|
Post by Mary on Jul 28, 2015 13:18:51 GMT -5
Night shift, seems as if you are saying leave our church and join yours. Yours is just another one of the 40,000 odd that Nathan refers to. Join another sister of Babylon which you call it.
Another breakaway. Another church. Another sect. Your founder and history of deceiving people into believing this is the true church from Jesus day leaves a lot to be desired. It is only another church started by men. No different from most other churches. After all isn't that what church is? A fellowship of believers so why leave one fellowship and go to another for the sake of it.
|
|
hberry
Senior Member
Posts: 743
|
Post by hberry on Jul 28, 2015 13:43:28 GMT -5
All the Friends know and acknoledge that the "Truth" was brought to the US in 1905. Prior to that I guess everyone in the US was doomed to Hell? Can someone please explain so I can quit worrying about my great great great grandpa... Yes, the friends all know that the truth was brought to the US in 1905. No question about that. When I say "The Truth" I mean the group I belong to. Of course your great great great grandpa could have been saved, if he acknowledge God, the bible, Jesus and all that Jesus stood for. Part of believing in Jesus is to leave false religion, and separate yourself from Babylon and her daughters (the RC Church and the Protestant churches). This has happened many times over the past 2,000 years; in many lands; and it probably going on right now in various places.... apart from 'the Truth.' God isn't limited to the friends and workers. The friends all know.....by this do you mean all the friends you know know that the fellowship came to the US early in the 1900s or that all the friends, worldwide, know this? Because if you believe the latter, you need to come to my neck of the woods (SoCa). Most of the friends I know aren't aware of that fact. And thankfully, you are right: God is not limited to the friends and workers. "Salvation belongs to the Lord."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2015 20:21:23 GMT -5
Night shift, seems as if you are saying leave our church and join yours. Yours is just another one of the 40,000 odd that Nathan refers to. Join another sister of Babylon which you call it. Another breakaway. Another church. Another sect. Your founder and history of deceiving people into believing this is the true church from Jesus day leaves a lot to be desired. It is only another church started by men. No different from most other churches. After all isn't that what church is? A fellowship of believers so why leave one fellowship and go to another for the sake of it. "Night shift, seems as if you are saying leave our church and join yours." No, I'm not saying leave your church, nor saying you should join mine. I'm simply expressing my thoughts.
"Yours is just another one of the 40,000 odd that Nathan refers to. Join another sister of Babylon which you call it." I agree that we are a small group among thousands of groups. But, I do think we are unique, and that we are patterned after the bible. You probably disagree, which is your right.
"Another breakaway. Another church. Another sect. Your founder and history of deceiving people into believing this is the true church from Jesus day leaves a lot to be desired. It is only another church started by men. No different from most other churches. After all isn't that what church is? A fellowship of believers so why leave one fellowship and go to another for the sake of it." Nice. So, your opinion of all sects is that they are just "another breakaway... another church.... another sect.... There's no uniqueness to any of them. None have more truth than the others. None are apostate. One has no advantage over another. And regarding "Your founder and history of deceiving people into believing this is the true church from Jesus day leaves a lot to be desired." Perhaps you are right on this point. But, my observation is that most friends are aware of the history of this group. I can't say for sure how the story of 'this Way going back to the shores Galilee' came about. I do know that the day came when I found out about the truth of the founding of this group, and still kept with it. I didn't get angry about it. I realized that those who told me it was from the beginning honestly believe it themselves. Why would I get angry about that? Your harsh words (and they are harsh) don't shame me at all, nor cause me to wonder whether this is 'the Truth' or not. You really should come to the realization that there is unsavory behavior in every sect out there. We are not exempt to this, any more than anyone else. A mistake was made when someone, somewhere started the implication that This Way started on the shores of Galilee. It's true that this pattern started back then, but the actual group? No. Nathan is right: there have been numerous sects that have popped up over the centuries that have many similarities to the friends and workers. Many of these sects had contact with one another, and influenced one another. It's also true that God is Sovereign, and that He can raise up a man or a woman (or a movement) to do His will... any time, anywhere. I firmly believe that God used the Faith Mission to launch a New Testament-patterned Church for this modern time. Have we failed in some ways? Sure. Just like Abraham failed in some ways with his mission that God assigned to him. Just like Jonah failed along the way to Ninavah (sp?). Just as Peter failed when Jesus was put on trial. We all fail, Mary. No one is perfect. And honestly, no one likes their faults being constantly pointed out, over and over and over again. Everyone on this board is aware that we made a MISTAKE (a sin if it makes you feel better) in perpetuating the idea that this movement is from the Shores of Galilee. However, I wont bow down and grovel about it. I'm going to make the best of what I have, and the best of what I know to be true. I do know this to be true: this actual group may have started with the Faith Mission. Call it a Protestant Off-shoot if you wish. I don't see it that way. I see it as a re-establishment of the New Testament pattern. This group may not go back to the time of Jesus, but this PATTERN DOES.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2015 20:23:38 GMT -5
