|
Post by slowtosee on Apr 26, 2015 16:31:59 GMT -5
Very good points, fixit. Interesting, how many times , in revelations, which is, as it states in the opening verse, "THE revelation of Jesus Christ", and "the testimony of Jesus Christ" that Jesus is referred to or refers to Himself as "the beginning and the end." Revelations BEHOLD, HE IS COMING WITH THE CLOUDS, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen. 8"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty." 17When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His right hand on me, saying, "Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, 18and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.… 12"Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done. 13"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." hmmmmmm Lots to ponder. Alvin
ps 16"I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star." 17The Spirit and the bride say, "Come." And let the one who hears say, "Come." And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost. Ponder that in connection with what Jesus asked the Pharisees in Matthew 22:45 "What do you think about the Christ, ? Whose son is he?" and they just didn't know how to answer Him …44'THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, "SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I PUT YOUR ENEMIES BENEATH YOUR FEET "'? 45"If David then calls Him 'Lord,' how is He his son?" 46No one was able to answer Him a word, nor did anyone dare from that day on to ask Him another question.
This forum is not the first time, nor will it be the last, that the question Jesus asked the Pharisees will be debated "What do you think about the Christ? " Alvin
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 26, 2015 17:07:52 GMT -5
The Holy Spirit wasn't added until the Nicene Council in the fourth century. Talk about 'cover-ups'. I went to a well-known Bible school before professing. I was taught the trinity (although I didn't believe the doctrine). However, they never taught the 'development' of the doctrine of the trinity. They didn't 'fess up to the fact that the Holy Spirit wasn't even added until the 4th Century (I believe by a group of monks?) I read the book When Jesus Became God a few years back, and actually got kindof p*s*ed off when I discovered that the Holy Spirit was added 4 centuries after Jesus left this earth. I think it bothered me so much, because even though I didn't believe in the lie of the Trinity, I felt that this well-know Bible School, which represents so-called Fundamentalism, basically covered up the origins of the doctrine of the trinity. One of the main reasons I joined the fellowship is because they deny the trinity. I wouldn't have considered joining if they taught the trinity.
I quite agree with you. Neither was the doctrine of original sin introduced into Christianity until about the same time, yet Christians think it came from Judaism. What Christians don't know about the history of their religion is really astounding. It's not like the history was never available -- people were forbidden to access to it. In this day of information anyone can read about the people who developed Christian theology because they wrote all about it. When Jesus Became God is an great book, but much too professionally presented for Trinitarians to accept.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Apr 26, 2015 18:17:52 GMT -5
Does having a master's degree and being a registered health professional make me a likely candidate to understand professionally presented material? Not necessarily.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2015 18:46:15 GMT -5
Mary, BobWilliston said this. He's speaking of the development of the "Orthodox" Trinitarian formula (doctrine) and how it wasn't 'complete' until the 4th Century A.D., when it was finally decided that the Holy Spirit was a third Person in the 'holy trinity' (Revelation 16:13). I don't have historical proof of this, but it was researched and written about in the book I mentioned above. It's not a theology book per se, but IMO it reads like an historical novel.
Ah right ok thank you, all that stuff is over my head lol. I just read my Bible and pray to God. He let's me know what I'm supposed to know I got hold of "the go preacher movement, an anthology" book today. A person in the meeting thought they had Edward Cooney's life story but they had this. I've also been given a book on Fred woods letters. So I'm going to read them! Apparently we do have a couple of books about Edwards life story lent out to others. So I'm still in the hunt for it! Cherie kindly gave me an online copy but it's hard to read on a phone! Anyway, these should be interesting to read whilst I'm waiting! Some of the books on the movement can be expensive to obtain, if you can even find them at all. Treasure the copies you have floating around your meeting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2015 18:55:57 GMT -5
Talk about 'cover-ups'. I went to a well-known Bible school before professing. I was taught the trinity (although I didn't believe the doctrine). However, they never taught the 'development' of the doctrine of the trinity. They didn't 'fess up to the fact that the Holy Spirit wasn't even added until the 4th Century (I believe by a group of monks?) I read the book When Jesus Became God a few years back, and actually got kindof p*s*ed off when I discovered that the Holy Spirit was added 4 centuries after Jesus left this earth. I think it bothered me so much, because even though I didn't believe in the lie of the Trinity, I felt that this well-know Bible School, which represents so-called Fundamentalism, basically covered up the origins of the doctrine of the trinity. One of the main reasons I joined the fellowship is because they deny the trinity. I wouldn't have considered joining if they taught the trinity.
