|
Post by snow on Feb 25, 2015 0:33:05 GMT -5
Pretty much. Because life is rarely black and white. Instead of having absolutes that are written in stone, it makes more sense to base decisions on what would work best 'now', do the least harm and contribute to the good of those who are effected by the decisions. Here's why that won't work: I am mourning the passing of an old friend by the name of Common Sense. His obituary reads as follows: Common Sense, aka C.S., lived a long life, but died from heart failure at the brink of the millennium. No one really knows how old he was, his birth records were long ago entangled in miles and miles of bureaucratic red tape. Known affectionately to close friends as Horse Sense and Sound Thinking, he selflessly devoted himself to a life of service in homes, schools, hospitals and offices, helping folks get jobs done without a lot of fanfare, whooping and hollering.
Rules and regulations and petty, frivolous lawsuits held no power over C.S. A most reliable sage, he was credited with cultivating the ability to know when to come in out of the rain, the discovery that the early bird gets the worm and how to take the bitter with the sweet.
C.S. also developed sound financial policies (don't spend more than you earn), reliable parenting strategies (the adult is in charge, not the kid) and prudent dietary plans (offset eggs and bacon with a little fiber and orange juice).
A veteran of the Industrial Revolution, the Great Depression, the Technological Revolution and the Smoking Crusades, C.S. survived sundry cultural and educational trends including disco, the men's movement, body piercing, whole language and new math. C.S.'s health began declining in the late 1960s when he became infected with the If-It-Feels-Good, Do-It virus.
In the following decades, his waning strength proved no match for the ravages of overbearing federal and state rules and regulations and an oppressive tax code. C.S. was sapped of strength and the will to live as the Ten Commandments became contraband, criminals received better treatment than victims and judges stuck their noses in everything from Boy Scouts to professional baseball and golf.
His deterioration accelerated as schools implemented zero-tolerance policies. Reports of 6-year-old boys charged with sexual harassment for kissing classmates, a teen suspended for taking a swig of Scope mouthwash after lunch, girls suspended for possessing Midol and an honor student expelled for having a table knife in her school lunch were more than his heart could endure.
As the end neared, doctors say C.S. drifted in and out of logic but was kept informed of developments regarding regulations on low-flow toilets and mandatory air bags. Finally, upon hearing about a government plan to ban inhalers from 14 million asthmatics due to a trace of a pollutant that may be harmful to the environment, C.S. breathed his last.
Services will be at Whispering Pines Cemetery. C.S. was preceded in death by his wife, Discretion; one daughter, Responsibility; and one son, Reason. He is survived by two step-brothers, Half-Wit and Dim-Wit.
Yes sadly, you're right.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2015 4:36:31 GMT -5
Quote - "The moral of the story is that if you have a hard and fast rule about something, you're actually denying a moral decision."
And that's the difference between the Old and New Testament. And note - few of the saints of the Old Testament actually were saints by living under the Law.
And I did like what Jesus said of John the Baptist. "What went you out to see? A reed blowing in the wind?" Lots of people, religious or otherwise, just blow in the wind. What is wrong today is right tomorrow. What is right today is wrong tomorrow. They take their cues from society.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2015 6:19:20 GMT -5
Quote - "Something wrong with 'boobies' Bert? Children do know they exist. In societies where there isn't such a stigma about the naked body, children don't care one way or another. Do think maybe it's our crazy attitude towards sex and the nude body that causes so much of what you call immorality today? When everything is kept 'secret/covered' it becomes a curiosity."
No, in this context "boobies" meant Charlie Sheen having casual sex with a woman. I presume, not even his girlfriend, let alone wife! I recall as kids we read dirty jokes about couples on their wedding nights. How quaint were those old dirty joke books - even dirty jokes have gotten dirtier.
btw Casual sex is an affront to most women with feelings. Casual sex is considered a sin according to the bible. Casual sex, openly before children, warps their moral sense and can effect their own view of what constitutes relationship. Casual sex to many societies, and formerly our own - was dirty, immoral, sullied reputation and for many centuries carried the death penalty.
