Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
FACTS
Sept 6, 2007 2:03:08 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2007 2:03:08 GMT -5
It is a wee bit strange to me that people who have not been companions with those who not only knew the origin of the modern 2&2 ministry system but participated in its startup, who have not listened to the account at the feet (literally, by sitting on the floor as a youth) of others of those men and women participating at the turn of the 1900's, nor even talked intimately about that time with a dozen (or more) of them, are the ones who proclaim the loudest what they have heard from those who have heard, etc.
In my case, I HAVE experienced all of the above. If any of you can get your hands on a list of those early "workers," I once counted well over a dozen who were in my parents home when I was a youth, and who knew me by my first name through many decades. NOT ONE OF THEM said anything different about workers than that they were among the first in "modern" days, when God raised "truth" up again.
It is unknowing later generations of workers, some who did not have the same experiences as myself, who have tried so passionately to establish things which are simply not true as being true. Some never even knew those early workers, but only knew about them. There are some of them here who cannot admit to being wrong themselves, even though they have never experienced such as mentioned in the first paragraph of this first post of a new thread. Thus they go about to establish what they believe as true, thinking proclaiming it long enough and loud enough will accomplish that as fact.
Must something be known to be untrue by the relaters for them to prove themselves blatant liars by constantly posting that which is NOT true? The man referenced above who I was companions with for several weeks was Tom Lyness. He was the man who was shot in the head by a jealous husband who believed Lyness had stolen his wife's affections. Tom lived to recover a great deal and continue on in that work. The man who shot him went to jail. Tom and his sister Annie, (yes, I was also with her at a special kind of preps for a while, and she also confirmed what Tom had expressed) recalled vividly what occurred in those "early" days. (Early what?)
John Long's diary (and I was one of the first to read that diary in the USA, if not the very first, Paul Abenroth received it about the same time) also confirms those first hand accounts verbally given to me of those days. They were truly first hand accounts by men and women who were there when 2&2 ism gathered momentum in the days of strongest GB denominational-ism. Does it require names? How many posting here have been in "the work" visiting as a "worker" with George Walker, Andrew Abernathy, Robert Darling, Elizabeth Jamison, Willie Jamieson, Tom and Annie Lyness to name those immediately who come to mind as conversations from the past are recalled.
Who has listened to Jack Carroll, Dave Christie, Emily Christie, Sam Charlton, the Jardine brothers, Joe Burrage (though I can't remember how to spell his name, for I was young) talk in their home about those days. If you had, you would be unable to relate these cunningly devised fables attempting to prove the 2&2 existence prior to circa 1900. Those of you in doubt, what I relate is accurate, and truthful. Believe in the 2&2 ministry system if you will, but do NOT believe it can be traced any earlier than William Irvine.
These falsely exaggerated and misleading accounts posted here remind me of one that was posted to another forum early on... I let it ride as long as I could, thinking "SURELY THESE PEOPLE AREN'T SO GULLIBLE!!!" Someone claimed to have or to have seen a central state worker's list from the 1760's!!!
Only when I finally could take it no longer and posted that such was impossible, since there not only wasn't such a state yet then, nor even the USA and the in habitants knew NOTHING of the "white man's" religion. ONLY then did people come to their senses, with some of them feeling quite stupid for allowing themselves to believe such ridiculous information.
But, to me, some of you are doing the very same thing, simply because you think what you know is true, when it simply is NOT. Now you have been told once again that it is not true that 2&2ism existed prior to William Irvine, and if you continue to proclaim otherwise, I for one will KNOW you prefer propagate a lie over that which is true. Indeed, let the readers decide.
