|
Post by Admin on Apr 28, 2023 20:07:45 GMT -5
This thread is for a compilation of false teachings and beliefs within the meeting fellowship.
This issue is vitally important. It's important in regards to the current mess (CSA, SA, worker-abuse, money issues). It's important because people think they'll go to hell if they disobey some of these false teachings.
(False being not scripturally supported)
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 28, 2023 20:11:45 GMT -5
I've been in many tested meetings. The workers make it clear the professing means you want acknowledge that this is the true ministry and you want to follow Jesus in this way. It's commonly said that professing is you accepting the workers. Baptism is the workers accepting you. Obviously, you need to bring forth the fruits meet for repentance before you will be accepted and allowed to take that step A worker I knew from Alberta used to say that. i.e. "professing is you accepting the workers. Baptism is the workers accepting you."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2023 20:57:12 GMT -5
There are several verses that can blanket a lot of situations or "rules"...
Here is a handy one: Rom_12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
|
|
|
Post by luke2236 on Apr 28, 2023 21:28:33 GMT -5
Jesus is the Way, The Truth, and The Life.
2x2 core doctrine is that they are the true followers of Jesus because the ministry setup is similar to the way that Jesus sent the ministers to the Jews except the workers don’t let people get married and Jesus did.
This theory held more weight when they lied from the 1900s-1990s that they were part of the original chain of apostles that could be connected to Christ so they were the only people that could bring salvation to people, and if you leave their way you are going to hell.
After they got caught in their lie they changed their message to an Old Testament to New Testament story and how suddenly Gods way just started up after being dormant for 500 years, just like it suddenly started up when that William Irvine has the revelation to keep it going but regardless Gods way remains the same!
So they hold the only keys to The Way, The Truth, and The Life, if you leave them you leave the Way The Truth and The Life and are headed for hell.
They say they don’t have a name but refer to themselves as The Way or Truth. Their goal is to.make people think they discovered this by revaluation but by calling the way The Way and the truth The Truth they can say they never meant to say that and that must from God that you came up with that. Now many people try to refer to the true Ministry as the differentiator quite a bit. When you say you are supposed to follow Jesus, the retort is absolutely we are following Jesus with the ministry or the way that Jesus setup!!!!
This doctrine refers to worldly churches as being wrong, hirelings, and false prophets.
Testimonies in meetings reinforce the thankfulness for the true way and thankfulness that we aren’t like other churches.
People who leave meeting are called lost sheep or they lost out or quit professing (Aka destined for hell)
We learn what’s wrong with most denominations
Long story short this wrong doctrine makes people think it they are abused they can’t leave The Way because they will go to hell. And when we try to go to another church we assume something is wrong with it because we know so many verses that prove they are wrong and many times standing on street corners to be seen or men when they do that crazy worshiping.
How does this relate to abuse? If your saviors key holder is hiding your abuser you have no where to go but stay in meeting hell or eternal hell.
|
|
|
Post by luke2236 on Apr 28, 2023 21:51:08 GMT -5
How do I explain an example of how other ways are judged….
Sheep: I have a friend who is a Baptist and they are really nice. What do Baptists believe?
Worker/Friend: Well a lot of “good” people will go to hell. They believe once saved always saved so they have a license to sin and Faith without works is dead and you can be given to a reprobate mind.
Plus they meet in buildings and their preachers are paid and they ask for money.
Sheep oh! Wow! Those poor lost souls! I’ll invite them to a gospel meeting.
|
|
|
Post by openingact34 on Apr 28, 2023 22:17:17 GMT -5
John MacArthur, who is listed as the top recommended pastor on Cherie's website (https://ex2x2.info/2020/11/14/christian-radio-websites-tv-programs/), has this succinct summary:
"Perhaps women pastors and women preachers are the most obvious evidence of churches rebelling against the Bible ... Women who pastor, women who preach in a church are a DISGRACE. And they openly reflect opposition to the clear command of the word of God" - Pastor John MacArthur
The atheists on the internet are pushing for sister workers to have more power, more rights, and even to become overseers! This feminism is hailed as a solution to clean up the current abuse mess.
But I imagine Pastor John and other mainstream Christians would point out that sister workers wouldn't be getting assaulted if sister workers didn't exist in rebellion against the Lord. To Admin's point, they would argue out that the false doctrine is causing the problem.
