Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2015 14:15:16 GMT -5
One older worker after a trip to the orient returned to tell and preach about the child who was attending meetings, who got a ride from a preacher. He visited with the child long enough to perceive the child believed "Christians were Pharisees."
So, reportedly he asked the child "do you think I am a Pharisee also?"
To which the child reportedly told him, " oh no, you are a false prophet."
What I wondered was "where did such an account originate?"
No, in those days I did not have the courage necessary to raise the question. I heard the account later told and retold, with "out of the mouth of babes" being frequently added. Didn't completely believe the account then as true, even less now.
Usually, from what I have observed, there is just enough truth in such an account to give it credibility, then fiction begins. We humans being what we are frequently respond to such fiction like fish to bait/lure.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 27, 2015 15:23:08 GMT -5
Jesse, did you know before you was a teenager that the "Truth" was brought to the USA in 1905" or was it that you also wondered, as many of us did, if everyone who wasn't in the **TRUTH** were doomed to Hell?
Because I'm sure many of us wondered if those outside the **TRUTH**were "saved" before we ever knew that the "Truth was brought to the USA in 1905"
They are two different questions & not dependent on one another. I knew the workers had come to the USA in the early 1900s, I knew that without asking questions. It was obvious from simply listening to conversations. My question was, "what about all the people who lived in the USA before the workers came?" The answer was that I was not to worry about those people, that anyone at any time could have a conversation with God and be saved, just like the thief on the cross. So I tried to not be someone who walks down the street and wonders about everyone's state of salvation. Like I recently posted I try to treat others as if they are just as saved as I think I am. That brings a lot of peace and freedom in interactions with others. I think that's how a Christian should live. My wife and I talked about that yesterday morning, and she agreed. And she lives it - which might be why the local Lutheran minister told her he considered her a "prayer warrior". I looked to see how old you are & see you are one year older than my first child who was born in 1961. So I am beginning to understand how at that age you may have well heard people talking about when the workers came to the USA.
Understand that those of us in the previous years NEVER heard anything about those events. Therefore many people in the **TRUTH** simply did not know that. I would venture to say that probably most all believed that the * *TRUTH** went all the way back to the original apostles .
Someone I knew told the draft board during the WWII that the **TRUTH** probably started about 1900. He simply knew from history that it would have been impossible for the **TRUTH** to have survived all that time. (he was one of the few in the 2x2's who even went to high school at that time) Then on the way home he felt as if he had "betrayed" the **TRUTH!** Never-the-less, he had been right!
Otherwise, most people just believed without questioning or if they questioned they did not get any factual statement; just some vague statement such as "going out as Jesus sent the apostles."
Call us trusting, naive, dumb; -whatever that was the way it was.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jul 27, 2015 15:25:22 GMT -5
One older worker after a trip to the orient returned to tell and preach about the child who was attending meetings, who got a ride from a preacher. He visited with the child long enough to perceive the child believed "Christians were Pharisees."
So, reportedly he asked the child "do you think I am a Pharisee also?"
To which the child reportedly told him, " oh no, you are a false prophet."
What I wondered was "where did such an account originate?"
No, in those days I did not have the courage necessary to raise the question. I heard the account later told and retold, with "out of the mouth of babes" being frequently added. Didn't completely believe the account then as true, even less now.
Usually, from what I have observed, there is just enough truth in such an account to give it credibility, then fiction begins. We humans being what we are frequently respond to such fiction like fish to bait/lure. Do you consider your accounts subject to your observations? If not how are they different?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jul 27, 2015 15:34:22 GMT -5
I looked to see how old you are & see you are one year older than my first child who was born in 1961. So I am beginning to understand how at that age you may have well heard people talking about when the workers came to the USA.
Understand that those of us in the previous years NEVER heard anything about those events. Therefore many people in the **TRUTH** simply did not know that. I would venture to say that probably most all believed that the * *TRUTH** went all the way back to the original apostles . Not necessarily true DMG. I know people from the generation previous to mine knew what I knew - it was the older generation I was listening to. It was from what they said I concluded the workers were not in the US until the early 1900s. It was so obvious that even at a young age I didn't have to ask.
