Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2011 8:26:42 GMT -5
Ha! I like this one ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D A book I haven't read, yet.... Robert Eiseman's JAMES THE BROTHER OF JESUS: A Higher-Critical Evaluation
depts.drew.edu/jhc/rpeisman.htmlQuote "Another attempt to distance James the Just from the Companions of Jesus..." and this is so good! quote "Eisenman has worked out a complex and coherent grammar of these processes of what Derrida would call "slippage along the chain of signifiers.""and " Paul is still the church's one foundation. At the very least this implicitly Paulinist bias results in what Bruce Malina and others call a docetic approach to the text, an according of priority to the theological abstractions as if they were really the engine of the train and not its epiphenomenal, rhetorical caboose. " oohhh.... that's great stuff!!!! Gotta look up what it all means!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 30, 2011 8:35:46 GMT -5
Ive read the bible - I had it forced down my throat for years! And last time i looked foreskins werent on display it's the women who have to always wear skirts and their hair long - what sort of organisation in this day and age makes their women do that? A cult. In the bible circumcision was an outward appearance. You are jumping arguments. In the OT there are many admonishments about outward appearance. The same is true in the NT. I did state it "how it is". Perhaps this would be a great time for you to provide us with your definition of what you believe a cult is. I might have taken a ride in a fast car and called it a rocket. That doesn't make it so.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 30, 2011 10:39:08 GMT -5
Paul didnt establish this church - and Jesus established Christianity... So now that we know you are a Christian, which flavour do you endorse? Since you hold the f&w up to criticism, let's do an A-B comparison and see if your church is any better. I don't necessarily have an issue with some of the things you dislike about the group; the question is whether those negative products add up to it being a 'cult' or not. One of your issues is the "subjection of women", and yet the friends have women preachers, and the women participate in the services. There are many mainstream denominations that do not allow women to preach, keep women in subjection generally speaking, and yet, no one calls them a "cult".
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 30, 2011 10:43:08 GMT -5
Ive read the bible - I had it forced down my throat for years! And last time i looked foreskins werent on display it's the women who have to always wear skirts and their hair long - what sort of organisation in this day and age makes their women do that? A cult. Your patronising tone leaves a lot to be desired. State it how it is. I know it's a cult becuase I lived it for most of my life. Rational patronising? That's a new one on me. He gets accused of all kinds of things by the more tender hearted participants on this forum, but patronising is probably the least accurate characterization I've run across.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Dec 30, 2011 11:07:32 GMT -5
Paul didnt establish this church - and Jesus established Christianity... Ok, the theory is that Paul established Christianity. This is a common belief in theology and is called "Pauline Christianity" to separate it from what they believe it could have become had Jesus, or his younger brother James, had lived long enough. Reminds me of the Irvine theory subscribed to by many here. This Pauline theory, like the Irvine theory, has it that Jesus was some lay-back loving guy who was tolerant and hated rules, organizations and hierarchy. By some co-incidence - a modern 2012 guy.Bert, it IS NO co-incidence at all...Jesus is EVER modern 2012 or 2013! As The Great I AM, Jesus is always in the present or at least as much as we are for it says that Jesus is forever still the same.... Hbr 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. Pretty good evidence that Jesus 'Christ' has always been "modern" or "current"...He does not put himself to the trouble to be swayed with the fashions of man...He remains the same yesterday, and to day, and forever! Glory Hallelujah!
