|
Post by JO on Feb 15, 2009 18:16:47 GMT -5
If the church acknowledges they have a founder, what is the next scenario? Who does the acknowledgment satisfy? It would satisfy those of us who love truth and honesty and despise lies and deceipt. It would enable the workers to focus on preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ instead of trying to defend the indefensable. I believe they would see real fruit for their labours as a result. What do you think the downside would be?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2009 18:17:17 GMT -5
What we MUST consider when Edward Cooney assured the court of law that he was not the founder but that William Irvine was the first, is that this was almost a unique occasion when one such as himself was made to give "factual" testimony and was both "accountable" and "responsible" for his words.
All the other airy, fairy, from the beginning and God always had it in mind stuff, is at best only the imagination of man, spouted off to satisfy those who want to hear that sort of stuff. There is nothing substantiative in it. Cooney did not try that stuff in a court of law where only facts are considered, not wishful thinking.
Courts are not interested in good ideas. They are interested in facts which can be examined if necessary in order to prove the truth of a subject under judicial examination.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH ACCEPTING AND PRESENTING THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT ?
"Round about the beginning of the 20th century William Irvine and some other devout men (and women), desired to seek a closer walk with God and decided to return to what they believed were the methods of the early Christian Church. Over the period of a few short years the ministry of the workers and the home church developed and became what it is today."
This contains two important elements regarding foundation. It shows "why" it was founded and it shows "how" it was founded, i.e. why= closer walk with God; how = the human agency.
Is that such a difficult thing to accept ? If it is, then I'll remove the last four letters from difficult and try again.
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Feb 15, 2009 18:20:43 GMT -5
If the church acknowledges they have a founder, what is the next scenario? Who does the acknowledgment satisfy? Truth, lin. Your expectation should be nothing less than that, but it seems that you have no expectation of truth since you are so resistant to it.
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Feb 15, 2009 18:24:52 GMT -5
What we MUST consider when Edward Cooney assured the court of law that he was not the founder but that William Irvine was the first, is that this was almost a unique occasion when one such as himself was made to give "factual" testimony and was both "accountable" and "responsible" for his words. All the other airy, fairy, from the beginning and God always had it in mind stuff, is at best only the imagination of man, spouted off to satisfy those who want to hear that sort of stuff. There is nothing substantiative in it. Cooney did not try that stuff in a court of law where only facts are considered, not wishful thinking. Courts are not interested in good ideas. They are interested in facts which can be examined if necessary in order to prove the truth of a subject under judicial examination. WHAT IS WRONG WITH ACCEPTING AND PRESENTING THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT ? "Round about the beginning of the 20th century William Irvine and some other devout men (and women), desired to seek a closer walk with God and decided to return to what they believed were the methods of the early Christian Church. Over the period of a few short years the ministry of the workers and the home church developed and became what it is today." This contains two important elements regarding foundation. It shows "why" it was founded and it shows "how" it was founded, i.e. why= closer walk with God; how = the human agency. Is that such a difficult thing to accept ? If it is, then I'll remove the last four letters from difficult and try again. Awww Ram! It's the last four letters of "thing" should be "thang"! Nevertheless....it is the truth when one gives it a possibility that there are more then one founder...although I do agree the potential reality that WI produced the faith lines itinerant ministry to the few men who started out with him....the rest is still guesswork awaiting historical facts to make certain of which "who's" did what after that!
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Feb 15, 2009 18:28:02 GMT -5
Raymond Franz, wrote down his ordeal with "wind-up prophets" in the JW's in his book "Crisis of Conscience", to morph an expression of Ram's.
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Feb 15, 2009 18:33:28 GMT -5
Raymond Franz, wrote down his ordeal with "wind-up prophets" in the JW's in his book "Crisis of Conscience", to morph an expression of Ram's. Please explain what a "windup prophet" is?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2009 18:42:59 GMT -5
~~~ Ram, how about this? why can't we accept this and leave it at that.