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Jul 27, 2015 15:38:42 GMT -5
Not just "Friends and Workers". Everyone should be pointing to Jesus. Hopefully that's what you meant. That's what I love about my church: the pastors all point to Christ, and just to Christ, and that keeps the congregation centered on Christ alone for their salvation. I've learned some wonderful new hymns too which exalt Christ. We're having a hymn sing at our house Friday night....come on up if you can JD! Thanks for the invite Hberry. Leaving Friday on vacation with the fam .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2015 15:40:29 GMT -5
Another question loaded with bias which I consider in the category of "have you quit beating your wife yet?"
No matter how I answer it will be judged by the questioner as my other comments, therefore I have no compulsion to even try to answer. Age, education, knowledge and experience simply gets no consideration in such forums as this. It is best for one to just recognize that early on probably.
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Jul 27, 2015 15:42:48 GMT -5
Not just "Friends and Workers". Everyone should be pointing to Jesus. Hopefully that's what you meant. Yes, when WE all "point people to follow Jesus Truth and Way" then there will less 40,000 plus denominations out there.Thats the way it should be, shouldn't it Nathan. No one excluding anyone (We leave that to God). We are all united in Christ.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jul 27, 2015 15:52:15 GMT -5
Another question loaded with bias which I consider in the category of "have you quit beating your wife yet?"
No matter how I answer it will be judged by the questioner as my other comments, therefore I have no compulsion to even try to answer. Age, education, knowledge and experience simply gets no consideration in such forums as this. It is best for one to just recognize that early on probably. It shouldn't be a problem to measure yourself by the statements you make. If there is a problem with it, it's not my problem, you made the statement. It might help if you quote the post your post was referring to. Then none of us would have to guess.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 27, 2015 16:07:20 GMT -5
I looked to see how old you are & see you are one year older than my first child who was born in 1961. So I am beginning to understand how at that age you may have well heard people talking about when the workers came to the USA.
Understand that those of us in the previous years NEVER heard anything about those events. Therefore many people in the **TRUTH** simply did not know that. I would venture to s ay that probably most all believed that the * *TRUTH** went all the way back to the original apostles . Not necessarily true DMG. I know people from the generation previous to mine knew what I knew - it was the older generation I was listening to. It was from what they said I concluded the workers were not in the US until the early 1900s. It was so obvious that even at a young age I didn't have to ask. What was obvious?That the workers came to this country at a certain date?
Did you also know that they came from Ireland? Did you also that was where the **TRUTH** OR **THE WAY** (AS WE CALLED IT) begin at the end of the 1800's or beginning of the 1900's?
How much did you know?
Because I knew young workers who went out to preach in the USA and didn't know those things! They were devastated when they first learned of it!
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jul 27, 2015 16:33:20 GMT -5
I understand and believe that there were friends and workers that didn't know anything about "the history" or thought about "the history". But there were those who did. What was obvious to me just from listening and observing at a young age was that there had been only one generation of workers in the US, and that they arrived in the early 1900s. That is what prompted me to wonder, then ask, what about all the people before that time? I didn't know the exact time of 1897 until there was a hot-off-the-press copy of The Secret Sect in our house. That would have been in the early 80s when it was first published. Nothing in it surprised me, it didn't seem to matter much. For one thing we knew an older lady who was part of a fellowship like the friends and workers as a young girl in the country she immigrated from. She didn't profess in the US until she met workers and friends - she always said it was the same as what she knew as a young girl, which would have been prior to 1897. It seems similar to bert's relatives in a home meeting in LA California in the 1880s. There isn't a lot of history or documentation about what influenced the early workers. Consider The History of the Christian Church published in 1879 If you start on -> page 309 you can read what Blackburn says about home based fellowships. I wouldn't be surprised the reformers in the late 1800s including the early workers read this book and many others like it. Obviously from the few linked pages of The History of the Christian Church alone the idea of going two and two and meetings in homes didn't originate with Irvine like some imply. For whatever it's worth I don't doubt there were home churches and homless ministers from Acts until today. The book is very interesting in that it covers some of the history of how many were killed in that time frame because they were heretics, in fact at one point "laymen" couldn't even posses a Bible, that alone was grounds for torture and death (page 309). People ought to read books like this so they get an idea how dark the dark ages really were. This is history that's getting lost. Read the whole chapter starting on -> page 301 and covers the years 1085-1350. You can easily understand why little history of anything but Catholic history survived those and subsequent years.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2015 16:37:41 GMT -5
DMG, I can attest to the truth of your statement of how many workers felt upon hearing the history of their "fellowship." I can remember begging workers to "come clean" about it, and when faced with unanswerable questions just freely admit: "because that is just the way we chose to do it (or believe.) We chose it because we believe it more closely follows what existed in the N.T.