Saying it's quite moral to have casual sex in front of your own children, yet chide people for the "immorality" of eating farm-laid chicken eggs won't cut it. Such people might fool you, but they're not fooling me.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 25, 2015 11:38:08 GMT -5
Quote - "Something wrong with 'boobies' Bert? Children do know they exist. In societies where there isn't such a stigma about the naked body, children don't care one way or another. Do think maybe it's our crazy attitude towards sex and the nude body that causes so much of what you call immorality today? When everything is kept 'secret/covered' it becomes a curiosity." No, in this context "boobies" meant Charlie Sheen having casual sex with a woman. I presume, not even his girlfriend, let alone wife! I recall as kids we read dirty jokes about couples on their wedding nights. How quaint were those old dirty joke books - even dirty jokes have gotten dirtier.
btw Casual sex is an affront to most women with feelings. Casual sex is considered a sin according to the bible. Casual sex, openly before children, warps their moral sense and can effect their own view of what constitutes relationship. Casual sex to many societies, and formerly our own - was dirty, immoral, sullied reputation and for many centuries carried the death penalty.
Saying it's quite moral to have casual sex in front of your own children, yet chide people for the "immorality" of eating farm-laid chicken eggs won't cut it. Such people might fool you, but they're not fooling me.What is the difference between men having casual sex and women having casual sex? Is there a difference. Why is it only an affront to 'women' with feelings? Sex is a natural act that doesn't harm people if they take precautions. I think it's far more harmful to teach children that sex is dirty. It is one of natures most powerful drives so when you teach children that it is also wrong you set yourself up for problems. Obviously you teach them the possible consequences of sex and to practice sex safely and with respect, but the bible's take on sex is really quite immoral imo.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2015 15:33:48 GMT -5
Quote - "What is the difference between men having casual sex and women having casual sex? Is there a difference. Why is it only an affront to 'women' with feelings? Sex is a natural act that doesn't harm people if they take precautions. I think it's far more harmful to teach children that sex is dirty. It is one of natures most powerful drives so when you teach children that it is also wrong you set yourself up for problems. Obviously you teach them the possible consequences of sex and to practice sex safely and with respect, but the bible's take on sex is really quite immoral imo."
Please let me reverse this: teaching children the legitimacy of casual sex (ie non relationship) for cynical pure recreational purposes itself dirties the act. Most societies will condemn a woman more than a man for casual sex (for complex reasons) but both parties are at fault. Nothing like casual sex effects friendships, relationships and marriage. It's not "free." Saying the bible's views on sex is immoral, and societies attitude (ie TV's view) on sex is "moral" demonstrates my point about reversing values perfectly.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 25, 2015 18:38:11 GMT -5
Quote - "What is the difference between men having casual sex and women having casual sex? Is there a difference. Why is it only an affront to 'women' with feelings? Sex is a natural act that doesn't harm people if they take precautions. I think it's far more harmful to teach children that sex is dirty. It is one of natures most powerful drives so when you teach children that it is also wrong you set yourself up for problems. Obviously you teach them the possible consequences of sex and to practice sex safely and with respect, but the bible's take on sex is really quite immoral imo." Please let me reverse this: teaching children the legitimacy of casual sex (ie non relationship) for cynical pure recreational purposes itself dirties the act. Most societies will condemn a woman more than a man for casual sex (for complex reasons) but both parties are at fault. Nothing like casual sex effects friendships, relationships and marriage. It's not "free." Saying the bible's views on sex is immoral, and societies attitude (ie TV's view) on sex is "moral" demonstrates my point about reversing values perfectly.
When I refer to the bible's immorality regarding sex, I am referring to the verses that state if you rape a woman then you have to pay for her, marry her and you can't divorce her. Or that it's an abomination for someone to have same gender sex. I could give you more examples, but you get the picture. I didn't say that TV shows are more moral. Some of them are not. I can't imagine why anyone would want to watch 2 and a half men anyway. I really don't see anything wrong with people having sex just to have sex if they don't harm anyone and they use the proper precautions regarding possible disease or pregnancy. Between consenting adults it should not be considered immoral and there should be no difference between genders in this regard as far as I'm concerned. There is nothing 'dirty' about sex.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 25, 2015 20:11:57 GMT -5
Bert said: teaching children the legitimacy of casual sex (ie non relationship) for cynical pure recreational purposes itself dirties the act.
[/quote]
Bert, I think that you are a victim of St. Augustine's negative views about sexuality
"In her book Adam, Eve, and the Serpent, the religious scholar Elaine Pagels is critical of Augustine's equation of sex with original sin, identifying Augustine as a source of Western society's negative attitudes about sexuality.