Sincerely,
Dennis Jacobsen
|
|
|
FACTS
Sept 6, 2007 7:40:11 GMT -5
Post by MORE obfuscation on Sept 6, 2007 7:40:11 GMT -5
There has "ALWAYS" been apostles and disciples or followers of Jesus Christ in EVERY generation doing God's will through down the ages since the time of Jesus. This is historical documents recorded. Nobody said otherwise. However, this comment has NOTHING to do with 2x2ism specifically.
|
|
you are a sidestepper
Guest
|
FACTS
Sept 6, 2007 7:54:59 GMT -5
Post by you are a sidestepper on Sept 6, 2007 7:54:59 GMT -5
You are a side stepper. This thread is about 2x2ism. Keep it that way. You have yet to discuss 2x2ism specifically in this thread, nathan.
|
|
|
FACTS
Sept 6, 2007 16:21:22 GMT -5
Post by so sad on Sept 6, 2007 16:21:22 GMT -5
nathan 9...you are such an absolutely, deceived individual..what a sad condition to be in...read what Dennis said again and again if necessary..maybe you have a problem just comprehending the written word...judging by the way you twist and turn...and your constant referral to ' handles' (a new word for you ,hmmm)...I 'figger' you just cannot/ will not comprehend what is written here and in God's Word..and for that reason ,respond the way you do??? But while there is life there is hope..my prayer for those blinded by this Satanic system, is that God by His precious Holy Spirit will draw them out one by one , that would include you..
|
|
|
FACTS
Sept 6, 2007 16:26:24 GMT -5
Post by i am a si on Sept 6, 2007 16:26:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
FACTS
Sept 6, 2007 16:28:41 GMT -5
Post by wanttobewithGod on Sept 6, 2007 16:28:41 GMT -5
Dennis, I am NOT at all stating that 2x2s began before WI, just for the sake of this discussion, OK? That said, as far as this statement, which you wrote, goes:
Now you have been told once again that it is not true that 2&2ism existed prior to William Irvine, and if you continue to proclaim otherwise, I for one will KNOW you prefer propagate a lie over that which is true. Indeed, let the readers decide.
...I have a bit of an issue. Those who believe 2x2 dates back before those times are just simply supposed to stop thinking that and "be informed" now because YOU said so? Kind of like, I told you, so it's true, so just accept it or everyone will know you're a liar. That's what your post (the end part anyway) seemed to say, in short.
In that case, couldn't anyone who believes otherwise have said> It DOES date back further than WI, I've told you before and now I've told you AGAIN, so just don't think or say anything else, or everyone will know you're a liar from now on!
*sigh* Sorry if I'm misunderstanding what you wrote. If I am, I do truly apologize as I'm not trying to 'start' anything with you....that last paragraph of yours just doesn't make much sense to me. Michelle
|
|
|
FACTS
Sept 6, 2007 16:32:55 GMT -5
Post by wanttobewithGod on Sept 6, 2007 16:32:55 GMT -5
Well, rereading my own post I've made two observations which I didn't before. You said, I, for ONE, will know...so, ok..whatever firsthand knowledge YOU have is not hearsay, so I will accept that you know it. You did not say "everyone" will know you're a liar, but "I will know" so, ok. And also...you say you have firsthand knowledge that it does not. Since I do not have PROOF that it does, I can accept what you're getting at....I mean, as far as what you've posted. It doesn't mean I agree with you on all things, but I jumped the gun here. I'm sorry. Michelle *quick to anger, quick to get over it.* M.
|
|
|
FACTS
Sept 6, 2007 17:18:20 GMT -5
Post by to wtbwg on Sept 6, 2007 17:18:20 GMT -5
wtbwg,
Your reasoning does make sense and it not skewed at all. Look at it this way.
If I claim that I can fly by flapping by arms, would you believe me at face value, or would you insist that I prove it?
