Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2014 5:58:53 GMT -5
Phillip baptized the eunuch who was probably never to be seen in Israel again. Do you know of any other that Phillip baptized? I understand that those of Samaria who heard Phillip preach were later baptized by the Apostles? And Phillip retired to have a family. It interesting that this church DID NOT RECOGNIZE EVEN THE BAPTISM OF JOHN THE BAPTIST. Robert my dear fellow. John the Baptist preceded Christ's resurrection and HIS sending of God's divine power the Holy Ghost to be with every true believer. The Holy Ghost was sent AFTER Jesus received the promise (personal control) of the Holy Ghost from his Heavenly Father and God. God's spirit in us is a witness and testimony to others. The spirit has power to teach, lead and convict. As the Holy Spirit was released by Peter unto the Gentiles (he held those keys of the Kingdom), the need for the miracles decreased. Look at the account of Philip in Acts after he fled Jerusalem. He preached (alone) and worked many miracles amongst the Jews. As he moved amongst the Gentiles his preaching continued, but the miracles appear to have disappeared. The Jews required a sign in addition to oral witnessing with regards to their promised Messiah, but the Gentiles required knowledge. The Holy Ghost wasn't released all at once by Peter and neither were the miracles withdrawn at once either. You should know this by now! The Eunuch who was a Gentile not a Jew did not require signs and wonders to point to God. He merely required knowledge, which the Holy Ghost convicted him of. Cornelius the Centurion was another Gentile who no doubt had heard and/or see the miracles of Jesus. He and his whole household believed. It was knowledge that he sought and acceptance. Pete unleashed the Holy Spirit unto all and baptised them. Until the Holy Ghost was released, people were baptised in the name of Jesus only. After the sending of the Holy Ghost, i.e. the power of the Father, people were baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost because they had/were receiving the promise of the Holy Ghost which was a baptism of God's Spirit, not just the baptism of water. Didn't Virgs explain this to you?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2014 6:16:56 GMT -5
Quote - "The Eunuch who was a Gentile not a Jew did not require signs and wonders to point to God. He merely required knowledge, which the Holy Ghost convicted him of."
Gentile? The Eunuch was probably a Jew - they were sought after throughout the "middle east" and Africa for their financial abilities. Knowledge? He could even have heard of Jesus in his wanderings. It's not a "knowledge" of Jesus which matter but the preaching of him. That's how the bible presents it, anyway - I know there are other opinions here on that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2014 6:28:43 GMT -5
Quote - "The Eunuch who was a Gentile not a Jew did not require signs and wonders to point to God. He merely required knowledge, which the Holy Ghost convicted him of." Gentile? The Eunuch was probably a Jew - they were sought after throughout the "middle east" and Africa for their financial abilities. You might be right, but a Jew who only required "one" human witness? No signs to go with it? Yes it could be. The witness of the Holy Spirit convicted the Eunuch along with Philip's testimony. No need for human witness number two, nor any signs and wonders! And let's not forget that Paul was a Jew (but also a Roman), who was convicted through NO human agency! Knowledge? He could even have heard of Jesus in his wanderings. It's not a "knowledge" of Jesus which matter but the preaching of him. That's how the bible presents it, anyway - I know there are other opinions here on that. You put "preaching" before "witnessing." Big problem. From beginning to end the Bible is about confession, witnessing and testimony to the Glory of God. This requires knowledge of God. Preaching is part of that knowledge. According to Jesus, without knowledge we do greatly err! Great problems arise when people preach about things of which they have little or no knowledge!
The Euny was reading from passages in Isaiah (which might support your theory that he was a Jew) when Philip joined him. He didn't know who Isaiah was talking about, himself or some other. Had Euny heard about Jesus during his wanderings he might just have connected the two, for Isaiah was speaking about Jesus. However, it was when Philip preached his knowledge of Jesus to Euny that the penny dropped. Incidentally it is believed the Euny became the Apostle to the Ethiopians, most likely taking the message there himself?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2014 7:56:36 GMT -5
Quote - " You put "preaching" before "witnessing." Big problem. From beginning to end the Bible is about confession, witnessing and testimony to the Glory of God. This requires knowledge of God. Preaching is part of that knowledge. According to Jesus, without knowledge we do greatly err! Great problems arise when people preach about things of which they have little or no knowledge!"
