|
Post by snow on Jan 26, 2015 21:13:59 GMT -5
Which I think was the original belief, not the Trinity. I think the story of the resurrection was added later to somehow do damage control on the fact their Messiah got crucified. It wasn't in the original Mark document and that is the one that got copied by the looks of things. Then to make them all agree, it got added after the fact. Snow ~ This Wiki reference to Mark 16 deals with the two different versions here ~ the short one and the longer one. However, the resurrection of Jesus was still covered in the first 8 verses and with versus 9-20 more details followed. www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2016&version=AMP;NIV;KJV They find the empty tomb, but I believe it's the appearances of Jesus later that are missing? It's been awhile since I've seen that writing about the differences and what was added later to Mark. Then there is also the belief, not Christian but Jewish, that he was taken from the tomb to the Essenes to be medically cared for and to recover from his wounds in one of the caves above the compound. That I would think has led to the stories that he left the area then and went to India where they say they have his grave and that he died at a more advanced age. So many variations and stories depending I guess on what people wanted to believe. Those are usually the authors that also say that Jesus and his parents were Essenes. It's a mystery!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2015 21:39:07 GMT -5
Well, Greg I knew it to have been taught, later when it appeared I was to be sent to be a companion with a man who's charismatic younger companion was teaching the Lord had no human nature, I was grilled quite thoroughly upon what I believed and why regarding the nature and personality of God.
Finally, I asked why they were grilling me so about the nature and personality of the God in whom I believed, and preached about myself, the older brothers told me why, concerned as I had been a portion of the previous year with two men they led me to believe had begun teaching false doctrine. Yes, later, Howard Mooney rebuked me for preaching too much about the controversial personality and nature of Christ, explaining nothing, about what he meant and intended and dismissed me without allowing me to learn anything.
Shrug, I just know more about this issue than many, due to worker experiences and needing to explain what and why I believe (d?) as I do, (did!). The shock friends in Europe expressed to me upon hearing workers no longer believed such things and had begun renouncing "our beliefs in God as Son!" It was astounding news! Don't much care now, being thought a reprobate. Let people, everyone, everywhere believe however they wish once they have been told what i believe and why. Condemn them not, my Lord came not to condemn, but save. Shall any servant think himself more knowing, able, ahead of, superior to, his Master? I think not, nonetheless, His words included, "if they be true, would judge in the last day." That's good enough for me--His words they did not originate with me.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jan 27, 2015 10:34:50 GMT -5
While there is much in Nathan's expressions with which I hold no agreement, Greg, others, how can you say none of them believed such teaching?
In visiting with many of them, I learned that they did, just never referring to their beliefs as "trinity." I knew many, and knew of many more who believed exactly as Nathan expresses, on this topic! However, due to the supremacy of the Father, and possibly because so few even believed in "doctrine" it is easy for me to understand where all the denial originated, and indeed we were not taught to think of them as "The Trinity."
Various levels of intellect also became involved, and grin, as we all know "Intellect" did not come from GOD! How do we know this? Quite simple, really... How else could anyone be too intelligent for their own good? And I suggest it is only certain people who have never been told that, AND by certain other ones... Are not all men created equal? (Don't you know that, " so and so doesn't believe all men are created equal?" Tsk, Tsk!) Believing a doctrine and teaching the same doctrine are two different things. Nathan B has made clear his contention that the trinity with God the Son was taught by the workers (in general I presume) until 1970. Hard to know what people might believe and not reveal or teach publicly. Greg ~ I agree! There was a lot of things the workers in the past knew about and never mentioned in meeting either, including their founder, because they were teaching something else entirely different and the Trinity was just one of them. Also, another thing they failed to mention in meeting was the real gospel story of the Cross, which they substituted with their homeless ministry and meeting in the home version. www.gotquestions.org/true-gospel.html
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Jan 30, 2015 2:06:33 GMT -5
Well, Greg I knew it to have been taught... Likely so. Taught by whom and how? As Nathan B. contends? "The workers from 1900-1970 believed and taught the Triune God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), the Deity of Christ, Jesus is God(the son)." - Nathan B. "The workers". All of them? Or does that mean "commonly"? Was this taught in the public meetings and/or the fellowship meetings? Perhaps by going from house to house? Perhaps just mentioned in conversation? Did the teaching just suddenly stop in 1970? Was the teaching very specific by "the workers" in general and commonly accepted that God is a triune entity and that indeed Jesus is God, Jesus is God the Son? Someone could believe and teach that Jesus is divine (while on earth), but that does not necessarily mean that person believes Jesus is God, that Jesus is God the Son. Someone could believe and teach that Jesus is one with the Father, but that does not necessarily mean that person believes Jesus is God, that Jesus is God the Son. Someone could believe and teach that Jesus is God in the flesh, but that does not necessarily mean that person believes Jesus is God, that Jesus is God the Son. I think the contention by Nathan B. is wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2015 13:50:11 GMT -5
Nathan, sir. On this topic, from what you have expressed, I find myself totally in agreement from nearly 72 years (+ circa 40 due to heritage).
Greg, sir. More than "likely so." It came as a shock to me to discover 2&2 preachers and their followers anywhere did not believe as I had been taught, and indeed was one of the things I had to re-examine upon my excommunication. My early contacts and instructors in 2&2 ism simply did believe as Nathan expresses, and many of their names were on the first group of worker listing.
Do I accept others came along, not believing it? Most absolutely. Do I believe it unfair to state Nathan to be in error regarding it? Equally most absolutely. On this understanding of the nature and personality of God, a supreme being (to me anyway) I once had a copy of Jack Carrol's sermon notes, revealing to me he believed on this subject as Nathan expresses. I knew Tom Lyness believed this, I knew Willie Wier believed this, I knew Mable Gibson believed and taught it.
I do not understand why this is made an issue. Do I think all 2&2 workers think and believe alike about this topic? (Humorous grin,) well, once maybe, certainly not any longer! Do I think they ought to be lined up and shot for answering one way or another? NOPE! (Well, maybe for not answering one way or another.., tongue in cheek, joking.) Now once again it is time for me to just shut up and leave off commenting further on a thread.
And, say, Nathan, not only do I have my lifetime, I had 4 great grand parents, 4 grand parents and 2 parents all believing salvation came to them through 2&2 workers on earth only since around the turn of 1900, who knew the origins by what they were taught and heard, even from Irvine. They considered him to have succumbed to the lusts of the flesh, and his own ego, or so I was told when I grew old enough to ask.
|
|