Key points of false doctrine include: 1) women speaking in church (taking part) 2) presence of female preachers (sister workers) 3) female workers usurping authority over male members 4) general lack of subjection by females
Do these align with the word of God? It seems so...
1 Timothy 2: "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety."
1 Corinthian 14: "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."
|
|
|
Post by deepdeep on Apr 28, 2023 23:07:52 GMT -5
How do doctrinal issues get adjudicated? I mean, ultimately there is some holy text that is subject to literary interpretation. It's not like it's testable scientifically so opinions can always differ.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 28, 2023 23:37:01 GMT -5
How do doctrinal issues get adjudicated? I mean, ultimately there is some holy text that is subject to literary interpretation. It's not like it's testable scientifically so opinions can always differ. Yes, fair comment. That is not the purpose of this thread (nor for arguing for or against women in ministry). I think most bible-believing Christians on TMB know what is the purpose here. Wider discussion on the minutiae of biblical doctrine (or women in ministry) can have threads of their own, if necessary. Posts on here that fit better elsewhere will be moved 'elsewhere' (the admin team can be the adjudicators in absence of the inviolable proofs, as you rightly say ). Regarding the role of women in ministry, let God tell us. If those believers here have heard even just one helpful inspired sermon from a woman in ministry (either 2x2 or any other ministry), then that settles the question. They have a role. Even if you are hard-line (pretty 'hard', actually) like maybe John MacArthur above, you would surely accept women ministering to women (and children) is proper. For me, I have the personal proof that God speaks through women in ministry to all of us. Our culture is very different from 2000 years ago. We can see where male domination over all those years has got us, even right this very time! Jesus in the culture he lived amongst treated women impeccably, total respect, in agreement with what the Holy Spirit said in scripture "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Apr 29, 2023 0:02:44 GMT -5
How do I explain an example of how other ways are judged…. Sheep: I have a friend who is a Baptist and they are really nice. What do Baptists believe? Worker/Friend: Well a lot of “good” people will go to hell. They believe once saved always saved so they have a license to sin and Faith without works is dead and you can be given to a reprobate mind. Plus they meet in buildings and their preachers are paid and they ask for money. Sheep oh! Wow! Those poor lost souls! I’ll invite them to a gospel meeting. That is where people in meetings are wrong. Paul clearly said that God's grace does not give us a license to sin and Baptists do not believe it does either.
|
|
|
Post by luke2236 on Apr 29, 2023 13:43:05 GMT -5
How do I explain an example of how other ways are judged…. Sheep: I have a friend who is a Baptist and they are really nice. What do Baptists believe? Worker/Friend: Well a lot of “good” people will go to hell. They believe once saved always saved so they have a license to sin and Faith without works is dead and you can be given to a reprobate mind. Plus they meet in buildings and their preachers are paid and they ask for money. Sheep oh! Wow! Those poor lost souls! I’ll invite them to a gospel meeting. That is where people in meetings are wrong. Paul clearly said that God's grace does not give us a license to sin and Baptists do not believe it does either. You are either considered to be on the outside looking out, or a lost sheep if you have the opinion that you just gave.
|
|
|
Post by luke2236 on Apr 29, 2023 14:56:51 GMT -5
This pretty much defines wrong doctrine in black and white by one of the highest ranking Cooneyite/2x2 leaders.
“ As members of this ministry, we want to assure you of how much we love and care for you. We are heartbroken by the disgrace of human failure, but our faith in the Lord’s ministry is unchanged. This is the ministry that our Lord established in the earth. Human failure can compromise its testimony, but it cannot undermine its validity. Judas Iscariot was also a part of this ministry, but in the wake of his betrayal the Holy Spirit still impelled this same ministry forward.”
wingsfortruth.info/2023/03/30/lyle-schober-letter-to-texas-friends-march-2023/ (http://redirect.viglink.com/?key=71fe2139a887ad501313cd8cce3053c5&subId=506664&u=https%3A//wingsfortruth.info/2023/03/30/lyle-schober-letter-to-texas-friends-march-2023/)
First major problem is he didn’t say his faith is in the Lord or Christ. He said our faith is in the Lord’s ministry. This is an intentional reinforcement to people that there is NO other place to go but the 2x2 way.