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Dec 30, 2011 11:12:47 GMT -5
Ha! I like this one ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D A book I haven't read, yet.... Robert Eiseman's JAMES THE BROTHER OF JESUS: A Higher-Critical Evaluation
depts.drew.edu/jhc/rpeisman.htmlQuote "Another attempt to distance James the Just from the Companions of Jesus..." and this is so good! quote "Eisenman has worked out a complex and coherent grammar of these processes of what Derrida would call "slippage along the chain of signifiers.""and "[b ]Paul is still the church's one foundation[/b]. [/color]At the very least this implicitly Paulinist bias results in what Bruce Malina and others call a docetic approach to the text, an according of priority to the theological abstractions as if they were really the engine of the train and not its epiphenomenal, rhetorical caboose. " oohhh.... that's great stuff!!!! Gotta look up what it all means!!!!![/quote] Bert, I wouldn't advise YOU to read that book it will only confuse you more about salvation...this book isn't a book for ALL people to read for it can confuse people further...that's what I have been told by professors of theology and literature. However Paul IS of the foundation of the church of Christ for he clearly identifies himself as an Apostle out of histime....and Jesus clearly said that the foundation of His church is the Apostles and prophets and Himself as the cornerstone!
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Dec 30, 2011 11:19:46 GMT -5
Ive read the bible - I had it forced down my throat for years! And last time i looked foreskins werent on display it's the women who have to always wear skirts and their hair long - what sort of organisation in this day and age makes their women do that? A cult. In the bible circumcision was an outward appearance. You are jumping arguments. In the OT there are many admonishments about outward appearance. The same is true in the NT. I did state it "how it is". Perhaps this would be a great time for you to provide us with your definition of what you believe a cult is. I might have taken a ride in a fast car and called it a rocket. That doesn't make it so. I don't believe that God wanted the circumcision for appearance sake, Rat! 1Cr 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. Actually the circumcision was the "sign" of the covenant between Abraham and God....it was the sign of righteousness of Abraham through and by faith.....it was given BEFORE the Mosaic laws!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2011 16:03:14 GMT -5
I think you are right Sharonw Eisman appears to have a belief about Christianity being a fraud, and ties together seemingly absurd connections to "prove" it. I have Eisman on podcast too and have listened to him over the years. I am more interested in the thought process than his "discoveries." And the point to the above was the REVIEW language which interested me. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by emy on Dec 30, 2011 23:29:12 GMT -5
Ive read the bible - I had it forced down my throat for years! And last time i looked foreskins werent on display it's the women who have to always wear skirts and their hair long - what sort of organisation in this day and age makes their women do that? A cult. Your patronising tone leaves a lot to be desired. State it how it is. I know it's a cult becuase I lived it for most of my life. I can't prove it but I'm thinking when foreskins were a sign of godliness, they probably were on display to other men. (Think of modern day urinals?)
|
|
wanda
New Member
Posts: 29
|
Post by wanda on Dec 31, 2011 1:36:50 GMT -5
Is God really concerned with who we are on the outside? From my own personal experience I don't believe so - I have known certain people to appear righteous and clean and upright and underneath they are anything but. It is obvious the 2x2s focus the majority of their beliefs on verses in the bible (whether OT or NT) about outward appearances and 'appearing right' in front of the world - and the extent of this is evident from the attitude of the workers towards anyone who doesn't comply to the 'rules'.
If a professing woman walked into a Sunday meeting in pants and makeup and jewellery (but still dresssed modestly) she would be spoken to and told it was not acceptable - whereas in mainstream churches it wouldn't matter. Yes, women are preachers but they do not have authority and the head workers have always been men. I have been told myself by the lady workers that the male workers always have the authority over them.
I am not a feminist by any means however to me the subjection of women is not normal in our society and doesn't encourage a healthy christian environment where everyone is on equal terms. Domestic violence is common in the church because the male domination is encouraged - and unfortunately there is no guarantee that the workers will help because they are too focused on preventing a marriage breakup and tend to blame it on the woman!
Seems the current 2x2 members are very defensive on this thread. I've been there, done that. Its a waste of time!
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Dec 31, 2011 4:10:30 GMT -5
How come women have to wear skirts to show that they're professing?