Yes, the friends all know that the truth was brought to the US in 1905. No question about that. When I say "The Truth" I mean the group I belong to. Of course your great great great grandpa could have been saved, if he acknowledge God, the bible, Jesus and all that Jesus stood for. Part of believing in Jesus is to leave false religion, and separate yourself from Babylon and her daughters (the RC Church and the Protestant churches). This has happened many times over the past 2,000 years; in many lands; and it probably going on right now in various places.... apart from 'the Truth.' God isn't limited to the friends and workers. I'll rephrase: I think that most friends are aware of this fact. If they aren't, then they have their head in the sand. Just last Sunday someone mentioned in Testimony that 'the Truth came to the US in 1905." I don't know about your area or outside the USA. I only know my own experience.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2015 20:48:32 GMT -5
Yes, the friends all know that the truth was brought to the US in 1905. No question about that. When I say "The Truth" I mean the group I belong to. Of course your great great great grandpa could have been saved, if he acknowledge God, the bible, Jesus and all that Jesus stood for. Part of believing in Jesus is to leave false religion, and separate yourself from Babylon and her daughters (the RC Church and the Protestant churches). This has happened many times over the past 2,000 years; in many lands; and it probably going on right now in various places.... apart from 'the Truth.' God isn't limited to the friends and workers. Nightshift, Can you tell us, when did you study about these groups similar to the 2x2 prior to the 1900? Were you born and raised in the 2x2? What is your story if you don't mind telling us a little bit of yourself. Thanks.Nathan, I'd rather not share too much about myself. But, regarding my study about these groups similar to the 2x2 prior to 1900: I once had an affiliation with Anabaptists, and studied them extensively. It's a fact that there have always been groups that refused to bow the knee to Baal, and were willing to face death rather than give up the bible way. Someone here said something about our group not having to face persecution and martyrdom. Well, I personally see some persecution. Martyrdom? Maybe not. But, that doesn't mean the day wont come when that will happen. And I know that most friends and workers would be willing to die for Christ.
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Jul 29, 2015 4:41:02 GMT -5
Night shift, seems as if you are saying leave our church and join yours. Yours is just another one of the 40,000 odd that Nathan refers to. Join another sister of Babylon which you call it. Another breakaway. Another church. Another sect. Your founder and history of deceiving people into believing this is the true church from Jesus day leaves a lot to be desired. It is only another church started by men. No different from most other churches. After all isn't that what church is? A fellowship of believers so why leave one fellowship and go to another for the sake of it. "Night shift, seems as if you are saying leave our church and join yours." No, I'm not saying leave your church, nor saying you should join mine. I'm simply expressing my thoughts.
"Yours is just another one of the 40,000 odd that Nathan refers to. Join another sister of Babylon which you call it." I agree that we are a small group among thousands of groups. But, I do think we are unique, and that we are patterned after the bible. You probably disagree, which is your right.
"Another breakaway. Another church. Another sect. Your founder and history of deceiving people into believing this is the true church from Jesus day leaves a lot to be desired. It is only another church started by men. No different from most other churches. After all isn't that what church is? A fellowship of believers so why leave one fellowship and go to another for the sake of it." Nice. So, your opinion of all sects is that they are just "another breakaway... another church.... another sect.... There's no uniqueness to any of them. None have more truth than the others. None are apostate. One has no advantage over another. And regarding "Your founder and history of deceiving people into believing this is the true church from Jesus day leaves a lot to be desired." Perhaps you are right on this point. But, my observation is that most friends are aware of the history of this group. I can't say for sure how the story of 'this Way going back to the shores Galilee' came about. I do know that the day came when I found out about the truth of the founding of this group, and still kept with it. I didn't get angry about it. I realized that those who told me it was from the beginning honestly believe it themselves. Why would I get angry about that? Your harsh words (and they are harsh) don't shame me at all, nor cause me to wonder whether this is 'the Truth' or not. You really should come to the realization that there is unsavory behavior in every sect out there. We are not exempt to this, any more than anyone else. A mistake was made when someone, somewhere started the implication that This Way started on the shores of Galilee. It's true that this pattern started back then, but the actual group? No. Nathan is right: there have been numerous sects that have popped up over the centuries that have many similarities to the friends and workers. Many of these sects had contact with one another, and influenced one another. It's also true that God is Sovereign, and that He can raise up a man or a woman (or a movement) to do His will... any time, anywhere. I firmly believe that God used the Faith Mission to launch a New Testament-patterned Church for this modern time. Have we failed in some ways? Sure. Just like Abraham failed in some ways with his mission that God assigned to him. Just like Jonah failed along the way to Ninavah (sp?). Just as Peter failed when Jesus was put on trial. We all fail, Mary. No one is perfect. And honestly, no one likes their faults being constantly pointed out, over and over and over again. Everyone on this board is aware that we made a MISTAKE (a sin if it makes you feel better) in perpetuating the idea that this movement is from the Shores of Galilee. However, I wont bow down and grovel about it. I'm going to make the best of what I have, and the best of what I know to be true. I do know this to be true: this actual group may have started with the Faith Mission. Call it a Protestant Off-shoot if you wish. I don't see it that way. I see it as a re-establishment of the New Testament pattern. This group may not go back to the time of Jesus, but this PATTERN DOES.