If you disagree with this I will give you plenty of evidence why this is fact.
This quote is intentional and well thought out because it’s a PR response to a head worker (2nd closest thing in w 2x2 way to a Pope) performing CSA and other immoralities for a long period of time. It ignores how many people potentially had been told about this worker but instead reinforces how real and exclusive the only way is.
Lyle reinforces the this is The Lord’s ministry and the same thing happened in the same ministry with Judas. So now Lyle is reminding his followers that he and other workers are the same apostles that were with Jesus.
Was William Irvine an apostle then? (The answer is probably yes according to Lyle, or it doesn’t matter because Jesus is the same yesterday today and forever, but I would like to give him a chance to say something different)
The analogy isn’t even a good one because Judas is never recorded as doing anything good except initially following Jesus (I’m not sure that’s even good because it mentions he was a thief so maybe he joined to help himself) and “maybe” being remorseful before he killed himself.
Unlike Judas, Dale Bruer was highly respected and followed and considered a man who followed the spirit because the 2x2 system is sold as the miracle way that just works by the Spirit’s guidance.
The doctrine of the 2x2 ministry being the original ministry is not biblically supported but there are elements that are biblically supported so it creates for confusion for anyone who personally doesn’t read the Bible themselves and research the meanings themselves. This is hard to do when your complete understanding is given to you as meaning one thing and being part of me true way for your entire life.
With that being said even with unsound doctrine, there are steps to keep the doctrine alive and be legal, and the current leaders continue to remain in an illegal structure of a church that prevents lawsuits from victims on the legal side , and preaches hell if you leave the church on the spiritual side.
There is zero talk of restructuring the accounting system to become legal, and the doctrine is not going to suddenly say that people who go to other are actually similar to the comparison between those in Ephesus and those in Corinth, separate churches with their own set of obstacles to overcome to aid them in their spiritual transformation.
So why would anything change?
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Apr 29, 2023 15:53:34 GMT -5
For many years I have foreseen the decay and dismemberment of “The Truth” but never in my wildest imagination did I think it would be over CSA, money management, and convoluted sermons based on myth used to make rules.
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on May 6, 2023 12:49:09 GMT -5
Preterism, a Christian eschatological view, interprets some (partial preterism) or all (full preterism) prophecies of the Bible as events which have already happened.
Could we perhaps get some statics on why preterism is a wrong Doctrine?
If you know a little bit about full preterism, then you know how people look at you when you first introduce the idea that Jesus "second coming" happened in 70ad with the destruction of the Jewish temple. They think you're crazy, but once you nail them with those time statements, they begin to hit a wall. Words start to mean different things and next things you know, Jesus final judgement, Resurrection etc. are all fit into the destruction of God's chosen people in Jerusalem. Of course, they won't call them God's chosen people, but I think it's ironic that they see nothing discussing Rome in Revelation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2023 16:16:40 GMT -5
Preterism, a Christian eschatological view, interprets some (partial preterism) or all (full preterism) prophecies of the Bible as events which have already happened. Could we perhaps get some statics on why preterism is a wrong Doctrine? If you know a little bit about full preterism, then you know how people look at you when you first introduce the idea that Jesus "second coming" happened in 70ad with the destruction of the Jewish temple. They think you're crazy, but once you nail them with those time statements, they begin to hit a wall. Words start to mean different things and next things you know, Jesus final judgement, Resurrection etc. are all fit into the destruction of God's chosen people in Jerusalem. Of course, they won't call them God's chosen people, but I think it's ironic that they see nothing discussing Rome in Revelation. Scripture can be metaphor, literal or both. Scripture can also have double meanings. Scripture can also have several meanings.