Seriously, if the friends and workers are going to maintain that the Way "was started in the beginning," then why don't the brother workers wear robes and sandals? I always found it strange to be listening to a neck-tied, panted, buttoned-jacketed brother worker giving a testimony about "an unchanging Way." Surely the arguments that allowed the brother workers to start wearing pants and shoes would also be valid in allowing women to embrace modern-day feminine apparel.
So, what are we dealing with? Outdated rules for women, or a belief system that occurred between updates on male clothing and female clothing?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 31, 2011 8:40:20 GMT -5
I can't prove it but I'm thinking when foreskins were a sign of godliness, they probably were on display to other men. (Think of modern day urinals?) Actually, it was the lack of foreskins! David brought them back 100 (some claim 200) as payment for Michal! Can't you see the signs in the stores? Case of beer - 2 foreskins!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 31, 2011 9:15:37 GMT -5
Is God really concerned with who we are on the outside? From my own personal experience I don't believe so - I have known certain people to appear righteous and clean and upright and underneath they are anything but. Again, if god is not concerned with outward appearance why record it in the bible? If you truly believe that the bible is inerrant and god's "service manual for worship" do you dare not observe all parts? This means little. It sounds like your beliefs are more in line with mainstream religions. Given your concern regarding clothing exceptions I am guessing that the F&W, Amish, Mennonites, etc. are not the place for you. Again, that is the way the organization is set up. I believe many of the beliefs are wrong as well so I would not have any reason to become a member. It all depends on whether you want to base your beliefs on the literal bible or what is normal in our society. Do you have any evidence that domestic violence is any higher in the church (I will assume you mean the F&W) than it is elsewhere? And some ex-2x2 members can see the errors in the claims and wonder if those claims can be supported by more than anger.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 31, 2011 9:57:03 GMT -5
In the bible circumcision was an outward appearance. I don't believe that God wanted the circumcision for appearance sake, Rat! But it is an outward sign of the covenant between god and the jews. This is not god speaking. Correct. And signs are things that people can see. Outward appearance.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Dec 31, 2011 10:05:00 GMT -5
Ive read the bible - I had it forced down my throat for years! And last time i looked foreskins werent on display it's the women who have to always wear skirts and their hair long - what sort of organisation in this day and age makes their women do that? A cult. Your patronising tone leaves a lot to be desired. State it how it is. I know it's a cult becuase I lived it for most of my life. I can't prove it but I'm thinking when foreskins were a sign of godliness, they probably were on display to other men. (Think of modern day urinals?) If one takes Jesus' circumcision for the "routine way" of circumcision then it seems that the circumcision is done by the priest on duty at the time of the 8th day after birth...that is also the time the parents give sacrifices according to that child's birth order!! Thus men going around showing their "evidence" is not necessary for the "priest knows" who he has circumsized or not.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 31, 2011 10:16:14 GMT -5
If one takes Jesus' circumcision for the "routine way" of circumcision then it seems that the circumcision is done by the priest on duty at the time of the 8th day after birth...that is also the time the parents give sacrifices according to that child's birth order!! Thus men going around showing their "evidence" is not necessary for the "priest knows" who he has circumsized or not. Circumcisions are not always preformed by a priest. Biblically, the child's father was commanded to perform the circumcision himself. Today a mohel can be designated by the father.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Dec 31, 2011 10:22:45 GMT -5
