|
Post by ilylo on Feb 15, 2009 0:39:25 GMT -5
Not done? Ha... you haven't started.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Feb 15, 2009 3:00:01 GMT -5
You know all of the historical facts of WI founding the faith lines ministry just made me think it was so similar to Acts 2 where Peter took the bull by the horns. Now is it right that I give Peter the "founding" of the church that came about that day in Acts 2 & 3? As Gamelial said we weren't to oppress or persecute something that was adverse to our way of thinking because "if it be of God, then we would be fighting God!" OKAY, the historical facts which as we've read all along or the opposing components of faith...says that WI was founder of the faith lines ministry! And what he founded stops there! No, he wasn't the founder of the faith Line ministry - he was the founder of your church. The one that claims to go right back to Jesus which in fact only goes back 110 years.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Feb 15, 2009 3:19:46 GMT -5
The real sad thing about all this debate is that if lies had not been told, or at least deceipt not propagated in order to erradicate Irvine from memory, the F&W's sect would have a very noble foundation which they could rightly be very proud of. They still can, if they do things properly. There is nothing more noble than trying to follow Jesus, but we have to make sure it is done correctly. The lies, twisting, denial, and half truths are still happening today - those in this present generation are as guilty as those who lied to our ancestors, it seems from this board. I see that truth will never happen in this group. I am glad I am no longer a part of it because of all the twisting I see on this board by those in meetings who faith appears to depend on denying that WI started this whole thing. Someone like 'JesusOnly' gives the group some hope whose faith is not dependent on denial. I showed a friend this thread today and she asked why are they so afraid to admit that this was started by a man, is their faith so tied up in the fact that Jesus started their church that they will lose faith if they admit it was started by a man, she asked. It seems that way to me.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 15, 2009 4:36:37 GMT -5
The real sad thing about all this debate is that if lies had not been told, or at least deceipt not propagated in order to erradicate Irvine from memory, the F&W's sect would have a very noble foundation which they could rightly be very proud of. They still can, if they do things properly. There is nothing more noble than trying to follow Jesus, but we have to make sure it is done correctly. The lies, twisting, denial, and half truths are still happening today - those in this present generation are as guilty as those who lied to our ancestors, it seems from this board. I see that truth will never happen in this group. I am glad I am no longer a part of it because of all the twisting I see on this board by those in meetings who faith appears to depend on denying that WI started this whole thing. Someone like 'JesusOnly' gives the group some hope whose faith is not dependent on denial. I showed a friend this thread today and she asked why are they so afraid to admit that this was started by a man, is their faith so tied up in the fact that Jesus started their church that they will lose faith if they admit it was started by a man, she asked. It seems that way to me. It seems that way to me too. I have no problem with saying we believe in what Jesus lived and taught on the shores of Galilee. But when people interpret that as our church having existed since the shores of Galilee it's simply a lie. William Irvine started the mission Wilson McClung et al. worked in, and the mission created the meetings, convention system etc. The fact that William Irvine went astray is no skin off our noses. The fact that some of his prophesies didn't come to pass doesn't mean God couldn't use him at some stage of his life. We can acknowledge William Irvine and still follow what Jesus lived and taught on the shores of Galillee. Jesus is himself the way, the truth and the life. By clinging to faith in a religious system as the way and truth we are rejecting Jesus as the way and truth.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 15, 2009 5:02:00 GMT -5
I largely agree WHAT, but if the fellowship's history is not pinned down to a specific beginning the lies will continue. To establish a definite beginning for the fellowship the role of William Irvine is critical. I can hardly believe how desperate some folks on this board are to prove the "shores of Galillee" lie. It disgusts me, and makes me more determined to have no part in the deceipt. The shores of Galilee falacy probably started out innocently enough, but the reality is that it got way out of hand. The lies must stop now. jo! I'm not sure any of us who have taken part in this topic are trying to perpetuate the shores of Galilee falacy on this board....I think what we're trying to do is to make sure the "facts" that are presently known are really all there is to know about the issue and there's enough controversy between some of the "facts" as to make us believe that not all is known as of yet...yes, we're glad we've gotten the facts that are know thus far...but since there has been such a concentrated effort to squelch the beginnings of the human element(s) it is very hard to get all the "facts" out.....I think Cherie has stated even herself or has asked at different times to have others share what facts they have with her on her historical website....I think to keep our minds open and not come to a conclusive conclusion is vital or we get to doing worse then those we've accused of lying about it already! Can you not understand that? I'm not sure I understand what you're asking if I understand. Do you mean we should ignore the lies about the fellowship's history due to the possibility of more information coming to light? Many people have desperately sought to prove that William Irvine didn't start the mission that Wilson McClung and his colleagues worked in. All they can come up with is speculation. The TMB "founder" discussion has shown me so clearly the importance of Cherie's efforts to assemble and preserve the church's history in a professional manner. "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to put its pants on."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2009 5:02:50 GMT -5