If I claim that my church existed before 1897 even though I cannot provide any evidence to support that claim, would you believe me at face value, or would you insist that I back up my claim?
|
|
|
FACTS
Sept 6, 2007 18:23:05 GMT -5
Post by what ever on Sept 6, 2007 18:23:05 GMT -5
Your reasoning does make sense and it not skewed at all. Look at it this way. If I claim that my church existed before 1897 even though I cannot provide any evidence to support that claim, would you believe me at face value, or would you insist that I back up my claim? There you go agaIN, always using the word ''CHURCH'' to your own understanding, and NOT the universal biblical usage. If I say there was no church before 1890, that is quite an absurd statement to boast. Does anyone believe there was no "CHURCH'' before 1890, Absolutely NOT. (except the VOTs ) Was there a church in anyplace in the world, before the gospel was preached there? Depends on how you phrase it, no as in the church in Brazil came after the gospel was preached there, the church in Peru was started as soon as there was enough to meet together, and have fellowship. Is fellowship NEEDFUL, that depends....what do you want to believe and have fellowship with and IN....if you can see there is something wrong with the fellowship you are in, then by all means go searching until you find what you are looking for. In the meantime, all the griping in the world, will not take away the peace of God, from those that are in God's truth and way.
|
|
|
FACTS
Sept 6, 2007 19:32:25 GMT -5
Post by not Nathan on Sept 6, 2007 19:32:25 GMT -5
Nathan has always been a liar from the very beginnning.
He lies because that is what his father does.
His is the son of a liar.
There have always been liars from the very beginning.
Nathan does not believe in God and his works show that.
He says he believes in God like the devils, but he does not believe that God means what He says.
Nathan also is a plaigarist.
He tries to cover up his sin just like he did as a worker.
Let Nathan's actions speak for themselves.
-not Nathan
|
|
|
FACTS
Sept 6, 2007 20:17:56 GMT -5
Post by Let The Readers Decide on Sept 6, 2007 20:17:56 GMT -5
If I say there was no church before 1890, that is quite an absurd statement to boast. Does anyone believe there was no "CHURCH'' before 1890, Absolutely NOT. (except the VOTs ) In the meantime, all the griping in the world, will not take away the peace of God, from those that are in God's truth and way. You are desperate. Let the readers decide.
|
|
|
FACTS
Sept 6, 2007 20:23:04 GMT -5
Post by not nathans mother on Sept 6, 2007 20:23:04 GMT -5
NOT NATHAN!!!
You get off of that computer and stop picking on people who you don't even know anything about! You naughty little brat!! I'm going to turn the Parental Controls on again!!! Apologies Nathan,
Not Nathan's Mom
|
|
|
FACTS
Sept 7, 2007 8:45:19 GMT -5
Post by gloryintruth on Sept 7, 2007 8:45:19 GMT -5
Well has God commanded us not to judge others, for by so doing we assume ourselves to be judges of the law as opposed to doers of the law (advice from the Apostle James). Get a load of the silly statements someone has made about Nathan:
Nathan has always been a liar from the very beginnning.
Something only God is in a position to know.
He lies because that is what his father does. His is the son of a liar.
Jesus directed these words at the Jews who recieved him not. Jesus had the authority, for he was the Son of God who knew what was in men's hearts. Here, someone assumes unto himself the words of Jesus and directs them at Nathan.
In so doing, this individual makes some terrible assumptions:
1. Assumes to himself the authority and place of Christ 2. Makes an accusation which he is in no position to testify to the truth of (for only Christ holds the keys to Death and Hell) 3. Claims Nathan is the son of the devil 4. Condemns Nathan to hell 5. Does so without knowledge and upon the flimsiest pretexts.
Outrageous! Let any man who can yield assent to these assumptions be anathema!
There have always been liars from the very beginning. Nathan does not believe in God and his works show that.
What a ridiculous comment to make. Who are you, O anonymous poster, to declare to us what Nathan does or does not believe? Are you God? Are you the Holy Spirit? For it is written, "Who can know the mind of a man, save the spirit that is in man, and who can know the mind of God save the Holy Spirit of God?"
It is only by ignoring the scriptures that you condemn a good man.
He says he believes in God like the devils, but he does not believe that God means what He says.
Sounds like another poor, unhinged fellow we all know. Such mindless screaming into the wind, the verbal spittle coming back to sprinkle his face, is tragic. Like Herod who spoke in the place of God and was consumed by worms, we must be so incredibly careful not to assume too much to our own mortal faculties.
