|
|
Post by jondough on Feb 27, 2017 9:46:01 GMT -5
This is why I wanted specific examples. Considering its critique of a book, it doesn't seem to much to ask. I personally have never read one word of Parker's book. I just cant take anything serious unless there is something to back it up. I do agree tho that someone can focus in on the negative only of any organization to make a reader that is unfamiliar with the organization think negative of it. Those familiar though, shouldn't so easily be swayed. Of course...admittedly- All I heard about all other churches my entire life was the negative. And of course theres' Bert. Have you ever heard positive about other churches? He even blankets all churches with the negatives of perhaps one particular "false" church. Its why I hate exclusivity. Its why I hate that we have to find the wrong in others in order to make ourself feel better. It just seem ridiculous that one would say "we are the most right". Or...."no one else is like us". Of course not. And no one else is like the Amish, or the Minonites, or the Morman...or........
Since Bert doesn't want to believe the "message" he wants to "kill the messenger!"
Parker's book is nothing like what he and some people here claim!
It is more of a scholarly critique telling his research on what we call the *TRUTH.*
People like Bert only get their knickers in a twist and blame Parker because they simply don't want to accept his findings.
For those of us who had already knew that the *TRUTH* really didn't go all the way back to the beginning but we had only fragments, - Parker just filled in the blanks of what we didn't know.I do have a oopy of it now. Now its just getting the time to read it. What you are saying is what I have heard from everyone that has read it. |
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Feb 27, 2017 12:21:47 GMT -5
Christians pray any day of the week Nathan. Where 2 or 3 are gathered together in my name there I am in the midst. Do you say if Christians pray together they have become a church? If the Faith Mission was a church they would have sent converts to their church not to existing churches in their area.
Also I don't believe that Irvine left the FM because the Faith Mission sent converts to the churches of their choice because it did not seem to be his plan to start a church in the beginning,
Irvine was put out because he was not willing to be accountable to anyone. He wanted his cake and eat it to. He wanted the money the FM gave their workers and wanted to do his own thing. It was a few years after that they started their own church and John Long put out for not getting people to join it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Feb 27, 2017 12:54:33 GMT -5
Seems like Bert is causing us to read the Secret Sect again. It wasn't too many years ago when the workers were telling people to burn the books. Now there's a shortage and they are looking for them to read.
Must start reading mine again.
|
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Feb 27, 2017 19:16:43 GMT -5
What is your definition of "crazy" Ross.Bowden? The bible is over flowing with absurd claims thus any person who believes in this book places themselves in a compromising position. What methodology do you apply to differentiate between the crazy biblical claims and, well, more crazy biblical claims? Biblical nonsense |
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Feb 28, 2017 1:27:04 GMT -5
Nathan, You are so confused. All your information comes from TTT, then you take that and try to revise it to fit what you want to believe....i.e. I ask you for a worker prior to 1897 and you give me a name from the Faith Mission. You would be well served by sticking with the simple teaching of Jesus. But even then, don't add to his words, and don't take away.
No, I am NOT confuse. I take or point out what is good and true on TTT but correct the mistakes I see on there also.Correct it based on what? Everything you know about our history is FROM TTT |
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Feb 28, 2017 9:56:25 GMT -5
Correct it based on what? Based on the information posted on TTT website, that she missed, didn't want others to find out. Cherie wants the readers to follow her rabbit trails, that she maps out for them to read. If a person studied the TTT website carefully then they can catch the things Cherie, left out or don't want people to find out.Everything you know about our history is FROM TTT Nope not everything. I have posted my sources from the workers, and the friends I contacted with through the years.I must have missed it. I have only seen the many things you find on You Tube, and from Pseudonyms on TMB. Its like me telling Steve Jobs, or Bill Gates, that I'm gong to set them straight in the writing of their programs. |
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Mar 1, 2017 7:39:04 GMT -5
During my research for my Master of Philosophy at Queen's University, Belfast into the history, sociology and theology of the 2x2 movement I had personal correspondence with Doug and Helen Parker. I found their book The Secret Sect immensely helpful. When I completed my thesis I had so many requests from those who wanted to read my work I decided to publish it as a book, Two by Two the Shape of a Shapeless Movement. I sent the manuscript to the Parkers before publishing and they kindly wrote a commendation. Here is a short extract from their commendation: "This fine study of the nameless sect, the Two-by-Twos (2x2s) of the book, provides valuable information gathered by means of careful research and personal observation. It will be of great and lasting assistance to those seeking to identify the movement, which has been known by other names, for example "The Testimony" or "Christian Conventions". Although preachers claim that their movement has no name, and that it goes back to the time of Jesus Christ, Irvine Grey rightly discerns its nature as a cult of relatively modem origin, and shows that the sect is a Christian deviation." More than 1400 copies of the print run of 1500 have made their way to the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom and Ireland. Available from my website: www.irvinegrey.com |
|
|
|
Post by howitis on Mar 1, 2017 17:57:23 GMT -5
Interesting isn't it.....those that 'observed' Jesus and testified who he was....said he was the devil!!!