Re witnessing, knowledge, preaching etc.. Funny how we can talk without defining our words. I detect a not too subtle dig at those unlearned and ignorant Workers, Ram.
I listened to a well educated minister ridiculing a parishioner one day about Genesis. Seems this parishioner believed in the seven days of creation, and the minister ridiculed him. "Don't know there are two account of creation in Genesis?" he said. The parishioner did not, and the implication was clear - he needed to be "educated" about the bible (or its myths)
Knowledge is of the head, but preaching reaches the heart.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2014 9:13:16 GMT -5
Quote - " You put "preaching" before "witnessing." Big problem. From beginning to end the Bible is about confession, witnessing and testimony to the Glory of God. This requires knowledge of God. Preaching is part of that knowledge. According to Jesus, without knowledge we do greatly err! Great problems arise when people preach about things of which they have little or no knowledge!"
Re witnessing, knowledge, preaching etc.. Funny how we can talk without defining our words. I detect a not too subtle dig at those unlearned and ignorant Workers, Ram. I'm afraid "detection" isn't your thing, Bert. No dig at workers intended. If you actually do carry out a study of the whole Bible you will indeed see that the whole Bible is about Jesus Christ and witnessing, testifying and confessing his name. Preaching is an important part of the foregoing and should be seen as such, not regarding witnessing as being part of preaching or testifying. Actually, the meeting format goes a long way towards proving my point. With no workers or preachers present, everyone confesses, testifies and witnesses for Jesus. Any one or two of them, according to their gift or ability, along with the greater witness of the Holy Spirit within them, can preach to outsiders about Jesus and the hope that is in them! Philip and his daughters did it, didn't they?
I listened to a well educated minister ridiculing a parishioner one day about Genesis. Seems this parishioner believed in the seven days of creation, and the minister ridiculed him. "Don't know there are two account of creation in Genesis?" he said. The parishioner did not, and the implication was clear - he needed to be "educated" about the bible (or its myths) There are actually three accounts Bert. There was Creation as the flood waters withdrew. That's how you are plagued with kangaroos. Do a study and you will see what I mean. Keep in mind the harmonising abilities of context. Ignore this and you will interpret Jesus is God in the OT, when in fact he is the Servant of God. The Father does all things through his Son, the only one with whom he shares his glory.Knowledge is of the head, but preaching reaches the heart. Well I guess that's it. We all need to be beheaded!
What was it I said again.....? Oh..yes......Context!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 2, 2014 11:41:41 GMT -5
Well, this man Phillip fled the persecution in Jerusalem. He was of the church. If that church, or any such church since, allowed any member to baptize or create doctrine we might end up like many of the churches - utter chaos, doctrinal dispute and splitting. and ps. wanna buy a bridge? Here was the eunuch reading scripture and declaring he couldn't understand unless he was "guided." There is the "living witness." From what I have seen of your church it is in utter chaos, doctrinal dispute and splitting. No one can agree on anything, workers or otherwise. You and Virgo are the only ones that agree with your statement. The rest of us know the party line is not that. I think you know it too and in a round about way do say that anyone who does not come to God through the workers is doomed to hell. This isn't about a bridge it's about the river deNile.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 2, 2014 11:49:27 GMT -5
Knowledge is of the head, but preaching reaches the heart. Preaching is pretty useless without some knowledge. Why do you think you were given a brain? So you would have something to deny?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2014 11:54:51 GMT -5
Well, this man Phillip fled the persecution in Jerusalem. He was of the church. If that church, or any such church since, allowed any member to baptize or create doctrine we might end up like many of the churches - utter chaos, doctrinal dispute and splitting. and ps. wanna buy a bridge? Here was the eunuch reading scripture and declaring he couldn't understand unless he was "guided." There is the "living witness." From what I have seen of your church it is in utter chaos, doctrinal dispute and splitting. No one can agree on anything, workers or otherwise. You and Virgo are the only ones that agree with your statement. The rest of us know the party line is not that. I think you know it too and in a round about way do say that anyone who does not come to God through the workers is doomed to hell. This isn't about a bridge it's about the river deNile. I think "utter chaos" is far too extreme to be accurate. There is broad consensus on many things, and life just ticks along reasonably well in a lot of areas even if it is decline.....the decline is widely a steady trickle, not a nuclear blowup like Alberta or Vietnam. Remember, the friends here who post disagreements with the church represent a minority of F&Ws, and probably a reasonably small minority.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2014 12:02:05 GMT -5
I think "utter chaos" is far too extreme to be accurate. There is broad consensus on many things, and life just ticks along reasonably well in a lot of areas even if it is decline.....the decline is widely a steady trickle, not a nuclear blowup like Alberta or Vietnam.
