|
Post by snow on Jun 29, 2012 21:09:27 GMT -5
There's no way to answer that. At least one. Paul indicated that there were several of the apostles married. Jesus never made a point of saying one way or another that the ministry should or should not be married. www.apostles.com/apostlesmarried.html and this one bible.cc/1_corinthians/9-5.htm This answers it possibly? All of them. Peter for sure because it talks about his mother-in-law.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Jun 29, 2012 21:23:05 GMT -5
Paul indicated that there were several of the apostles married. Jesus never made a point of saying one way or another that the ministry should or should not be married. www.apostles.com/apostlesmarried.html and this one bible.cc/1_corinthians/9-5.htm This answers it possibly? All of them. Peter for sure because it talks about his mother-in-law. When Peter's mother in law was brought up to the worker, the at least USED to say something like, "Well, Peter's wife was PROBABLY dead and he was then free to go into the work." I have heard this many times from many different workers. I doubt there are many workers who have not pondered that verse and had to come to the same conclusion in order of their system to be justified.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 29, 2012 22:19:13 GMT -5
When Peter's mother in law was brought up to the worker, the at least USED to say something like, "Well, Peter's wife was PROBABLY dead and he was then free to go into the work." I have heard this many times from many different workers. I doubt there are many workers who have not pondered that verse and had to come to the same conclusion in order of their system to be justified. I don't agree. Men in that day and age were expected to take a wife. It was almost mandatory in some circles, for eg. rabbi or spiritual leader. That's why there has been so much speculation on whether Jesus was married. He was in a position where it would have been very hard for him to not marry and not draw deep disapproval. Who knows. He was a rebel in many other ways, so there is nothing to say he didn't rebel in that way too and not marry. Those links also talk about 2 of the apostles going somewhere to marry off their daughters, so it is also likely they were fathers?
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jun 29, 2012 23:46:24 GMT -5
... The Scripture does not say that he had one and he certainly traveled enough that's quite possible he didn't have one but simply stayed with the brethren wherever he went. It says that he rented a house for 2 years. That does not mean he was staying with the brethren during that time. Was he not under house arrest during that time?
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Jun 30, 2012 5:06:23 GMT -5
It says that he rented a house for 2 years. That does not mean he was staying with the brethren during that time. Was he not under house arrest during that time? Haven't read that he was under house arrest. What verses suggest that? If I remember correctly it says that he spent 2years in his own rented house.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Jun 30, 2012 5:13:14 GMT -5
It says that he rented a house for 2 years. That does not mean he was staying with the brethren during that time. That doesn't sound any different that what some "2x2" 'workers' do at certain times and places. The workers preached many times in my years in meetings that like Jesus they have no where to lay their head, now you are saying that the workers sometimes rent. The concept of renting is not the workers ministry. They claim to be homeless now you are saying that they rent. Contrary to what I heard preached and to contrary to their ministry. I don't see where Jesus said, go rent.
|
|
|
Post by inpeaceabiding on Jun 30, 2012 6:03:19 GMT -5
That doesn't sound any different that what some "2x2" 'workers' do at certain times and places. The workers preached many times in my years in meetings that like Jesus they have no where to lay their head, now you are saying that the workers sometimes rent. The concept of renting is not the workers ministry. They claim to be homeless now you are saying that they rent. Contrary to what I heard preached and to contrary to their ministry. I don't see where Jesus said, go rent. Many workers in "foreign fields" rent a place to stay. They usually call it a "batch".
|
|
|
Post by inpeaceabiding on Jun 30, 2012 6:07:49 GMT -5
Was he not under house arrest during that time? Haven't read that he was under house arrest. What verses suggest that? If I remember correctly it says that he spent 2years in his own rented house. Acts 28:16 And when we came to Rome, the centurion delivered the prisoners to the captain of the guard: but Paul was suffered to dwell by himself with a soldier that kept him.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Jun 30, 2012 6:18:22 GMT -5
The workers are not under house arrest when they rent houses. So renting houses was not a part of Jesus ministry, so how can the workers claim to be following the ministry of Jesus when they rent a place to stay.
|
|
will
Senior Member
Posts: 516
|
Post by will on Jun 30, 2012 8:49:20 GMT -5
Always appeared to me that when the workers needed money they'd just preach about how they don't ask for money.
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on Jun 30, 2012 15:22:51 GMT -5
That doesn't sound any different that what some "2x2" 'workers' do at certain times and places. The workers preached many times in my years in meetings that like Jesus they have no where to lay their head, now you are saying that the workers sometimes rent. The concept of renting is not the workers ministry. They claim to be homeless now you are saying that they rent. Contrary to what I heard preached and to contrary to their ministry. I don't see where Jesus said, go rent. Some of them do, sometimes. I thought that was common knowledge? Where do you see where Jesus said those who preach aren't allowed to rent houses?