The real sad thing about all this debate is that if lies had not been told, or at least deceit not propagated in order to eradicate Irvine from memory, the F&W's sect would have a very noble foundation which they could rightly be very proud of. They still can, if they do things properly. There is nothing more noble than trying to follow Jesus, but we have to make sure it is done correctly. Ram! Are you so sure they can do this if admitting to WI? As someone so exquisitely said when we get to shifting through the facts and get down to the sands then the house is built on something insubstantial....I think the "toll" that such has already taken, is cause to consider! Course on the other hand, if this be of man, it'll fold anyway! ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) Sharon, it is God we must fear, not MAN. Every Christian group and individual is prone to going astray. We are all like sheep, as a flock or individually. We need to keep focusing on the Good Shepherd, not the "hirelings !" 100-150 years ago there was great spiritual revival, when the "sheep," either individually or collectively sought to follow the Good Shepherd more closely. I do not doubt for one minute that the F&W's founding members were amongst the keenest in this respect. I do have some doubts about Irvine, but put that to one side. Now, focusing on Christ is like going to a rifle range. You need constant practice to keep your marksmanship up. You need to keep going to the range to zero in on your target to make sure your sights are set correctly on the target. In a spiritual sense every Christian group and individual has to check their zero-ing in regularly. Irvine and Co. sought to go out of "faith" lines. That was the original concept. Today, we are way off target with that one. Anyone who has reservations about possible outcomes if the true history of the sect is disclosed, or for any other matter, pure and simply LACKS FAITH IN GOD. They are sadly in need of some target practice. It is God we serve, not a system. Losing face should be the least of our concerns. I suspect the real issue is that those who claim to have given up all for the Gospel's sake are actually the ones who feel they have "everything to lose" by being open and honest about the true history and other issues. How ironic is that ? Does this not show how much has NOT been given up ? I'm not talking about material things. I'm talking about serving a system. They are so dependent on the system, they would rather fight to save that than put true faith in God and let him lead according to his will. Zero-ing in. We all need it. Now is the time to put the true history on our sights and hit a few bullseyes. The Lord will guide us with our scoring. Target ranges have Markers' Shelters. Let's put our faith under the shelter of the true marker and seek to hit the target by doing things right. Those that seek to preserve the status quo have no respect or Christian concern for their brethren in Christ who were affected by, or duped by the lies or deception. This of course applies to other matters as well, rather than just the history. The devil surely appears as an Angel of light and will seek to keep the deception pot simmering and all those who repel full disclosure are merely ingredients in the soup. Is it wrong for a Christian to have concern about the concerns of their brethren ? Just because it does not or has not affected you, it does not mean this is the case with everyone. Are we to be like Cain and scream out the blood-curdling cry of "am I my brother's keeper" when these issues come up. Do we allow our anger to spit out the venomous charge "you have your burden, I will not share it." Do we twist the Lord's words thus, "My neighbour must love me as I love myself." Yet all these things are valid in this and many other debates.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 15, 2009 5:12:57 GMT -5
This post should be a candidate for "post of the week"... How much longer must we prevail with all this Satan Stimulated bilge attempting to deflect the "credit" away from William Irvine from being the Founder, or main founder, or even co-founder of the F&W's mission, group, sect, ministry or whatever. The one man, indepedent of Irvine who should have known the facts is the man Edward Cooney who is/was by a long mile the "greatest" two by two (F&W's group) ever to have lived, quite simply because not only was he the least, but the group owed much of its early success to him (naturally speaking). As the "main" man in the sect, still professing diligently, he took the People newspaper to court because of false allegations. He won his case. Now spin this guy forward in these circumstances to 2009 and every drip of saliva that poured from that guy's mouth would be scooped up and regarded as some kind of Holy water. Now, as a devout