|
Post by someguy on Feb 16, 2009 19:23:10 GMT -5
The idea of selling all is not what the founder issue is about. William Irvine started a mission - not the selling-all idea. That mission went on to establish meetings in homes, convention/special meetings systems, mission fields etc. ~~ SELLING ALL was part of Jesus and apostles apostolic Itinerant ministry/mission. That what WI or whoever! convinced 200 2x2 workers to do.....the New Testament ministry eventually the Church=assembly of believers was formed.
~~ That was how the New Testament Church was formed by Jesus and the apostolic and believers ministry in the first century.
Ahh actually Nate, that is how Jesus tried to establish faith in Him, that he would provide to the apostles as He sent them out to "ISRAEL". Sad thing is Nathan, you don't seem to understand that God's method is ministry, not a ministry. You, Todd, Kiwi and other ridiculously hardliners can't seem to understand that everyone or most everyone on this board appreciates the workers and the gospel. We just don't agree with people like you saying that it is the only way or do we agree with the gospel the workers now preach. It is almost as though you don't understand Jesus was sending a message to the Jewish Nation and He was doing it according to the law, according to a fashion in which they would recognize and recieve. It is for this reason it was only to the Jewish Nation. It was for this reason He gave them power to cast out devils and heal sickness. It was for this reason He asked them to go in twos. If you don't understand this, read up on the importance of witnessing in order for a matter to be established. You will find this in Deut. Why did He ask them to take nothing for their journey? Was it not to establish faith in Him? Now take you people who think this is the only way. You cling to only part of His commission. The homeless, 2x2 part, and a little bit of the selling all but you reject only to the Jewish Nation and the ability to cast out devils and heal sickness. Of course you try to explain around it, but seriously it gets rather pathetic. You end up defending a system and somehow mistakenly thinking you are defending Jesus. The harder you try to defend this, the more obvious it is that your faith is actually in a method and not in Jesus. What I don't understand is why you seem to think that what Jesus did for the Israel should be done now. Jesus is not the author of confusion Nathan. His message is not hard. I think it goes something like this...."believe on me". Now as human beings this is hard as I have witnessed time and time again on this board and at meetings. We must do something. How can this gift be free? How can it be love? We have to replicate Jesus, His ministry, His perfect way. So here we are 2000 years later and there are people that feel we must replicate a form rather than just believe. We must do something. The workers are right...stomp, stomp, stomp (that is feet stomping), because they copy Jesus's perfect way (huh). We still don't understand, there is no perfect church, quit trying to think we should make one. Humans are always going to be flawed so quit thinking there even is a perfect church. However, the "Church" is actually a group of people united by the indwelling of Jesus, a common love and belief in our God, not a group united on conformity to a mans idea. Nathan, you should seriously try to expend more energy on something else, rather then defend our system. If it needs this much defending, maybe it is broken? Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 16, 2009 19:23:10 GMT -5
~~ SELLING ALL was part of Jesus and apostles apostolic Itinerant ministry/mission. That what WI or whoever! convinced 200 2x2 workers to do.....the New Testament ministry eventually the Church=assembly of believers was formed.
~~ That was how the New Testament Church was formed by Jesus and the apostolic and believers ministry in the first century.
Here's a little projects for you Nate: Could you quote the scripture that is used to show that "sell all" is necessary in order to preach the gospel? It would need to be more than one portion of scripture.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 16, 2009 19:30:41 GMT -5
Ministry is a verb Nathan.
It's what believers DO, not what they belong to.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Feb 16, 2009 19:33:14 GMT -5
You obviously show your ignorance of middle east culture. Take a trip to Israel and then come back and report to us if you think it is possible to imitate another time and place. ~~~ What are you talking about? can you explain to me what is your point more clearly.You state that the workers copy the New Testament ministry and suggest that they go out like Jesus did. I say there is no resemblance between their ministry and the ministry of Jesus who lived in a different culture and time than the workers.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Feb 16, 2009 20:00:26 GMT -5
You didn't answer the question though Nathan! Could you quote the scripture that is used to show that "sell all" is necessary in order to preach the gospel?
None of your verses supported this..... Scott
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Feb 16, 2009 20:17:42 GMT -5
Ministry is a verb Nathan. It's what believers DO, not what they belong to. jo, I've been wrong before but I thought the ministry ministered???