But no, they prefer even yet from what I perceive true to publicly evade, equivocate about such issues. Of course, as a 72 year old excommunicate, nothing I express now can penetrate their belief structure erected by years of worker dominated instruction. There are even posters here who reveal this mindset yet.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Jul 27, 2015 16:57:26 GMT -5
DMG, I can attest to the truth of your statement of how many workers felt upon hearing the history of their "fellowship." I can remember begging workers to "come clean" about it, and when faced with unanswerable questions just freely admit: "because that is just the way we chose to do it (or believe.) We chose it because we believe it more closely follows what existed in the N.T.
But no, they prefer even yet from what I perceive true to publicly evade, equivocate about such issues. "But no, they prefer even yet from what I perceive true to publicly evade, equivocate about such issues." This is in reference to workers? "their belief structure erected by years of worker dominated instruction. There are even posters here who reveal this mindset yet." Who is this referring to?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 27, 2015 19:16:04 GMT -5
Read the very beginning of our New Testament. Mat 1:1...The entire first chapter just goes over the Genioligy - connecting Christ back to David, and talks about the connection all the way back to Abraham. In light of this, why would we not just be honest with our own history. I would not have any problem knowing where the church found it's first days as a group. They could easily said that we saw the other churches not living like Jesus did and we decided that we would try to form a group that adhered as closely as possible to that format. I don't think anyone would have seen anything wrong with that and possibly it would have drawn people to the church because it was trying to be a living model of how Jesus sent out his apostles and disciples. But when they leave most everyone with the belief that there have been workers in a steady consistent line directly back to the days of Jesus, then people find out this isn't true, people are going to feel betrayed and lied to. I still can't figure out why they did that. I personally would not have been bothered at all with knowing when it formed and who formed it and even as a non believer I often thought the way the group was set up was a good way of doing it. I am sure if I believed in God I would still be in the group. I thought the format made sense. They lost a lot of people when it became known and it was totally unnecessary imo.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2015 19:20:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 27, 2015 21:06:48 GMT -5
I understand and believe that there were friends and workers that didn't know anything about "the history" or thought about "the history". But there were those who did. What was obvious to me just from listening and observing at a young age was that there had been only one generation of workers in the US, and that they arrived in the early 1900s. That is what prompted me to wonder, then ask, what about all the people before that time? I didn't know the exact time of 1897 until there was a hot-off-the-press copy of The Secret Sect in our house. That would have been in the early 80s when it was first published. Nothing in it surprised me, it didn't seem to matter much. For one thing we knew an older lady who was part of a fellowship like the friends and workers as a young girl in the country she immigrated from. She didn't profess in the US until she met workers and friends - she always said it was the same as what she knew as a young girl, which would have been prior to 1897. It seems similar to bert's relatives in a home meeting in LA California in the 1880s. There isn't a lot of history or documentation about what influenced the early workers. Consider The History of the Christian Church published in 1879 If you start on -> page 309 you can read what Blackburn says about home based fellowships. I wouldn't be surprised the reformers in the late 1800s including the early workers read this book and many others like it. Obviously from the few linked pages of The History of the Christian Church alone the idea of going two and two and meetings in homes didn't originate with Irvine like some imply. For whatever it's worth I don't doubt there were home churches and homless ministers from Acts until today. The book is very interesting in that it covers some of the history of how many were killed in that time frame because they were heretics, in fact at one point "laymen" couldn't even posses a Bible, that alone was grounds for torture and death (page 309). People ought to read books like this so they get an idea how dark the dark ages really were. This is history that's getting lost. Read the whole chapter starting on -> page 301 and covers the years 1085-1350. You can easily understand why little history of anything but Catholic history survived those and subsequent years. I maintain, Jesse, that there were far more that DIDN'T KNOW the history and the ones that did know kept quiet about it and for a reason.
I knew vaguely, because I heard my father talking to my mother when I was quite young. However, my own brother younger that me DID NOT know & when he found out was so upset that he wouldn't believe it even though it was his own mother telling him!
It may not have mattered much to you, but to a lot of people Parker's book was a complete surprise! Why did the workers tell people to "burn" the book?
It was the time they should have to come out! Of course they finally had to do so but with their own twist of course.
