Eastern religious thought. Yes, I was incautious in saying he was the "first". I don't disagree with that, although I don't know anything much about Buddha. Thich Nhat Hanh still awaits. (My wife just showed me a passage the other day where he finds a great deal of commonality between the two).
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 7, 2014 23:13:58 GMT -5
I would agree with your timeline of the letters of Paul and the gospels and the reason for them finally being written. It is interesting to hear people say that Jesus never said he would be coming in their lifetime and yet that is the reason why the gospels were not written until after they realized he wasn't returning when they thought he would. I also think that was one reason that Paul said don't marry unless you absolutely have to. It was more important to get ready for Jesus return than to worry about 'worldly' concerns such as getting married and having children. After all it was almost over so why bother. I don't agree that Jesus was the first universalist, but he was one of the first. A lot of what he preached is very much in line with what the Buddha taught. He gave it a Jewish twist, but there are many similarities. Those who say he studied under an eastern master, may have been right. He did seem to be aware of Eastern religious thought. Yes, I was incautious in saying he was the "first". I don't disagree with that, although I don't know anything much about Buddha. Thich Nhat Hanh still awaits. (My wife just showed me a passage the other day where he finds a great deal of commonality between the two). I have tried to read Thich Nhat Hanh and I didn't get too far. Not that he isn't good, but I found him dry reading. Maybe I didn't try the right book, I don't know, because others really like him too. I like reading anything about the Dalai Lama. He is such an interesting man and has had such an interesting life. He is very interested in science and states that if religious belief and science don't match then religious belief much change.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2014 1:20:16 GMT -5
I've read it and from the metaphor, a tare looks like the wheat it dwells among. That's probably a good reason why human beings shouldn't be exclusive. We're not only incapable of knowing the difference but the worst part is that dividing and separating is hurtful even if you could tell the difference. The idea of Jesus' teachings is to bring people together as one in love, not blow them apart. In the example Jesus used, the servants of the owner, DID know the difference between the wheat and the tares. It was concern for the wheat that they were instructed to let them grow together. Maybe the lesson in the verses is to not live separated in communes or such but to live among all people - live and let live (including let "2x2" live). Also wheat and tares apparently look much alike - maybe as those among us who have the right appearance, but don't produce the right fruit? and it is also very much the same with the five wise and five foolish, they were all together as one group waiting for the Lord to come and invite them in they all knew Him as Lord but as with the fruit or the lack of so it was with the foolish the lack of The Lord did not accept them they had excluded themselves by not having what was needed
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 8, 2014 5:22:36 GMT -5
The tares are like cancer in the body... If you don't cut it off the cancer will spread throughout the whole body quickly. Well Nathan -- it would seem that you are suggesting Jesus made a mistake when he said what he did in Matt -- and that it is your job to correct him. Whatever!!!!! Matt 13:29-30 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. [30] Let both grow together until the harvest: DO NOT EXCLUDE THEM.Or are you suggesting that you should take over Gods job ... and be the almighty judge? Is the question about who does the exclusion or whether christianity is an exclusive religion? At the end of the day there will be people excluded from everlasting life. What is it about acknowledging that christianity will, in the end, exclude people from heaven that is so repulsive?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2014 6:31:40 GMT -5
The issue is not that God will not hold us all responsible for the gift of life he has given. Jesus, in the story of the stares, very clearly motivated his demand to refrain from excluding. He said 'you lack the capacity to make this judgement and will identify wheat as stares, and destroy the very things that I love' .
Seeing that 2x2ism regards themselves equal to God - they feel they are exempt from this , and feel free to despise and tear out at will.