Whether Augustine is directly responsible for the traditions that came down to history or simply articulated the prevailing viewpoint is open to debate.
However, Augustine clearly had a significant influence in shaping Western ideas about sexuality."
I have the book, Adam, Eve, and the Serpent, by Elaine Pagels.
I'd be happy to lend it to you if you like.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Feb 25, 2015 20:24:21 GMT -5
Bert, I think that you are a victim of St. Augustine's negative views about sexuality
"In her book Adam, Eve, and the Serpent, the religious scholar Elaine Pagels is critical of Augustine's equation of sex with original sin, identifying Augustine as a source of Western society's negative attitudes about sexuality.
Whether Augustine is directly responsible for the traditions that came down to history or simply articulated the prevailing viewpoint is open to debate.
However, Augustine clearly had a significant influence in shaping Western ideas about sexuality."
I have the book, Adam, Eve, and the Serpent, by Elaine Pagels.
I'd be happy to lend it to you if you like. Originator or purveyor, I can't say, but I agree that Augustine seems to have been instrumental is shaping many of the sexual attitudes in Western society up until the 1960's. (p.s. I have always enjoyed Elaine Pagels work)
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 25, 2015 22:20:44 GMT -5
Just a tid bit of information. One of the reasons St. Augustine was so rigid about sexual matters etc. seems to be a carry over from his days before he became a Catholic. He followed the teachings of Mani. He was a Mandaean who took the rules for living to a whole new level. The group became called the Manichees and they were one of the strictest religious groups I've ever heard of. You couldn't have sex, they ate only fruit and had atone for even doing that. Wasting water was a sin and killing an animal unthinkable. There are some reports that they bathed in their own urine because to bath in the river was to pollute it. They died out, for obvious reasons, but after reading about that it kind of made it more clear why St. Augustine was so rigid, if he had been a follower of Mani before becoming a Catholic.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 26, 2015 0:06:22 GMT -5
Just a tid bit of information. One of the reasons St. Augustine was so rigid about sexual matters etc. seems to be a carry over from his days before he became a Catholic. He followed the teachings of Mani. He was a Mandaean who took the rules for living to a whole new level. The group became called the Manichees and they were one of the strictest religious groups I've ever heard of. You couldn't have sex, they ate only fruit and had atone for even doing that. Wasting water was a sin and killing an animal unthinkable. There are some reports that they bathed in their own urine because to bath in the river was to pollute it. They died out, for obvious reasons, but after reading about that it kind of made it more clear why St. Augustine was so rigid, if he had been a follower of Mani before becoming a Catholic. That is very interesting! I didn't know that!
They would have died out like the Shakers did. If you don't reproduce, it is hard to find followers!
Example: How long would the **TRUTH** have continued if the workers had followed their first inclination?
They considered those that didn't go into the work as second class.
The overseer in our state tried to give my father some grief because he left the work & married. Made my mother feel bad as well for "luring" him out even though he had already been out quite awhile before they married.
It was that distinction that also made the workers feel superior & therefore able to give orders & expect them to be obeyed.
However, where would they be now?
Who do they get to profess now except the children of professing families? I doubt I wouldn't lose the bet if I guessed it was less than 50 from the outside in the whole US.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2015 2:19:51 GMT -5
Quote - "They considered those that didn't go into the work as second class."
No Dimmichgood, what you have to say is: "IT IS MY OPINION that the Workers think those who are not called into the Ministry are second class. I base this upon my INTERPRETATION of events. I understand that other MIGHT DISAGREE with my assessment. Furthermore I AM AT A LOSS TO UNDERSTAND WHY THE WORKERS MIGHT FEEL THIS WAY CONSIDERING THERE WERE THE SAME TWO CLASSES OF PEOPLE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCHES.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Feb 26, 2015 4:00:58 GMT -5
Quote - "They considered those that didn't go into the work as second class." No Dimmichgood, what you have to say is: "IT IS MY OPINION that the Workers think those who are not called into the Ministry are second class. I base this upon my INTERPRETATION of events. I understand that other MIGHT DISAGREE with my assessment. Furthermore I AM AT A LOSS TO UNDERSTAND WHY THE WORKERS MIGHT FEEL THIS WAY CONSIDERING THERE WERE THE SAME TWO CLASSES OF PEOPLE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCHES.I'm not sure you can defend your interpretation, bert, in light of the fact that a worker my family knows very well said at convention that the reason he went in the work was because the reward would be greater. I was only 12 or 13 at the time, but I didn't think heaven was going to be different for the workers than is would be for others. That sounds to me more like a whole different species as opposed to just a different class. The expression used around here when a worker has left the work is that he "stepped down". Second step down, he got married. Third step down ....