Should His way still be on the earth today it will definitely be scorned and ridiculed by many!!
Those that follow, will count that scorn and ridicule as blessing.
|
|
|
|
Post by findingtruth on Mar 1, 2017 20:44:58 GMT -5
Irvinegrey. I am not sure of your connection to my church, but if you take the time to talk and listen to what people actually say you will find that we, as a formal church belief, DON'T say we go back to the Apostles (regardless of what SOME might think.) Secondly, neither do we, as a formal church, say that the TRUTH goes back to Jesus - we see the TRUTH lived and taught way before Jesus in the Old Testament. Some people will conflate our church and the TRUTH from the beginning for ridicule and caricature. But that's fine - we take it on the chin. That's part of the TRUTH, too. There is a TRUTH which we endeavor to live by. This TRUTH is not from the "Shores of Galilee" but from the beginning. When you love your enemies, that is the TRUTH. When you are hated for loving God, that is TRUTH also. There are ELEMENTS of TRUTH in all religions, even radical Islam. When a man sits on a gilded throne, with a crown upon his head, and calls himself the intermediary between God and man - that is NOT TRUTH. When WE say we are OF the TRUTH we speak of what we believe, what we love and what we aspire to. There is some beautiful TRUTHS in some hymns from other churches, but I can tell you, not many in those churches even aspire to live by those TRUTHS (ie rejecting the world; bearing the cross; unknown and despised etc..) The nuances of these points escapes many people - even Jesus' own brothers and sisters could not grasp it. So what hope has someone with a Master of Philosophy (history, sociology and theology) got? This is interesting, I'll post it under a new thread. Bert, you are totally ignorant! I know many in the fellowship who clearly believe they are 'THE" church that Jesus established and believe their ministry goes back to the apostles. I have spoken to several workers who believe the same. I have NO idea where you are coming up with your information but do not try to confuse the issue by twisting what many in your fellowship actually believe. |
|
|
|
Post by Pragmatic on Mar 1, 2017 21:54:04 GMT -5
Quote "Secondly, neither do we, as a formal church, say that the TRUTH goes back to Jesus - we see the TRUTH
lived and taught way before Jesus in the Old Testament."
So when Doreen Walker preached that "this very same Truth that can be traced all the way back to the shores of Galilee", and Sheena Easton said "Jesus professed when he was twelve", and Joyce McConnell preached that "down through the years since Jesus on the shores of Galilee, this Gospel is brought to us"....they meant something completely different? I sat for years listening to these ladies, and if they were not meaning that what we know the "Way" as, wasn't in existence for over two thousand years, then I have no idea what else they could have meant.
(I suspect that because often it was the "lady preachers" who tended to trot out this line most, they may have also been ignorant of the Church's past)
Given there is no written church doctrine, then it's not surprising that Bert's experiences about what is preached could be different to other's. But when I hear phrases like "Timothy's Professing Grandmother", then I take that as someone trying to put today's spin on Bible history to make the church seem more relevant and unchanged. Next they'll be saying Paul stood up during the fourth verse of a hymn to Profess!
