|
Post by Will on Jun 26, 2006 11:48:19 GMT -5
No other names writes: The FACT remains, their is no official name other than ''children of God''. [being born into His family] when this happens, then we take HIS name. [no other name]
The problem IMO is that the friends and workers presume that this condition is exclusive to the friends and workers. As other threads have discussed many, many times over the years, this claim to exclusivity is the problem. I truly believe it is Satan having his way with your ego to make this claim because it thereby limits your definition of "neighbor" and limits your love for others. Satan wins. The Truth (aka Jesus) sets you free. The Truth (aka 2x2ism, F&Wism, Irvinites) puts you in bondage.
|
|
toBert fromGregLeeunplugged
Guest
|
Post by toBert fromGregLeeunplugged on Jun 26, 2006 13:39:54 GMT -5
I meant this and how it does or does not relate to the workers' church and former members:
"And on this basis I am sure many people broke away when the real truth about Paul was revealed. And those who did, condemned themselves because they were focussed upon the messenger and not the message."
|
|
|
Post by To Bert on Jun 26, 2006 14:08:10 GMT -5
And on this basis I am sure many people broke away when the real truth about Paul was revealed. And those who did, condemned themselves because they were focussed upon the messenger and not the message.
Wow. Other than Nathan, I can't think of anyone on this board who demonstrates greater focus on the "messenger" than you. We certainly know all about your conviction to the workers ministry and system, but we know hardly anything about your beliefs. Again I say - Wow.
|
|
|
Post by ozelaine on Jun 26, 2006 17:52:57 GMT -5
Not HIS message Nathan, but other messages not authored by God.
We can be sure that God's messengers would always speak the truth about His Son.
Those who do not know Christ are revealed by the false doctrines they believe about Him. It is doctrine that defines who the true Messiah is, and that which will ALWAYS distinguish Him from the false.
To deny the truth about Jesus is to deny Jesus Himself.
Quote John Porterfield [Funeral of Nelson Printz Bakersfield, CA 7/21/93]
Jesus was "the express image" of God. Sometimes we hear this expression. There might be a little girl in the home, and she looks like her mother. We think of her as being "the express image" of her mother. Or a little boy--he looks like his father. We think of him as being "the express image" of his father. But we wouldn't make the mistake to think that little girl WAS her mother. No. And we wouldn't make the mistake that little boy WAS his father. No--they are two separate individuals. But Christ was "the express image" of God. He wasn't God, and He didn't claim to be. He was in this sense the same as you and I: the Scripture tells us that "Ye are gods". There's some thing about us that is that way. The fact that we live forever, whether it's in a saved eternity or a lost eternity...it will go on forever. But nevertheless, we recognize that God is the one that is the Father. He's our Father."
This is one man among many who preach false doctrine.
Friends, be not deceived. Your eternal destiny depends on the Gospel you believe.
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jun 26, 2006 21:49:45 GMT -5
Nathan,
You sound like Bill Clinton.
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Jun 26, 2006 22:34:00 GMT -5
Welcome to tonight's episode of "I Don't Have a Comeback." We'll be right back after these short messages from our sponsor...
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Jun 26, 2006 22:44:56 GMT -5
...which will be followed up by the sequel "I Still Don't Have a Comeback"
|
|
|
Post by proper on Jun 26, 2006 22:46:44 GMT -5
The problem IMO is that the VOT's presume that this condition is exclusive to their empty mindedness. As other threads have discussed many, many times over the years, this claim to is the problem. I truly believe it is Satan having his way with your ego to make this claim because it thereby limits your definition of "neighbor" and limits your love for others.
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jun 26, 2006 23:04:14 GMT -5
Nathan,
What's interesting is that based on the times, you edited your post prior to replying to me so that now it is more difficult to see your Clintonesque semantics.