Cherie has sent me the book about Edward Cooneys life by email, I'm up to chapter 6 and its soooo interesting! But the thing is apparently at the beginning they taught exactly as you have said. That they were reestablishing the way Jesus taught at the beginning. Not saying that the church was from the shores of Galilee! Which is what we have also been told that we have cut out all the add on's and gone back to basics ( that's our meeting anyway) But in reading the book you can see that this is truly what they have intended to do. So their way was to really follow Jesus and walk the life of the apostles and deciples. I thought this (Below) was really interesting, we've said this in our meeting, but I liked the way it was written. It says below about what Edward believed, but from what I've been reading it looks like they all believed like this ......he realized that unless they built on the Rock of revelation, a return to the methods and practices of the New Testament church could result in mere form, a following of the letter, without the control of the Spirit. For, "the letter killeth, but the Spirit liveth life." It was therefore not a question of being imitators of Christ and his sent ones, but rather earthen vessels to whom, in whom, and through whom Christ was revealed. thus gradually and progressively becoming conformed to his image. There was never any doubt in Cooney's mind as to the source of this movement. Its source was God. And I thought that if we all do this, and give our hearts to God, and cut our the added on religious bits. Then aren't we following Jesus from way back 2000 years ago? Loving God, praying to him, giving him our heart, letting Christ in and then being moved by the spirit, living out the gospel. Isn't that reestablishing the true church of God and truly following Jesus? Well I think it is, and I think these men and women were right. And tried to do just that! I know our little meeting are still living by this, as I'm sure are many others. Anyway, I can totally see where they were coming from as to going back to the true way, it was basic and simple. No added frills and traditions, and it came directly from God through Jesus. And that's what we have to follow. Not any religion! That's how I see it anyway!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2015 20:23:41 GMT -5
Quote - "Note in the NT ministry in Acts there was clearly no requirement to go in pairs as in many cases they didn't." I did the graphic below after "studying" the New Testament. I have all the names if you wish.. If you only "studied" Irvine or Parker you would never know this, as turned out to be the case.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2015 20:55:36 GMT -5
"Night shift, seems as if you are saying leave our church and join yours." No, I'm not saying leave your church, nor saying you should join mine. I'm simply expressing my thoughts.
"Yours is just another one of the 40,000 odd that Nathan refers to. Join another sister of Babylon which you call it." I agree that we are a small group among thousands of groups. But, I do think we are unique, and that we are patterned after the bible. You probably disagree, which is your right.
"Another breakaway. Another church. Another sect. Your founder and history of deceiving people into believing this is the true church from Jesus day leaves a lot to be desired. It is only another church started by men. No different from most other churches. After all isn't that what church is? A fellowship of believers so why leave one fellowship and go to another for the sake of it." Nice. So, your opinion of all sects is that they are just "another breakaway... another church.... another sect.... There's no uniqueness to any of them. None have more truth than the others. None are apostate. One has no advantage over another. And regarding "Your founder and history of deceiving people into believing this is the true church from Jesus day leaves a lot to be desired." Perhaps you are right on this point. But, my observation is that most friends are aware of the history of this group. I can't say for sure how the story of 'this Way going back to the shores Galilee' came about. I do know that the day came when I found out about the truth of the founding of this group, and still kept with it. I didn't get angry about it. I realized that those who told me it was from the beginning honestly believe it themselves. Why would I get angry about that? Your harsh words (and they are harsh) don't shame me at all, nor cause me to wonder whether this is 'the Truth' or not. You really should come to the realization that there is unsavory behavior in every sect out there. We are not exempt to this, any more than anyone else. A mistake was made when someone, somewhere started the implication that This Way started on the shores of Galilee. It's true that this pattern started back then, but the actual group? No. Nathan is right: there have been numerous sects that have popped up over the centuries that have many similarities to the friends and workers. Many of these sects had contact with one another, and influenced one another. It's also true that God is Sovereign, and that He can raise up a man or a woman (or a movement) to do His will... any time, anywhere. I firmly believe that God used the Faith Mission to launch a New Testament-patterned Church for this modern time. Have we failed in some ways? Sure. Just like Abraham failed in some ways with his mission that God assigned to him. Just like Jonah failed along the way to Ninavah (sp?). Just as Peter failed when Jesus was put on trial. We all fail, Mary. No one is perfect. And honestly, no one likes their faults being constantly pointed out, over and over and over again. Everyone on this board is aware that we made a MISTAKE (a sin if it makes you feel better) in perpetuating the idea that this movement is from the Shores of Galilee. However, I wont bow down and grovel about it. I'm going to make the best of what I have, and the best of what I know to be true. I do know this to be true: this actual group may have started with the Faith Mission. Call it a Protestant Off-shoot if you wish. I don't see it that way. I see it as a re-establishment of the New Testament pattern. This group may not go back to the time of Jesus, but this PATTERN DOES.