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Feb 16, 2009 20:19:29 GMT -5
Scott, thank you for the Christian Conventions and the Willie Irvine Wikpedia accounts....I find that about as accurate an accounting as possible!
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 16, 2009 20:30:12 GMT -5
Ministry is a verb Nathan. It's what believers DO, not what they belong to. jo, I've been wrong before but I thought the ministry ministered??? The emphasis should be on ministry, not the ministry.
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Feb 16, 2009 20:34:04 GMT -5
jo, I've been wrong before but I thought the ministry ministered??? The emphasis should be on ministry, not the ministry. you have a very good point, but people always want to say it "the ministry" for some reason and as you say, the ministry gets the attention and not the act of ministering!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2009 20:36:24 GMT -5
From my recollection of preaching on the "sell all" requirement, it came from this:
Luk 18:22 "Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. "
This was probably one of the greatest early errors in bible understanding as this was in response to a ruler who asked Jesus for the requirements for eternal life, not the requirements to join an intinerant group of preachers. Furthermore, the lesson was all about the power and attraction of money to supercede the commands of God, not an actual list of what is required to do for eternal life.
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Feb 16, 2009 20:41:10 GMT -5
From my recollection of preaching on the "sell all" requirement, it came from this: Luk 18:22 "Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. " This was probably one of the greatest early errors in bible understanding as this was in response to a ruler who asked Jesus for the requirements for eternal life, not the requirements to join an intinerant group of preachers. Furthermore, the lesson was all about the power and attraction of money to supercede the commands of God, not an actual list of what is required to do for eternal life. I thought, at least part of it, was from Acts where they all sold all their possessions and had things in common...it went on to tell of the couple who did sell all, but had kept back part of it for themselves and they paid with death! ?
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Feb 16, 2009 21:00:28 GMT -5
Ministry is a verb Nathan. It's what believers DO, not what they belong to. jo, I've been wrong before but I thought the ministry ministered??? That is the same as Todd who said, that meetings meet. He disagree though that the church meets.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Feb 16, 2009 21:02:43 GMT -5
From my recollection of preaching on the "sell all" requirement, it came from this: Luk 18:22 "Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. " This was probably one of the greatest early errors in bible understanding as this was in response to a ruler who asked Jesus for the requirements for eternal life, not the requirements to join an intinerant group of preachers. Furthermore, the lesson was all about the power and attraction of money to supercede the commands of God, not an actual list of what is required to do for eternal life. I thought, at least part of it, was from Acts where they all sold all their possessions and had things in common...it went on to tell of the couple who did sell all, but had kept back part of it for themselves and they paid with death! ? This is also not related to someone selling all to preach the Gospel. They all sold their possessions and had all things in common, they were not going preaching. Some take this to support communal style living.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Feb 16, 2009 21:28:09 GMT -5
~~~ I disagree. Reading from the Vaudois apostolic Itinerant ministry 1800 yrs history that how they interpreted those verses for their apostles to SELL ALL using the the Rich young ruler story! that how they called the apostles as the Pefect ones.
Who cares what the Vaudois did? They were a different group than the one we are discussing here. Of course like any group that started up they had their own interpretation of scripture. Just like the truth fellowship has. They are not alike. They too had a founder. The apostles didn't sell all when they went with Jesus. Some had homes that we know of, so obviously Jesus didn't make them sell all before they went out with him. Scott
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2009 21:29:35 GMT -5
Yes, agreed believer.
All Christ believers in Jerusalem sold what they had and was distributed, it had nothing to do with an itinerant group of preachers. It appears that this event was not duplicated again in the 1st century. However, Jerusalem believers were still needing help and the Corinthians took up a collection to help them out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2009 21:33:06 GMT -5
My sentiments exactly Scott. Trying to copy a copy of a copy is not wise, the errors get multiplied.
The Vaudois have no special authority in my book. Trying to copy the post-Jesus 1st century church is dangerous enough, they made plenty of mistakes themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Feb 16, 2009 21:33:23 GMT -5
Yes, agreed believer. All Christ believers in Jerusalem sold what they had and was distributed, it had nothing to do with an itinerant group of preachers. It appears that this event was not duplicated again in the 1st century. However, Jerusalem believers were still needing help and the Corinthians took up a collection to help them out. I'm sorry I didn't make my point clearer...I wasn't talking about the literal interpretation of that particular scripture...I was talking about how it has been used within the F&W's, is all! That it's been said within my hearing that is where they get the "selling of all", plus some of the scriptures that Nathan has mentioned as well!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2009 21:37:51 GMT -5
Sorry, I thought you were pushing that line. If we ever used it as a rule for the workers, it's clearly wrong.
