|
Post by qest on Jul 7, 2006 22:46:15 GMT -5
I'll post a page per day...here is page one of the history chapter concerning the 2x2s . . . . Many things written in news reports are false deception or misinterpretation, even if almost everyone who sees it believes it. What I know about the truth given to me by God as others lived and taught, will never be believed by most people, and someone, even those who claim to believe something written and believed by most others, will consider complete truth to be false. I have worked in places for which I have been sworn to never tell anyone where I was, what I saw, or what I had to do. If it was told and proven true, most people still would not believe what I told, and for that I could be killed. Jesus lived and taught what was 100% true and totally proven, yet most never believed it, and for that he was killed - same as today. inatent[/quot I agree, things are not as they may appear. If we believed everything we read we would not even drink water, as everyone that has died, has drank water. hmmm, must be some connection, don't you think
|
|
|
Post by Bert on Jul 8, 2006 3:21:50 GMT -5
Hey Lloyd, they are ganging up on both of us!
|
|
|
Post by Bert on Jul 8, 2006 3:27:59 GMT -5
Re Matthew 10. This is one of the specific chapters on the topic of preaching the Gospel. I believe that all things recorded in the bible are there for a reason, and the reason here is that it provides a template for future generations where the Gospel is preached. The text wasn't so much relevant to that generation (perhaps) because these people already had a ministry handed down from Jesus.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2006 8:45:14 GMT -5
Re Matthew 10. This is one of the specific chapters on the topic of preaching the Gospel. I believe that all things recorded in the bible are there for a reason, and the reason here is that it provides a template for future generations where the Gospel is preached. The text wasn't so much relevant to that generation (perhaps) because these people already had a ministry handed down from Jesus. So this was just an exercise? Could you elaborate, especially on your last sentence. I am not understanding you, I don't think. Thanks in advance, Karl
|
|
|
Post by lloyds on Jul 8, 2006 9:04:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by 2x2s on Jul 8, 2006 9:36:02 GMT -5
I need some lumber. I think I'll run after some 2x2s.
|
|
|
Post by heir apparent on Jul 8, 2006 9:44:07 GMT -5
Lloyd,
You read a lot of this stuff. Have you ever came across a name that WI claimed as the leader of the ''testimony''. WHO did he think was in charge after he left/ ?? Seems there was no one that he pointed to as his ''heir-apparent''...and thus it seems evident to me that he did not understand the way the truth actually worked, and does not need an earthly ''leader'' such as he may have claimed as himself.
I don't read any names , eh?
|
|
|
Post by las logged out on Jul 8, 2006 9:47:30 GMT -5
Lloyd, You read a lot of this stuff. Have you ever came across a name that WI claimed as the leader of the ''testimony''. WHO did he think was in charge after he left/ ?? Seems there was no one that he pointed to as his ''heir-apparent''...and thus it seems evident to me that he did not understand the way the truth actually worked, and does not need an earthly ''leader'' such as he may have claimed as himself. I don't read any names , eh? William Irvine was put out in 1914 and i do not know of any name he choose I don't think he wanted any name he was so against the clergy
|
|
|
Post by CR8ESPM on Jul 8, 2006 9:47:42 GMT -5
The leaders led by example, NOT by any election or vote.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jul 8, 2006 9:51:07 GMT -5
RE: Have you ever came across a name that WI claimed as the leader of the ''testimony''. WHO did he think was in charge after he left/ ?? Seems there was no one that he pointed to as his ''heir-apparent''...and thus it seems evident to me that he did not understand the way the truth actually worked, and does not need an earthly ''leader'' such as he may have claimed as himself. I don't read any names , eh?
When someone is kicked out of a group (as WmI was), they don't usually get the opportunity to name their successor(s). When he was excommunicated, there was a mutiny by this chief ruling workers. They took over--siezed control for themselves. Have you read his letters on TTT? WmI knew who was in charge after he left. He well understood the "way the truth actually worked." I guess I don't get your point? Maybe I misunderstood? CK
|
|
to lloyd again again
Guest
|
Post by to lloyd again again on Jul 8, 2006 9:52:05 GMT -5
Lloyd, You misunderstood my question.