Is God really concerned with who we are on the outside? From my own personal experience I don't believe so - I have known certain people to appear righteous and clean and upright and underneath they are anything but. It is obvious the 2x2s focus the majority of their beliefs on verses in the bible (whether OT or NT) about outward appearances and 'appearing right' in front of the world - and the extent of this is evident from the attitude of the workers towards anyone who doesn't comply to the 'rules'. If a professing woman walked into a Sunday meeting in pants and makeup and jewellery (but still dresssed modestly) she would be spoken to and told it was not acceptable - whereas in mainstream churches it wouldn't matter. Yes, women are preachers but they do not have authority and the head workers have always been men. I have been told myself by the lady workers that the male workers always have the authority over them. I am not a feminist by any means however to me the subjection of women is not normal in our society and doesn't encourage a healthy christian environment where everyone is on equal terms. Domestic violence is common in the church because the male domination is encouraged - and unfortunately there is no guarantee that the workers will help because they are too focused on preventing a marriage breakup and tend to blame it on the woman! Seems the current 2x2 members are very defensive on this thread. I've been there, done that. Its a waste of time! Paul wrote to some of his gentile converts about what they were doing in paying heed to the external parts of Christianity...he told them in no uncertain words that because they could not get further then the appearance or ownership of the conversion then they were "yet carnal"....anyone who puts the stress on the external part of religion is nothing more then still yet carnal. It is the inward man that God looks to and NO one can ascertain that appearance but God. That said, there again we come to the thing of letting people know by our moderation...and that is NOT speaking necessarily to say "modesty" but " moderation" in all things. I believe that the routine outward appearance of clothing for people in those days was robes of some sort...men's being less full perhaps as they would need to be able to work without getting their clothing in the way and often they would pull the back hem of their robes up and loop them under the girdle that men wore at that time, those "girding their loins" for some strenous activity and as the bible says "running". Women didn't normally appear outside the home without their veil on...of course small girls were not required to put up with them but would have robes in minute sizes like their parents. And as we know, coats were made without seam....and often required lots of yardage! Women preachers to perform over the male friends in mtgs. but not usually like a brother worker....always in subjection is what is required of the female workers. I just went through an experience within the board of directors in the Disciples of Christ's church where it made me a believer in keeping the women out of the politcal/ruling part of any religion. I feel a board of directors who change every 1-2 years and is made up of elders and deacons is the best way to keep the church and minister all accountable to one another. However there was a youth minister who had taken on more and more duties the longer he was there and he was good at what he did for he truly loved others...the main minister had spoken tot he finance committee that he thought the youth minister deservede a bit of a raise because of the increase in his responsibilities. Well the finance gave the raise without putting it before the whole board...the raise was minimal at the best giving the youth minister just a tad bit over 13,000 dollars annually...which for a young educated man is horrible. However when the old board emembers met with the new ones coming to replace them a "woman" of all things stood up and brought the "raise" to the whole boards' attention, though if any one had read the revolving money's report would see what happened...but as a woman being too emotional she stirred up an Hornet's nest...and the result was a split in the church and about 30 members left with the youth minister and have formed a small fellowship together....the sad part was those 30 members that left were the "monied" members of that church or nearly most of them at least...leaving the bigger congregation partly in a bind. The point I'm making is the fact that an emotional woman caused all that rancor and church split and it is evident that women should NOT be allowed to have that kind of power...that they DO need to learn what's what from their husbands at home.....it is a crying shame to have to come to that conclusion...but I think of Rachel and Jacob...Rachel was not publically evident of her managing what the Lord desired but she brought it about and her husband was not embarrassed before others but Jacob did realize what he had been about to do and that was to go against God's word that the elder twin would serve the younger twin. There are a few other examples where the woman enabled their husband to do God's will in it and not their own without compromising the status of her husband in his eyes or hers or anybody else's.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Dec 31, 2011 10:26:25 GMT -5