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on May 7, 2023 10:36:22 GMT -5
Preterism, a Christian eschatological view, interprets some (partial preterism) or all (full preterism) prophecies of the Bible as events which have already happened. Could we perhaps get some statics on why preterism is a wrong Doctrine? If you know a little bit about full preterism, then you know how people look at you when you first introduce the idea that Jesus "second coming" happened in 70ad with the destruction of the Jewish temple. They think you're crazy, but once you nail them with those time statements, they begin to hit a wall. Words start to mean different things and next things you know, Jesus final judgement, Resurrection etc. are all fit into the destruction of God's chosen people in Jerusalem. Of course, they won't call them God's chosen people, but I think it's ironic that they see nothing discussing Rome in Revelation. Scripture can be metaphor, literal or both. Scripture can also have double meanings. Scripture can also have several meanings. If the only way to get your conclusion is to ignore information, it is your conclusion that’s false (or unfounded). This is why it is so important to test your beliefs by trying your darnedest to refute them first. If, instead, you are trying your darnedest to avoid such falsification, you are an apologist protecting a dogma, not a critical thinker desiring to know the truth
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2023 10:47:15 GMT -5
Scripture can be metaphor, literal or both. Scripture can also have double meanings. Scripture can also have several meanings. If the only way to get your conclusion is to ignore information, it is your conclusion that’s false (or unfounded). This is why it is so important to test your beliefs by trying your darnedest to refute them first. If, instead, you are trying your darnedest to avoid such falsification, you are an apologist protecting a dogma, not a critical thinker desiring to know the truth Knowing the difference between metaphor, literal or both in scripture would involve critical thinking. Not even a good try intel...
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on May 10, 2023 17:43:47 GMT -5
I thought I would try to help Wally by supporting his strict belief that the gospels are based on eyewitness testimony.
If one answers yes to the eyewitness question it just doesn't quite say it all. But here’s where my help will come in for Wally as I provide the proof. I am not just going to say yes and not provide absolute proof. I’m not going to set here and proclaim this talking out of my hat, I'm going to appeal to solid evidence solid proof and that is the testimony of early church fathers like Papias and Irenaeus who tell us that Mark was an interpreter of Peter and that Luke was a companion of Paul, meanwhile Matthew the tax collector compiled the Lord's sayings in the original Aramaic. And that in terms of historical data is a gold mine, it doesn't get any better than that!
First we know that Papius and Irenaeus were never ever prone to making up or passing on nonsense they were completely reliable and trustworthy sources unless you're counting that time that Papias claimed that Judas Iscariot blew up to the size of a Ox cart and pissed live worms or when Irenaeus claimed that Jesus died between 40 and 50 years of age putting his death during the reign of Caesar Claudius but other than that we know that these guys were dead on accurate.
And why not believe that Mark was indeed an interpreter of Peter. I mean he says so himself here in , Mark 40:77 , or was it 30:119 , . Actually I don't think he does, at any rate we can be certain that Matthew was the tax collector who was following Jesus's Ministry because granted It was written in Greek, there are Aramaic loan words in Matthew which must mean that he was getting this directly from the horse's mouth from the Lord Jesus since Jesus was probably the only person speaking Aramaic back then in that part of the world, now though of course there are Latin loan words in Matthew's gospel as well but , oh dear I guess we can just sweep that under the rug, we're gonna ignore that, that's not terribly convenient.
Now I know what you're thinking Matthew relies heavily upon Mark, sometimes repeating Mark verbatim, you wouldn't exactly expect this from an eyewitness with his own recollection of the events, but see what he's doing is relaying upon Mark because he values Peter's testimony as presented in Mark even though we don't have any actual evidence that Mark's getting this stuff from Peter but I swear to God that one sounds good to me, sounds real good sounds and feels good. You see Matthew valued Peter's testimony as it was presented in Mark so much that even though he himself was an eyewitness he drew directly from Mark because he liked what Peter's saying in there and then he goes through and he alters and he changed things as he sees fit which if you're going to do that why not just tell your own story but don't let that bother you it's just me that's inconvenient
Moving on I'll tell you where we do hit Pay Dirt is with Luke the author of Luke acts was definitely a companion of Paul I mean he's using those we statements or all those we passages and he knows Paul's travels where Paul went and did this and that I mean that can only be explained by his having been a companion of Paul it's not because he might have been sifting through Paul's letters or anything, no one's that clever . And what Paul says and what Luke say they match up like a glover on a hand, I mean they interlock it's amazing even when Paul is emphatic about the resurrection body being a spiritual body whatever that means, it's not a body of flesh and blood, for Flesh and Blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Luke's with him on this and you can tell l he's been sitting at the feet of Paul when he says that Jesus appears to the disciples and says the same thing he says, “look at My Flesh and Bones” it's because Paul said