I'm interested in your comment that "this PATTERN DOES". Which pattern are you referring to? Normally, a worker will say that their ministry is the closest to the ministry that Jesus sent out in Matt 10. I've never really understood this at all because when I read the Bible the original Apostles who were sent in pairs: - had authority to drive out impure spirits - had authority to heal every disease and sickness - were to preach but only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel - not the Gentiles - that the Messiah had come - had authority to raise the dead - took no money at all with them - were not to take an extra shirt - were to wear sandals - were to take a staff - were sent out in pairs - presumably they were all about the same age; and - were mostly married (as we learn later) and no doubt had children which was the norm for married folk in that time - had homes (where presumably their families stayed) whilst they were on their mission trip Apart from going out preaching in pairs I don't see any worker fitting this pattern so I'm wondering if there is another pattern that you are referring to? (note in the NT ministry in Acts there was clearly no requirement to go in pairs as in many cases they didn't). Ross, Just a quick reply: Culture clearly plays a role in how a worker operates. The sanndles thing: clearly workers don't generally walk around with sandles and staffs. It would look silly. Logic tells us this. Jesus told the disciples to seek out homes where they would be welcome and cared for. This is what they did, and what they still do. Jesus taught them to not seek after money, but Himself kept money(as did the disciples) with a common purse. So, he didn't expect them to turn down offerings. Re. Demons, healing a eft. This is a separate issue from the ministry, as it Jesus commanded the ministry, but separately GAVE THEM AUTHORITY over demons. He clearly hasn't bestowed heing, tongues, eft. at this time. I personally believe this will be bestowed again in the latter time. Sorry so short a reply but am working night shift and overtime. I'll try to reply more in detail if you raise objections or questions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2015 20:59:05 GMT -5
I'm interested in your comment that "this PATTERN DOES". Which pattern are you referring to? Normally, a worker will say that their ministry is the closest to the ministry that Jesus sent out in Matt 10. I've never really understood this at all because when I read the Bible the original Apostles who were sent in pairs: - had authority to drive out impure spirits - had authority to heal every disease and sickness - were to preach but only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel - not the Gentiles - that the Messiah had come - had authority to raise the dead - took no money at all with them - were not to take an extra shirt - were to wear sandals - were to take a staff - were sent out in pairs - presumably they were all about the same age; and - were mostly married (as we learn later) and no doubt had children which was the norm for married folk in that time - had homes (where presumably their families stayed) whilst they were on their mission trip Apart from going out preaching in pairs I don't see any worker fitting this pattern so I'm wondering if there is another pattern that you are referring to? (note in the NT ministry in Acts there was clearly no requirement to go in pairs as in many cases they didn't). Ross, Just a quick reply: Culture clearly plays a role in how a worker operates. The sanndles thing: clearly workers don't generally walk around with da does and staffs. Logic tells us this. Jesus told the disciples to seek out homes where they would be welcome and cared for. This is what they did, and what they still do. Jesus taught them to not seek after money, but Himself kept money(as did the disciples) with a common purse. So, he didn't expect them to turn down offerings. Re. Demons, healing a eft. This is a separate issue from the ministry, as it Jesus commanded the ministry, but separately GAVE THEM AUTHORITY over demons. He clearly hasn't bestowed heing, tongues, eft. at this time. I personally believe this will be bestowed again in the latter time. Sorry so short a reply but am working night shift and overtime. I'll try to reply more in detail if you raise objections or questions. I almost forgot. Re. preaching to the Gentiles. You know this all changed in Acts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2015 4:05:57 GMT -5
Quote - "A significant number of the original apostles stayed in Jerusalem. They were all together many times after Jesus' resurrection. The notion that they worked 2x2 in Jerusalem holding separate missions is not backed by Scripture."
Yes, there was a Jewish ministry. Headquarter Jerusalem. Overseer James the brother of Jesus (which is kind of amazing) Jesus appeared to a gathering of 500 if I recall, and three times when the Jews gathered in homes.
Quote - "The seven were chosen by the church and a number (possibly all) went out to preach the gospel." I don't recall any evidence for this.
Quote - "Elders appointed in each city had a role to teach/preach the gospel." Not sure about preaching. You will have to name them.
Quote - "In the church at Antioch we read there were many prophets and teachers." Quote - "The NT ministry clearly consisted of apostles, elders, evangelists, prophets, teachers, etc The office of "prophet" and "teacher" isn't defined (that should raise alarm bells) and sometimes names for duties were usurped to create church office.
Quote - "No apostles preached in Antioch and a major Christian church sprang up there - presumably one of the seven went back there and preached after the church was scattered after Stephen's death." Yes, sometimes persecution ruptured the church practices, ie Phillip and the Eunuch. But Phillip didn't continue preaching. He had three daughters who were "prophets" and that is clearly a word for preachers - Gospel preachers evidently unless these girls rejected their father's faith.
Quote - "Even when Paul and Barnabas and later Paul and Silas were together they often had a third missionary with them"
From my notes Triplets – yes 1. Paul, Silvanus and Timotheus – 2 Cor 1:19, 1 Thes 1:1, 2 Thes 1:1, AD 51 2. Gaius, Aristarchus and Paul - Acts 19:29 3. Stephanus, Fortunatus and Achaicus - 1 Cor 16:17 – having just arrived at Ephesus and may not have been ready to go preaching.