Nathan also is a plaigarist.
Is this like a plagarist? I suppose the 10 plaigs of Egypt could comprise their own discipline, eh?
He tries to cover up his sin just like he did as a worker. Let Nathan's actions speak for themselves.
[Insert spooky organ music here]
|
|
|
FACTS
Sept 7, 2007 10:12:18 GMT -5
Post by one of many on Sept 7, 2007 10:12:18 GMT -5
As a current 2x2 I support Dennis in his post.
There is no EVIDENCE OF OUR CHURCH / Fellowship existing before 1897. Further those old workers that I have spoken to (many) over the past 30 years have supported this.
Personally I have yet to find a worker who categorically claims a 2x2 ministry prior to that date.
The most frequent place to find this incorrect claim is on this board, and mostly restricted to a small handful of posters.
Its clear to me that this error is a somewhat regional one, being most prevalent in northern america, but not restricted to there.
|
|
|
FACTS
Sept 7, 2007 11:47:47 GMT -5
Post by guest101 on Sept 7, 2007 11:47:47 GMT -5
Talked to an older lady in NZ last yr - and she said they have always been aware of the history - it was only in North America that it was so murky and not discussed. The feeling there is, that if the workers had been more open there would'nt be so many upset people today.
Her father knew all about it, and her take on it, that it wasn't "just William Irvine" - like we've all been led to believe
|
|
dea
Junior Member
Posts: 76
|
FACTS
Sept 7, 2007 11:58:09 GMT -5
Post by dea on Sept 7, 2007 11:58:09 GMT -5
Dennis- I enjoy reading your posts, you have a talent for writing that many people lack today.
|
|
|
FACTS
Sept 7, 2007 12:01:52 GMT -5
Post by CherieKropp on Sept 7, 2007 12:01:52 GMT -5
RE: Personally I have yet to find a worker who categorically claims a 2x2 ministry prior to that date.
Could you please define what "categorically claims a 2x2 ministry prior to that date" means to you?
Just seeking to understand better...
Thanx,
|
|
|
FACTS
Sept 7, 2007 12:28:09 GMT -5
Post by as i c it on Sept 7, 2007 12:28:09 GMT -5
one of many, Yes, after reading this site, I too have come to see that it was indeed a regional thing. Taught as "fact" in North America: and still (unfortunately) being upheld as fact, in many of those same areas. Dennis, Thank you for your post. It was so interesting to read that the older workers were honest about the history...and that "it is unknowing later generations of workers....who have tried so passionately to establish things which are simply not true as being true." And yet--the older ones didn't bring the falseness to an end That puzzles me, as I thought it was the older workers who established all things to be followed--and the younger ones simply "fitted into it all". And...who "taught" the younger ones to believe (or to "teach") such falseness to the rest of us??? Until this issue is set straight, there will always be "a problem" within our church. "A problem" for the individual believer: and "a problem" for the church as a whole: and "a problem" for the workers who are caught inbetween the two. Let us be found both wanting to worship God in spirit and truth--and in doing it--based upon His truth and having faith in His foundation only. And as God set forth our worship (and truth) to be. And let all the falseness be removed from it.
|
|
|
FACTS
Sept 7, 2007 12:38:27 GMT -5
Post by one of many on Sept 7, 2007 12:38:27 GMT -5
RE: Personally I have yet to find a worker who categorically claims a 2x2 ministry prior to that date. Could you please define what " categorically claims a 2x2 ministry prior to that date" means to you? Just seeking to understand better... Thanx, By this I mean that they state in clear language that there has been a 2x2 style ministry, connected to the current one in the period prior to 1897. That the workers of the late 1890s heard the 2x2 gospel from previous workers, and deny that the current ministry format started in the lat 1890s. There are some who use ambiguous language as you know, and some of these might say something like "The family of God was started at Calvary". Thats not "categorical" in may terms, thats ambiguous. Did they mean that "all Christianity started then" or "The 2x2 ministry as it is today, started then". (I've heard some of those.) I have not heard someone say they know of any convention prior to 1st Crocknacrieve. I have not head a claim of knowing the name of ONE worker prior to 1897. I have not heard tell onf ONE meeting in a home on the current format, connetced to the current ministry prior to then. Has anyone? does that clarify my statement? Hope it helps. I detest ambiguity, thanks for pointing out mine.