it's not flesh Luke says it's flesh. Paul says it's not a flesh body, Luke says it is and so they're definitely they're interlock that's not weird at all that Luke chooses to convey his companions conversion story by including all of these fictional elements from Euripides in the Bacchae regarding the conversion of Pentheus and two Maccabees three if regarding the conversion of Heliodorus because that's what friends do to you if you were traveling along with somebody and you had to relay their story you'd make up a bunch of stuff that your friend or companion never actually relate to you that you got from other sources that's normal and there's no need to be concerned about that whatsoever all in all we can be certain that the gospels were based on eyewitness testimony as long as we ignore completely inconvenient facts and just you know spin these ad hoc completely gullible arguments based on Old Church Traditions if whatever gives you a big swelling feeling in your heart and you run with that whatever makes you feel good that's because you don't that's the proper methodology this is what I what I want to be true so I'm going to construct my argument around that and ignore anything that would seem to suggest otherwise that's apologetics.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2023 1:37:18 GMT -5
I thought I would try to help Wally by supporting his strict belief that the gospels are based on eyewitness testimony. If one answers yes to the eyewitness question it just doesn't quite say it all. But here’s where my help will come in for Wally as I provide the proof. I am not just going to say yes and not provide absolute proof. I’m not going to set here and proclaim this talking out of my hat, I'm going to appeal to solid evidence solid proof and that is the testimony of early church fathers like Papias and Irenaeus who tell us that Mark was an interpreter of Peter and that Luke was a companion of Paul, meanwhile Matthew the tax collector compiled the Lord's sayings in the original Aramaic. And that in terms of historical data is a gold mine, it doesn't get any better than that! First we know that Papius and Irenaeus were never ever prone to making up or passing on nonsense they were completely reliable and trustworthy sources unless you're counting that time that Papias claimed that Judas Iscariot blew up to the size of a Ox cart and pissed live worms or when Irenaeus claimed that Jesus died between 40 and 50 years of age putting his death during the reign of Caesar Claudius but other than that we know that these guys were dead on accurate. And why not believe that Mark was indeed an interpreter of Peter. I mean he says so himself here in , Mark 40:77 , or was it 30:119 , . Actually I don't think he does, at any rate we can be certain that Matthew was the tax collector who was following Jesus's Ministry because granted It was written in Greek, there are Aramaic loan words in Matthew which must mean that he was getting this directly from the horse's mouth from the Lord Jesus since Jesus was probably the only person speaking Aramaic back then in that part of the world, now though of course there are Latin loan words in Matthew's gospel as well but , oh dear I guess we can just sweep that under the rug, we're gonna ignore that, that's not terribly convenient. Now I know what you're thinking Matthew relies heavily upon Mark, sometimes repeating Mark verbatim, you wouldn't exactly expect this from an eyewitness with his own recollection of the events, but see what he's doing is relaying upon Mark because he values Peter's testimony as presented in Mark even though we don't have any actual evidence that Mark's getting this stuff from Peter but I swear to God that one sounds good to me, sounds real good sounds and feels good. You see Matthew valued Peter's testimony as it was presented in Mark so much that even though he himself was an eyewitness he drew directly from Mark because he liked what Peter's saying in there and then he goes through and he alters and he changed things as he sees fit which if you're going to do that why not just tell your own story but don't let that bother you it's just me that's inconvenient Moving on I'll tell you where we do hit Pay Dirt is with Luke the author of Luke acts was definitely a companion of Paul I mean he's using those we statements or all those we passages and he knows Paul's travels where Paul went and did this and that I mean that can only be explained by his having been a companion of Paul it's not because he might have been sifting through Paul's letters or anything, no one's that clever . And what Paul says and what Luke say they match up like a glover on a hand, I mean they interlock it's amazing even when Paul is emphatic about the resurrection body being a spiritual body whatever that means, it's not a body of flesh and blood, for Flesh and Blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Luke's with him on this and you can tell l he's been sitting at the feet of Paul when he says that Jesus appears to the disciples and says the same thing he says, “look at My Flesh and Bones” it's because Paul said it's not flesh Luke says it's flesh. Paul says it's not a flesh body, Luke says it is and so they're definitely they're interlock that's not weird at all that Luke chooses to convey his companions conversion story by including all of these fictional elements from Euripides in the Bacchae regarding the conversion of Pentheus and two Maccabees three if regarding the conversion of Heliodorus because that's what friends do to you if you were traveling along with somebody and you had to relay their story you'd make up a bunch of stuff that your friend or companion never actually relate to you that you got from other sources that's normal and there's no need to be concerned about that whatsoever all in all we can be certain that the gospels were based on eyewitness testimony as long as we ignore completely inconvenient facts and just you know spin these ad hoc completely gullible arguments based on Old Church Traditions if whatever gives you a big swelling feeling in your heart and you run with that whatever makes you feel good that's because you don't that's the proper methodology this is what I what I want to be true so I'm going to construct my argument around that and ignore anything that would seem to suggest otherwise that's apologetics. Seriously, you, bob and curlytroll should get together and write your fantasy version of the NT. You know in the spirit of Thomas Jefferson and his re-written NT. God's truth, I would buy it, it would be rip roaring fun!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 11, 2023 17:23:19 GMT -5