Remember, the friends here who post disagreements with the church represent a minority of F&Ws, and probably a reasonably small minority.
This I am sure is true. Utter chaos would force necessary changes to take place, which isn't happening. It's more like a slowly sinking ship, almost imperceptible, where holes are plugged to slow the sinking, giving the impression the boat is still on course and seaworthy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2014 12:08:08 GMT -5
I think "utter chaos" is far too extreme to be accurate. There is broad consensus on many things, and life just ticks along reasonably well in a lot of areas even if it is decline.....the decline is widely a steady trickle, not a nuclear blowup like Alberta or Vietnam.
Remember, the friends here who post disagreements with the church represent a minority of F&Ws, and probably a reasonably small minority.This I am sure is true. Utter chaos would force necessary changes to take place, which isn't happening. It's more like a slowly sinking ship, almost imperceptible, where holes are plugged to slow the sinking, giving the impression the boat is still on course and seaworthy. Quite true, utter chaos would force action and there is little sign of a wholesale re-examination of what we are doing so that things can be fixed. I call it a slow motion train wreck which is probably due more to a lack of chaos than anything else.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 2, 2014 12:42:24 GMT -5
From what I have seen of your church it is in utter chaos, doctrinal dispute and splitting. No one can agree on anything, workers or otherwise. You and Virgo are the only ones that agree with your statement. The rest of us know the party line is not that. I think you know it too and in a round about way do say that anyone who does not come to God through the workers is doomed to hell. This isn't about a bridge it's about the river deNile. I think "utter chaos" is far too extreme to be accurate. There is broad consensus on many things, and life just ticks along reasonably well in a lot of areas even if it is decline.....the decline is widely a steady trickle, not a nuclear blowup like Alberta or Vietnam. Remember, the friends here who post disagreements with the church represent a minority of F&Ws, and probably a reasonably small minority. You're probably right about the 'utter chaos'. I was referring to his usage of the word for other churches that aren't like the F&W's. In my opinion, what religions teach can cause plenty of chaos and I don't see the F&W's to be any different in that way.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 2, 2014 15:01:41 GMT -5
Reminds me of the words of a song. "What a tangled web we weave, when we practice to deceive". Let's give the credit to Scott!
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Jan 2, 2014 18:05:27 GMT -5
I can't answer for the critic, but he/she didn't state that workers say there are true believers in other fellowships. He/she simply stated that "there can be true believers outside our fellowship." as you point out. The truth is, I think that most workers today do believe that, mostly limited to the people you suggest who are unable to meet the workers or go to meetings. It's not much for non-exclusivity but it does bear noting as it is commonplace among workers from what I understand. I think most also believe that there are people in other church groups who are true believers but simply haven't gotten out yet. I doubt that the critic or the workers are stating that their idea of true belief is common among those in other churches. I would expect that most workers figure all who have left the meetings are definitely unsaved. While it doesn't sound like much, this is a major move from 40 years ago where there would never have been any exceptions to the exclusive rule. Also 40 years ago, there was a palpable hatred toward anything to do with other churches. Not so today. Although there isn't any love for other churches, the hatred is largely gone and is replaced with a neutrality or even a bit of respect in some cases. Again, it's not much but it is worth noting in any proper academic study of 2x2ism which seeks to describe 2x2ism today. What does all that mean, if anything? I see a trend and predict that within a few years, there will be a rapid disappearance of what I call "individual exclusivity" and it will be replaced by what I call "institutional exclusivity". That is, there will be a genuine and widespread stance of non-judgmentalism toward individuals outside of meetings while hanging on to the idea that the meeting system is the only right church system. So, under that scenario, you could be a true believer in any fellowship system and you would simply be in the wrong fellowship system. This is how the Mormons have trended and where they are at right now on exclusivity. The 2x2's don't have any choice but to go in that direction. Not only will societies not tolerate a group that condemns individuals, it's not a sound Christian position to begin with. My last paragraph wouldn't have to form part of an academic study of 2x2ism but a good study would examine trends and extrapolate them into the future. At convention, an elderly professing lady mentioned that there was a 2x2 family that had left the meetings and was now attending a nearby church. The amazing part was that she added, "...and some of the friends and workers say that like it's a BAD thing!" This is a lady who dresses the 2x2 part and has a daughter in the work. She was also good friends with the family and has seen her meeting shrink. Still, it was interesting that she was upset with the whole concept of exclusivity, institutional or otherwise.