I certainly have no bias against the "faith lines" idea of selling all, but what I am against is using it as validation of exclusive rights to God.
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Feb 16, 2009 21:42:09 GMT -5
Sorry, I thought you were pushing that line. If we ever used it as a rule for the workers, it's clearly wrong. I certainly have no bias against the "faith lines" idea of selling all, but what I am against is using it as validation of exclusive rights to God. Perhaps the use of that scripture was in referring to the beginning worker days in 1900's where each worker sold all and contributed the funds and that is what they all lived off of until the membership was established and there were definite tiers of worker and friend....much like that time it does speak in Acts....it was a time of confirming and affirming and they had all things in common.....something of that meaning!
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Feb 16, 2009 21:59:05 GMT -5
What you describe wasn't going on FAITH LINES at all...which was the foremost principle of their new method. So I dont think what you describe is what happened...here's why...
From John Long's Journal: 1900 JULY: Faith Lines is not free from its defects and misunderstandings; therefore, I have avoided boasting or rashly making little or despising ministers with a salary. Persons sometimes gave when they thought the Evangelist was in need; and persons sometimes withheld because the Evangelist abounded; therefore, I would commend any one on Faith Lines to let their financial side be a secret between God and themselves. The man who has courage and faith enough to go forth in dependence upon God; can be trusted with the stewardship of what he receives. It is good for the workers not to depend on man, or put too much trust in a friend. “But in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God,” Phil 4:6.
1900 OCTOBER: From the time I started on Faith Lines until the experience in England, I had no financial straits; but from that time until February 1905, I had repeatedly some severe trials. While I was originally helped by William Irvine, yet he often interfered with my providential leadings. I had a companion young man; and we were mostly in lodging and on new ground; and very much depended on the kindness of the people we laboured among; nevertheless God kept us from owing on the one hand or laying up treasures on the other.
HOW WELL DID WM. IRVINE'S METHOD WORK? In the early days, some workers pioneering countries where there were no friends to help support them suffered terrible hardships. According to various accounts, it was not uncommon at all for the workers to lack the bare necessities. They were often hungry, wet, cold and often slept outdoors in all kinds of weather. Hymns written by Edward Cooney in the Go-Preacher's Hymn Book mention workers being hungry three times. Some were frostbit, suffered malnutrition, had nervous breakdowns, illness, early deaths or retained lasting handicaps from being unable to afford urgently needed medical or dental help. Harry Cross died in 1908 from a spider bite received when sleeping overnight in a barn in Washington. Eldon Tenniswood wrote in his account titled "Early Days in Michigan:"
"Charlie and Jack weren't home when Dad arrived, but he found their little bach. He looked around the place and there was nothing to eat...Mother and Dad often told us about the reproach that the workers suffered, and often with very little to eat and the only transportation they had was to walk. Usually, when they reached our home, they were dead tired from long walks."
They often went hungry. Fannie Carroll went into the work in 1904 and wrote of her pioneering experiences: "...we were tested sore. We had nothing to eat. We went out one afternoon to visit, though we weren't able for it. We were weak but it didn't bother us..."
"Around 1904-05, John Hardy and another worker went to Australia. They lived in a tent where they used one half of the tent for their living quarters and the other half for meetings. One day a big storm came and totally ripped their tent to shreds. They then spread newspapers on the ground and slept on them. One day the elder worker woke to find his companion gone with all their money. He never knew where his companion went. Alone in a strange place, he decided to keep spreading the gospel. A man from another city came to listen...The man paid his train fare and asked him to come on the following Friday. So on Friday, the worker arrived. They had quite a gathering waiting, and they had a meal prepared for his arrival. Sitting down to eat, the first time in a long time, John was ravenous. He was able to maintain good manners, and take appropriate portions of food even though he was starving--until dessert. When he was passed the apple pie, he couldn't keep composed anymore and proceeded to eat the whole pie. The children around the table watched in awe and in despair as they saw him devour the whole pie!" (The First Two Workers to go to Australia)
In Elizabeth Jamieson's Reminisces, she mentions once receiving a letter from Willie, her brother in the work. He and Walter Slater were at Pismo Beach, "a grand training ground for preachers," he wrote..."we're living on bread and water." Elizabeth said, "We paid 25 cents a night for a room, and lived on bread and canned milk. I was young and always hungry! Once...we found an apple a child had bitten into. We cut out the bitten part and divided it, and that was our supper....If we'd had seen ahead, it would have been easier to tramp through snow and over muddy roads."