Because of this type of preaching, many when they hear the truth about the beginning of the Church, either refuse to believe it, get angry, condemn the messenger, or let it destroy their faith (because it was in an institution), or all of the above. Why? Because it had been programmed into them through preaching, and many other subtle means, that the way/Church was unchanged through the centuries, and only a few found it.
|
|
|
|
Post by howitis on Mar 1, 2017 22:34:54 GMT -5
Hi Ross.Bowden, having not met irvine grey I would not presume what his pretence is or isn't or could be. And I am not referring just to his post, but to all those that would condemn those preaching of Jesus, in whatever form. It is not a given that we criticise, but that we show kindness and compassion, that we evaluate that which we ourselves live and therefore teach to others. All have sinned and come short of the Glory of God, and yes we can only be justified through faith in Jesus and that means we accept Him into our lives entirely, allowing Him to totally saturate and permeate our whole being, thoughts, ideas, words and actions. |
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Mar 1, 2017 23:43:26 GMT -5
The majority of Christians manipulate many biblical verses in order to make sense of them.
For instance, the verses where Jesus tells a group of people that he will return whilst some of them are still living.
You Christians have to apply a spin on this promise to rescue Jesus from being tagged a liar.
When it suits, as it so often does, the words of the bible are strained through a variety of interpretative styles to validate whatever branch of Christianity you conform to.
Christians apply a liberal scope in their interpretation of the bible, for to take the bible literally is to place yourselves in a most compromising position.
The bible tells that god sent his son (or himself if you favour the 3 in one option) to save mankind though
Centuries had lapsed since the genesis creation account.
Christians are content with the explanation that without accepting Jesus as their saviour, they have no eternal hope.
If the time lapse from creation to the coming of the messiah does not concern you, why would the time lapse between Jesus time on earth and the arising of new branches of Christianity? Seems you are ok that heaven works in mysterious ways and runs by a unique time mechanism even at the cost of so many losing out on Jesus message.
Even if you believe the creation story and the earth is a mere 6,000 years old, there were still so many 'souls lost' due to the absence of a messiah in those intervening years.
The relatively straightforward words, such as Jesus' promise in Matthew 16, are distorted / revised, to allow a caveat for his failure to return as promised.
Most of you have set a precedent in manipulating biblical information to suit your own religious agendas and to compensate for biblical contradictions and false information, thus it presents as disingenuous to hold others, such as the workers, who apply the same approach to account.
|
|
|
|
Post by howitis on Mar 2, 2017 0:13:00 GMT -5
Hi again Ross.Bowden, that's just where you are wrong!!! If that is how those workers believe, I cannot change their mind, I do not fellowship with whom I do to appease anyone, to change their beliefs or for them to change mine. I worship with whom I do because of unity of Spirit.......it is therefore easy to be reconciled with those that fellowship with me. I have walked the path of trying to follow other denominations and found often that I was left empty and have found within the fellowship I'm in there are more things that we agree on than divide us. I leave my fellowship gatherings being spiritually fed....that's what is important to me. |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 2, 2017 1:45:02 GMT -5
Bert, you are totally ignorant! I know many in the fellowship who clearly believe they are 'THE" church that Jesus established and believe their ministry goes back to the apostles. I have spoken to several workers who believe the same. I have NO idea where you are coming up with your information but do not try to confuse the issue by twisting what many in your fellowship actually believe.
Bert either doesn't KNOW anything about the history of the *TRUTH* as we called it or he is so embedded in a state of denial about the history that he will NEVER get out.
And there is no trying to educate him on the subject because he thinks he knows it all. |
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Mar 2, 2017 3:47:41 GMT -5
Truth, false, good, bad, food, air, suffering, pain, happy, etc etc etc. Everything is from the beginning.
To say truth is from the beginning doesn't make sense. Do people go round saying truth is from the beginning? No.
The workers say their church is from the beginning. Nothing different Bert. You are being like Nathan trying to twist things around the fit into your theology. It doesn't work because WE WERE THERE.