|
|
|
Post by Annan on Jul 8, 2014 9:00:04 GMT -5
The one clear distinction Jesus does make is between goats and sheep. That's based on those who don't help the needy and the poor. People who were insensitive to genuine human need filled Jesus with disgust. The rich man and Lazarus is an illustration of the same thing. Jesus hated inhumanity. Thank you. If Jesus is love in action, then there is no room for religion/exclusivity to exist. An aunt of mine once told me that Christian love is seeking out and meeting the needs of others.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 8, 2014 14:45:16 GMT -5
Yes institutions do have to have an agenda to protect what they believe and they have certainly done that. I agree that Christianity is undergoing another major change. I'm not sure which direction will win though. It is discouraging to see so many people believing in the inerrancy of the bible, believing in creationism etc. On the other hand it is wonderful to see people reaching a more universal message of love being the way. It is important that the universal interpretation comes ahead because if it goes back to the fundamentalist way of doing things, we will see less separation of church and state and we know where that leads. If the church ever has power again, they will very likely abuse it again and those who do not believe will be in trouble. Somewhat like what is happening in fundamentalist Islam today. We need to hope the liberalists in Islam and Christianity gain ground and not the fundamentalists. I love tags - Luther and others were called "reformers". Today people would call them "fundamentalists" and the "liberalists" would be called "reformers". I believe in the divine inspiration (by God) and infallibility of the Holy Scriptures and I believe that they are the authority in all matters of faith and conduct. I guess I would be tagged a fundamentalist . I don't feel like one! I feel incredibly thankful for God's grace and pray that everyone that He has created (whomever they serve) will experience it. After all I have done nothing to deserve it. God ultimately chooses who are His. We don't do that. From my viewpoint, why wouldn't I converse and fellowship with people from all walks of life about my faith and their faith. I really enjoy chatting with a Muslim friend regularly. Of course, I am going to graciously share my faith and he will share his with me. I also enjoy a regular Bible study with a Catholic friend. We have different views on a few things but we read the Bible and pray together - that's fellowship. In my former 2x2 life, I probably wouldn't have had regular chats with my Muslim friend (I think if he had asked me I wouldn't know really what I believed back then) and I certainly wouldn't have had fellowship with a Catholic friend. Pray together - no way! I have said it before and I'll say it again. If we understand God's rich grace to us, we will have fellowship with anyone. Workers have said to me "we don't fellowship with others because they are not like minded....and if they wanted truth they would reach out to us..." (now there's a definition of exclusivity!) but to be blunt that's rubbish. You don't have to be likeminded on everything to have fellowship together. The best fellowship comes when we stretch each other, challenge each other (obviously in a congenial way), make each other think. If we think of academic fellows meeting together they will indeed share similar interests but would they agree on everything that anybody said, without question! I don't think so. Neither did Jesus. He constantly challenged his disciples, encouraged them, corrected them, stretched them. And as if to remind people of the authority and grace of God He indicated that the first would be last and the last, first. I would agree that if you are open minded you can enjoy being with just about anyone. This is a good thing and I'm glad you enjoy that. I see Fundamentalists as those who try to prevent teaching evolution in schools and things like that. They are extreme imo and always try to force their beliefs on all people not like minded. I see the fundamentalists in Islam and Christianity doing that. If you don't do that, then you are not as extreme and I don't have any problem with what you believe within your religion. If you are a person who believes that the world was made in 6 days, that there was a worldwide flood etc, that's fine with me, but when that starts being dictated as being taught in our public schools that's when I disagree. Private religious schools can teach what they please, but don't ask text book companies to omit things from them that don't fall in line with their beliefs. That's what's happening in Texas and because they buy a huge percentage of textbooks, publishers are trying to cater to them. This is what I find discouraging and hope that trend dies out. My birth family would fall into the above, thinking that what they believe should be taught in public schools. Since it isn't in Canada, they mostly have done home schooling and then private religious schools. And, that's okay with me. I don't think it gives their children a whole lot of exposure to other beliefs, but that's their choice.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 8, 2014 15:04:18 GMT -5