Alfred Magowan wrote: "I recall one occasion when our audience went home and left us to shift for ourselves with empty bellies under the stars. John remarks, 'I think they take us for angels.' When I seemed puzzled, he explained, 'They give us credit for having wings, but no stomachs.' There was always the sky, if others roofs failed." (Alfred Magowan, The Secret Sect by Doug & Helen Parker, page 33)
"Tramp preachers did everything but sweat blood in the days of their going forth in strange lands, and without visible means of support. They knew what it was to live on raw turnips in Scotland, and on oranges in California. They also knew what it was to go for days without anything to eat; and I can speak with authority about it, seeing that I was one of them. We slept under the stars, in schools and churches and halls and empty store buildings--with neither bed nor bed covering. We tramped through snow from morning to night in more than 40 degrees of frost. And, speaking for myself, I know what it is to have my tramp-preaching companion rub the frost out of a frost-bitten ear with snow." (Testimony of a Witness for the Defence by Alfred Magowan)
In Australia, the workers were forbidden to carry a change of clothes. "For three years in Tasmania, he [Arthur McCoy) and his companions lived in poorest rough huts and were often wet with no possibility of changing clothes. One young man he knew of who was living in such conditions and trying to keep close to Matthew 10 developed pneumonia and died in delirium...Grief overcame young preachers who learned of the early deaths of workers who health suffered from this way of life...We were so thin our clothes hung on us. A dentist told me he could charge $10 to fix a damaged tooth, so I filed it off with a small file and had to leave it. An abscess came later." (The Secret Sect by Doug & Helen Parker, pages 39-40).
Also in Australia: "Sam (Jones), not a strong person, often suffered from ill health, and at this time, after spending several nights sleeping in the open in a dry river bed with no comforts, fell ill and may well have perished had he not been found by some gypsies who nursed him back to health." (The Bethel Mission)
The Secret Sect reports in great detail of the hardships endured by the workers in Australia in Chapter 4, pages 38-45. It states that a sister worker in Canada lost her fingers as a result of a severe frostbite suffered because she removed her gloves to untangle her horse's harness when the temperature was well below freezing. Arthur McCoy suffered a crippled hip from being in the work. Some also suffered great mental anguish when they were physically unable to endure the standards of Matthew 10. Yes, their 2x2 method "worked" but how well did it work? When they went entirely on faith at first, it did not work very well, it would seem. Depends on how you define "work."
Some reason that IF their experimental method was NOT according to God's will, then, it would not "work;" i.e. would either come to nothing; God would hinder its progress; no one would profess; their needs would not be met, etc. If the early workers were using this line of faulty reasoning, willing converts would have been viewed as "proof" to them that their 2x2 method "worked." Therefore, some likely concluded then, as some do today. that their 2x2 method must be God's Only True Way.
Man's acceptance or rejection isn't and never has been a true gauge of what is right in God's eyes. Whether or not something appears to "work" or feels right is not a measure of God's favor or truth. Communism, slavery and satanism all "work." Also, if the workers needs being met or gaining converts proved that God endorsed Irvine's 2x2 method of ministry, then the converse would also be true: when their needs weren't met, and only a few accepted their message, it would prove that God wasn't necessarily behind Irvine's 2x2 method. It would also prove that preachers of other denominations found favor with God when their needs were met and people converted to Christianity through their invitation.