I never heard the female workers say anything of substance. They always seemed like women trying to be men to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pragmatic on Mar 2, 2017 5:17:03 GMT -5
The implication is that people are to believe that apart from modernism, things are as they have always been. Ie: 2 × 2 itinerant missionaries, meetings in homes, conventions etc. That is what they imply. The only difference in convention parking is horsepower instead of horses! People should see the preaching of this message for what it is, horse feathers.
|
|
|
|
Post by howitis on Mar 2, 2017 5:25:06 GMT -5
Ah weelll ah see a bit of a problem there Mr Pragmatic mah horse here ain't got none of dem fevvers you is talkin about....so not no 'truth' in what yer are sayin!  |
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Mar 2, 2017 5:33:17 GMT -5
The workers always said their church was the truth and their church was started by Jesus.
Professing women have their hair looking short like a man's. The least feminine it is the better. Pull it back up off their collar like a man.
|
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Mar 2, 2017 5:52:36 GMT -5
It is only a few years ago that Tommie Gamble the head worker in Ireland when holding a mission in Omagh advertised the missioners of which he was one as 'apostles.' Having met and talked with Tommie and many others during my research they all talked of going back to the shores of Galilee. However, Professor Cornelius Jaenen confirmed to me that he no longer held that view.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grant on Mar 2, 2017 10:19:29 GMT -5
There couldn't have been other groups Nathan. Bert says no one else is the same as you. You can't have all these groups goings back to Jesus if yours is the true one. All the others must be false. Of course we know the Christian church goes back to Jesus and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. The church is alive and well we see it everywhere. The 2x2s however were not around.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Mar 2, 2017 11:49:12 GMT -5
Irvinegrey. I am not sure of your connection to my church, but if you take the time to talk and listen to what people actually say you will find that we, as a formal church belief, DON'T say we go back to the Apostles (regardless of what SOME might think.) Secondly, neither do we, as a formal church, say that the TRUTH goes back to Jesus - we see the TRUTH lived and taught way before Jesus in the Old Testament. Some people will conflate our church and the TRUTH from the beginning for ridicule and caricature. But that's fine - we take it on the chin. That's part of the TRUTH, too. There is a TRUTH which we endeavor to live by. This TRUTH is not from the "Shores of Galilee" but from the beginning. When you love your enemies, that is the TRUTH. When you are hated for loving God, that is TRUTH also. There are ELEMENTS of TRUTH in all religions, even radical Islam. When a man sits on a gilded throne, with a crown upon his head, and calls himself the intermediary between God and man - that is NOT TRUTH. When WE say we are OF the TRUTH we speak of what we believe, what we love and what we aspire to. There is some beautiful TRUTHS in some hymns from other churches, but I can tell you, not many in those churches even aspire to live by those TRUTHS (ie rejecting the world; bearing the cross; unknown and despised etc..) The nuances of these points escapes many people - even Jesus' own brothers and sisters could not grasp it. So what hope has someone with a Master of Philosophy (history, sociology and theology) got? This is interesting, I'll post it under a new thread. Bert, you are totally ignorant! I know many in the fellowship who clearly believe they are 'THE" church that Jesus established and believe their ministry goes back to the apostles. I have spoken to several workers who believe the same. I have NO idea where you are coming up with your information but do not try to confuse the issue by twisting what many in your fellowship actually believe. To be honest, there are some people in some countries that do know if the origins of the 2x2 church. Scotland and Ireland both because their predecessors witnessed the origins. Australia in most parts have heard the real origins. But as I told Bert in his thread. That not all countries or nations were told the realttruth about the origins. But that the phrases were perpetuated to gain new converts. Those phrases being "we go all the way back to the shores of Galilee " and "we are a continuation of the Acts of the Apostles." Those phrases likely were not meant as they sound the first time spoken but it wasn't hard for them to realize that those phrases got them more converts. |
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Mar 2, 2017 12:13:30 GMT -5