I don't believe that God wanted the circumcision for appearance sake, Rat! But it is an outward sign of the covenant between god and the jews. This is not god speaking. Correct. And signs are things that people can see. Outward appearance. It really is not an "outward" appearance at all...it is a covenant between God and Abraham and became that covenant of faith that Abraham's righteousness was accounted to him by faith or through faith.....there is no where that says man has to stand in public and show his circumcision...I've already told how the circucisions came about in the day of Jesus...just like his did...because the priests did them just like they did most other health related issues.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Dec 31, 2011 10:30:52 GMT -5
I don't believe that God wanted the circumcision for appearance sake, Rat! But it is an outward sign of the covenant between god and the jews. This is not god speaking. Correct. And signs are things that people can see. Outward appearance. Uhhh, Rat, the covenant is between GOD and Abraham...therefore it isn't anything that other people have to be able to see. It is no different then the contents of a person's heart being evident to God alone and certainly people cannot ascertain what someone's heart contents are by outward manifestations. True people may appear "different" due to a heart full of God's love but that difference may be more in spirit toward others and not necessarily being dresses for women and pants for men. The bible says that women are not to wear clothes made for a man....Well at the time that law was written both men and women wore robes...though they were not identical robes, it was robes...so it would be just like today where certain kinds of pants are designed for men and certain kinds of pants are designed for women....and yes, I know some women love to wear men's jeans instead of women's jeans...that is due to the way they are cut, I'm sure.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Dec 31, 2011 10:34:01 GMT -5
If one takes Jesus' circumcision for the "routine way" of circumcision then it seems that the circumcision is done by the priest on duty at the time of the 8th day after birth...that is also the time the parents give sacrifices according to that child's birth order!! Thus men going around showing their "evidence" is not necessary for the "priest knows" who he has circumsized or not. Circumcisions are not always preformed by a priest. Biblically, the child's father was commanded to perform the circumcision himself. Today a mohel can be designated by the father. Abraham as the first "father" did circumcize his son and all his male servants. However it did become the priests' duty in addition to all the "health" issues that the priests took on...they played doctor as well as priests because it was felt in those days health issues had to do with issues caused by sins. Such as Jesus "forgiving sins" while he was on the earth and those sins were manifested by physical challenges....
|
|
|
Post by emy on Dec 31, 2011 14:47:37 GMT -5
I can't prove it but I'm thinking when foreskins were a sign of godliness, they probably were on display to other men. (Think of modern day urinals?) Actually, it was the lack of foreskins! True!
|
|
|
Post by emy on Dec 31, 2011 14:55:08 GMT -5
It really is not an "outward" appearance at all...it is a covenant between God and Abraham and became that covenant of faith that Abraham's righteousness was accounted to him by faith or through faith.... .there is no where that says man has to stand in public and show his circumcision...I've already told how the circucisions came about in the day of Jesus...just like his did...because the priests did them just like they did most other health related issues. Do you know anything about men? Of course they didn't HAVE to, but I'm sure it became obvious in any group of men.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 31, 2011 15:05:08 GMT -5
It really is not an "outward" appearance at all...it is a covenant between God and Abraham and became that covenant of faith that Abraham's righteousness was accounted to him by faith or through faith.....there is no where that says man has to stand in public and show his circumcision. It is a sign of that covenant. And if you were not circumcised you were outcast. If it was not visible how did people know who was in and who was out?Where did you get the idea that the priests (rabbi) did the circumcision? It was the job of the father. Of late there are mohels who preform the circumcision. Continuing to post incorrect information will not make it become true. What makes you think it was a health issue? If anything it caused health problems just like any other surgery. Although I read a piece promoting the idea that circumcision was ordered so man could engage in coitus longer and there was a greater chance that the woman would reach orgasm and that would increase the chance of offspring. www.abarim-publications.com/Bible_Commentary/Circumcision.html#.Tv9pe1awWNUGenesis 18:12 states that Sarah was looking forward to pleasure!