Christian and possessing an intimate knowledge of this sect and its foundation that you can get, this "leader" swears on oath in the court (aware that perjury and prevarication as serious offences) he testifies when asked if he was the "founder," - "William Irvine was the first !" Getting back to Matthew 10, we read of times when God's servants would be brought before councils, etc as a testimony against them. Now here we have an excellent opportunity for the then "spiritual" leader (or near as d--- it) to give account of the foundations as he sees and knows it. Did Cooney say, "we have no earthly founder." Did he say "this way goes all the way back to Jesus." "Shores of Gallilee ?" "It was started by God in Heaven ?" "I don't know what you're talking about your Lordship. We have no founder, finder, establisher, leader, etc, save our Lord in Heaven." "If you come along to the Gospel mission you'll get all your questions answered." "I'm sorry your Lordship but it is wrong to ask questions." "Your Lordship the court mustn't have doubts. That is the devil working. You must just accept." No, Edward simple said "Your Lordship, I would like to make clear to the court today, that I was not the founder of this movement, it was Mr William Irvine (who has left our fellowship/ or is abroad ?) who was the first." Now if Eddy baby was alive and well today and still at or near the helm, those words would be rock solid. The doubters on this board would defend them to the hilt. If there had been no lies or deception about the origins, then there would have been pride in Cooney's testimony, not shame or guilt at having the truth pointed out. Yet, Cooney's honest testimony is not enough for some. However, as discussed on this thread and others there are many other fingers pointing at Irvine, that it beggars belief that even one sensible person would quibble over the issue.
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Feb 15, 2009 11:14:38 GMT -5
jo! I'm not sure any of us who have taken part in this topic are trying to perpetuate the shores of Galilee falacy on this board....I think what we're trying to do is to make sure the "facts" that are presently known are really all there is to know about the issue and there's enough controversy between some of the "facts" as to make us believe that not all is known as of yet...yes, we're glad we've gotten the facts that are know thus far...but since there has been such a concentrated effort to squelch the beginnings of the human element(s) it is very hard to get all the "facts" out.....I think Cherie has stated even herself or has asked at different times to have others share what facts they have with her on her historical website....I think to keep our minds open and not come to a conclusive conclusion is vital or we get to doing worse then those we've accused of lying about it already! Can you not understand that? I'm not sure I understand what you're asking if I understand. Do you mean we should ignore the lies about the fellowship's history due to the possibility of more information coming to light? Many people have desperately sought to prove that William Irvine didn't start the mission that Wilson McClung and his colleagues worked in. All they can come up with is speculation. The TMB "founder" discussion has shown me so clearly the importance of Cherie's efforts to assemble and preserve the church's history in a professional manner. "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to put its pants on." What I'm asking jo, is that your understanding that those of us still within the truth's fellowship are NOT in any way denying the "beginnings" of the truth's fellowship as being started by man/men. But to come to some conclusion without all the facts(if they're really obtainable at this late date) is making us just as untruthful as those we accuse of telling a lie to start with. I'm trying my best to keep an open mind and heart and not make false judgment here simply because I'm hearing and reading two different sides of the story and as a certified mediator I cannot allow myself to do that! It isn't fair to history's real effect, now is it. If I go out and fully say that without a doubt that only one man founded something and later there comes evidence to refute my statement then I have purported and put forth a lie....have I not? Mankind do not like to have patience in these things....but as I said, the history was repressed in a severe form all these past 100 plus yrs....how in the name of real truth can we just whip up and say without reservation the very opposite of what's been told for 100 years on anything that mankind has done...esp. when all the major early players are dead and gone? How can we? That's what I'm asking to understand. Yes, I AGREE THAT THE TRUTH'S FELLOWSHIP WAS BROUGHT ABOUT OR INTO EXISTENCE BY MAN/MEN circa 1894-1901-05? ![???](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/huh.png) ? That is not still saying that the truth's fellowship came all the way from the shores of Galilee...is that not enough until all the facts are in? That is what I'm asking you to understand what some of us are trying to say in holding out to the evidence that some man/men founded the truth's fellowship...that the truth's fellowship is no different then any other man made church! There are some far more needy issues within the truth's fellowship for solving and resolving then the history at this point! That is taking my prayer and thought and efforts to resolve for people are hurting more and more and more and the history is only a very pale part of the problems! The problems are mankind and their destructive behaviors...period!