|
|
elle
Junior Member
Posts: 192
|
Post by elle on Feb 16, 2009 23:34:57 GMT -5
From my recollection of preaching on the "sell all" requirement, it came from this: Luk 18:22 "Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. " This was probably one of the greatest early errors in bible understanding as this was in response to a ruler who asked Jesus for the requirements for eternal life, not the requirements to join an intinerant group of preachers. Furthermore, the lesson was all about the power and attraction of money to supercede the commands of God, not an actual list of what is required to do for eternal life. I agree! And the very next chapter in Luke is about Zaccheus. Zaccheus volunteered that he gave/would give half of his possessions to the poor. It’s noteworthy that Jesus didn’t correct him and say he had to give ALL of it. Clearly what he said to the rich young ruler was not an action list of what to do to receive salvation that applied to all people or all times. And I agree with clearday that Jesus was not talking about going out to preach. He was asked about eternal life and that was what he was responding about.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 17, 2009 0:55:45 GMT -5
Jesus said, "Seek ye first the kingdom of God and all these things (food, clothings, place to stay, money to spend, etc) shall be given unto you." Nathan, it seems you take a chunk of Jesus' message and apply it specifically to the workers rather than all believers. I'm not so sure Jesus established a two-tier belief system.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2009 2:30:59 GMT -5
The Vaudois are French and did not emerge until the 11th century.
Paul could not have converted any "Vaudois" because that is is French name and the French language did not exist at the time of Paul. France was inhabited at the time by Celtic people who spoke Gaulish. It took centuries after the Roman conquest before French and a word like "Vaudois" came into existence with the merging of Gaulish, some Germanic and a considerable amount of Latin. It was not a distinct language until the 9th century.
The Vaudois, by its very name, dates itself almost a thousand years after Paul.
They don't sound like our workers either:
"The perfect were divided into the three classes of bishops, priests, and deacons. The bishop, called "major" or "majoralis", preached and administered the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and Holy Orders.[7] The celebration of the Eucharist, frequent perhaps in the early period, soon took place only on Holy Thursday.[7] The priest preached and enjoyed limited faculties for the hearing of confessions. The deacon, named "junior" or "minor", acted as assistant to the higher orders and by the collection of alms relieved them of all material care.[7] The bishop was elected by a joint meeting of priests and deacons.[7] In his consecration, as well as in the ordination of the other members of the clergy, the laying-on of hands was the principal element; but the recitation of the Lord's Prayer, so important in the Waldensian liturgy, was also a prominent feature.[7] The power of jurisdiction seems to have been exercised exclusively by one bishop, known as the "rector", who was the highest executive officer.[7] Supreme legislative power was vested in the general convention or general chapter, which met once or twice a year, and was originally composed of the perfect but at a later date only of the senior members among them.[7] It considered the general situation of the sect, examined the religious condition of the individual districts, admitted to the episcopate, priesthood, or diaconate, and pronounced upon the admission of new members and the expulsion of unworthy ones.[7]"
|
|
|
Post by kencoolidge on Feb 17, 2009 7:18:40 GMT -5
The Vaudois are French and did not emerge until the 11th century. Paul could not have converted any "Vaudois" because that is is French name and the French language did not exist at the time of Paul. France was inhabited at the time by Celtic people who spoke Gaulish. It took centuries after the Roman conquest before French and a word like "Vaudois" came into existence with the merging of Gaulish, some Germanic and a considerable amount of Latin. It was not a distinct language until the 9th century. The Vaudois, by its very name, dates itself almost a thousand years after Paul. They don't sound like our workers either: "The perfect were divided into the three classes of bishops, priests, and deacons. The bishop, called "major" or "majoralis", preached and administered the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and Holy Orders.[7] The celebration of the Eucharist, frequent perhaps in the early period, soon took place only on Holy Thursday.[7] The priest preached and enjoyed limited faculties for the hearing of confessions. The deacon, named "junior" or "minor", acted as assistant to the higher orders and by the collection of alms relieved them of all material care.[7] The bishop was elected by a joint meeting of priests and deacons.[7] In his consecration, as well as in the ordination of the other members of the clergy, the laying-on of hands was the principal element; but the recitation of the Lord's Prayer, so important in the Waldensian liturgy, was also a prominent feature.[7] The power of jurisdiction seems to have been exercised exclusively by one bishop, known as the "rector", who was the highest executive officer.[7] Supreme legislative power was vested in the general convention or general chapter, which met once or twice a year, and was originally composed of the perfect but at a later date only of the senior members among them.[7] It considered the general situation of the sect, examined the religious condition of the individual districts, admitted to the episcopate, priesthood, or diaconate, and pronounced upon the admission of new members and the expulsion of unworthy ones.[7]" CD & Cherie Thanks for the History lesson
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Feb 17, 2009 8:12:13 GMT -5
Good post and commentary Cherie ! Post #427. When presumption colors faith, what remains are rites, sacrifices void of their God.