Quote "Secondly, neither do we, as a formal church, say that the TRUTH goes back to Jesus - we see the TRUTH lived and taught way before Jesus in the Old Testament." So when Doreen Walker preached that "this very same Truth that can be traced all the way back to the shores of Galilee", and Sheena Easton said "Jesus professed when he was twelve", and Joyce McConnell preached that "down through the years since Jesus on the shores of Galilee, this Gospel is brought to us"....they meant something completely different? I sat for years listening to these ladies, and if they were not meaning that what we know the "Way" as, wasn't in existence for over two thousand years, then I have no idea what else they could have meant. (I suspect that because often it was the "lady preachers" who tended to trot out this line most, they may have also been ignorant of the Church's past) Given there is no written church doctrine, then it's not surprising that Bert's experiences about what is preached could be different to other's. But when I hear phrases like "Timothy's Professing Grandmother", then I take that as someone trying to put today's spin on Bible history to make the church seem more relevant and unchanged. Next they'll be saying Paul stood up during the fourth verse of a hymn to Profess! Because of this type of preaching, many when they hear the truth about the beginning of the Church, either refuse to believe it, get angry, condemn the messenger, or let it destroy their faith (because it was in an institution), or all of the above. Why? Because it had been programmed into them through preaching, and many other subtle means, that the way/Church was unchanged through the centuries, and only a few found it. "This Truth can be traced" means just that - it can also be traced throughout the OT as well. There's no continuous church in either OT or NT times - there's only continuity of Truth. Jesus professed. That term comes from Paul. She means (assuming she actually said these words and they haven't been Kroppified) that at 12 Jesus was "about his Father's business." "Down through the years since Jesus..." AS A CHURCH she can't say yes to that, nor can you say no. None of us know. People who abide by the standards of Christ do not seek prominence, nor are they recognized by their society as being a church (and that's Truth.) But down through the years there's Truth. There was Truth in times when there wasn't a soul in Israel observing it. When the Pope speaks of brotherhood and love - that's Truth. When the Pope claimed the Medieval world for himself - that's not Truth. Joseph lived for the Truth - his brothers did not. As mockers and scorners (which itself is not of Truth) what you need to do is separate these terms in your mind. Every church should claim it has the Truth, otherwise why is it there? Yes, truth is from the beginning - your only valid point of attack (also not of the Truth) is to say "Yes, Truth is from the beginning, but you don't know have the Truth - but I can show where to find it." Otherwise, shut up. What is this "truth" you are declaring? It can't be Jesus, for you'd have to believe in the trinity. Because Jesus said "I am the way, 'the truth', and the life..." So to say one can trace the "truth" clear back through the OT, one has to realize that the God that walked the earth and spoke with mankind in those days was God the Son, not God the Father. As the most of the workers call the trinity a heresial doctrine and refuse to believe in the trinity, they cannot be able to trace the "truth" clear back through the the OT to before the time the world ever became. So that puts a question on what they declare as the "truth" because "truth" IS NOT 2x2ism. The "truth" is Jesus. |
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Mar 2, 2017 12:25:13 GMT -5
There couldn't have been other groups Nathan. Bert says no one else is the same as you. You can't have all these groups goings back to Jesus if yours is the true one. All the others must be false. Of course we know the Christian church goes back to Jesus and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. The church is alive and well we see it everywhere. The 2x2s however were not around. The "church" is the body of Christ, not a sect if religion. Bible says that we shall grow "together" through faith in Jesus Christ. To be perfected in him. To become a body knit together. Etc. I believe that this is talking about those different people throughout time that believe on Jesus Christ unto life eternal will be perfected through faith and then knit together as the body if Christ. This takes a lifetime for every individual and isn't perfected unto that body until resurrection and Jesus gathers his own from all the four corners of the earth, the dead in Christ being first, then those still living. |
|
|
|
Post by howitis on Mar 2, 2017 16:51:25 GMT -5
Every individual must work out their 'own salvation with fear and trembling'.....no one will obtain salvation by following another, be it a worker, a priest an organisation!! Only if we follow Jesus.....if He wasn't at the shores of Galilee....then we're doomed!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Mar 2, 2017 18:26:28 GMT -5