~~~ According to Edward Cooney testimony. "We did NOT start this Jesus Way...it was started and planned by God before we were ever thought of, and we are NOT starting a new religion. We are earnestly contending for the faith once delivered to the Saints and trying to separate it from the traditions of men..."Edward Cooney ( 2x2s minister) Impartial Reporter" 1O/7/1909.
Cooney knew full well this way was NOT continuous from Jesus' time. By what authority could he state this was Jesus' way - NONE ! By what authority could he state this way was started and planned by God before they were even thought of ? - NONE ! They may have, in their idea of things, been earnestly contending to "RETURN" to the faith once delivered to the saints, but even years later workers admitted "mistakes were made."
Cooney's words were either said to, or picked up by a newspaper. These style of words were often said to "agreeing ears." They sounded good to many unlearned people, but yet not one word in that first sentence could be substantiated. It was all in the minds of men.
At the court case, some years later, Cooney did not have the liberty of projecting good ideas and wishful thinking. He was giving "factual" testimony on oath, where he would be "accountable" and responsible" for his words. He would be critically examined and cross-examined on "FACTS" to establish the truth of the matter.
"I was not the founder. William Irvine was the first about 16 years ago." None of this God started it and planned it before any of us were thought of stuff. It was HIM - Irvine !
Courts are not interested in good ideas or wishful thinking. They have to make the right decisions based upon ascertaining the correct facts and circumstances of a matter under judicial examination.
Isn't it interesting that what is presented "against" a whole catalogue of facts and circumstances leading us to the only rightful conclusion that William Irvine was the founder, is a statement from Cooney printed in a newspaper, the primary details of which have not even one shred of supporting evidence ?
Nathan, you are attempting to repel many facts with imagination.
Even George Walker states a RETURN to things, clearly indicating it was not continuous. They came out of the religious ways they were in to establish that return ! It was a new beginning, the foundation of their new sect.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2009 18:50:55 GMT -5
What wrote:
All that is necessary to remedy the situation is a brief history of the movement telling of things like the first conventions, the origin of the hymns and the hymnbook, the meeting home, the lives of the early workers, and perhaps influences such as Faith Mission, Waldenses, William Chalmers Burns, Edward Irving, and others. I think the 'William Irvine is the founder' issue is almost a red herring. The description does not need to solve every question people could come up with, or contain idle speculation. If all is simply told that can be told, then the hearer has truthful, factual information and can decide what they wish to decide.
Sorry What, but the William Irvine founder thing is no red herring. It is a very serious issue.
I gave an example of a brief statement which I would hope could be used for the beginning of honesty, with potential for further details to be disclosed.
If you are going to mention Faith Mission and other possible influences (citing proper connections) then you must include William Irvine and Edward Cooney. This would be only right and proper considering the efforts to deny them in the past. We would not want a repeat of these mistakes.
As far as I am concerned honesty is critically important. No hiding things or watering them down. Just get it out.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Feb 15, 2009 18:58:48 GMT -5
Raymond Franz, wrote down his ordeal with "wind-up prophets" in the JW's in his book "Crisis of Conscience", to morph an expression of Ram's. Please explain what a "windup prophet" is? Anyone who mindlessly recommends something often.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2009 19:14:43 GMT -5
Nathan, we are talking about a new sect, not so much new methods, although there were definately some new methods in the Workers' way.
Irvine and Co. started a new sect. You cannot get away from that. I accept they were not seeking to start a new sect as such, but by drawing out people from other churches along with themselves they could not avoid forming themselves into a new movement no matter how much they eschewed organisation.
Not taking a name actually supports the argument they were doing something new. Never had this been done before, at least not in the early days. As you know, they early church took several names and that God himself is all for giving names to things.