Triplets - no • 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.
Quote - "Paul was appointed as the apostle to the Gentiles - the 12 were appointed to the House of Israel for obvious reasons (12 tribes - Revelation 21). Why was only one person appointed as the apostle to the Gentiles - not two? not twelve? The answer is obvious. Paul was appointed as an Overseer. You don't need two Overseers - though it's important that Overseers still went out preaching like anyone else. As they do in my church today. So we read of Paul preaching with a partner clearly eleven times, and possibly another three.
Quote - "I have heard many times that the way workers go out today is exactly the same as it was in the NT - to arrive at this conclusion presumably can only be an exercise in historical revisionism because it doesn't stack up." Do you think modern stay-at-home ministers is what Jesus had in mind?
An unmarried 2x2 ministry is so far removed from what was generally a married ministry which consisted of apostles, evangelists, prophets, elders, teachers etc who went out to preach by themselves, in pairs, in threes, in fours, in sevens and where a whole bunch stayed in Jerusalem.... Was Jesus a prophet, an evangelist, a teacher, an elder, a rabi? Yes.
from notes: Singles – maybe 4. Phillip. Acts 5; 8:26. Sent to Samaria and Gaza. Problem: not mentioned in ministry but fleeing persecution. The eunuch is similarly seen as being alone but likely had company due to the sheer logistics and danger of his journey. 5. Stephen. Acts 6:3. Stephen is mentioned as being chosen by the church to care for widows, but “did great wonders and miracles among the people.”
Singles - no • Ananias. Acts 9:10. Argument from silence and is not determinative. Ananias most likely wouldn’t have traveled alone. Ananias is not called a preacher • Paul. Acts 9:20. Paul began preaching in the synagogues. Unlikely to have been alone. Argument from silence and is not determinative. • Barnabas. Acts 11:22. Barnabas was sent to Antioch to preach. Barnabas then sought Saul at Tarsus and together they preached in Antioch - negating the point. Argument from silence and is not determinative. • Apollos. 1 Cor 16:12. Apollos arriving in Ephesus. Argument from silence and is not determinative.
Four - no • Timotheus, Lucius, Jason, and Sosipater. Rom 16:21 - This could refer to one group of four, but more likely - two pairs. See above “Four possibly” This has been contested.
Five – no • Barnabas, Simeon, Lucius, Manaen and Saul. Acts 13:1. Pastoral duties in Antioch. The Holy Ghost called for Paul and Barnabus to “separate” for the “work.” This suggests the others were not in the “work” at this stage. John Mark also must have been present – indicating an incomplete list. Argument from silence and is not determinative. • Epaphras, Marcus, Aristarchus, Demas, Lucas. Phlm1:24. A greeting list only. Argument from silence and is not determinative.
Seven – no. • Sopater; Aristarchus and Secundus; Gaius and Timotheus; Tychicus and Trophimus. Acts 20:4. Paul and Luke are missing due to lack of context, and the six men are in three pairs, two pairs representing Asia and Thessalonica. Paul said he came “to bring alms to my nation, and offerings.” Acts 24:17. Paul calls Sopater (or Sosipater) his “kinsman.” Like other Pauline references this likely means “my fellow in the work.” These men were selected for the safe conveyance of money to Jerusalem.1 Corinthians 16:3-4 /b]
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2015 4:14:43 GMT -5
Quote - "I've never really understood this at all because when I read the Bible the original Apostles who were sent in pairs:
- had authority to drive out impure spirits - had authority to heal every disease and sickness - were to preach but only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel - not the Gentiles - that the Messiah had come - had authority to raise the dead - took no money at all with them - were not to take an extra shirt - were to wear sandals - were to take a staff - were sent out in pairs - presumably they were all about the same age; and - were mostly married (as we learn later) and no doubt had children which was the norm for married folk in that time - had homes (where presumably their families stayed) whilst they were on their mission trip
I am glad our Workers don't heal sick people. I would only need to go see them if I was sick. Jesus did this physically to symbolized His ability to heal the heart. That's what matters. The other points about sandals etc I call the "donkey argument." ie Jesus rode a donkey (once) therefor His ministers should ride donkeys. Re same age ministers - in the first generation preachers (Gospels) many were same age, and married. Not so later. Paul and the younger Timothy are given to us as a study in the relationship between an elder preacher and a younger - stands to reason, actually. Not that there needs to be explicit doctrine on marriage or age.
Quote - Apart from going out preaching in pairs I don't see any worker fitting this pattern so I'm wondering if there is another pattern that you are referring to? Perhaps you might to comment on the tenured, salaried, grounded, married and vestured ministers?
Quote - "(note in the NT ministry in Acts there was clearly no requirement to go in pairs as in many cases they didn't)." Really? There is commandment to preach in pairs, from Jesus. And this practice continued in the time of the Acts.