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 26, 2015 4:44:25 GMT -5
Quote - "They considered those that didn't go into the work as second class." No Dimmichgood, what you have to say is:
"IT IS MY OPINION that the Workers think those who are not called into the Ministry are second class.
I base this upon my INTERPRETATION of events.
I understand that other MIGHT DISAGREE with my assessment. Furthermore I AM AT A LOSS TO UNDERSTAND WHY THE WORKERS MIGHT FEEL THIS WAY CONSIDERING THERE WERE THE SAME TWO CLASSES OF PEOPLE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCHES. I would NOT be able to say all that crap you said so I marked through.
I would be lieing if I said that stuff.
I am NOT "AT A LOSS TO UNDERSTAND WHY THE WORKERS act THIS WAY.
When you study the dynamics of inter-relationships of a group of people, how they respond to power and how power is welded, there isn't that much difference whatever the group happens to be.
I'm sorry that you don't have the experiences I have had, -like knowing how my parents were treated.
However, don't put words in my mouth!
It isn't just my opinion, I know what I'm talking about!
If you haven't been around long enough to know what went on it isn't my fault!
Just don't tell me that it is MY OPINION!
Further more, Because my father was a worker, I know all along where & who started **THE TRUTH**
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2015 5:19:21 GMT -5
Quote - "I know all along where & who started **THE TRUTH**"
Who started the *** TRUTH **** in the bible? I thought it was God dealing with people through the preaching of the Gospel. Some like to say Paul "started it all" and some say Jesus. But that disenfranchises those who knew the *** TRUTH **** in the Old Testament. Dmmichgood there's always **** TRUTH **** even if no-one is found living it.
But yes, Workers hold Authority - that's how it was in the scripture. Workers are to Esteemed highly for their works sake - that's in scripture. But they aint another species, as Bob suggests (ie Homo sapien workus) In the NT some were called into Ministry and some were not. Some not in the Ministry were highly esteemed, and some in the Work were accused of apostasy, treachery or desertion.
I understand those who give the more gain the more. That's my reading of the bible. I didn't write it. I didn't read it in any of Irvine's writings, nor was I inspired by his "example." Many here have been. Have you?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 26, 2015 12:17:34 GMT -5
Just a tid bit of information. One of the reasons St. Augustine was so rigid about sexual matters etc. seems to be a carry over from his days before he became a Catholic. He followed the teachings of Mani. He was a Mandaean who took the rules for living to a whole new level. The group became called the Manichees and they were one of the strictest religious groups I've ever heard of. You couldn't have sex, they ate only fruit and had atone for even doing that. Wasting water was a sin and killing an animal unthinkable. There are some reports that they bathed in their own urine because to bath in the river was to pollute it. They died out, for obvious reasons, but after reading about that it kind of made it more clear why St. Augustine was so rigid, if he had been a follower of Mani before becoming a Catholic. That is very interesting! I didn't know that!
They would have died out like the Shakers did. If you don't reproduce, it is hard to find followers!
Example: How long would the **TRUTH** have continued if the workers had followed their first inclination?
They considered those that didn't go into the work as second class.
The overseer in our state tried to give my father some grief because he left the work & married. Made my mother feel bad as well for "luring" him out even though he had already been out quite awhile before they married.
It was that distinction that also made the workers feel superior & therefore able to give orders & expect them to be obeyed.
However, where would they be now?
Who do they get to profess now except the children of professing families? I doubt I wouldn't lose the bet if I guessed it was less than 50 from the outside in the whole US.