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Feb 17, 2009 14:43:08 GMT -5
And what is worse, is the presumption has been taught!
|
|
|
Post by todd on Feb 17, 2009 18:30:58 GMT -5
It been a while since I have checked in, but a quick scan of this thread and I find it interesting to see that lots are not so much saying that WI was the founder of the F&W’s, but that he “started a mission”. To me this is a whole lot different to saying that he is the founder of the F&W’s, especially of everything that is included when people talk about the “F&W’s”. I even noticed that ilylo’s picture of the scientology protesters has been changed to different wording. I don’t know all the history, and it seems that a lot of details regarding this are very much unknown, but here are some random things I wonder about… Some records of history show that fellowship meetings were going on before WI professed, so wouldn’t that mean it is something that he wasn’t founder of? The fellowship meetings are something that often gets lumped into the mix when people talk about what makes up the F&W’s. Saying that the F&W’s wouldn’t be worshipping like they are unless it was for WI is completely unproven, and I don’t even want to hear that comment made ever again It’s quite possible that they were worshipping this way before WI came along, so it shouldn’t be used as evidence of WI being the founder, even though it often is. If WI was part of the FM when he was doing what people are calling 2x2, then maybe that means that our history goes back to the start of the FM, because here was a representative of the FM that was preaching this way . Because he was already on a mission, if all he (and the other FM preachers) did was drop the FM name and decide to just give God the authority, then at that point he hasn’t really founded anything new. They are still the same missionaries that they always were, minus the FM name. The FM name faded away because they had committed their charge to God rather than the FM. A mistake that I see being made is that people are unjustly giving WI credit for some things just because he was trying to claim it. Because he had the commanding aura about him, maybe people mistakenly thought it was all his idea. A fair bit of what goes on is that people are looking at the monitor, thinking that it is a computer. This has happened so many times in our history. People get credited with being the inventor of something that they didn’t invent, simply because they took that invention and made the most noise about it. I don’t know Thomas Edison that well, but apparently he didn’t invent the light bulb as is commonly known. Here’s an extract from the ‘net… I have also previously mentioned that Ford wasn’t the inventor of the intermittent wipers despite the fact that they were the first with them. And this sort of thing seems to be what is happening with WI. Everyone keeps saying vague things like, he is the founder of the F&W’s, but when questioned about what he did, nobody can come up with the answer. He may have been the first of our current group of workers to go preaching, but he was a preacher for a long time, and maybe his preaching just changed slightly from being more FM orientated, to being less FM orientated. That certainly concurs with their insistence that they weren’t starting anything new. So maybe we could try to find out what his did to ‘found’ it, but being the first doesn’t make him the founder, otherwise Ford would be the founder of intermittent windscreen wipers. It is true that Ford started making intermittent wipers though… they were the first. I see that there have been plenty of further advances beyond scenario 1/scenario 2. I should call them ‘history statements’ which might be a better term for them. This is more the sort of thing we should be seeing because continually saying that the F&W’s should correct the lies, doesn’t increase the chances of establishing whether lies have even been told. ‘Scenario 1’ hasn’t been ruled out from what I can see, but ‘scenario 1’ doesn’t make WI a founder either Ram and Clearday’s ‘history statements’ don’t take into consideration that there could have already been fellowship meetings. They also say in their ‘history statements’ that these devout men just sought a closer walk with God. Seeking a closer walk with God isn’t founding anything is it? Doesn’t everyone do this? Some scenarios state “William Irvine and a few others”. That doesn’t really sound like concise history to me. Shouldn’t you also mention the names of the others if you mention one, especially seeing that a lot of people are saying here that EC had a bigger influence than WI. Another thing I wonder about is why people call us Cooneyites if WI was the founder? Anybody know the answer? Has anybody ruled out ‘scenario 1’?
|
|
|
Post by lin on Feb 17, 2009 18:37:29 GMT -5
Cherie show up yet?
|
|