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2014 18:20:38 GMT -5
I can't answer for the critic, but he/she didn't state that workers say there are true believers in other fellowships. He/she simply stated that "there can be true believers outside our fellowship." as you point out. The truth is, I think that most workers today do believe that, mostly limited to the people you suggest who are unable to meet the workers or go to meetings. It's not much for non-exclusivity but it does bear noting as it is commonplace among workers from what I understand. I think most also believe that there are people in other church groups who are true believers but simply haven't gotten out yet. I doubt that the critic or the workers are stating that their idea of true belief is common among those in other churches. I would expect that most workers figure all who have left the meetings are definitely unsaved. While it doesn't sound like much, this is a major move from 40 years ago where there would never have been any exceptions to the exclusive rule. Also 40 years ago, there was a palpable hatred toward anything to do with other churches. Not so today. Although there isn't any love for other churches, the hatred is largely gone and is replaced with a neutrality or even a bit of respect in some cases. Again, it's not much but it is worth noting in any proper academic study of 2x2ism which seeks to describe 2x2ism today. What does all that mean, if anything? I see a trend and predict that within a few years, there will be a rapid disappearance of what I call "individual exclusivity" and it will be replaced by what I call "institutional exclusivity". That is, there will be a genuine and widespread stance of non-judgmentalism toward individuals outside of meetings while hanging on to the idea that the meeting system is the only right church system. So, under that scenario, you could be a true believer in any fellowship system and you would simply be in the wrong fellowship system. This is how the Mormons have trended and where they are at right now on exclusivity. The 2x2's don't have any choice but to go in that direction. Not only will societies not tolerate a group that condemns individuals, it's not a sound Christian position to begin with. My last paragraph wouldn't have to form part of an academic study of 2x2ism but a good study would examine trends and extrapolate them into the future. At convention, an elderly professing lady mentioned that there was a 2x2 family that had left the meetings and was now attending a nearby church. The amazing part was that she added, "...and some of the friends and workers say that like it's a BAD thing!" This is a lady who dresses the 2x2 part and has a daughter in the work. She was also good friends with the family and has seen her meeting shrink. Still, it was interesting that she was upset with the whole concept of exclusivity, institutional or otherwise. It is usually surprising where you find non-exclusivity. I find it where I least expect it sometimes.....and it's also surprising when you discover that some seemingly non-traditional 2x2's are pretty exclusive.....even some ex-2x2's are 2x2 exclusive!
|
|
|
Post by blandie on Jan 2, 2014 22:24:43 GMT -5
even some ex-2x2's are 2x2 exclusive! Yes they are. Some have so completely bought into the F&W's being the closest to the bible that they have the same horror as dyed-in-the-wool hearty friends of talking to other believers or taking a look at the bible from any angle other than what they were taught or finding out what other people believe. If you ask em they tell you that it is the only way and won't hear a thing said against it and they have completely bought into the idea that they are the ones at fault for not being willing for the standards and submission. It is sad and they are really affected about their situation but they won't explore it.
|
|
|
Post by 2x2history on Jan 2, 2014 23:01:21 GMT -5
Good luck with getting an answer. All they ever do when asked questions like this is try to make you ashamed and guilty that you would even ask the question. [/quote Here is the list that Sacerdotal is looking for. And I am not even from the Antipodes!
professing.proboards.com/post/449442 29 Jan 2012 Noels posted: Yes there will be people in the fellowship who are not saved.