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Jul 30, 2015 5:10:54 GMT -5
Quote - "I've never really understood this at all because when I read the Bible the original Apostles who were sent in pairs: - had authority to drive out impure spirits - had authority to heal every disease and sickness - were to preach but only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel - not the Gentiles - that the Messiah had come - had authority to raise the dead - took no money at all with them - were not to take an extra shirt - were to wear sandals - were to take a staff - were sent out in pairs - presumably they were all about the same age; and - were mostly married (as we learn later) and no doubt had children which was the norm for married folk in that time - had homes (where presumably their families stayed) whilst they were on their mission trip I am glad our Workers don't heal sick people. I would only need to go see them if I was sick. Jesus did this physically to symbolized His ability to heal the heart. That's what matters. The other points about sandals etc I call the "donkey argument." ie Jesus rode a donkey (once) therefor His ministers should ride donkeys. Re same age ministers - in the first generation preachers (Gospels) many were same age, and married. Not so later. Paul and the younger Timothy are given to us as a study in the relationship between an elder preacher and a younger - stands to reason, actually. Not that there needs to be explicit doctrine on marriage or age.Quote - Apart from going out preaching in pairs I don't see any worker fitting this pattern so I'm wondering if there is another pattern that you are referring to? Perhaps you might to comment on the tenured, salaried, grounded, married and vestured ministers?Quote - "(note in the NT ministry in Acts there was clearly no requirement to go in pairs as in many cases they didn't)." Really? There is commandment to preach in pairs, from Jesus. And this practice continued in the time of the Acts.Quote: Jesus did this physically to symbolized His ability to heal the heart. That's what matters. Bert, that's exactly it, that's what I believe too! I've been reading this and thinking but, Jesus is talking about his people living it out, preaching the word, bringing Christ to others, and Christ by the spirit is healing us within, healing the heart!
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on Jul 30, 2015 7:27:06 GMT -5
Fixit, Reminds me of the story I was told of a witch doctor, he sent his daughter off to the city, where they had relations, to earn a living as he was getting old and felt he may not be able to provide for her. On her departure he told her one day two people will come to you and tell you about God, please send them to me.........so how did this man know, no bible, no workers, no professing people in his life.........ah the absolute wonder of the Lord God Himself....especially if our spirit would be willing and our flesh maybe not so weak!!!! Ah yes, one of the urban legends of the workers. I'll add this variant to my collection.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2015 7:31:16 GMT -5
Something like this happened with my own relatives many years ago. I wonder if there wasn't a whole generation of people with that expectation?
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on Jul 30, 2015 7:34:15 GMT -5
And why not God Himself, does not the word gospel mean.....God Speaks!!!! The word gospel originates from the meaning of the New Testament Greek word evangelion meaning "good news". (Or the Old Testament "Godspell", meaning the same thing.)
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on Jul 30, 2015 7:36:00 GMT -5
Something like this happened with my own relatives many years ago. I wonder if there wasn't a whole generation of people with that expectation? You have witch doctors in your family?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2015 7:43:12 GMT -5
She believed someday "two would come." When they did, HE met them, but said nothing to her - for some years. When she confronted him eventually he said he never told her because they would take her away from him. Which was silly.
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on Jul 30, 2015 7:51:51 GMT -5
She believed someday "two would come." When they did, HE met them, but said nothing to her - for some years. When she confronted him eventually he said he never told her because they would take her away from him. Which was silly. So she knew they had come but she hadn't been told? Then why she did she confront him? Though yes, I guess it would be hard to believe that a pair hadn't shown up in years. Those JWs and mormons are pretty regular. I'm just amazed that the two that came beat the JWs and Mormons. Just as well, or she would have committed herself unreservedly to them. When the method is more important than the message, I guess it doesn't really matter what they preach or believe - as long as there are two of them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2015 8:04:52 GMT -5
This "method is more important than the message" is used constantly by those who ignore the fact that the method CAME FROM THE MESSENGER. We ought to give it a name... .... the It Doesn't Really Matter Gospel, .... or the Do Your Own Thing Gospel, .... or the If All Ways Lead to God, Make Your Own Gospel.
Method IS quite serious. Every fourth word Jesus uttered related to method, requirements, judgements and threats.
On the point of people waiting for the 2x2 preachers - I have heard those stories from the platform and from friends about their ancestors. ca 1880 was the height of Christianity in English speaking countries. I wonder what the connections are, if any.
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on Jul 30, 2015 8:14:03 GMT -5
You realise there are many two by two ministries? JWs and Mormons among them. Why then the belief that the friends and workers are superior to these other groups with the same method? Because they meet in a home? You'll have to show me where in Scripture that METHOD CAME FROM THE MESSENGER.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2015 8:21:59 GMT -5
No, method didn't come before the Messenger - Method and Message are one. Jesus told them HOW to preach that message.
It's your own big message should you say you will do it your own way.
Jesus wasn't a monk. Jesus wasn't behind high wall and security staff as some men of the cloth live. He went TO people, humble and homeless - with a Message that we should live humbly, righteously because this world is not our home.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2015 11:04:46 GMT -5
Quote - "Note in the NT ministry in Acts there was clearly no requirement to go in pairs as in many cases they didn't." I did the graphic below after "studying" the New Testament. I have all the names if you wish.. If you only "studied" Irvine or Parker you would never know this, as turned out to be the case.