I thought it was interesting that somewhere along the line the Manchees must have realized they would die out because they made it possible for others to marry and have children and harvest the fruit while only the elders or priesthood remained celibate and didn't harvest the fruit, so therefore they were able to atone those who did harvest the fruit they ate and reproduced children to continue the religion. So that's a good set up. In order for you to be saved you must do the work (harvest the food) and you must have the children and we will remain pure and save you from your sins that include feeding us. That mindset has been used by many religions and it fascinates me that the 'layperson' doesn't question it and say 'wait a minute'.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 26, 2015 21:53:55 GMT -5
<abbr class="time" title="Feb 26, 2015 11:17:34 GMT -6" data-timestamp="1424971054000">Feb 26, 2015 11:17:34 GMT -6</abbr> snow said: .
I thought it was interesting that somewhere along the line the Manchees must have realized they would die out because they made it possible for others to marry and have children and harvest the fruit while only the elders or priesthood remained celibate and didn't harvest the fruit, so therefore they were able to atone those who did harvest the fruit they ate and reproduced children to continue the religion. So that's a good set up. In order for you to be saved you must do the work (harvest the food) and you must have the children and we will remain pure and save you from your sins that include feeding us. That mindset has been used by many religions and it fascinates me that the 'layperson' doesn't question it and say 'wait a minute'. I think it was because we all just drank the Koolaide and never asked why.
Of course many people back then had no psychological understanding of group dynamics, -even the ones that used such tactics to get people to listen to them.
The more clever of the priest & shamans just seemed to know how they could manipulate people to get them to listen and do as they were told.
Perhaps it was the other way 'round; -the more clever ones were the ones that became priests & shamans.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 26, 2015 22:26:52 GMT -5
<abbr class="time" title="Feb 26, 2015 11:17:34 GMT -6" data-timestamp="1424971054000">Feb 26, 2015 11:17:34 GMT -6</abbr> snow said: .
I thought it was interesting that somewhere along the line the Manchees must have realized they would die out because they made it possible for others to marry and have children and harvest the fruit while only the elders or priesthood remained celibate and didn't harvest the fruit, so therefore they were able to atone those who did harvest the fruit they ate and reproduced children to continue the religion. So that's a good set up. In order for you to be saved you must do the work (harvest the food) and you must have the children and we will remain pure and save you from your sins that include feeding us. That mindset has been used by many religions and it fascinates me that the 'layperson' doesn't question it and say 'wait a minute'. I think it was because we all just drank the Koolaide and never asked why.
Of course many people back then had no psychological understanding of group dynamics, -even the ones that used such tactics to get people to listen to them.
The more clever of the priest & shamans just seemed to know how they could manipulate people to get them to listen and do as they were told.
Perhaps it was the other way 'round; -the more clever ones were the ones that became priests & shamans.
It also had to do with literacy I think, at least when there began to be written sacred books. Priests had the power over the people to tell them what god wanted because they could read and no one could no any better. Some people do seem to have a knack for just knowing what will work to manipulate people though. I imagine those with that instinct were your first holy men. Ironic though. I don't think it was considered to be a bad thing though. I think they truly were helping and saving the people. Some still do truly believe what they are preaching. It would be interesting to do a survey or poll of preachers and priests to see how many truly believe what they are preaching in this day and age. You'd never be able to do that though. Who would admit it.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 26, 2015 22:38:46 GMT -5
Quote - "I know all along where & who started **THE TRUTH**" Who started the *** TRUTH **** in the bible? I thought it was God dealing with people through the preaching of the Gospel. Some like to say Paul "started it all" and some say Jesus. But that disenfranchises those who knew the *** TRUTH **** inthe Old Testament. Dmmichgood there's always **** TRUTH **** even if no-one is found living it.
But yes, Workers hold Authority - that's how it was in the scripture. Workers are to Esteemed highly for their works sake - that's in scripture. But they aint another species, as Bob suggests (ie Homo sapien workus) In the NT some were called into Ministry and some were not. Some not in the Ministry were highly esteemed, and some in the Work were accused of apostasy, treachery or desertion.
I understand those who give the more gain the more. That's my reading of the bible. I didn't write it. I didn't read it in any of Irvine's writings, nor was I inspired by his "example." Many here have been. Have you? Bert, if you don't understand what I mean by *** TRUTH ****, you simply haven't been in the "fellowship" (as you prefer to it call it these days) or 2x2's (as it is called on this TMB (Truth Meeting Board), -if you don't understand why I call it *** TRUTH **** you haven't been in long enough to know any better.
(TMB is the name of board that you and I are now posting on. It is called TRUTH Meeting Board)
Just how long have you been professing any way?