But even with your editing you're in no better a position. Now you're reading into his statements that he believes Jesus is God the Son. Even though the statements as they stand indicate that he believes Jesus is not God in any sense.
|
|
pamd
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by pamd on Jun 27, 2006 0:57:50 GMT -5
Just a quick responce to Nathan, John was a sweet, simple man and very plain spoken. He meant it the way it sounded. He wasn't one for clever twists (ie: Bill Clintonesque) and he was Biblically incorrect. Just because it doesn't fit our neat human explanations, Jesus was part of the trinity. In no way is He "just like us."
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Jun 27, 2006 1:34:05 GMT -5
I think it's time we called the Friends for what they really are: "Irvinites". Strictly speaking, the name "Irvinites" is more suited for the group that went with William Irvine after he was booted out of the 2x2s in 1917.
|
|
|
Post by prue on Jun 27, 2006 7:17:42 GMT -5
hello Cherie from Prue - what your links show are just identifiers given to governments when they demanded one from us - the names you show don't belong to us in any real sense - we don't have a name because Jesus did not have a name
|
|
|
Post by Greg Lee unplugged on Jun 27, 2006 7:17:52 GMT -5
I believe you're reading too much into his sermon. John P. was saying Jesus wasn't God the Father but as the Son of God=God the Son in His heavenly Father image. More and more I see nathan9 (Nathan Barker) reading into what is posted, printed, and probably said what he wants to believe. I think it was at first a deliberate deception for others, but now I think he has even deluded his own self.
|
|
|
Post by Greg Lee unplugged on Jun 27, 2006 7:23:03 GMT -5
hello Cherie from Prue - what your links show are just identifiers given to governments when they demanded one from us - the names you show don't belong to us in any real sense - we don't have a name because Jesus did not have a name Jesus did not have a name? Your church has no name because it chooses to not have a name.
|
|
|
Post by WHY on Jun 27, 2006 16:37:08 GMT -5
hello Cherie from Prue - what your links show are just identifiers given to governments when they demanded one from us - the names you show don't belong to us in any real sense - we don't have a name because Jesus did not have a name Jesus did not have a name? Your church has no name because it chooses to not have a name. And why don't we have a name? because we wish to follow what Jesus did, and obey The Father
|
|
tempted in every way
Guest
|
Post by tempted in every way on Jun 27, 2006 21:38:41 GMT -5
Jesus was tempted in every way...just like us...maybe I have not understood something. Of course if Jesus was God...how could He be like us....let alone be tempted like us?
|
|
|
Post by think about it on Jun 27, 2006 21:47:11 GMT -5
Could Jesus have been saying that we all are God? It is possible that while, yes, Jesus was God...He was trying to teach us that we too, are like Him....& also sons of God. As imperfect humans...we (as Jesus) must go through trials & temptations before rediscovering our divinity.
|
|
|
Post by Will on Jun 27, 2006 22:42:31 GMT -5
As an analogy, let's say I paint a painting that looks like Da Vinci's Mona Lisa and I even call it the Mona Lisa. Even if I do a really good job copying and use canvas and paint and brush strokes that to me look just like what Da Vinci used, is it THE Mona Lisa? No? Well, let's say I claim that Da Vinci's spirit is channeled through me, can I claim it then? Guess I'm just a wannabe artist.
Now, let's say I'm William Irvine and I create a way of ministry and worship that looks a lot like what I read in the New Testament as what was happening back then. In fact, I say we won't use a name because the church in NT time didn't have a name. Is it therefore THE church from the NT that I (re)created? What if a bunch of my followers later claim that I was raised up and used by God to recreate His Church? Then will you believe it? Gee, guess so.
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Jun 27, 2006 23:24:17 GMT -5
Jesus was tempted in every way...just like us...maybe I have not understood something. Of course if Jesus was God...how could He be like us....let alone be tempted like us?
Good question. Here's some things to think about. Just because someone attacks another, does that mean they can defeat them? Think of when Satan tempted Jesus in the wilderness. Who led Jesus there? The Holy Spirit. Why? Do you think the Father was sitting in heaven with his fingers crossed? No. He knew with no question that Satan would be defeated. Why? Because Jesus was God.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jun 28, 2006 6:44:53 GMT -5
Good analogy, Will.