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Feb 15, 2009 11:15:29 GMT -5
You know all of the historical facts of WI founding the faith lines ministry just made me think it was so similar to Acts 2 where Peter took the bull by the horns. Now is it right that I give Peter the "founding" of the church that came about that day in Acts 2 & 3? As Gamelial said we weren't to oppress or persecute something that was adverse to our way of thinking because "if it be of God, then we would be fighting God!" OKAY, the historical facts which as we've read all along or the opposing components of faith...says that WI was founder of the faith lines ministry! And what he founded stops there! No, he wasn't the founder of the faith Line ministry - he was the founder of your church. The one that claims to go right back to Jesus which in fact only goes back 110 years. believer, I think you and I both need to reread Cherie's frequent posts about WI founded the "faith lines" concept.
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Feb 15, 2009 12:01:55 GMT -5
What I'm asking jo, is that your understanding that those of us still within the truth's fellowship are NOT in any way denying the "beginnings" of the truth's fellowship as being started by man/men. This is a blatant falsehood. and as a certified mediator Certified by whom?
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Feb 15, 2009 12:55:56 GMT -5
By the state of Kansas! I have to wonder, ilyo, if you'd know a blatant falsehood if it rared it ugly head and bit you...you call things that are earnest and sincere blatant falsehoods...I have to wonder what you really do know! ![???](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/huh.png)
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 15, 2009 13:57:19 GMT -5
You know all of the historical facts of WI founding the faith lines ministry just made me think it was so similar to Acts 2 where Peter took the bull by the horns. Now is it right that I give Peter the "founding" of the church that came about that day in Acts 2 & 3? As Gamelial said we weren't to oppress or persecute something that was adverse to our way of thinking because "if it be of God, then we would be fighting God!" OKAY, the historical facts which as we've read all along or the opposing components of faith...says that WI was founder of the faith lines ministry! And what he founded stops there! No, he wasn't the founder of the faith Line ministry - he was the founder of your church. The one that claims to go right back to Jesus which in fact only goes back 110 years. Irvine wasn't the first to go out along faith lines from Scotland in the 19th century. For example, he must have known about the ministry of William Chalmers Burns some 30-40 years before, also from the town of Kilsyth.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 15, 2009 14:20:28 GMT -5
I'm not sure I understand what you're asking if I understand. Do you mean we should ignore the lies about the fellowship's history due to the possibility of more information coming to light? Many people have desperately sought to prove that William Irvine didn't start the mission that Wilson McClung and his colleagues worked in. All they can come up with is speculation. The TMB "founder" discussion has shown me so clearly the importance of Cherie's efforts to assemble and preserve the church's history in a professional manner. "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to put its pants on." What I'm asking jo, is that your understanding that those of us still within the truth's fellowship are NOT in any way denying the "beginnings" of the truth's fellowship as being started by man/men. But to come to some conclusion without all the facts(if they're really obtainable at this late date) is making us just as untruthful as those we accuse of telling a lie to start with. I'm trying my best to keep an open mind and heart and not make false judgment here simply because I'm hearing and reading two different sides of the story and as a certified mediator I cannot allow myself to do that! It isn't fair to history's real effect, now is it. If I go out and fully say that without a doubt that only one man founded something and later there comes evidence to refute my statement then I have purported and put forth a lie....have I not? Mankind do not like to have patience in these things....but as I said, the history was repressed in a severe form all these past 100 plus yrs....how in the name of real truth can we just whip up and say without reservation the very opposite of what's been told for 100 years on anything that mankind has done...esp. when all the major early players are dead and gone? How can we? That's what I'm asking to understand. Yes, I AGREE THAT THE TRUTH'S FELLOWSHIP WAS BROUGHT ABOUT OR INTO EXISTENCE BY MAN/MEN circa 1894-1901-05? ![???](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/huh.png) ? That is not still saying that the truth's fellowship came all the way from the shores of Galilee...is that not enough until all the facts are in? That is what I'm asking you to understand what some of us are trying to say in holding out to the evidence that some man/men founded the truth's fellowship...that the truth's fellowship is no different then any other man made church! There are some far more needy issues within the truth's fellowship for solving and resolving then the history at this point! That is taking my prayer and thought and efforts to resolve for people are hurting more and more and more and the history is only a very pale part of the problems! The problems are mankind and their destructive behaviors...period! I agree Sharon. That's really the problem. At the present time, 4 or 5 different statements are contending for the origin statement. William Irvine started the mission Wilson McClung et al. worked in, and the mission created the meetings, convention system etc. The above is from jo. It seems to be lacking something in elegance and simplicity, but perhaps it is the most accurate. Then we have, William Irvine founded the 2x2 sect. Less provocative, William Irvine started the 2x2 church. How about, William Irvine started the ministry now known as "Christian Conventions". Should some credit be given to John Long or any others, or only William Irvine?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 15, 2009 14:22:41 GMT -5
By the state of Kansas! I have to wonder, ilyo, if you'd know a blatant falsehood if it rared it ugly head and bit you...you call things that are earnest and sincere blatant falsehoods...I have to wonder what you really do know! ![???](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/huh.png) Ilylo just pronounces opinions without support, so why make any effort to answer him, since he makes none.