I have seen somewhat more objective studies than this.... A few points: - A significant number of the original apostles stayed in Jerusalem. They were all together many times after Jesus' resurrection. The notion that they worked 2x2 in Jerusalem holding separate missions is not backed by Scripture. - The seven were chosen by the church and a number (possibly all) went out to preach the gospel. - Elders appointed in each city had a role to teach/preach the gospel. - In the church at Antioch we read there were many prophets and teachers. - The NT ministry clearly consisted of apostles, elders, evangelists, prophets, teachers, etc - No apostles preached in Antioch and a major Christian church sprang up there - presumably one of the seven went back there and preached after the church was scattered after Stephen's death. - Even when Paul and Barnabas and later Paul and Silas were together they often had a third missionary with them - Paul was appointed as the apostle to the Gentiles - the 12 were appointed to the House of Israel for obvious reasons (12 tribes - Revelation 21). Why was only one person appointed as the apostle to the Gentiles - not two? not twelve? The answer is obvious. I have heard many times that the way workers go out today is exactly the same as it was in the NT - to arrive at this conclusion presumably can only be an exercise in historical revisionism because it doesn't stack up. An unmarried 2x2 ministry is so far removed from what was generally a married ministry which consisted of apostles, evangelists, prophets, elders, teachers etc who went out to preach by themselves, in pairs, in threes, in fours, in sevens and where a whole bunch stayed in Jerusalem.... Don't get me wrong - I have absolutely no problem with the 2x2 church ministering in the way it does even though I believe it is unhealthy not allowing its ministers to marry. However, to claim that it is the only true ministry on earth because it does it exactly the same way as it was done in the NT strains credibility.... Then there is the message preached which is far more important than the form of the ministry. Do workers preach the gospel as outlined in Romans 3:21-26? Others will have views on this but I can't recall one sermon in over 30 years where justification or being justified was mentioned. I understand why they don't mention it but there have been a number of Christians who have left the 2x2 church and moved to other Christian churches for this reason. It's pretty clear in the bible that the 2x2 pattern continued in the early church. This day and age a worker might be alone for a period of time. Just because they are alone for a time does not invalidate his/her work.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2015 11:08:48 GMT -5
"Night shift, seems as if you are saying leave our church and join yours." No, I'm not saying leave your church, nor saying you should join mine. I'm simply expressing my thoughts.
"Yours is just another one of the 40,000 odd that Nathan refers to. Join another sister of Babylon which you call it." I agree that we are a small group among thousands of groups. But, I do think we are unique, and that we are patterned after the bible. You probably disagree, which is your right.
"Another breakaway. Another church. Another sect. Your founder and history of deceiving people into believing this is the true church from Jesus day leaves a lot to be desired. It is only another church started by men. No different from most other churches. After all isn't that what church is? A fellowship of believers so why leave one fellowship and go to another for the sake of it." Nice. So, your opinion of all sects is that they are just "another breakaway... another church.... another sect.... There's no uniqueness to any of them. None have more truth than the others. None are apostate. One has no advantage over another. And regarding "Your founder and history of deceiving people into believing this is the true church from Jesus day leaves a lot to be desired." Perhaps you are right on this point. But, my observation is that most friends are aware of the history of this group. I can't say for sure how the story of 'this Way going back to the shores Galilee' came about. I do know that the day came when I found out about the truth of the founding of this group, and still kept with it. I didn't get angry about it. I realized that those who told me it was from the beginning honestly believe it themselves. Why would I get angry about that? Your harsh words (and they are harsh) don't shame me at all, nor cause me to wonder whether this is 'the Truth' or not. You really should come to the realization that there is unsavory behavior in every sect out there. We are not exempt to this, any more than anyone else. A mistake was made when someone, somewhere started the implication that This Way started on the shores of Galilee. It's true that this pattern started back then, but the actual group? No. Nathan is right: there have been numerous sects that have popped up over the centuries that have many similarities to the friends and workers. Many of these sects had contact with one another, and influenced one another. It's also true that God is Sovereign, and that He can raise up a man or a woman (or a movement) to do His will... any time, anywhere. I firmly believe that God used the Faith Mission to launch a New Testament-patterned Church for this modern time. Have we failed in some ways? Sure. Just like Abraham failed in some ways with his mission that God assigned to him. Just like Jonah failed along the way to Ninavah (sp?). Just as Peter failed when Jesus was put on trial. We all fail, Mary. No one is perfect. And honestly, no one likes their faults being constantly pointed out, over and over and over again. Everyone on this board is aware that we made a MISTAKE (a sin if it makes you feel better) in perpetuating the idea that this movement is from the Shores of Galilee. However, I wont bow down and grovel about it. I'm going to make the best of what I have, and the best of what I know to be true. I do know this to be true: this actual group may have started with the Faith Mission. Call it a Protestant Off-shoot if you wish. I don't see it that way. I see it as a re-establishment of the New Testament pattern. This group may not go back to the time of Jesus, but this PATTERN DOES.