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on Jun 30, 2012 15:32:25 GMT -5
Paul indicated that there were several of the apostles married. Jesus never made a point of saying one way or another that the ministry should or should not be married. www.apostles.com/apostlesmarried.html and this one bible.cc/1_corinthians/9-5.htm This answers it possibly? All of them. Peter for sure because it talks about his mother-in-law. The first one is very short and only says that early writers suggest that all except John were married at the time Jesus chose them to follow Him. The link for "more detail" is written in defense of celibacy and suggests that the apostles lived celibate lives even though they were married. It is written from the perspective of defending the historic practices of the Roman Catholic Church. It makes that claim and a claim about Mary's perpetual virginity by referring to "the Fathers" and "early writings which are not canonical but may reflect reality". Too bad he didn't cite any sources to show which early writings he was using to support his view, nor consider any early writings to the contrary (including canonical books).
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 30, 2012 16:08:24 GMT -5
The first one is very short and only says that early writers suggest that all except John were married at the time Jesus chose them to follow Him. The link for "more detail" is written in defense of celibacy and suggests that the apostles lived celibate lives even though they were married. It is written from the perspective of defending the historic practices of the Roman Catholic Church. It makes that claim and a claim about Mary's perpetual virginity by referring to "the Fathers" and "early writings which are not canonical but may reflect reality". Too bad he didn't cite any sources to show which early writings he was using to support his view, nor consider any early writings to the contrary (including canonical books). Yes, the first one definitely is Catholic in origin. However, I think that they were likely all married just from reading the history of the culture at that time. They would have been expected to marry and in Peter's case, we do have mention of the mother in law. Also that of daughters of two others. I cited them because I think many biblical scholars do think they were married.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Jun 30, 2012 16:47:09 GMT -5
The workers preached many times in my years in meetings that like Jesus they have no where to lay their head, now you are saying that the workers sometimes rent. The concept of renting is not the workers ministry. They claim to be homeless now you are saying that they rent. Contrary to what I heard preached and to contrary to their ministry. I don't see where Jesus said, go rent. Some of them do, sometimes. I thought that was common knowledge? Where do you see where Jesus said those who preach aren't allowed to rent houses? Yes, you tell me and then go tell the workers. The workers criticize other ministries for doing the same thing. Their message has always been that they live with the people. Find who is worthy and stay there.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jun 30, 2012 17:49:23 GMT -5
Some of them do, sometimes. I thought that was common knowledge? Where do you see where Jesus said those who preach aren't allowed to rent houses? Yes, you tell me and then go tell the workers. The workers criticize other ministries for doing the same thing. Their message has always been that they live with the people. Find who is worthy and stay there. Happyfeet, they did this quite often in the past when they went to countries where there were no 'friends' to stay with yet. They also married when they went to places like Greece for example.
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Jun 30, 2012 20:38:17 GMT -5
There's no way to answer that. At least one. Paul indicated that there were several of the apostles married. Jesus never made a point of saying one way or another that the ministry should or should not be married. I would like to know where this indication is?
|
|
|
Post by DumSpiroSpero on Jun 30, 2012 21:04:13 GMT -5
1 Corinthians 9:5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Jul 1, 2012 2:47:21 GMT -5
Yes, you tell me and then go tell the workers. The workers criticize other ministries for doing the same thing. Their message has always been that they live with the people. Find who is worthy and stay there. Happyfeet, they did this quite often in the past when they went to countries where there were no 'friends' to stay with yet. They also married when they went to places like Greece for example. Seems like they preach one thing and do another.
|
|
|
Post by jhjmr on Jul 1, 2012 12:25:53 GMT -5
Look up Eldon Tenniswood and you will find a paper that he drew up for people that professed to leave their inheritance to the workers and how to do it. This is not passing $50.00 for gas or whatever the need is. Eldon also tells where it says in the bible to give 10%. He was very openly and frank of what he wanted and expected. He was a powerful overseer that set the standards many use today. The message seems to justify the workers getting money, as a way for the giver to be buying their way to heaven. But condemn any religion that collects in the open as not letting the right hand knowth what the left hand doeth. What a message to preach when money is hid and deceitfully said, I have none. I do believe that is probably the greatest fear of the complete religion, the money situation being made public knowedge. And probably not so much as it being deceitfully hid but because people may say wow, I'm not giving any and the money tree goes dormant. Can the religion continue on merit? That is a question that no overseer would want to test.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 1, 2012 14:49:33 GMT -5
Happyfeet, they did this quite often in the past when they went to countries where there were no 'friends' to stay with yet. They also married when they went to places like Greece for example. Seems like they preach one thing and do another. Yes, in that way they aren't any different from any other organization imo.