PrueBert. Asked in response to my referring to the multiple times Jesus promised he would return before some of those listening to his words died. Matthew 16:28 is just one example. Christians (and those of other faiths) believe in the intangible. The words of the bible are adjusted to fit the individual or groups branch of Christianity. All Christians must modify and change the words attributed to Jesus when he promised his imminent return in order to preserve his credibility as their messiah. Given the ex 2x2 members who remain Christian are prepared to allow such scope in interpretation to the one they consider their potential messiah, why do they hold humans ( the workers and professing folk) to a higher standard? If they are ok with adjusting the promises of Jesus to mean something different than what the biblical words imply, why do they not afford Eg. The workers the same privilege? It comes across that the ex2x2 dissenters are holding mere humans to a higher account than Jesus. Concepts such as "the Truth"; Jesus' words; the "gospel message"; "salvation"; etc are intangible. These concepts are to the believer what the believer wants to make of them. Evidence is neither available nor requested to support these concepts. In the context of religiosity, words become fluid. They translate to mean everything to the believer despite their lack of evidence. The in excess of 30,000 branches of Christianity are proof of the myriad alternative biblical interpretations. Each of these branches believes they are custodians of "the Truth". Some generously permit others the same role. However the majority are exclusive in that they believe Jesus is the one true messiah. There would be few Christians who accept that every one of the > 30,000 sects of Christianity conform to "the Truth". Thus the christian who accuses other Christians of lacking evidence for their claims is failing to consider that their belief is also unsupported by evidence. This accusatory attitude is inconsistent as their own belief is framed by intangible concepts which they tolerate yet when they focus on another Christian group and demand evidence and if that evidence does not meet their standards, the group is dismissed as false. If the accusers were to apply the same standards to themselves they would be able to see they share the same mindset as those they have dismissed. If you are geniunely interested in learning about the history of religion, then your focus would encompass a broader perspective. The research of qualified historians has presented far more questions about the bible than the answers Christians claim it contains. A genuine search for knowledge in the realm of religious historicity, does not confine the researcher, professional or amateur, to one Christian sect. A uni-focus simply presents as a failure to mask one's religious bias.
|
|
|
|
Post by howitis on Mar 3, 2017 2:10:59 GMT -5
Mmmmmm Ross.Bowden, a good study of those chapters points us to just who Paul was talking to and about in those verses. Rather than accuse me of 'fence sitting', perhaps you could consider for a moment why I support the ministry that I do, in favour of the one your church offers. I am not the sort of person that only meets with people of my own fellowship and have over the years, made some very good friends of other denominations and the ministers of the same, I have taught scripture along side of these people at the local schools and at times had a lot of fun. You say you are involved with the evangelical anglican church, which whether you like it or not are still tied to the Anglican church, the Anglican church is tied to the Roman Catholic church, although many try to deny this connection. Once these two churches appeared to be enemies, but that's ok now it seems, just a little shift of the goal posts. Being friends with these people, meeting with them etc I came to observe a few things........money that is offered is often talked about, not in a becoming fashion, and I've witnessed ministers from a few different denominations berating their congregations for their 'dismal' offerings and that they can't run their cars on so little. I've seen some very poor parenting amongst such ministers and can honestly say I would much rather have unwed ministers, with no children than have them left alone whilst mum and dad were doing 'church stuff'. There is more, much more and more serious, but you need to find things out for yourself. So you support your ministry and I'll support mine, whilst 'sitting on the fence', because from that vantage point I've obviously witnessed things you pretend don't happen. |
|
|
|
Post by howitis on Mar 3, 2017 3:22:22 GMT -5
Ross.Bowden I support the ministry by going to gospel meetings when able, I do NOT follow anyone, but Christ, I am never beholden to what people/workers say if I believe it is incorrect and actively tell them so, I am also willing to be corrected if I find later that I was in fact incorrect. Yes we both belong to an imperfect body, which we call our 'church' and even though you choose to think yours is not associated with certain other bodies, one day you'll see that thinking was quite incorrect.
|
|
|
|
Post by howitis on Mar 3, 2017 17:08:00 GMT -5
How unusual!! So let me get this straight Ross.Bowden, you have left a church and part of the reason is that you feel they are exclusive....yet you go to a church branded with the Anglican name that might/will not allow 'certain' other Anglican ministers preach in your church.......and that's not exclusive?  Interesting!!!!! |
|