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Jul 27, 2015 21:20:16 GMT -5
Quote - "Bert, do you have any relatives from Ireland, that came to Australia in the early years ?" We have relatives from all over the world. Yes, even Ireland - strong Irish actually.So did any of those Irish ancestors have any connection to "The Truth" before coming to Australia ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2015 21:40:18 GMT -5
Depends on what you mean by connection. We ALL have "connections" to that church. But certainly, no blood connections.
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Jul 27, 2015 21:41:23 GMT -5
That's not strictly true Dmmichgood. Lots knew about that early stuff. I grew up with people who knew these guys.
But like these old people, I don't like answering the questions if I perceive the questioner is looking for excuse.
My cartoon sums it up perfectly. So Bert, if you believe a "lot knew" how do you account for the people today that are professing that still are not aware of who William Irvine was ?
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Jul 27, 2015 21:43:10 GMT -5
Depends on what you mean by connection. We ALL have "connections" to that church. But certainly, no blood connections. I take it you are speaking about yourself when you say you have no blood connections, to those in Ireland who were alive in Irvine's day ?
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Jul 27, 2015 21:44:00 GMT -5
Bert seems like you live in southern parts where Cooney ended up, which may explain why you heard somewhat about him. I didn't grow up in that area and I think I can speak for my contempories when I say we never heard of Cooney or the term Cooneyites. I came across the term when I left home and when I asked someone who ought have known they were quite vague saying they didn't know much about him other than he was a worker who 'went bad', and that we weren't Cooneyites. I was over 50yrs old before I got to Irvine's name (online), but the beginnings never concerned me as I believe I had 'smelled a rat' long before. By this time I'd had some experiences with the ministry which destroyed a fair bit of trust. I agree Fred, my great great, grandmother professed in the Northern Rivers area of NSW in about 1912, my grandmother who is 101 and still alive, never ever mentioned Cooney or Irvine, the first time I was aware of the name Cooney was in Victoria, when I was young (late 70's) when we were in an area where there were still people following Cooney. Did you read this Bert ?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 27, 2015 23:04:17 GMT -5
That's not strictly true Dmmichgood. Lots knew about that early stuff. I grew up with people who knew these guys.
Using some of your own signature phrases, Bert:
"Ever notice the key to those defending the F&W's always seem to be a denial that most people in the F&W's did not know the beginnings? Truth is Truth, If your beliefs ALWAYS coincide with current worker's stance, then you not are thinking for yourself."
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Jul 28, 2015 20:06:43 GMT -5
Depends on what you mean by connection. We ALL have "connections" to that church. But certainly, no blood connections. I take it you are speaking about yourself when you say you have no blood connections, to those in Ireland who were alive in Irvine's day ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2015 20:23:53 GMT -5
Our connection to Cooney lies in knowing the people who knew him for various reasons. We don't talk much about the guy because we don't talk about anyone who's an embarrassment. Same rule applies with some our of our family members too. You don't like being connected to difficult people - you feel it's rubbing off onto you. Having said that I must have met him, sometime.
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Jul 28, 2015 20:29:44 GMT -5
Our connection to Cooney lies in knowing the people who knew him for various reasons. We don't talk much about the guy because we don't talk about anyone who's an embarrassment. Same rule applies with some our of our family members too. You don't like being connected to difficult people - you feel it's rubbing off onto you. Having said that I must have met him, sometime. So you had no family in Ireland when Cooney or Irvine first started out ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2015 20:43:37 GMT -5
You have to define "family" - we do have "family" in Ireland but they aren't close family. I have lots of this stuff in old diaries, but can't remember the who's and when's. Sorry for being vague. I am planning to go to Ireland soon, so will have to drag all these notes and figure who is who. Wouldn't it be awful if I was related to Irvine!
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Jul 28, 2015 20:53:38 GMT -5
Yes it would be Bert ! But he was from Scotland anyway ! I meant close family, my son's great grandfather came out from Ireland in 1924 his sister was in the work in Ireland, and his parents professing & knew Irvine & Cooney.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2015 21:05:57 GMT -5
That's worse - we have Scottish family as well.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Jul 28, 2015 21:28:09 GMT -5
You don't like being connected to difficult people - you feel it's rubbing off onto you. You know, when I was a 2X2, this was very very true. Now that I am no longer one, it's not so true. Why? I'll have to think about it.
|
|