The early workers believed certain things, a number of which do not coincide with scripture. These things help prove that it was a new sect with some very new beliefs and teachings.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2009 19:22:40 GMT -5
I think that is the issue Nathan. Neither Irvine nor any of his spiritual progeny have ever fully understood the NT ministry and church. They took the narrow way of Jesus and formed it into a narrow-minded way, giving themselves no room for manouevre and adopting some very cultic lines of thinking.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 15, 2009 19:26:52 GMT -5
The confusion came about when people started talking about "this way" in the sense of "this church" or "this system". I believe Eddie was sincerely preaching the "Jesus way" without intending anyone to think it was about the group or the religion that he was talking about. "What was from the beginning" and "the Jesus' way of life" only becomes a problem when we equate it to the mission that William Irvine started. ~~~ Ram, how about this? why can't we accept this and leave it at that.
~~~ According to Edward Cooney testimony. "We did NOT start this Jesus Way...it was started and planned by God before we were ever thought of, and we are NOT starting a new religion. We are earnestly contending for the faith once delivered to the Saints and trying to separate it from the traditions of men..."Edward Cooney ( 2x2s minister) Impartial Reporter" 1O/7/1909. Cooney knew full well this way was NOT continuous from Jesus' time. By what authority could he state this was Jesus' way - NONE ! By what authority could he state this way was started and planned by God before they were even thought of ? - NONE ! They may have, in their idea of things, been earnestly contending to "RETURN" to the faith once delivered to the saints, but even years later workers admitted "mistakes were made." Cooney's words were either said to, or picked up by a newspaper. These style of words were often said to "agreeing ears." They sounded good to many unlearned people, but yet not one word in that first sentence could be substantiated. It was all in the minds of men. At the court case, some years later, Cooney did not have the liberty of projecting good ideas and wishful thinking. He was giving "factual" testimony on oath, where he would be "accountable" and responsible" for his words. He would be critically examined and cross-examined on "FACTS" to establish the truth of the matter. "I was not the founder. William Irvine was the first about 16 years ago." None of this God started it and planned it before any of us were thought of stuff. It was HIM - Irvine ! Courts are not interested in good ideas or wishful thinking. They have to make the right decisions based upon ascertaining the correct facts and circumstances of a matter under judicial examination. Isn't it interesting that what is presented "against" a whole catalogue of facts and circumstances leading us to the only rightful conclusion that William Irvine was the founder, is a statement from Cooney printed in a newspaper, the primary details of which have not even one shred of supporting evidence ? Nathan, you are attempting to repel many facts with imagination. Even George Walker states a RETURN to things, clearly indicating it was not continuous. They came out of the religious ways they were in to establish that return ! It was a new beginning, the foundation of their new sect.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2009 19:36:57 GMT -5
Nathan I do not doubt their sincerity in believing what they believe, but you know as well as I do, because many of the issues have been discussed time and again on this board, that there was a lot more to the early church than that which is reproduced in the F&W's church.
One thing they must learn before any progress can be made is to be honest about their mistakes.
|
|
|
Post by lin on Feb 15, 2009 20:14:19 GMT -5
ram wrote One thing they must learn before any progress can be made is to be honest about their mistakes.
What do you mean by progress?
|
|
|
Post by kencoolidge on Feb 15, 2009 20:49:49 GMT -5
ram wrote One thing they must learn before any progress can be made is to be honest about their mistakes. What do you mean by progress? Pardon me for barging into this conversation. I believe the point Ram is making is similar to what people with addictions have to do to get their life on track.(Step 4) In particular make a fearless moral inventory. (Step 5) Admit to God to ourselves and to others the exact nature of our wrongs. Make direct amends to those injured/deceived. This would be progress. The ongoing discussion is basically a denial of documented record that the F&Ws church has a short history and it does have a founder. Staying in denial will never end the deceptions. As some of the friends do a search for themselves they become disappointed with a leadership that knows but continues to deny history. Why is beyond my understanding. This post is not meant to cause doubts but to encourage some who post here to question leadership concerning history and why withhold the TRUTH. I have personally talked to 2 older workers who not only admitted but one actually bragged a bit about the history.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 15, 2009 21:31:08 GMT -5
Could someone please help me understand how it could be considered virtuous to continue this denial of the beginnings?
I can understand the motive for initially keeping quiet about William Irvine's role after his immorality came to light.