Is the question about who does the exclusion or whether christianity is an exclusive religion? At the end of the day there will be people excluded from everlasting life. What is it about acknowledging that christianity will, in the end, exclude people from heaven that is so repulsive? Amen, I believe Jesus and Christianity is Very exclusive. The separation takes place on the earth, it will continue after death, and on the Final judgment day is forever/eternally.Just knowing the Way of God will not SAVE us, but knowing the God of the Way (Christ) will. Medford, Wis. - The Way Within The Way by Paul LyonI would like to read to you several verses in John's Gospel: (John 6:60) "Many of his disciples, when they heard this, said, This is an hard saying, who can hear it?" 66th verse. "From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him." Then said Jesus unto the twelve, "Will ye also go away? Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life." (John 12:20) There were certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at the feast. The same came to Philip and said, "Sir, we would see Jesus. " Jesus said, "The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified. Verily, verily, I say unto you, except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone; but if it dies, it bringeth forth much fruit. He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal. If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be." (John 18:37) "Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, " to this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that, I should bear witness unto the truth. Everyone that is of the truth heareth my voice." Pilate saith unto him, What is truth?" My mind went to an expression: There is a Way within the Way. A person can be in the outward part of the Way and yet miss the Way. Words of that hymn came to my mind: "Guide Thou my feet, lest I should miss the Way." It just seemed - as I was reading John's gospel- This is the Way! The Lord's servants going forth two and two is part of the Way. It is an outward expression of the true Way. Meetings in the home are part of the Way, but an outward expression, giving our testimonies, reading the Bible are all a part of the Way, but only an outward expression of the true Way (Christ). It is the right way, but it is all given as a means to an end. If we make them an end itself, then we have missed the Way. If I take the fellowship of those who go two and two as evidence that I am in the Way, then I have missed the Way. If I just read my Bible with the thought, I have read my Bible today, and then I have missed the Way (Christ). If I cannot say, "Beyond the sacred page I seek thee Lord," if I have not met with God, then I have missed the Way. My prayer is in that hymn "Guide Thou my steps lest I should miss the Way." I would like to talk about the Way within the Way. I would like to talk about the positive side, lest one should miss the Way. It is a living thing: the Way of Life. John expressed his purpose in writing this Gospel (20th chapter), "These things are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life through His name." There is hardly a chapter that doesn't say something about believing, and not a chapter that doesn't say something about living. The Gospel of John is a Gospel of life. The other Gospels present Jesus as He is, giving an account of that life. John's Gospel was written with a different purpose in mind: "That you might believe." It is not like Luke, giving in order an account of what happened in the life of Jesus. "I have presented what would help you to believe." It helped him to believe. John reached into that great rich memory of his. He brought to us these things, which helped him in his experience to truly believe in Jesus- "That they might help you to believe all things that were taught by Jesus, that it may enrich your faith too." The more truly we believe, the more truly we live. Believing and Living go hand in hand, and the more faith grows and abounds in us. Life grows in us to the proportion that faith grows and lives. Jesus brought them to a place: "Do ye believe?" Then he led them farther, "Now do you believe?" After all this, facing what they did, He said, "Do you still believe?" "We do." As He led them to something else, He said, "Do you believe now?" One could trace the growth of that life within them. These men had found the Way. The outward part of the Way in the Old Testament was not the same as in the New Testament; but they had enough form to miss the Way (Christ). We have enough form to cause us to miss the Way, if we are not careful. We must rise and pray in the morning, but we could miss the Way. We could meet together on Sunday morning-and we must do that - but we could miss the Way. We have the least formality of any, and yet we have enough to cause us to miss the Way. The inward way of the Old Testament is still the same. Though the outward form was not the same, the Way was still the same. You see Abraham worshipping God and giving the best he had. God said, "Take thy son, thine only son..." Was this his only son? No, he had a son named Ishmael. Why did he say: "thine only son?" He was the only son of faith. The only son that God could accept as an offering, because it was an offering of faith. Whenever he took the nearest and best, it was his son. Yes, he found the Way, and in his son he offered from his heart. He had inwardly offered his son Isaac to God - he found the Way. He found the way, also when he saw a ram in the thicket, a grown lamb. That is what the lamb became at its best. When men and women receive Christ, the Lamb of God in their hearts, then there grows in their experience a possibility of what Christ can become. There was the possibility of Christ becoming to them what they hadn't known-that lamb grows more and more mature to them. We have found the Way if it means more to us every day we live. Whenever Joseph forgave his brethren and set them free, he found the Way, found that Living Way. He found what Jesus taught: to forgive the hymn says: Forgive as we forgive, 0 Lord, and set each other free." It isn't a matter of forgiving and saying we forgive. But learning to set people free. Whenever we set them free, we make them feel as free in our presence as before and more so. When we do that, we have found the Way, and we prove it. A woman in Florida had something against another in the church. She said, "Alright then, I'll forgive her, but I do not want to ever have anything to do with her any more." What if the Lord would do that to us: I will forgive you, but will have nothing more to do with you as long as you live. Then she said, "I'll forgive." When we truly forgive, we have found the Way (Christ). Think of many characters in the Old Testament who have found the Way. It is the same way the Lord is seeking to lead us today, and every time He points it out, He tries to say, "This is the Way, walk ye in it." Whenever Job prayed for his friends, he found the Way. They misunderstood him, and hated him, and accused him, but, when he prayed for them, he found the Way. When Job