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Feb 15, 2009 14:25:15 GMT -5
By the state of Kansas! I have to wonder, ilyo, if you'd know a blatant falsehood if it rared it ugly head and bit you...you call things that are earnest and sincere blatant falsehoods...I have to wonder what you really do know! ![???](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/huh.png) It's a falsehood because it isn't true. Are you so totally brainwashed not to see it? ...by the way, swells, I think you have a cool forum handle.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 15, 2009 14:32:16 GMT -5
By the state of Kansas! I have to wonder, ilyo, if you'd know a blatant falsehood if it rared it ugly head and bit you...you call things that are earnest and sincere blatant falsehoods...I have to wonder what you really do know! ![???](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/huh.png) It's a falsehood because it isn't true. Are you so totally brainwashed not to see it? ...by the way, swells, I think you have a cool forum handle. To be honest, ilylo, I think you often "read in" things into posts that aren't there. We're all guilty of that. Because we disagree we impute motives that might not be correct. Ask Cherie, for example, about motives that have been imputed to her. The frustration in talking to you is that you won't enter into dialogue with anyone to sort those kinds of issues out. The last 10 or so posts by jo, ram, and believer I detect a frustration and imputation of motive that, in my view, is not really warranted. But at least they go to the trouble of putting that out there, allowing others to respond. You don't do that.
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Feb 15, 2009 14:36:30 GMT -5
What wasn't in there? She issued a false statement and I said so. You have a problem with that, obviously.
The key is that the problem is yours.
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Feb 15, 2009 14:39:04 GMT -5
By the state of Kansas! I have to wonder, ilyo, if you'd know a blatant falsehood if it rared it ugly head and bit you...you call things that are earnest and sincere blatant falsehoods...I have to wonder what you really do know! ![???](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/huh.png) It's a falsehood because it isn't true. Are you so totally brainwashed not to see it? ...by the way, swells, I think you have a cool forum handle. As to falsehoods and "handles", ilyo, you've taken the prize! Anyone who hides behind a mask and an alias couldn't possibly be a proponent of truth! As to my handle, sorry you see it as a cool forum handle...it's mine legally!
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Feb 15, 2009 14:41:23 GMT -5
You are blind. The forum handle comment was with regards to the fact that you can't spell mine.
And no, being behind a mask does not make a person dishonest just as being out in the open does not make a person truthful.