All the time I was growing up we called it The Truth or The Way.
I really don't even like to call it the 2x2's because it seems derogatory, -a name that outsiders would have called us in a derisive manner. However, since everyone here does seem to know it as that name it does facilitate communication.
Whether you like it or not, Irvine & a few others begin this thing you now call the "fellowship" and it DID NOT go back to the time of Jesus.
It started in Ireland in the late 1800's, early 1900's.
I knew that as a child .
Common reasoning would show it had to have started then.
Can you trace any worker back before that time?
Can you can trace any "worker" who came from any other country besides Ireland or Scotland?
Now, just put that in you pipe & smoke it!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 26, 2015 22:43:51 GMT -5
Yes, when I was in the fellowship it was definitely either referred to as the Truth or the Friends fellowship. The Way was used a bit too, but not as much. It was much later that I heard the group called the 2x2's and it's interesting because I too find it a derogatory term to use for the 'Truth'.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Feb 26, 2015 23:08:50 GMT -5
Yes, when I was in the fellowship it was definitely either referred to as the Truth or the Friends fellowship. The Way was used a bit too, but not as much. It was much later that I heard the group called the 2x2's and it's interesting because I too find it a derogatory term to use for the 'Truth'. I usually use the term 2X2, because I think it has clarity and (IMO) is not too far off neutral. I know that some (mostly older) people may have sensitivity to the term, and I am sorry for that. I know that I personally never mean it in a derogatory sense, so I hope that helps. Occasionally, if I know I am mostly addressing current members, I will use the F&W terminology. Part of the problem is that the term “The Truth” just gets stuck in my throat. There are some things that I simply can’t say anymore.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2015 3:20:08 GMT -5
Quote - "Can you trace any worker back before that time?" We don't keep a history of ourselves. If we did you would use that against us. But here's a nice list of people who went out preaching in the New Testament. It's a good guide for Christian service. Notice how Paul rotated partners every year or so. And his guidance of the younger Worker Timothy is a study in the relationship between senior and younger Workers. Paul and Silas/Silvanus - Acts 15: 40, Acts 16:19.25.29; Acts 17:4,10; Paul and Sosthenes - I Cor. 1:1 ca Paul and Barnabas – Acts 9:27; 11:30; 11:22, 11:25-30; 12:25; 12:25; 13:1; 13:2-4; 15:1-41; 1 Cor 9:6; Gal 2:1,9 Paul and Aristarchus – Acts 20:4; 27:2; Col 4:10; Phlm 1:24 See (Seven) Paul and Mark/Marcus/John Mark – 2 Tim 4:11 Paul and Timotheus - Acts 16:1-3; 16:21; 1 Cor 4:17; 1 Cor 16:10; Phil 1:1; Phil 2:19; Col 1:1; Paul and Secundus – Acts 20:4 Paul and Trophimus – Acts 20:4; Acts 21:29; 2 Tim 4:20 Paul and Sopater - Acts 20:4 see below. Paul and Tychicus - Acts 20:4; Eph 6:21; Col 4:7; 2 Tim 4:12; Tit 3:12 Paul and Demas – Philemon 24; Col 4:14 AD61; 2 Tim 4:10 Paul and Titus - 2 Cor 2:13; 2 Cor 7:6,13; 2 Cor 8:23; Paul and Epaphroditus - Phil 2:25; 4:18 Paul and Luke - 1 Tim 4:11 Simon and Andrew – Gospels, Acts 1:13 James and John – Gospels, Acts 1:13 Philip and Bartholomew (also known as Nathanael?) – Gospels, Acts 1:13 Matthew and Thomas – Gospels, Acts 1:13 James and Simon Zelotes – Gospels, Acts 1:13 Judas and Judas – Gospels, Acts 1:13 Matthias (with unknown disciple) – Acts 1:26 John and Peter - Acts 3:1-4&11; 4:13&19; 8:14; Timotheus and Erastus – Acts 19:22 Gaius and Aristarchus - Acts 19:29 (Paul was present but not a companion) Silas/Silvanus and Timotheus - Acts 17:14,15; Acts 18:5; 2 Cor 1:19; 1 Th 1:1; 2 Th 1:1. Judas and Silas/Silvanus - Acts 15: 22,27,32; Silas/Silvanus and Luke – Acts 16 (with Paul and Timothy) Barnabas and John Mark - Acts 15: 39 Aristarchus and Secundus (Acts 20:4. See Seven) Gaius and Timotheus (Acts 20:4. see Seven) Tychicus and Trophimus (Acts 20:4. See Seven) Peter and Mark - 1 Peter 5:13 Andronicus and Junia - Rom 16:7 John the Baptist’s