I thought I would try to help Wally by supporting his strict belief that the gospels are based on eyewitness testimony. If one answers yes to the eyewitness question it just doesn't quite say it all. But here’s where my help will come in for Wally as I provide the proof. I am not just going to say yes and not provide absolute proof. I’m not going to set here and proclaim this talking out of my hat, I'm going to appeal to solid evidence solid proof and that is the testimony of early church fathers like Papias and Irenaeus who tell us that Mark was an interpreter of Peter and that Luke was a companion of Paul, meanwhile Matthew the tax collector compiled the Lord's sayings in the original Aramaic. And that in terms of historical data is a gold mine, it doesn't get any better than that! First we know that Papius and Irenaeus were never ever prone to making up or passing on nonsense they were completely reliable and trustworthy sources unless you're counting that time that Papias claimed that Judas Iscariot blew up to the size of a Ox cart and pissed live worms or when Irenaeus claimed that Jesus died between 40 and 50 years of age putting his death during the reign of Caesar Claudius but other than that we know that these guys were dead on accurate. And why not believe that Mark was indeed an interpreter of Peter. I mean he says so himself here in , Mark 40:77 , or was it 30:119 , . Actually I don't think he does, at any rate we can be certain that Matthew was the tax collector who was following Jesus's Ministry because granted It was written in Greek, there are Aramaic loan words in Matthew which must mean that he was getting this directly from the horse's mouth from the Lord Jesus since Jesus was probably the only person speaking Aramaic back then in that part of the world, now though of course there are Latin loan words in Matthew's gospel as well but , oh dear I guess we can just sweep that under the rug, we're gonna ignore that, that's not terribly convenient. Now I know what you're thinking Matthew relies heavily upon Mark, sometimes repeating Mark verbatim, you wouldn't exactly expect this from an eyewitness with his own recollection of the events, but see what he's doing is relaying upon Mark because he values Peter's testimony as presented in Mark even though we don't have any actual evidence that Mark's getting this stuff from Peter but I swear to God that one sounds good to me, sounds real good sounds and feels good. You see Matthew valued Peter's testimony as it was presented in Mark so much that even though he himself was an eyewitness he drew directly from Mark because he liked what Peter's saying in there and then he goes through and he alters and he changed things as he sees fit which if you're going to do that why not just tell your own story but don't let that bother you it's just me that's inconvenient Moving on I'll tell you where we do hit Pay Dirt is with Luke the author of Luke acts was definitely a companion of Paul I mean he's using those we statements or all those we passages and he knows Paul's travels where Paul went and did this and that I mean that can only be explained by his having been a companion of Paul it's not because he might have been sifting through Paul's letters or anything, no one's that clever . And what Paul says and what Luke say they match up like a glover on a hand, I mean they interlock it's amazing even when Paul is emphatic about the resurrection body being a spiritual body whatever that means, it's not a body of flesh and blood, for Flesh and Blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Luke's with him on this and you can tell l he's been sitting at the feet of Paul when he says that Jesus appears to the disciples and says the same thing he says, “look at My Flesh and Bones” it's because Paul said it's not flesh Luke says it's flesh. Paul says it's not a flesh body, Luke says it is and so they're definitely they're interlock that's not weird at all that Luke chooses to convey his companions conversion story by including all of these fictional elements from Euripides in the Bacchae regarding the conversion of Pentheus and two Maccabees three if regarding the conversion of Heliodorus because that's what friends do to you if you were traveling along with somebody and you had to relay their story you'd make up a bunch of stuff that your friend or companion never actually relate to you that you got from other sources that's normal and there's no need to be concerned about that whatsoever all in all we can be certain that the gospels were based on eyewitness testimony as long as we ignore completely inconvenient facts and just you know spin these ad hoc completely gullible arguments based on Old Church Traditions if whatever gives you a big swelling feeling in your heart and you run with that whatever makes you feel good that's because you don't that's the proper methodology this is what I what I want to be true so I'm going to construct my argument around that and ignore anything that would seem to suggest otherwise that's apologetics. Seriously, you, bob and curlytroll should get together and write your fantasy version of the NT. You know in the spirit of Thomas Jefferson and his re-written NT. God's truth, I would buy it, it would be rip roaring fun! Bob Williston had no interest in rewriting anything in the Bible. Interpretation is YOUR prerogative.