Yes there will be people who are not in the fellowship that are saved.
|
|
|
Post by 2x2history on Jan 2, 2014 23:11:46 GMT -5
That statement made by the critic, as well as by Virgo, is dishonest in spirit, if not in truth. It seeks to obfuscate the issue and mitigate the shame felt around the truth that the workers and friends are not free to publicly state that they believe that there are those outside our fellowship who are our brothers in sisters in Christ, even if they choose to belong to another denomination. The answer that is given by the critic means nothing and adds nothing to the conversation. It is simply a means of "damage control". Which brings to mind a bigger question- why the shame and fear from the friends and workers about speaking openly and positively about the CORE CENTRAL DOCTRINE? Isn't it a big RED FLAG when the central doctrine cannot even be honestly addressed by those like the critic of Mr. Grey's book or Virgo? The review at sites.google.com/site/2x2history/the-shape-of-a-shapeless-movement has an introduction that notes: The Analysis below was prepared to review the extent to which Irvine Grey has followed accepted standards of academic rigour, such as neutrality and lack of bias, accuracy, fairness etc in writing his Queen's University Belfast MPhil degree thesis [1] (which formed the basis for this book) and whether the additional material in the book [2] meets the same standards.
Thus the review aimed to examine whether Grey's statements were accurate. If he had said " Many claim that salvation is only by hearing ‘the truth’ from one of their workers" then the review would not have commented on his statement. It is an example of the many generalisations in his book that are not universally true but were not qualified or limited by Grey.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 3, 2014 0:08:36 GMT -5
even some ex-2x2's are 2x2 exclusive! Yes they are. Some have so completely bought into the F&W's being the closest to the bible that they have the same horror as dyed-in-the-wool hearty friends of talking to other believers or taking a look at the bible from any angle other than what they were taught or finding out what other people believe. If you ask em they tell you that it is the only way and won't hear a thing said against it and they have completely bought into the idea that they are the ones at fault for not being willing for the standards and submission. It is sad and they are really affected about their situation but they won't explore it. Yep, that's what the workers have told them, "that they are the ones at fault for not being willing for the standards and submission," and they have drank the Kool-aid!
Just like the the poor people of Peoples Temple who followed Jim Jones!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 3, 2014 0:34:15 GMT -5
Phillip baptized the eunuch who was probably never to be seen in Israel again. Do you know of any other that Phillip baptized? I understand that those of Samaria who heard Phillip preach were later baptized by the Apostles? And Phillip retired to have a family. Where is your scripture for that assumption, Bert, that "Phillip retired to have a family?"
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Jan 3, 2014 0:44:19 GMT -5
Phillip baptized the eunuch who was probably never to be seen in Israel again. Do you know of any other that Phillip baptized? I understand that those of Samaria who heard Phillip preach were later baptized by the Apostles? And Phillip retired to have a family. Where is your scripture for that assumption, Bert, that "Phillip retired to have a family?"The deacons in Acts present many problems to the 2x2 setup and the claim that we follow a New Testament ministry. In Acts 6,7, and 8 it states plainly that the deacons preached and baptized. And they were also married. And no where does it say that they "retired". Oops. Bert may want to reacquaint himself with that section of the Bible and try a new spin to make it fit the 2x2 system or explain it away. Peter also made it clear that the apostles didn't need to be getting bogged down with the day to day tending of the needs of the converts/saints, but they needed to be giving their time to preaching. The workers hold onto that job description with a death grip- they want to be the deacons and the apostles. But, they don't want to marry, as the deacons did, or have a house, as the deacons did, because then. . . they would appear as ordinary, lowly preachers. . .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2014 4:58:34 GMT -5
professing.proboards.com/post/449442 29 Jan 2012 Noels posted: Yes there will be people in the fellowship who are not saved.