two sent to Jesus - ?? Tryphena and Tryphosa – Romans 16:12 Urbane and Stachys – Romans 16:9 Titus and unnamed “brother” - 2 Cor 12:18 Judas and Barsabus - Acts 15:22 Euodia and Syntyche – Phil 4:2 Timothy and Mark - 2 Tim 4:11 Paul and Peter - Gal 1:18; 2:3; Paul and Archippus – Philemon 2; Col 4:17 Paul and Epaphras - Col 1:7; Col 4:12; Phlm 1:23 Zenas and Apollos - Titus 3:13 Crispus and Gaius – 1 Cor 1:14 Peter and Barnabas - Gal 2:11-14 Luke and Demas - Col 4:14 Apollos and Cephas - 1 Cor 1:12; 3:22 (Paul is the triple, but he is with Sosthenes) Timotheus and Lucius (2 of 4) Romans 16:21 Jason and Sosipater (2 of 4) Romans 16:21 Phygellus and Hermogenes - 2 Tim 1:15 Two men from Lydda - Acts 9:38 Hymenaeus and Alexander - ? Paul, Silvanus and Timotheus – 2 Cor 1:19, 1 Thes 1:1, 2 Thes 1:1, Gaius, Aristarchus and Paul - Acts 19:29 Stephanus, Fortunatus and Achaicus - 1 Cor 16:17 – having just arrived at Ephesus and may not have been ready to go preaching. Paul, Barnabas and John Mark –Acts 13:1. Mark was an assistant only. Paul, Aristarchus and (supposedly) Luke – Acts 27:2. These men were bundled as prisoners Paul, Barnabas and Titus – Gal 2:1. not as ministry but to attend the Jerusalem Council. James, Cephas, and John – Gal 2:9. part of the Jerusalem Council. The Seventy (on the assumption of being 35 pairs) - Luke 10:1
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 27, 2015 3:45:02 GMT -5
Yes, when I was in the fellowship it was definitely either referred to as the Truth or the Friends fellowship. The Way was used a bit too, but not as much. It was much later that I heard the group called the 2x2's and it's interesting because I too find it a derogatory term to use for the 'Truth'. I usually use the term 2X2, because I think it has clarity and (IMO) is not too far off neutral. I know that some (mostly older) people may have sensitivity to the term, and I am sorry for that. I know that I personally never mean it in a derogatory sense, so I hope that helps. Occasionally, if I know I am mostly addressing current members, I will use the F&W terminology. Part of the problem is that the term “The Truth” just gets stuck in my throat. There are some things that I simply can’t say anymore. I know, there's some things that get stuck in my throat as well!
That is where I put Truth in that fancy wording , ***TRUTH***
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 27, 2015 4:09:46 GMT -5
Quote - "Can you trace any worker back before that time?" We don't keep a history of ourselves. If we did you would use that against us. Sure, and they didn't keep much history & that is probably one of the very reasons the workers didn't keep a history! Get a early list of the workers in the "fellowship."
Here is one:
1900 Alexander, A. 1900 Boles, Ben 1900 Clelland, W. 1900 Gill, Willie 1900 Hardy, John (aka Hardie) 1900 Quinn, Albert 1900 Sullivan, John 1900 Weir, Irvine 1900 Wilson, Mat
Any of those names sound German, French, Italian or any other place in Europe or the world, for that matter!
They are British, Bert, British, - mostly Scottish & Irish.
In my father's hymn book he had penciled on the front end paper some places where the first workers spread out to other countries.
The history is recorded in such small ways, Bert.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Feb 27, 2015 4:17:35 GMT -5
God was obviously interested in tracing history back. Jesus and the apostles names were mentioned many times in the Bible, Bert. So what is wrong with mentioning workers names? I see them written all over lists. Matthew 1 New International Version (NIV) The Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah 1 This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham:
2 Abraham was the father of Isaac,
Isaac the father of Jacob,
Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, 3 Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar,
Perez the father of Hezron,
Hezron the father of Ram, 4 Ram the father of Amminadab,
Amminadab the father of Nahshon,
Nahshon the father of Salmon, 5 Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab,
Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth,
Obed the father of Jesse, 6 and Jesse the father of King David.