You read a lot of this stuff. Have you ever came across a name that WI claimed as the leader of the ''testimony''. WHO did he think was in charge after he left/ ?? Seems there was no one that he pointed to as his ''heir-apparent''.
I don't read any names , eh?[/
No one in charge, that is the way it always has worked , eh?
|
|
|
Post by las logged out on Jul 8, 2006 9:55:40 GMT -5
William Irvine never appointed anyone to take over but he probably knew that George walker ,Jack Carrol would be! William Irvine is clear in a letter that he was forced out
|
|
|
Post by my point on Jul 8, 2006 9:59:04 GMT -5
RE: Have you ever came across a name that WI claimed as the leader of the ''testimony''. WHO did he think was in charge after he left/ ?? Seems there was no one that he pointed to as his ''heir-apparent''...and thus it seems evident to me that he did not understand the way the truth actually worked, and does not need an earthly ''leader'' such as he may have claimed as himself. I don't read any names , eh? When someone is kicked out of a group (as WmI was), they don't usually get the opportunity to name their successor(s). When he was excommunicated, there was a mutiny by this chief ruling workers. They took over--siezed control for themselves. Have you read his letters on TTT? WmI knew who was in charge after he left. He well understood the "way the truth actually worked." I guess I don't get your point? Maybe I misunderstood? CK My point/question is, how do you think it [the work] continues?
|
|
|
Post by no claims on Jul 8, 2006 10:01:36 GMT -5
William Irvine never appointed anyone to take over but he probably knew that George walker ,Jack Carrol would be! William Irvine is clear in a letter that he was forced out I have never read anything where George or Jack claimed to be the ''leader'', WHY do you think they didn't claim to be ??
|
|
|
Post by humm on Jul 8, 2006 10:03:46 GMT -5
If they would have made claims, then the others would have booted them, too.
|
|
|
Post by huh on Jul 8, 2006 10:12:53 GMT -5
RE: Have you ever came across a name that WI claimed as the leader of the ''testimony''. When he was excommunicated, there was a mutiny by this chief ruling workers. CK Please, will you define ''mutiny'' in the context of --- ''this chief ruling workers''. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by mutiny on Jul 8, 2006 10:16:49 GMT -5
mutiny, refers to rebelling against authority. It seems that WI was the one that was not dealing with the ''real'' authority, in truth...
|
|
|
Post by lloyds on Jul 8, 2006 16:11:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by hmmmm on Jul 8, 2006 19:21:12 GMT -5
RE: Have you ever came across a name that WI claimed as the leader of the ''testimony''. When he was excommunicated, there was a mutiny by this chief ruling workers. I guess I don't get your point? Maybe I misunderstood? CK Speaking of mutiny--- One can look all over the world, There is very little mutiny in the truth. There is all kinds of mutiny amoung those exes, don't you think??
|
|
|
Post by lloyds on Jul 8, 2006 19:54:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mutiny on Jul 8, 2006 20:03:51 GMT -5
RE: Have you ever came across a name that WI claimed as the leader of the ''testimony''. When he was excommunicated, there was a mutiny by this chief ruling workers. I guess I don't get your point? Maybe I misunderstood? CK Speaking of mutiny--- One can look all over the world, There is very little mutiny in the truth. There is all kinds of mutiny amoung those exes, don't you think??[/qu rebelious mutants!
|
|
|
Post by prokoff on Jul 8, 2006 22:42:22 GMT -5
Hehe....sounds like the old story of the professing man who drove a beer truck for years & years. (apocryphal story...approximating certain truthful situations).
|
|
|
Post by prokoff on Jul 8, 2006 22:51:10 GMT -5
Did Wm. Irvine ever actually come out and proclaim his leadership, or messiahship...or whatever? After his bannishment, did any of WI's predecessors, Jardine, Jamieson, etc...step up, and proclaim any sort of leadership?
|
|
|
Post by lloyds on Jul 9, 2006 8:17:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lloyds on Jul 9, 2006 8:19:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lloyds on Jul 9, 2006 8:21:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lloyds on Jul 9, 2006 8:23:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by las logged out on Jul 9, 2006 8:25:01 GMT -5
Two more pages tommorrow then finished
|
|