What I don't understand is:
1. Why workers who know don't tell their colleagues who don't know.
2. Why workers preach along the lines of "Jesus sent his disciples out 2x2 and that has never changed". It's worded in such a way as to give the impression of apostolic succession.
3. Why workers tell lies when questioned about the beginnings, and condemn the questioner.
4. Why apologists on TMB are so desperate to defend the lies.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Feb 15, 2009 21:47:23 GMT -5
I guess I'm an "apologist" in a strange way, so I'll hazard some guesses. 1. Why workers who know don't tell their colleagues who don't know. They do not consider the origins of the Truth consequential to their walk with God. Period. Perhaps interesting, but totally irrelevant. I have not heard this in a while from workers, but have from many friends. We love confirmation that we are right; all of us, naturally, cling to the interpretations that verify our beliefs. These two questions have two different answers. 1. I am not yet convinced any workers I know will lie; they will redirect, poo-poo, or ignore the question, but you must understand: They KNOW theirs is the way of God, and whatever the proper answer, it MUST confirm this as the best way of worship. No other possibility exists. So why question? 2. "condemning the questioner" is a standard ploy in debate, to attack the person rather than the idea. It's very easy to attack people. I don't. I defend the RIGHT to believe lies. Just as I defend your right to believe your religion's lies.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Feb 15, 2009 22:33:01 GMT -5
Could someone please help me understand how it could be considered virtuous to continue this denial of the beginnings? ~~~ I don't deny of WI and the workers beginnings. I can understand the motive for initially keeping quiet about William Irvine's role after his immorality came to light. What I don't understand is: 1. Why workers who know don't tell their colleagues who don't know. 2. Why workers preach along the lines of "Jesus sent his disciples out 2x2 and that has never changed". It's worded in such a way as to give the impression of apostolic succession. ~~~ Jesus and apostles apostolic ministry HAD NOT changed! Where do you read that Jesus or the apostles say that it would CHANGE? 3. Why workers tell lies when questioned about the beginnings, and condemn the questioner. ~~~ You believe your facts as the truth so you condemned those who don't believe the way you do..... AND you call them liars... That is truly sad in my book.4. Why apologists on TMB are so desperate to defend the lies. ~~~ Why are you keep on PUSHING others to believe your so call maybe facts as the truth when you were NOT in the begining yourself. You don't KNOW for sure.... because we KNOW you don't have ALL your facts in one basket! yet....
You keep on telling others your facts as truth so can I.... and others who are NOT full convinced because there are MANY missing pieces in the puzzle.the way the workers go out and how they did in the New Testament would not bare any similarity. Another culture, another time. Even today, living in Israel is completely different to living in the west, let alone to say 2,000 years ago. It is laughable that the workers think they can imitate the New Testament ministry today.
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Feb 15, 2009 22:45:38 GMT -5
Could someone please help me understand how it could be considered virtuous to continue this denial of the beginnings? ~~~ I don't deny of WI and the workers beginnings. I can understand the motive for initially keeping quiet about William Irvine's role after his immorality came to light. What I don't understand is: 1. Why workers who know don't tell their colleagues who don't know. 2. Why workers preach along the lines of "Jesus sent his disciples out 2x2 and that has never changed". It's worded in such a way as to give the impression of apostolic succession. ~~~ Jesus and apostles apostolic ministry HAD NOT changed! Where do you read that Jesus or the apostles say that it would CHANGE? 3. Why workers tell lies when questioned about the beginnings, and condemn the questioner. ~~~ You believe your facts as the truth so you condemned those who don't believe the way you do..... AND you call them liars... That is truly sad in my book.4. Why apologists on TMB are so desperate to defend the lies. ~~~ Why are you keep on PUSHING others to believe your so call maybe facts as the truth when you were NOT in the beginning yourself. You don't KNOW for sure yourself.... because we KNOW you don't have ALL your facts in one basket! We have NOT heard or read from ALL of the early players yet...
You keep on telling others your facts as truth so can I about what I believe is truth..... There are people who are NOT full convinced of yours so-call facts because there are MANY missing pieces in the puzzle which haven't found yet.