David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah’s wife, 7 Solomon the father of Rehoboam,
Rehoboam the father of Abijah,
Abijah the father of Asa, 8 Asa the father of Jehoshaphat,
Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram,
Jehoram the father of Uzziah, 9 Uzziah the father of Jotham,
Jotham the father of Ahaz,
Ahaz the father of Hezekiah, 10 Hezekiah the father of Manasseh,
Manasseh the father of Amon,
Amon the father of Josiah, 11 and Josiah the father of Jeconiah[c] and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.
12 After the exile to Babylon:
Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,
Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel, 13 Zerubbabel the father of Abihud,
Abihud the father of Eliakim,
Eliakim the father of Azor, 14 Azor the father of Zadok,
Zadok the father of Akim,
Akim the father of Elihud, 15 Elihud the father of Eleazar,
Eleazar the father of Matthan,
Matthan the father of Jacob, 16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah. 17 Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Messiah.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2015 4:59:38 GMT -5
The above workers list took me about 100 hours to put together. I am sure others have done this in the past but not sure if anyone in my church would bother. I did it because TMB people USED to say there was no evidence many people went out preaching after Jesus, let alone going 2x2. I don't care if my list is Jewish, Latin or Greek names - what I do care about is that people WERE going out preaching in large numbers. We don't keep a history. People in other generations didn't keep histories when they served God in a scriptural way. But we do know they were there. And even those who wrote the Gospels and Epistles are often unknown. They sought no preeminence. And it was only through the will of God we have their record at all.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 27, 2015 5:43:54 GMT -5
The above workers list took me about 100 hours to put together. I am sure others have done this in the past but not sure if anyone in my church would bother.I did it because TMB people USED to say there was no evidence many people went out preaching after Jesus, let alone going 2x2. I don't care if my list is Jewish, Latin or Greek names - what I do care about is that people WERE going out preaching in large numbers. We don't keep a history. People in other generations didn't keep histories when they served God in a scriptural way. But we do know they were there. And even those who wrote the Gospels and Epistles are often unknown. They sought no preeminence. And it was only through the will of God we have their record at all. If I understand you right your church is what we call here on the TMB the 2x2's or Friends & Workers. Am I correct?
If that is the church you are referring to as your church, I think that you are in a state of denial. Why, I don't know.
Some of us knew the history long before the book The Secret Sect was published.
Some of us know the history of Christianity through the ages and some of us also know the history of the 2x2's
If you don't want to believe us, some of us second & third generations, -no one is forcing you to.
You can continue to deny that we don't know what we are talking about if you like.
However, it can't change what we know.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2015 7:20:16 GMT -5
Some people have their head so deep into stuff like the Secret Sect they had no idea there was a large cadre of men and women in the NT preaching as Jesus preached. This just demonstrated to me they really believed we made all that ministry stuff up ourselves. Certainly D.Parker wants you to believe we made it all up, otherwise he would have done what I did - systematically look up the practices we claim are our inspiration. And not only Parker, there's this emotional and psychological investment in many of his readers to go along with Parker et al. And obviously, people WOULD SAY we made it all up, because (drum roll.....) if we didn't make it up then it must have come from the bible. Thus many are forced into this Irvine position.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 27, 2015 12:37:05 GMT -5
Yes, when I was in the fellowship it was definitely either referred to as the Truth or the Friends fellowship. The Way was used a bit too, but not as much. It was much later that I heard the group called the 2x2's and it's interesting because I too find it a derogatory term to use for the 'Truth'. I usually use the term 2X2, because I think it has clarity and (IMO) is not too far off neutral. I know that some (mostly older) people may have sensitivity to the term, and I am sorry for that. I know that I personally never mean it in a derogatory sense, so I hope that helps. Occasionally, if I know I am mostly addressing current members, I will use the F&W terminology. Part of the problem is that the term “The Truth” just gets stuck in my throat. There are some things that I simply can’t say anymore. I have trouble with the term 'The Truth' too so I sure understand what you mean. I also use 2x2 but like you, don't mean it in a derogatory way but more an identification. The term bothers me though at some level because I notice I have trouble using it also.
|
|