I quite agree with you. Neither was the doctrine of original sin introduced into Christianity until about the same time, yet Christians think it came from Judaism. What Christians don't know about the history of their religion is really astounding. It's not like the history was never available -- people were forbidden to access to it. In this day of information anyone can read about the people who developed Christian theology because they wrote all about it. When Jesus Became God is an great book, but much too professionally presented for Trinitarians to accept. Bob, I find it ironic that so many people are quick to criticize the fellowship for hiding things (the origin of the movement, etc.) Yet, the "Church" does the same thing with the history of the trinity. I think many would be shocked to lean that the 'secret rapture' is actually a new doctrine too. Wasn't it the Plymouth Brethren who started that one? Anyways, I find it ironic when so many are quick to condemn the fellowship for hiding things, when all people hide things. It's human nature. 2x2s certainly aren't any worse (nor any better) than others when it comes to hiding things and making 'appearances.'
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Apr 26, 2015 19:05:59 GMT -5
I think we have all read and listened to "professionally presented material", that turned out to be pure BS. Whether something is true or not is not dependant on "presentation", although it might makes it more believable and acceptable if it is professionally presented, if that impresses the listener or reader in a favorable way. It can be "dangerous" to assume people know what they are talking about ,if we judge the content of what is being said, merely on the "presentation", professional or not. Some politicians come to mind. BS is BS , no matter who produced it and how well it is presented. Alvin, the Bs, er. ~~~~~~~~~~~ Success at defending bad ideas I’m not proud to admit that I have a degree in Logic and Computation from Carnegie Mellon University. Majoring in logic is not the kind of thing that makes people want to talk to you at parties, or read your essays. But one thing I did learn after years of studying advanced logic theory is that proficiency in argument can easily be used to overpower others, even when you are dead wrong. If you learn a few tricks of logic and debate, you can refute the obvious, and defend the ridiculous. If the people you’re arguing with aren’t as comfortable in the tactics of argument, or aren’t as arrogant as you are, they may even give in and agree with you. The problem with smart people is that they like to be right and sometimes will defend ideas to the death rather than admit they’re wrong. This is bad. scottberkun.com/essays/40-why-smart-people-defend-bad-ideas/
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Apr 26, 2015 19:11:31 GMT -5
Christians have as much access to church doctrine and its origins as non Christians but reading misty's post you would not think it was so.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 26, 2015 19:11:41 GMT -5
I quite agree with you. Neither was the doctrine of original sin introduced into Christianity until about the same time, yet Christians think it came from Judaism. What Christians don't know about the history of their religion is really astounding. It's not like the history was never available -- people were forbidden to access to it. In this day of information anyone can read about the people who developed Christian theology because they wrote all about it. When Jesus Became God is an great book, but much too professionally presented for Trinitarians to accept. Bob, I find it ironic that so many people are quick to criticize the fellowship for hiding things (the origin of the movement, etc.) Yet, the "Church" does the same thing with the history of the trinity. I think many would be shocked to lean that the 'secret rapture' is actually a new doctrine too. Wasn't it the Plymouth Brethren who started that one? Anyways, I find it ironic when so many are quick to condemn the fellowship for hiding things, when all people hide things. It's human nature. 2x2s certainly aren't any worse (nor any better) than others when it comes to hiding things and making 'appearances.'