|
|
|
FACTS
Sept 7, 2007 23:02:42 GMT -5
Post by Kathy Lewis on Sept 7, 2007 23:02:42 GMT -5
Dennis and Cherie are right. The people who want to believe that the workers' system predates William Irvine are blowing hot air. These people are usually under the age of 35 or 40 and never even knew the early workers or what they did or said.
What is also very odd is that these same people try to downplay all the weirdness, scandal, ignorance of scripture, and lack of kindness or compassion for people, both outside the group and inside.
This system is NOT Christian. It is a combination of Catholicism and Freemasonry.
|
|
|
FACTS
Sept 7, 2007 23:08:22 GMT -5
Post by wanttobewithGod on Sept 7, 2007 23:08:22 GMT -5
*eye roll*
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
FACTS
Sept 8, 2007 0:30:33 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2007 0:30:33 GMT -5
What does an "eye roll" mean to you, wtbwg? Who do you roll your eyes at? Someone in particular? Surely you are not rolling them at me, nor what I have posted in this thread.
GIT, what are YOU on about? Do YOU mean "plague?" If so, do you have any right to ridicule another for their spelling mistake in this thread?
Michelle, thank you for your retraction, making any further comment of mine regarding it totally unnecessary.
Dea, thank you. If there IS any decent qualities about my manner of written expression, it is due to good English Lit. Professors, who held me to a very strict standard. Still, I often fail at keeping it.
Regarding, quote: And...who "taught" the younger ones to believe (or to "teach") such falseness to the rest of us??? What follows is an answer to this question from my perception because of my experience and what I've read of preserved letters written by Jack Carroll:Once Irvine and Cooney were removed, there existed a wishful desire by those subsequently in "control" to be rid of the terms "Irvinites" and "Cooneyites." This desire as I perceive it resulted because of the widely held conviction that the cult of 2&2 workers then in existence was indeed the New Testament Church ministry resurrected by God through Irvine. That neither he nor Cooney should receive any credit at all for their part in "the experiment," a term obviously disliked by the others.
From what I experienced and understood, to avoid any possibility of confusing new believers by having a "new beginning" implication was made in the USA that what was believed was from "the beginning." That was what I was taught, though aware at age 11-12 or so, that while from "the beginning" it had been "restored" by those who we knew as early workers. (again, "early" what?)
That example of teaching what I believed about the 2&2 ministry cult was ever before me by my own companions, and I simply followed suite to fit in with what I had been taught to believe. Since 2&2 ministry cult adherents have embraced the beginning to mean the NT Church Group of the 12 and 70 who were "sent", (giving no due recognition to the rest of ether of their limited commission) it is natural they wish to defend such a belief with everything they can, thinking it is the only right thing to believe. They are not the only ones to reach and make such erroneous conclusions.
In this instance, what is being overlooked is the myriad of errors, even deceptions that have come to be, in favor of what they now have, thinking it to be only their group that is saved. Personally, every time one of those promoting such beliefs post here, I am grateful for it reveals the continued error in such thinking for others to observe and consider. More and more are being set free from religious bondage (even IF they continue to participate in that fellowship) because of these people who surely must think they are doing "God's work." And, in my opinion, they are, but just not in the way they appear to want to be doing, or believe themselves doing.
In my opinion, most of the posts of these people reek of self justification for what they do. At least some others of their posts ridicule, cast red herrings, try to hijack threads like this (yes, those things are also done by those who do not believe as they, and neither justify the other.)