Where and Who did WI get his 2x2 Itinerant apostolic ministry from? How about John Kelly? and some of the ex-Faith Mission preacher who left that group. Did they have the similiar idea before WI did.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 15, 2009 22:47:15 GMT -5
Thanks DC for some interesting answers: 1. If the group’s origins are inconsequential to our walk with God then they should accept that belonging to the group is also inconsequential to our walk with God. They can’t have it both ways i.e. pump up the importance of belonging to their group and at the same time refuse to acknowledge its history. 2. Man’s confirmation that we are right is dangerous don’t you think? Especially if its built on fantasy. 3. To redirect, poo-poo, ignore a question is done with the intent to deceive. That’s a lie in my book. To attack a questioner is despicable, especially from people who claim to dedicate their lives to preaching the gospel. 4. I agree, people have a right to believe lies. Unless folks are searching for truth its rather futile trying to reason with them. Some of us feel those who’ve been brainwashed from a child deserve to at least have access to the facts. I guess I'm an "apologist" in a strange way, so I'll hazard some guesses. 1. Why workers who know don't tell their colleagues who don't know. They do not consider the origins of the Truth consequential to their walk with God. Period. Perhaps interesting, but totally irrelevant. I have not heard this in a while from workers, but have from many friends. We love confirmation that we are right; all of us, naturally, cling to the interpretations that verify our beliefs. These two questions have two different answers. 1. I am not yet convinced any workers I know will lie; they will redirect, poo-poo, or ignore the question, but you must understand: They KNOW theirs is the way of God, and whatever the proper answer, it MUST confirm this as the best way of worship. No other possibility exists. So why question? 2. "condemning the questioner" is a standard ploy in debate, to attack the person rather than the idea. It's very easy to attack people. I don't. I defend the RIGHT to believe lies. Just as I defend your right to believe your religion's lies.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2009 22:59:55 GMT -5
"Round about the beginning of the 20th century William Irvine and some other devout men (and women), desired to seek a closer walk with God and decided to return to what they believed were the methods of the early Christian Church. Over the period of a few short years the ministry of the workers and the home church developed and became what it is today."
Not bad Ram. I would make a small revision to yours:
"Round about the beginning of the 20th century under the principal leadership of William Irvine and secondarily some other devout men (and women), a small group sought a closer walk with God and decided to return to what they believed were the methods of the early Christian Church. Over the period of a few short years the ministry of the workers and the home church developed and became what it is today."
I would like to see a shorter statement. Can it be done?
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Feb 15, 2009 23:03:19 GMT -5
Some of us feel those who’ve been brainwashed from a child deserve to at least have access to the facts. Well, sure, but most everyone already has access to the facts disproving whatever religion they were brainwashed into, if they really wish to delve into it. Heck, just walk over to the "religion" section of your barns & noble. The deal is, most people appear satisfied and well-served by whatever they were raised in. Most do not need the "facts," as you call them.
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Feb 15, 2009 23:07:30 GMT -5
"Round about the beginning of the 20th century William Irvine and some other devout men (and women), desired to seek a closer walk with God and decided to return to what they believed were the methods of the early Christian Church. Over the period of a few short years the ministry of the workers and the home church developed and became what it is today."Not bad Ram. I would make a small revision to yours: "Round about the beginning of the 20th century under the principal leadership of William Irvine and secondarily some other devout men (and women), a small group sought a closer walk with God and decided to return to what they believed were the methods of the early Christian Church. Over the period of a few short years the ministry of the workers and the home church developed and became what it is today." I would like to see a shorter statement. Can it be done? Circa 1900, WI and his co-workers attempted to follow Mt. 10 and minister in kind. As time went by, they realized that they should live what they preached and should establish mtgs. in the home, like in the book of Acts.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 15, 2009 23:08:29 GMT -5
What wrote:
All that is necessary to remedy the situation is a brief history of the movement telling of things like the first conventions, the origin of the hymns and the hymnbook, the meeting home, the lives of the early workers, and perhaps influences such as Faith Mission, Waldenses, William Chalmers Burns, Edward Irving, and others. I think the 'William Irvine is the founder' issue is almost a red herring. The description does not need to solve every question people could come up with, or contain idle speculation. If all is simply told that can be told, then the hearer has truthful, factual information and can decide what they wish to decide.Sorry What, but the William Irvine founder thing is no red herring. It is a very serious issue. I gave an example of a brief statement which I would hope could be used for the beginning of honesty, with potential for further details to be disclosed. If you are going to mention Faith Mission and other possible influences (citing proper connections) then you must include William Irvine and Edward Cooney. This would be only right and proper considering the efforts to deny them in the past. We would not want a repeat of these mistakes. As far as I am concerned honesty is critically important. No hiding things or watering them down. Just get it out. I'm not trying to evade the question of who did what. My point is simply that if you can get the workers to agree that a sanctioned history should be published, then the rest becomes an academic exercise. That's what I meant by a "red herring".