You are so right. The irony of the whole concept of modern Christianity is that it is anything but "enlightened" -- most people don't have a clue where the whole theology came from, say nothing of the traditions.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 26, 2015 19:15:41 GMT -5
Does having a master's degree and being a registered health professional make me a likely candidate to understand professionally presented material? It's not a guarantee, if that's what you're looking for. Exactly. It's not a professional debate until all sides are professionals -- in the SAME field. A registered health professional is not a religious history professional. Anyway, I wasn't talking about you. I was referring to the bulk of Christian theology.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 26, 2015 19:26:53 GMT -5
Christians have as much access to church doctrine and its origins as non Christians but reading misty's post you would not think it was so. You didn't read Misty's post correctly. The problem is not that Christians have no access to church doctrine -- turn on your TV and you get 24/7 coverage. Misty (and I) are referring to church history and the ORIGINS of church doctrine. The two things you will NOT get from a cleric is accurate church history, and certainly not the origins of church doctrine. The very minute one of them says: "this is what this really means" -- beware. Modern Christianity is the culmination of 2000 years of interpretation, adjustment, imagination, and political maneuvering.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 26, 2015 19:28:37 GMT -5
Anyway, I wasn't talking about you. I was referring to the bulk of Christian theology I'm part of the bulk Then I'll believe you.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Apr 26, 2015 19:29:54 GMT -5
Again, we have as much access to the information as you do. You same to think Christians are robots and do not seek these things out for themselves. Clerics also study church history.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 26, 2015 20:29:03 GMT -5
Again, we have as much access to the information as you do. You same to think Christians are robots and do not seek these things out for themselves. Clerics also study church history. Yes, in fact, you do have the same access as I do. But you'll never get it from a pulpit. Anyway, I'm quite sure (1) you haven't accessed it, and (2) you wouldn't believe it anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Apr 26, 2015 21:40:45 GMT -5
You make baseless assumptions why - just because I have not come to the same conclusion as you have?
I left meetings so does that mean I can think for myself.
Of course if I had left and become an atheist then you would not be making these wild judgements.
You believe what you want, and I will believe what I choose to.
We get plenty of exposure to all kinds of teaching from the pulpit and in our discussion groups. So you can not be sure of anything.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 26, 2015 22:14:11 GMT -5
You make baseless assumptions why - just because I have not come to the same conclusion as you have? I will grant you that I may have been wrong on the first count (though I doubt it), you have fully persuaded me on the second count.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 26, 2015 22:19:38 GMT -5
Talk about 'cover-ups'. I went to a well-known Bible school before professing. I was taught the trinity (although I didn't believe the doctrine). However, they never taught the 'development' of the doctrine of the trinity. They didn't 'fess up to the fact that the Holy Spirit wasn't even added until the 4th Century (I believe by a group of monks?) I read the book When Jesus Became God a few years back, and actually got kindof p*s*ed off when I discovered that the Holy Spirit was added 4 centuries after Jesus left this earth. I think it bothered me so much, because even though I didn't believe in the lie of the Trinity, I felt that this well-know Bible School, which represents so-called Fundamentalism, basically covered up the origins of the doctrine of the trinity. One of the main reasons I joined the fellowship is because they deny the trinity. I wouldn't have considered joining if they taught the trinity.
Eh! The Holy Spirit was added 4 centuries after Jesus left the earth? I'm lost what do you mean? Not precisely. The Holy Spirit was added to the godhead in the fourth century. This is a very well documented event in the development of Western Christianity.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 27, 2015 0:53:02 GMT -5
Access does not assure absorption nor understanding.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 27, 2015 3:01:04 GMT -5
The Holy Spirit wasn't added until the Nicene Council in the fourth century. Talk about 'cover-ups'.
I went to a well-known Bible school before professing.
I was taught the trinity (although I didn't believe the doctrine).