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 31, 2011 22:26:57 GMT -5
It is obvious the 2x2s focus the majority of their beliefs on verses in the bible (whether OT or NT) about outward appearances and 'appearing right' in front of the world - and the extent of this is evident from the attitude of the workers towards anyone who doesn't comply to the 'rules'. If you truly believe that the bible is inerrant and god's "service manual for worship" do you dare not observe all parts? . . . . intelligently is key, for the Bible in total is a climatic allegory, divinely revealing the eternal nature of God who exists as order, personality (ies), and Love.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 31, 2011 22:54:53 GMT -5
How come women have to wear skirts to show that they're professing? Because long, long ago, their 2x2 fathers beheld the benefits of a banner of bevies. It was not because the OT prohibited cross-dressing but that WI&crew understood if they empowered the woman in a male-dominated society with a badge, they were sure to preserve the survival of their neo-gospel. Seriously, if the friends and workers are going to maintain that the Way "was started in the beginning," then why don't the brother workers wear robes and sandals? LOL . . . I always found it strange to be listening to a neck-tied, panted, buttoned-jacketed brother worker giving a testimony about "an unchanging Way." Surely the arguments that allowed the brother workers to start wearing pants and shoes would also be valid in allowing women to embrace modern-day feminine apparel. So, what are we dealing with? Outdated rules for women, or a belief system that occurred between updates on male clothing and female clothing?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 31, 2011 23:34:46 GMT -5
Is God really concerned with who we are on the outside? From my own personal experience I don't believe so - I have known certain people to appear righteous and clean and upright and underneath they are anything but. I think God is concerned with our outward condition, if not our appearance. But I know what you're saying, it's just one of a number of human foibles to be unreasonably preoccupied with what others think about us personally. That the 2x2 thinks it is Godly to impose precise expectations of apparel and appearance is one indication of a gospel that says we are neither worthy nor responsible of being entrusted with the Good News. I am not a feminist by any means however to me the subjection of women is not normal in our society and doesn't encourage a healthy christian environment where everyone is on equal terms. Domestic violence is common in the church because the male domination is encouraged - and unfortunately there is no guarantee that the workers will help because they are too focused on preventing a marriage breakup and tend to blame it on the woman! That breakups tend to be disproportionately or compulsively blamed upon women . . .. and I do agree, reveals the folly of making a banner from only half of God's creation.
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Jan 1, 2012 11:09:57 GMT -5
This morning in our church fellowship we sang 'To the River'. It was a challenge to prayerfully sing these words on the first day of the new year, My prayer for 2012 for my friends and myself is that we will make these words the desire of our heart. Here they are: To the river I am going bringing sins I cannot bear Come and cleanse me, come forgive me Lord I need to meet you there In these waters, healing mercy flows with freedom from despair I am going, to that river Lord I need to meet you there Precious Jesus, I am ready to surrender every care Take my hand now, lead me closer Lord I need to meet you there Come and join us, in the river Come find life beyond compare He is calling, He is waiting Jesus longs to meet you there He is calling, He is waiting Jesus longs to meet you there Precious Jesus, I am ready to surrender every care Take my hand now, lead me closer Lord I need to meet you there Take my hand now, lead me closer Lord I need to meet you there For those who would like to hear it sung here is the link: www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2GPGnZd0x0. My best wishes to you one and all for a very happy, peaceful and joyful New Year.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jan 1, 2012 11:24:01 GMT -5
It really is not an "outward" appearance at all...it is a covenant between God and Abraham and became that covenant of faith that Abraham's righteousness was accounted to him by faith or through faith.... .there is no where that says man has to stand in public and show his circumcision...I've already told how the circucisions came about in the day of Jesus...just like his did...because the priests did them just like they did most other health related issues. Do you know anything about men? Of course they didn't HAVE to, but I'm sure it became obvious in any group of men. I would be surprised IF they had modern day urinals, Emy...most men urinated outside and some pissed against the wall according to the bible and if a man needed to void, he would be apt to do it wherever he found a place where others would not step in it....and since men didn't gather together to gossip in those days so much because it took them days to get to where they're going either walking or riding donkey colts, I would be surprised that any man would purposely follow another man to see his penis while he urinated....though I know sex was going on in those days, there didn't seem to be such a fixation on the plumbing of competitive men...whether there were homosexuals I don't know as it would be such a problem to see what one another had. It was a spiritual sign, not a human one....also I think that self-respect in those days would guarantee any male was circumcised on the 8th day after birth...IF they were of Jewish descent!
|
|