Yes there will be people who are not in the fellowship that are saved. Thanks for that, but we need another testimony to that effect in order to validate the first one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2014 5:04:16 GMT -5
That statement made by the critic, as well as by Virgo, is dishonest in spirit, if not in truth. It seeks to obfuscate the issue and mitigate the shame felt around the truth that the workers and friends are not free to publicly state that they believe that there are those outside our fellowship who are our brothers in sisters in Christ, even if they choose to belong to another denomination. The answer that is given by the critic means nothing and adds nothing to the conversation. It is simply a means of "damage control". Which brings to mind a bigger question- why the shame and fear from the friends and workers about speaking openly and positively about the CORE CENTRAL DOCTRINE? Isn't it a big RED FLAG when the central doctrine cannot even be honestly addressed by those like the critic of Mr. Grey's book or Virgo? The review at sites.google.com/site/2x2history/the-shape-of-a-shapeless-movement has an introduction that notes: The Analysis below was prepared to review the extent to which Irvine Grey has followed accepted standards of academic rigour, such as neutrality and lack of bias, accuracy, fairness etc in writing his Queen's University Belfast MPhil degree thesis [1] (which formed the basis for this book) and whether the additional material in the book [2] meets the same standards.
Thus the review aimed to examine whether Grey's statements were accurate. If he had said " Many claim that salvation is only by hearing ‘the truth’ from one of their workers" then the review would not have commented on his statement. It is an example of the many generalisations in his book that are not universally true but were not qualified or limited by Grey. I'm not sure of the point here with the above statement, but I would say that at least until very recent times, the belief that salvation only comes through hearing the workers was tantamount to actual doctrine! Undoubtedly some did not believe this "doctrine" but in the main it was a general belief and at this level too!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2014 5:11:04 GMT -5
Bert, how long was it after Phillip "retired" to Caesarea that Paul and his companions visited him there at his house?
1) A few months? 2) Many months? 3) A few years? 4) Many years?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2014 8:19:02 GMT -5
Quote - "At convention, an elderly professing lady mentioned that there was a 2x2 family that had left the meetings and was now attending a nearby church. The amazing part was that she added, "...and some of the friends and workers say that like it's a BAD thing!" This is a lady who dresses the 2x2 part and has a daughter in the work. She was also good friends with the family and has seen her meeting shrink. Still, it was interesting that she was upset with the whole concept of exclusivity, institutional or otherwise."
Quizzer, do you believe all ways lead to God? If not, where do you draw the line?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2014 8:22:35 GMT -5
Phillip wasn't in the Ministry like the Apostles and others were. LIKE MANY OTHERS he preached because he was out of Jerusalem by persecution. "Went everywhere preaching the word." We later read he has four daughters who might have been in the Ministry themselves. Date for all this? Who knows, who cares.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2014 9:39:26 GMT -5
Parroting the comment about "all ways lead to God" will never make that part of New Testament doctrine, which is really accepted as "only the Lord, a being, is the way to everlasting life". Why is this so difficult for you, Bert, to grasp, comprehend, believe and accept? Why do you maintain the promoting of this false teaching that believers in Him outside the 2&2 worker system promote otherwise? The ONLY ones I know making such false claims are those of the 2&2 workers and those who believe their dogma, and those not believing in The Christ as their God Savior.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 3, 2014 9:59:49 GMT -5
Why is this so difficult for you, Bert, to grasp, comprehend, believe and accept? Why do you maintain the promoting of this false teaching that believers in Him outside the 2&2 worker system promote otherwise? The ONLY ones I know making such false claims are those of the 2&2 workers and those who believe their dogma, and those not believing in The Christ as their God Savior. Isn't this a matter of conflicting beliefs? You believe that the claims are false but the person making the claims may well believe they are true. Your beliefs may seem as false to them as theirs seem false to you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2014 10:25:52 GMT -5
Phillip wasn't in the Ministry like the Apostles and others were. LIKE MANY OTHERS he preached because he was out of Jerusalem by persecution. "Went everywhere preaching the word." We later read he has four daughters who might have been in the Ministry themselves. Date for all this? Who knows, who cares. You claimed earlier that Philip "retired" (to Caeserea), obviously aware that he later had a home there and four daughters. You have to try and get things to fit in? I suspect it was several years (many months) between Philip being scattered from Jerusalem and Paul visiting him at Caeserea? The reason I care about this is because Philip had four daughters, all young women, who prophesied and spoke the word of God at the time of Paul's visitation. It is therefore likely his family were scattered from Jerusalem and he later met up with them at Caeserea. His daughters were likely following their Dad's example in teaching the locals about Jesus? It is extremely unlikely that he was a single man who embarked upon an itinerant only ministry and then "retired" at Caeserea, married and had family?
|
|