said, "forgive them," he found the Way (Christ). I want to talk about this living Way, and how it can grow in your heart. Some Greeks came to the disciples and said. - "We would see Jesus." Jesus made the statement: "Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone; but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit." There was never a question about the fruitfulness of this life. The only question was, will it die? IF it die. There was no IF in connection with the fruit. There is an IF in connection with the willingness of our hearts. IF it dies, it brings forth much fruit. Some years ago, when going to school, we were dissecting some things in biology. One day the teacher brought some seeds to class, which we were to cut apart. They were beans. She showed us, wrapped up inside the cover, and was the root of the plant that was to be. Curled up around it was the stem and the leaves of the seed that were to be. No part that was to develop later that wasn't there already-except the fruitfulness. Whenever God plants that seed of the Gospel in your soul, He plants every possibility that is to be: the life that is to be. The highest aim of every servant and handmaiden of the Lord is I would like you to be everything that the Lord intended you should be when he first thought about you. When He first called you, He planted certain possibilities within you that He hoped you would some day attain to. There was only one thing that could not be seen, that was the fruit. But he would-like us to grow. When we do that, we have found the Way (Christ). If a person tries to save his life or loves his life, he will lose it. If he Hates it, or loves the Lord more than he loves himself, then he will keep that life unto life everlasting. One brother told about being in a wheat country in the Midwest. A large Seed Company had sent him some samples of seed wheat. Certain samples the man decided to plant, but some of those samples were never planted. Those that were planted were put out into the dark earth. It rained on them, it was cold. They didn't see the sunlight until they burst. In that cold damp earth they waited for the warmth from above. Those seeds he left on the mantle were warm practically all the time, never wet, never cold. Later on those little plants came through. "The earth bringeth forth first the blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear." This is the fulfillment of that promise. When heads were budding, and reapers were reaping, and he saw the golden grain; then be saw those on the mantle that never changed. We don't Have to face the coldness of the world. It is entirely voluntary on our part. We can exercise our own will, but we cannot exercise our own will in the reaping. "Except it die, it abideth alone." There was a time when you could come and listen if you wanted to. You did not need to make a choice-but that day is past. You do something about it now, or you have missed the whole thing. Jesus could have said, there was a time when you watched me perform miracles-but. That time is gone. "Except it die," you have missed the Way. (John 6:60) There were some people who missed the Way because they said; this is a hard saying, who can hear it. Whenever reading that chapter, I wondered, how could a person read this and call the Way hard. How could a person be a partaker of so much that Jesus had to give, and think the Way was hard? He had missed the teaching of Jesus altogether in this chapter. Jesus' saying seemed impossible. Many times, when people listen to the Gospel, they miss the Way (Christ) because they think things are impossible. If they had grasped what Jesus said, they would not have felt this is a hard saying. Do you folks feel this is a hard Way? This Way of holiness, purity and love? The man who brought us the Gospel spoke from Isaiah 33:21, "but there the glorious Lord will be unto us a place of broad rivers and streams; wherein shall go no galley with oars..." When the great man of God would speak to you about this broad river and streams, it is not too narrow for people who love it. 2x2friendsworkers.proboards.com/thread/64/Based on that belief, I would like to know why anyone would be part of a religion that was 'very exclusive', dividing here on earth and in heaven, and eternal torture for those who were excluded? Why would anyone be part of such a belief system?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 8, 2014 16:10:50 GMT -5
Based on that belief, I would like to know why anyone would be part of a religion that was 'very exclusive', dividing here on earth and in heaven, and eternal torture for those who were excluded? Why would anyone be part of such a belief system? Humans have a great capacity to believe things that give them comfort. People follow in such a belief system because they believe they are on the team that is heaven bound. The concept of illusory superiority is an interesting one!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 8, 2014 22:25:56 GMT -5
Based on that belief, I would like to know why anyone would be part of a religion that was 'very exclusive', dividing here on earth and in heaven, and eternal torture for those who were excluded? Why would anyone be part of such a belief system? You believed it once before but now you don't believe it. Now, you believe there is no God, and after you died that's the end for you.... But the Bible speak it differently. All of us will find out the true answer after we die for sure.Actually I didn't believe it before, not the exclusive part anyway. It is the reason I quit professing. I didn't agree with the exclusivity. I recognized at 12 years old that there were going to be an awful lot of good people in hell and heaven would be mostly empty. It didn't make sense to me and I decided at that point the Christian God wasn't worth worshiping and likely didn't exist in that form anyway.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 8, 2014 22:31:24 GMT -5