I'm interested in your comment that "this PATTERN DOES". Which pattern are you referring to? Normally, a worker will say that their ministry is the closest to the ministry that Jesus sent out in Matt 10. I've never really understood this at all because when I read the Bible the original Apostles who were sent in pairs: - had authority to drive out impure spirits - had authority to heal every disease and sickness - were to preach but only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel - not the Gentiles - that the Messiah had come - had authority to raise the dead - took no money at all with them - were not to take an extra shirt - were to wear sandals - were to take a staff - were sent out in pairs - presumably they were all about the same age; and - were mostly married (as we learn later) and no doubt had children which was the norm for married folk in that time - had homes (where presumably their families stayed) whilst they were on their mission trip Apart from going out preaching in pairs I don't see any worker fitting this pattern so I'm wondering if there is another pattern that you are referring to? (note in the NT ministry in Acts there was clearly no requirement to go in pairs as in many cases they didn't). Ross, regarding the unmarried workers. Read Matthew 19:29.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2015 11:13:56 GMT -5
No, method didn't come before the Messenger - Method and Message are one. Jesus told them HOW to preach that message.
It's your own big message should you say you will do it your own way.
Jesus wasn't a monk. Jesus wasn't behind high wall and security staff as some men of the cloth live. He went TO people, humble and homeless - with a Message that we should live humbly, righteously because this world is not our home.
Bert, you present yourself as if you do not believe this for yourself.
Once I believed in separation of "preacher and believer" also, no longer!
My firm conviction now is in the priesthood of all believers. Some point to the fact that 2&2 preacher beliefs work as proof of its correctness. Well, what I believe in also "works!."
Another and I, many many miles apart just exchanged pm's. We believe "as one" though we are so far removed from each other, by age, life's circumstances, even in "spiritual guidance." Those are NOT that which prove to us what we believe is true, for I am certain absolute non-believers could make the same claim.
Plug away on a "Method" for me everlasting life is not in a method, even though it so obviously is for you and others. Trust in a "method" and it WILL fail, the only question is "when?" In my observation over a lifetime, "Methods" begin based upon hypothesis and theories, launched into "experiments."
My perception of what my Lord came to bring to humanity is life, "everlasting life" beginning now, not when one ends this awareness.
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Jul 30, 2015 20:01:46 GMT -5
This "method is more important than the message" is used constantly by those who ignore the fact that the method CAME FROM THE MESSENGER. We ought to give it a name... .... the It Doesn't Really Matter Gospel, .... or the Do Your Own Thing Gospel, .... or the If All Ways Lead to God, Make Your Own Gospel.
Method IS quite serious. Every fourth word Jesus uttered related to method, requirements, judgements and threats.
On the point of people waiting for the 2x2 preachers - I have heard those stories from the platform and from friends about their ancestors. ca 1880 was the height of Christianity in English speaking countries. I wonder what the connections are, if any. Haven't we all heard those stories Bert? How they were waiting for the workers to come, how the workers were in the area and they choose to go to their meetings rather than going to the Church Hall that was supporting the War Effort. They all sound so wonderful !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2015 20:24:08 GMT -5
Quote - "My firm conviction now is in the priesthood of all believers. Some point to the fact that 2&2 preacher beliefs work as proof of its correctness. Well, what I believe in also "works!."
Ever met a Supermarket preacher? You are reaching for that tin of baked beans. Some woman with a loaded trolley and three kids asks you "Do you believe in Jesus?" She's got you cornered.
Casual ministry = casual belief No cost ministry = no worth doctrine Easy come ministry = easy go ministry Denominational ministry = fives, tens and twenties thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jul 30, 2015 23:03:47 GMT -5
Quote - "My firm conviction now is in the priesthood of all believers. Some point to the fact that 2&2 preacher beliefs work as proof of its correctness. Well, what I believe in also "works!." Ever met a Supermarket preacher? You are reaching for that tin of baked beans. Some woman with a loaded trolley and three kids asks you "Do you believe in Jesus?" She's got you cornered.
Casual ministry = casual belief No cost ministry = no worth doctrine Easy come ministry = easy go ministry Denominational ministry = fives, tens and twenties thanks.Cornered in a Supermarket? I have heard 'stories' about how professing women were asked that question because of the bun and dress. Do you think that they felt cornered? How would you react if you were questioned that way? I would say YES, thanks for asking.
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Jul 31, 2015 0:20:01 GMT -5
The RCC claimed the Popes trace their lineage back to Peter. However, they did NOT follow Peter's example as married apostle. They kept their priesthood unmarried like Jesus, Paul, Barnabas, Timothy, Silas, Titus, John Mark, etc... When Martin Luther was a RCC monk he was unmarried AFTER he started the Protestant movement he became a married man. Most of the Protestants ministers today follow Martin Luther's example as married ministers and NOT after the pattern of the RCC unmarried priesthood.
The 2x2 workers follow Jesus example as unmarried preachers of the gospel and NOT following Peter example as a married apostle.
So where does that leave the early married workers Nathan ?
|
|