"Close" ain't close enough--to be the original!
|
|
|
Post by roberta on Jun 28, 2006 12:34:38 GMT -5
I don't really understand the big deal about a name.
|
|
|
Post by junia on Jun 28, 2006 12:48:53 GMT -5
Based on the fact William Irvine was exed and subsequently had his own small following it might be more accurate to call that group "Irvinites".
Edward Cooney's group were nicknamed "Cooneyites", so how about calling the main group "Workerites". ;D
|
|
|
Post by Will on Jun 28, 2006 12:51:02 GMT -5
No big deal about a name. However, it IS a big deal that the F&W (call them what you want) claim to be the exclusive reincarnate true church, thanks to God raising up Willie and the gang. The company line is then that only the F&W are chosen and the rest of us are in false, man-made wordly churches at best. Seems a bit presumptuous to me.
|
|
|
Post by need some answers on Jun 28, 2006 15:17:09 GMT -5
"Just because someone attacks another, does that mean they can defeat them? Think of when Satan tempted Jesus in the wilderness. Who led Jesus there? The Holy Spirit. Why? Do you think the Father was sitting in heaven with his fingers crossed? No. He knew with no question that Satan would be defeated. Why? Because Jesus was God." So what good was his sacrifice? An untested, spotless figure on a cross, like a golden calf on a pole for everyone to look upon. Why did God send him to the earth as a baby? Why did God have him born of a flesh and blood woman? Why did he have him born in a stable? He could have just as easy had him appear here on the earth, and then nail him to a cross to die... that is what he did anyway... what does all the other have to do with it? I have been reading this board for a couple of months... and have not seen any answers to these questions... I am surprised actually that they have never been asked.
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Jun 28, 2006 15:42:55 GMT -5
To need some answers, Before addressing your questions, there is a more fundamental issue that I want to put on the table for your consideration. Do you realize that you are coming perilously close to setting the parameters under which Christ's sacrifice will be meaningful to you? We don't get to set the conditions; IE, we can't say that if his life or sacrifice was or wasn't such and such it doesn't mean anything to me. Very dangerous territory IMO. This is a very good place to start if you're seriously trying to find answers. Ponder this, and then let's talk
|
|
|
Post by need some answers on Jun 28, 2006 22:17:10 GMT -5
To need some answers, Before addressing your questions, there is a more fundamental issue that I want to put on the table for your consideration. Do you realize that you are coming perilously close to setting the parameters under which Christ's sacrifice will be meaningful to you? We don't get to set the conditions; IE, we can't say that if his life or sacrifice was or wasn't such and such it doesn't mean anything to me. Very dangerous territory IMO. This is a very good place to start if you're seriously trying to find answers. Ponder this, and then let's talk It may sound that way to you when you read it. No, I am not setting conditions, I am speaking from my understanding of the scripture. I think those words are there for a reason. We celebrate Christmas and the babe for a reason. We have a complete season wrapped around the fact that he was born here on this earth of a flesh and blood woman. Now, from my perspective, I think that is just the beginning of a very special life here on this earth. No, I don't think God sat in heaven with his fingers crossed hopping that Jesus made it. He was in communication continually with his Son during his life. I think Jesus loved his father, and he understood his mission on this earth. Because of that, I think the burden was overwhelming at times, such as in the garden. But he found the strength in his relationship with his Father in heaven because of his love for his Father and his creation. I think I have found what I am looking for. These people, and the fellowship they have is founded on a very solid foundation. Love. That is something that I don't see much of in this world.
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Jun 28, 2006 22:24:38 GMT -5
Fair enough. I guess we'll just call it good then. I do understand where you're coming from...I was there for 30 years. Now I honestly can't understand how I missed it, but I did. Good days to you. BTW, your "handle is "need some answers". What questions do you need answers to?
|
|
|
Post by need some answers on Jun 29, 2006 8:31:58 GMT -5
lol... good one Zorro.
You understand where I am coming from, but I don't understand where you are coming from. I am trying to do my due diligence here.
|
|