With all due respect, some DO attempt to justify what they "believe" rather than do, yet, when questioned, those people quickly evade, equivocate, ignore or even fault those "putting them on the spot," frequently turning to ridicule. I know, some opposed to the 2&2 ministry cult system do the same, and again, the one does not justify the other.. Yet, who are claiming to represent the only true belief in God found on the earth today? Should not a higher level of integrity and belief be both demanded and expected of them?
It certainly is expected and demanded of me, and yet, I do not even begin to claim to represent the only true belief in God found on the earth today. Rather, I make every attempt to relate what I believe, and why I believe it true.
Sincerely,
Dennis
|
|
|
FACTS
Sept 8, 2007 1:40:48 GMT -5
Post by to wtbwg on Sept 8, 2007 1:40:48 GMT -5
Do you have to be rude to everyone? You are one sad, strange, sick individual.
|
|
|
FACTS
Sept 8, 2007 1:41:34 GMT -5
Post by wanttobewithGod on Sept 8, 2007 1:41:34 GMT -5
Coming from...YOU? LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL *eye roll*
|
|
|
FACTS
Sept 8, 2007 6:14:37 GMT -5
Post by gloryintruth on Sept 8, 2007 6:14:37 GMT -5
Dennis and Cherie are right. The people who want to believe that the workers' system predates William Irvine are blowing hot air. These people are usually under the age of 35 or 40 and never even knew the early workers or what they did or said.
It is becoming rare for people in the Fellowship (in my experience) to maintain that the Fellowship, and the Worker's ministry can lay claim to an unbroken succession back to the time of Christ. However, this does not mean that what I call the "Deposit of Faith" has changed over that time. The Deposit of Faith - derived from the scripture itself, proven by historical example - contains all the elements of organisation, rule, and pattern which are practiced today.
In other words, while it is true to say the Worker's ministry does not predate 1897, it is true that the teachings that inform the Workers ministry have been existant since the time of Christ. It is in this sense that we refer to the Fellowship as springing from the "shores of Galilee".
What is also very odd is that these same people try to downplay all the weirdness, scandal, ignorance of scripture, and lack of kindness or compassion for people, both outside the group and inside.
Many of these allegations boil down to a matter of opinion.
This system is NOT Christian. It is a combination of Catholicism and Freemasonry.
I find this quite amusing.
There are probably few churches so open about their opposition to the doctrines of Rome than the Fellowship. I remember when I was exploring the Roman Catholic faith, that even the name seemed dirty to me. Likewise, Freemasonry.
For you to tell us categorically, without qualification, that the Fellowship has any similarity to the ecclesiastical apparatus of the Roman Church, or the estoric society of Masons is plainly absurd to anyone who knows anything about either of these organisations. Doctrinally, organisationally, ecclesiastically, and socially, these organisations are fundamentally different from the Fellowship. There is no functional or operational similarity at all!
|
|
|
FACTS
Sept 8, 2007 6:18:51 GMT -5
Post by gloryintruth on Sept 8, 2007 6:18:51 GMT -5
Do you have to be rude to everyone? You are one sad, strange, sick individual.
Hey! Leave her alone!
She's the sweetest presence on the TMB, and I can't imagine how any right-thinking person could see Want-To-Be-With-God as anything but the honeycake she is!
Rude? Get lost. She's way kinder than most people on this board put together. Sad? Strange? Sick? I rise to the defense of WTBWG, whose spirit and attitude makes her one of the most beautiful people I have ever come across online.
Lay off one of the few good people. O.K.?
|
|
|
FACTS
Sept 8, 2007 6:21:54 GMT -5
Post by ranman77007 on Sept 8, 2007 6:21:54 GMT -5
i agree.... shes a sweetheart, and she can cuss me out anytime she wants...
|
|
|
FACTS
Sept 8, 2007 13:13:49 GMT -5
Post by wanttobewithGod on Sept 8, 2007 13:13:49 GMT -5
Aww, ty...that's so kind. Mich
|
|