I would agree that if you are open minded you can enjoy being with just about anyone. This is a good thing and I'm glad you enjoy that. I see Fundamentalists as those who try to prevent teaching evolution in schools and things like that. They are extreme imo and always try to force their beliefs on all people not like minded. I see the fundamentalists in Islam and Christianity doing that. If you don't do that, then you are not as extreme and I don't have any problem with what you believe within your religion. If you are a person who believes that the world was made in 6 days, that there was a worldwide flood etc, that's fine with me, but when that starts being dictated as being taught in our public schools that's when I disagree. Private religious schools can teach what they please, but don't ask text book companies to omit things from them that don't fall in line with their beliefs. That's what's happening in Texas and because they buy a huge percentage of textbooks, publishers are trying to cater to them. This is what I find discouraging and hope that trend dies out. My birth family would fall into the above, thinking that what they believe should be taught in public schools. Since it isn't in Canada, they mostly have done home schooling and then private religious schools. And, that's okay with me. I don't think it gives their children a whole lot of exposure to other beliefs, but that's their choice. I'm not a fan of those who try to prevent teaching evolution - it is an extreme viewpoint. I don't believe the world was made in 6 days (rather 6 time periods) either but I do read the Bible "literally" or "plainly" ie I read the text in terms of its original context and genre and so on, and by recognising metaphor, symbolism and other literary devices in the text. For the literal or plain reader, a text may describe historical events in a variety of ways and still be validly historical. A literal or plain reading of the Bible is not interested in pursuing the kind of allegorical readings that were popular in the Middle Ages. As I have said before on this Board a literal reading of a metaphor reads it as a metaphor. It is also the case that 'plain' readers of Scripture could see how the texts of the Old Testament meant far more than their authors knew. For example, the writer of Psalm 2 has an immediate literal sense in mind relating to the Davidic king. But from the New Testament perspective we can see how the 'full sense' (the sensus plenior) of the Psalm includes Jesus Christ as the fulfilment of the prophecy. I accept that there are those who read the Bible in a 'literalistic' way - in my view without (or with a deficient) awareness of metaphor, symbolism, genre, literary style, inexact numbers, and so on, and in fact may deny the presence of these things entirely. The literalistic reader sees the relation of the text to historical events as necessarily very exact. A literalistic reading of a metaphor might read it as not a metaphor at all. As a kid we had Christian Scripture at school (it is still enshrined in public education in New South Wales schools although parents can opt their kids out and do ethics/other religions if teachers are available). I went to the Methodist class. My wife went to the non-Scripture class because many friends didn't want their kids to go to another denomination. Then I really don't define you as a fundamentalist. I imagine the term is misleading, but I don't know what to call those who believe everything exactly like the bible says. No symbolism, no metaphors just word for word belief. Yet they don't seem to realize that even taken like that there can be so many interpretations. I often wonder why many choose to pick the most harmful interpretations for their belief systems.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2014 22:55:29 GMT -5
I'm not a fan of those who try to prevent teaching evolution - it is an extreme viewpoint. I don't believe the world was made in 6 days (rather 6 time periods) either but I do read the Bible "literally" or "plainly" ie I read the text in terms of its original context and genre and so on, and by recognising metaphor, symbolism and other literary devices in the text. For the literal or plain reader, a text may describe historical events in a variety of ways and still be validly historical. A literal or plain reading of the Bible is not interested in pursuing the kind of allegorical readings that were popular in the Middle Ages. As I have said before on this Board a literal reading of a metaphor reads it as a metaphor. It is also the case that 'plain' readers of Scripture could see how the texts of the Old Testament meant far more than their authors knew. For example, the writer of Psalm 2 has an immediate literal sense in mind relating to the Davidic king. But from the New Testament perspective we can see how the 'full sense' (the sensus plenior) of the Psalm includes Jesus Christ as the fulfilment of the prophecy. I accept that there are those who read the Bible in a 'literalistic' way - in my view without (or with a deficient) awareness of metaphor, symbolism, genre, literary style, inexact numbers, and so on, and in fact may deny the presence of these things entirely. The literalistic reader sees the relation of the text to historical events as necessarily very exact. A literalistic reading of a metaphor might read it as not a metaphor at all. As a kid we had Christian Scripture at school (it is still enshrined in public education in New South Wales schools although parents can opt their kids out and do ethics/other religions if teachers are available). I went to the Methodist class. My wife went to the non-Scripture class because many friends didn't want their kids to go to another denomination. Then I really don't define you as a fundamentalist. I imagine the term is misleading, but I don't know what to call those who believe everything exactly like the bible says. No symbolism, no metaphors just word for word belief. Yet they don't seem to realize that even taken like that there can be so many interpretations. I often wonder why many choose to pick the most harmful interpretations for their belief systems. The bible has literal stuff and metaphor stuff in it pray to God that you can discern between the two...
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 8, 2014 23:01:37 GMT -5
Wake me up when someone figures out the chance of having a non-exclusive "fellowship".
|
|