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on May 11, 2023 20:08:08 GMT -5
Seriously, you, bob and curlytroll should get together and write your fantasy version of the NT. You know in the spirit of Thomas Jefferson and his re-written NT. God's truth, I would buy it, it would be rip roaring fun! Bob Williston had no interest in rewriting anything in the Bible. Interpretation is YOUR prerogative. Sorry you got dragged into this Bob, just further proof believers can't evaluate facts.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on May 11, 2023 20:49:34 GMT -5
With all these revelations about "gods people" it would be a good time to add a chapter containing them to the book of revelations.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2023 23:20:24 GMT -5
Bob Williston had no interest in rewriting anything in the Bible. Interpretation is YOUR prerogative. Sorry you got dragged into this Bob, just further proof believers can't evaluate facts. Speculation is not fact. Just sayin'
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on May 11, 2023 23:34:26 GMT -5
Sorry you got dragged into this Bob, just further proof believers can't evaluate facts. Speculation is not fact. Just sayin' Well said.
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on May 12, 2023 8:20:12 GMT -5
Sorry you got dragged into this Bob, just further proof believers can't evaluate facts. Speculation is not fact. Just sayin' No Speculation in the facts I mentioned.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2023 18:10:21 GMT -5
Speculation is not fact. Just sayin' No Speculation in the facts I mentioned. Uh huh...
|
|
|
Post by christiansburg on May 13, 2023 8:12:51 GMT -5
A worker I knew from Alberta used to say that. i.e. "professing is you accepting the workers. Baptism is the workers accepting you." OK so I have been around for 67 years and I have never heard any worker say "...professing is you accepting the workers, and baptism is the workers accepting you." Someone needs to council the worker who said that! I am on the East coast and have been to meeting from Pennsylvania to Georgia and West to Indiana.
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on May 13, 2023 13:48:45 GMT -5
I think there are a few here that might relate to Dr. Richard C. Miller as he explains his life's story in www.youtube.com/watch?v=6y_voqOVCsEPerhaps your enlightenment might be similar, or not. It's a man's story of how he was searching for truth.
|
|
|
Post by snow on May 13, 2023 14:57:39 GMT -5
OK so I have been around for 67 years and I have never heard any worker say "...professing is you accepting the workers, and baptism is the workers accepting you." Someone needs to council the worker who said that! I am on the East coast and have been to meeting from Pennsylvania to Georgia and West to Indiana. What do you call it when you profess. Are you not accepting the F&W group which is lead by the workers? And, how do you explain that the workers can deny you baptism if they don't think you are worthy of it? We were taught that you needed to profess to be saved and if you left the group you 'lost out'. We also have heard of people coming from the RCC and needing to be rebaptized because the workers didn't accept their baptism from another denomination. If the baptism is between god and the person then why do the workers have the right to deny the person baptism? It may not have been something they say, but by their actions it's definitely what they believe. That the workers have to see you as worthy before you can be baptized by them. Doesn't that pretty much say baptism is the workers accepting you?
|
|