Your comment is still false.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 15, 2009 14:43:54 GMT -5
What I'm asking jo, is that your understanding that those of us still within the truth's fellowship are NOT in any way denying the "beginnings" of the truth's fellowship as being started by man/men. But to come to some conclusion without all the facts(if they're really obtainable at this late date) is making us just as untruthful as those we accuse of telling a lie to start with. I'm trying my best to keep an open mind and heart and not make false judgment here simply because I'm hearing and reading two different sides of the story and as a certified mediator I cannot allow myself to do that! It isn't fair to history's real effect, now is it. If I go out and fully say that without a doubt that only one man founded something and later there comes evidence to refute my statement then I have purported and put forth a lie....have I not? Mankind do not like to have patience in these things....but as I said, the history was repressed in a severe form all these past 100 plus yrs....how in the name of real truth can we just whip up and say without reservation the very opposite of what's been told for 100 years on anything that mankind has done...esp. when all the major early players are dead and gone? How can we? That's what I'm asking to understand. Yes, I AGREE THAT THE TRUTH'S FELLOWSHIP WAS BROUGHT ABOUT OR INTO EXISTENCE BY MAN/MEN circa 1894-1901-05? ![???](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/huh.png) ? That is not still saying that the truth's fellowship came all the way from the shores of Galilee...is that not enough until all the facts are in? That is what I'm asking you to understand what some of us are trying to say in holding out to the evidence that some man/men founded the truth's fellowship...that the truth's fellowship is no different then any other man made church! There are some far more needy issues within the truth's fellowship for solving and resolving then the history at this point! That is taking my prayer and thought and efforts to resolve for people are hurting more and more and more and the history is only a very pale part of the problems! The problems are mankind and their destructive behaviors...period! You agree that THE TRUTH'S FELLOWSHIP WAS BROUGHT ABOUT OR INTO EXISTENCE BY MAN/MEN circa 1894-1901-05? ![???](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/huh.png) ? However, many won’t acknowledge that and prefer to remain willingly ignorant of the historical record. Many would love to see all recorded history destroyed so they can continue in their fantasy and pass it on to others. This is the work of Satan IMO. You will always hear two sides of the story while some people love truth and some people love falsehood. I agree that there are pressing problems that need resolving in the fellowship, but if workers and friends can’t be honest about the beginnings then I doubt they can resolve any other problems. I submit that if the church faces up to the history question that resolving other problems will be easier. Have you read the Pattison account? Have you read John Long’s Journal? Have you read the Impartial Reporter accounts that mention the mission that William Irvine started?
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Feb 15, 2009 14:44:09 GMT -5
You are blind. The forum handle comment was with regards to the fact that you can't spell mine. And no, being behind a mask does not make a person dishonest just as being out in the open does not make a person truthful. Your comment is still false. No, it's not false, but if I was hiding behind a mask that is apparently half in the dark, then I might see it as false! ![:o](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/shocked.png)
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Feb 15, 2009 14:46:15 GMT -5
Baloney.
Here's the comment in question: those of us still within the truth's fellowship are NOT in any way denying the "beginnings" of the truth's fellowship as being started by man/men.
There are many that still deny it, swells. You can make whatever insulting comments about me that you want (and you apparently do) but it doesn't change your statement from false to true.
|
|
|
Post by Sharon on Feb 15, 2009 14:53:35 GMT -5
Baloney. Here's the comment in question: those of us still within the truth's fellowship are NOT in any way denying the "beginnings" of the truth's fellowship as being started by man/men.There are many that still deny it, swells. You can make whatever insulting comments about me that you want (and you apparently do) but it doesn't change your statement from false to true. You have the propensity to take things out of context as bad as anyone else, don't you! The sentence you took out of contest was in answer to jo's issue with Today at 4:02am, jesusonly wrote: Yesterday at 10:49pm, siwells wrote: jo! I'm not sure any of us who have taken part in this topic are trying to perpetuate the shores of Galilee falacy on this board
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Feb 15, 2009 14:57:43 GMT -5
Neither post refers specifically to just those on this forum/thread. Even if it did... your comment is still false.
...amazing how that works. You point out the truth and it gets strangely silent from the other side.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 15, 2009 15:46:17 GMT -5
Yes, it's true some of us in the church acknowledge the history.
However, many believe the lie that our church has no human founder.
That would be OK if the church was understood to mean those whose names are written in heaven.
But if "our church" means workers, convention/special meetings system, appointed elders and Sunday Morning meetings, overseers, fields and workers lists etc then that can all be traced to the mission that William Irvine started.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Feb 15, 2009 17:19:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lin on Feb 15, 2009 17:54:17 GMT -5
If the church acknowledges they have a founder, what is the next scenario? Who does the acknowledgment satisfy?
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Feb 15, 2009 18:11:06 GMT -5
If the church acknowledges they have a founder, what is the next scenario? Who does the acknowledgment satisfy? I must have missed something as this is different from what I have been reading from you on this thread. Who do you say this founder is and when did he found this church?
|
|