However, they never taught the 'development' of the doctrine of the trinity. They didn't 'fess up to the fact that the Holy Spirit wasn't even added until the 4th Century (I believe by a group of monks?)
I read the book When Jesus Became God a few years back, and actually got kindof p*s*ed off when I discovered that the Holy Spirit was added 4 centuries after Jesus left this earth.
I think it bothered me so much, because even though I didn't believe in the lie of the Trinity, I felt that this well-know Bible School, which represents so-called Fundamentalism, basically covered up the origins of the doctrine of the trinity.
One of the main reasons I joined the fellowship is because they deny the trinity. I wouldn't have considered joining if they taught the trinity.
HI! Just wondered if the school you went to was Moody in Chicago or Wheaten College in IL?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 27, 2015 3:10:07 GMT -5
Hasn't changed in my lifetime, nor my parents. Of course TMB and TTT would tell you that - but they're not telling the whole truth. Think about it - such sites HAVE to show we are no different than any other church. Demonstrating we have "changed" is therefore right up there with Irvine and CSA in their toolkit.There is no doubt that TMB and TTT have vested interests, but I have been born and raised in the fellowship and I personally have seen changes; I am surprised that you have not seen any changes that I have seen over the seventy two years that I have been associated with the fellowship in one way or another. There has obviously been changes and adaptations to fit in with the demands of a modern world, to start with. For example, no more long sleeves, no more hats for women, no more buns, no more push bikes for workers transportation, no more or very little kneeling at pray time, the acceptance and whole sale use of modern technology, computers, cell phones, TVs, radios in vehicles, have I missed anything? Don't forget the black stockings, as in my day! All through WWII, professing women had a hard time finding black stockings. I have seen my mother have to buy the beige ones & then dye them black.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2015 7:21:47 GMT -5
Quote - "Don't forget the black stockings, as in my day! All through WWII, professing women had a hard time finding black stockings. I have seen my mother have to buy the beige ones & then dye them black."
That's about a valid as saying "They must change. I professed under Eisenhower administration and now there's Obama!" Professing people don't dress for the sake of black stockings - they dress to be moderate, respectful and grave (these are words you find in the Epistles) So if black stockings, or suits and ties, or hats or whatever, are considered appropriate for expressing moderation, respect and gravity - then you wear them. If beards are considered respectful then respectful men wear beards. If beards are considered radical hippy stuff then respectful men won't wear a beard. The facial hair changes - the notion of respectfullness doesn't.
Did Jesus, for instance, wear a beard and long hair? I can't say - it would depend on what was considered appropriate in His time and place.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2015 7:29:48 GMT -5
Quote - "Don't forget the black stockings, as in my day! All through WWII, professing women had a hard time finding black stockings. I have seen my mother have to buy the beige ones & then dye them black." That's about a valid as saying "They must change. I professed under Eisenhower administration and now there's Obama!" Professing people don't dress for the sake of black stockings - they dress to be moderate, respectful and grave (these are words you find in the Epistles) So if black stockings, or suits and ties, or hats or whatever, are considered appropriate for expressing moderation, respect and gravity - then you wear them. If beards are considered respectful then respectful men wear beards. If beards are considered radical hippy stuff then respectful men won't wear a beard. The facial hair changes - the notion of respectfullness doesn't.
Did Jesus, for instance, wear a beard and long hair? I can't say - it would depend on what was considered appropriate in His time and place. I'd very much doubt if he had long hair, considering what Paul wrote to the Corinthians: "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?"
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Apr 27, 2015 9:48:30 GMT -5
Quote - "Don't forget the black stockings, as in my day! All through WWII, professing women had a hard time finding black stockings. I have seen my mother have to buy the beige ones & then dye them black." That's about a valid as saying "They must change. I professed under Eisenhower administration and now there's Obama!" Professing people don't dress for the sake of black stockings - they dress to be moderate, respectful and grave (these are words you find in the Epistles) So if black stockings, or suits and ties, or hats or whatever, are considered appropriate for expressing moderation, respect and gravity - then you wear them. If beards are considered respectful then respectful men wear beards. If beards are considered radical hippy stuff then respectful men won't wear a beard. The facial hair changes - the notion of respectfullness doesn't.