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Feb 15, 2009 23:21:57 GMT -5
Some of us feel those who’ve been brainwashed from a child deserve to at least have access to the facts. Well, sure, but most everyone already has access to the facts disproving whatever religion they were brainwashed into, if they really wish to delve into it. Heck, just walk over to the "religion" section of your barns & noble. The deal is, most people appear satisfied and well-served by whatever they were raised in. Most do not need the "facts," as you call them. 1Cor 13:7 Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. That is, love believes everything that is good and eternal, and contends with the reality of everything that misleading and temporal. Time to give credit again where credit's due, to the inspired scripture, DC ?
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 15, 2009 23:23:51 GMT -5
Some of us feel those who’ve been brainwashed from a child deserve to at least have access to the facts. Well, sure, but most everyone already has access to the facts disproving whatever religion they were brainwashed into, if they really wish to delve into it. Heck, just walk over to the "religion" section of your barns & noble. The deal is, most people appear satisfied and well-served by whatever they were raised in. Most do not need the "facts," as you call them. If they came on TMB looking for facts they'd have a fine old time.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 15, 2009 23:33:51 GMT -5
I would also like to know. Who here doesn't think some kind of a factual history should be published or disseminated?
I didn't hear anybody so how about we tone down the accusatory rhetoric a notch. No one here is denying that there is a history that needs to be told.
-----
My own favourite summary at this particular moment: William Irvine with a few others started the ministry known today as Christian Conventions.
If I felt more confident about Irvine's role I would drop 'with a few others'. I prefer the word 'started' to 'founded'. I like the word 'ministry' because initially it was only a ministry, and we're not sure how each element of the rest of it started. So getting into the other elements without saying who what where confuses things. And to say 'ministry' does not diminish what Irvine did. I like 'Christian Conventions' because that is the name registered with the US govt by George Walker. I like 'known as' because it sidesteps the issue of not having our own name.
Anyway, that's what I like, but perhaps it doesn't really resonate with anyone else. I'm curious what you think of my kick at the can.
One thing I do believe is that we do need a history either written by, or with the active participation of, believers within the fellowship.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2009 0:10:24 GMT -5
Pretty good siwells. If you are going to focus on what they did rather than what they started, I think you need to say more. That is, their prime focus was to preach the gospel to the lost and seeking. Their Matt10 method was how they chose to do it.
"William Irvine with a few others started the ministry known today as Christian Conventions."
What I really love about this one What is its brevity while still being perfectly sound based on proven facts. I do think that the evolution of the meetings could be included mainly as an identifier of what came after Irvine even though, I agree, that just who the main instigator(s) of the meetings is not clear. We have some information that indicate Cooney was the first to set up regular meetings but I don't yet feel confident enough about it to definitively state that he should be identified as the starter/founder of the fellowship meetings of laity. There were enough workers around by that time that surely several or many workers put their heads together and came up with the meeting system. I doubt that the hymn/prayer/hymn/testimonies/B&W/hymn format was designed solely by one person and then commissioned by one person.
|
|