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Jul 1, 2012 15:53:01 GMT -5
Seems like they preach one thing and do another. Yes, in that way they aren't any different from any other organization imo. Not much different from a lot of organizations but they are a lot different from most other mainline churches who are open and accountable to the people about how the money is spent and whether they own, rent or stay in people's houses. There are many people involved in these affairs in the church (serving tables) so that the pastor attends to matters in the church where as the workers largely control this aspect of their lives.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 1, 2012 16:00:36 GMT -5
Yes, in that way they aren't any different from any other organization imo. They are a lot different from most other mainline churches who are open and accountable to the people about how the money is spent and whether they own, rent or stay in people's houses. Yes in that way they are different. I agree. No one knows the amount of money the overseers control. It's too bad there is no system in place that gives an accounting.
|
|
|
Post by dlb5674 on Jul 1, 2012 16:29:03 GMT -5
That doesn't sound any different that what some "2x2" 'workers' do at certain times and places. The workers preached many times in my years in meetings that like Jesus they have no where to lay their head, now you are saying that the workers sometimes rent. The concept of renting is not the workers ministry. They claim to be homeless now you are saying that they rent. Contrary to what I heard preached and to contrary to their ministry. I don't see where Jesus said, go rent. Happy Feet, I don't see a problem with the workers renting a batch. In fact I believe it would be good for all workers to rent a temporary home and stay there for the course of their ministry in any one area. It makes more sense to me than staying in the homes of the friends. When they state that they are homeless they mean that do not own a home. Of course we know, that even if they stay with the friends they are not homeless in the truest sense of the word. That would only be true if they were living on the street with no place to stay or sleep.
|
|
|
Post by dlb5674 on Jul 1, 2012 16:32:48 GMT -5
When Peter's mother in law was brought up to the worker, the at least USED to say something like, "Well, Peter's wife was PROBABLY dead and he was then free to go into the work." I have heard this many times from many different workers. I doubt there are many workers who have not pondered that verse and had to come to the same conclusion in order of their system to be justified. ts, consider what would happen to the fellowship if workers started marrying. Some who do not believe it's wise to marry would criticize workers who DID marry, jealousy would arise, power struggles, and the ministry would crumble. The church would fall apart because it is held together through the ministry. At least that is how I see things.
|
|
|
Post by jhjmr on Jul 1, 2012 16:33:40 GMT -5
The only ones that know about how much money there is is the elders that hae the money in their accounts and it is reported to the government and the elders claim it as his and pays taxes on it. Completely fraudant. Because, whenever the overseer ask for money, the elders send it to him. Of course the elder only knows how much money there is in his account. And the power of the position of being a an elder is so great that there is not one that would say a word. They would never risk having that position taken away and the pride that comes with the position is so noticeable and it puts them above the others that come to their home for meeting. So, many in the religion hides the money not just the overseers. So I would say that the overseers are not one bit worried about anything being made accountable.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Jul 1, 2012 18:11:10 GMT -5
Always appeared to me that when the workers needed money they'd just preach about how they don't ask for money. Yes, I have noticed that also.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Jul 1, 2012 18:16:14 GMT -5
When Peter's mother in law was brought up to the worker, the at least USED to say something like, "Well, Peter's wife was PROBABLY dead and he was then free to go into the work." I have heard this many times from many different workers. I doubt there are many workers who have not pondered that verse and had to come to the same conclusion in order of their system to be justified. ts, consider what would happen to the fellowship if workers started marrying. Some who do not believe it's wise to marry would criticize workers who DID marry, jealousy would arise, power struggles, and the ministry would crumble. The church would fall apart because it is held together through the ministry. At least that is how I see things. Exactly. That is what the workers preach about other churches. Things like, "The workers do not go out because of the money involved. The gospel we preach is not motivated by money. If you take away the money out of our ministry, it would still continue. If you removed the money from any other church it would soon fold." Yes, the worker ministry as we know it would crumble if they took out the money. It would fold if they allowed marriage. According to their own words, this is evidence that the Work is man made.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Jul 1, 2012 18:34:01 GMT -5
Paul indicated that there were several of the apostles married. Jesus never made a point of saying one way or another that the ministry should or should not be married. I would like to know where this indication is? Why would you like to know, Kiwi? If Paul said so, would it change your view of how the workers say you may not marry and continue in the work? I highly doubt it. You have read the verses. They are with those famous verses where the workers justify remaining single to be in the ministry and making a law of it. 1 Corinthians 9:5 "Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?" I have heard explanations from workers(while I was in the work) about why workers do not marry. "It has proven to not work well in our day and age." Then there was cited some incident down in Australia or somewhere where a married couple was in the work, he was overseer and he basically had the workers as servants in his home. So that helped the workers decide that marriage in the work was not appropriate. Yes, I was actually told this by the overseer. Then Taylor Wood declared the law in a workers' convention. There were MANY overseers there from all over the country and some from overseas. I know that Evan Jones was there. Sam McCracken was there, Arnold Brown...The list is long. There were 176 workers there altogether. And that same year there were several workers conventions all over the country. If anyone wanted to protest, that was the time to do it. All were in agreement, apparently. It is a meeting law that workers may not marry. The interesting thing is that when people tell the workers that a 2x2 homeless ministry cannot exist in this day and age that the workers will cite not only scripture but the countless testimony of workers doing so all their lives remaining single all that time. However, when confronted with the same evidence that men and women are indeed marrying and carrying on successful missions and promoting the name of Jesus with power and authority(and not in the 2x2 church), the workers scoff at the notion. The workers just cannot take their own sermons preached back at them.
|
|