Did Jesus, for instance, wear a beard and long hair? I can't say - it would depend on what was considered appropriate in His time and place. I'd very much doubt if he had long hair, considering what Paul wrote to the Corinthians: "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" I've always thought this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 27, 2015 11:26:48 GMT -5
All this and some of us were rebuked in another thread for straying from the topic of the original post!
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Apr 27, 2015 11:29:35 GMT -5
I'd very much doubt if he had long hair, considering what Paul wrote to the Corinthians: "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" I've always thought this. I've always thought that it depends on what part of nature one looks to for the lesson! Think of the male lion, the male peacock, the male turkey...
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Apr 27, 2015 11:31:37 GMT -5
Bob: Could you provide some books documenting this? My google search pulled up mostly trinity and info re HS. Thanx CK
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 27, 2015 22:40:40 GMT -5
Quote - "Don't forget the black stockings, as in my day! All through WWII, professing women had a hard time finding black stockings. I have seen my mother have to buy the beige ones & then dye them black." That's about a valid as saying "They must change. I professed under Eisenhower administration and now there's Obama!" Professing people don't dress for the sake of black stockings - they dress to be moderate, respectful and grave (these are words you find in the Epistles) So if black stockings, or suits and ties, or hats or whatever, are considered appropriate for expressing moderation, respect and gravity - then you wear them. If beards are considered respectful then respectful men wear beards. If beards are considered radical hippy stuff then respectful men won't wear a beard. The facial hair changes - the notion of respectfullness doesn't.
Did Jesus, for instance, wear a beard and long hair? I can't say - it would depend on what was considered appropriate in His time and place. I'd very much doubt if he had long hair, considering what Paul wrote to the Corinthians: "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" Paul was a Greek -- and there the men cut their hair - originally on order of Alexander the Great. Jesus was a Palestinian Jew, and beards and long hair was the modesty for men there, as with all the other men in the OT with beards and dread of having their hair cut off because it made them lose their strength -- Remember Sampson.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 27, 2015 22:50:44 GMT -5
Quote - "Don't forget the black stockings, as in my day! All through WWII, professing women had a hard time finding black stockings. I have seen my mother have to buy the beige ones & then dye them black." That's about a valid as saying "They must change. I professed under Eisenhower administration and now there's Obama!" Professing people don't dress for the sake of black stockings - they dress to be moderate, respectful and grave (these are words you find in the Epistles) So if black stockings, or suits and ties, or hats or whatever, are considered appropriate for expressing moderation, respect and gravity - then you wear them. If beards are considered respectful then respectful men wear beards. If beards are considered radical hippy stuff then respectful men won't wear a beard. The facial hair changes - the notion of respectfullness doesn't.
Did Jesus, for instance, wear a beard and long hair? I can't say - it would depend on what was considered appropriate in His time and place. And, Bert, you know darn well what would happen to a woman who showed up in meeting with anything but black stockings in those days. And if you don't, you should have been paying attention. I agree with your concept of modesty -- you should recognize, for the sake of all those affected by this ridiculous standard, that it actually worked the way they say it did. My mother, and many others, had to stop wearing black stockings during the war because they could no longer order them from a supplier in the US. And we have workers today who have just as strict and unreasonable expectations of women's dress as they had back then -- I've discussed the matter with some of them and one worker insisted that how a sister worker dressed for going to winter special meetings was perfectly appropriate for any women on the ski slopes. They're not all like that, thankfully. I talked to another older brother worker who told the sister workers that if they had to wade in snow they had to wear pants.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 27, 2015 22:51:56 GMT -5
All this and some of us were rebuked in another thread for straying from the topic of the original post! George Walker did have things to say about black stockings, BTW.
|
|