|
Post by This on Aug 22, 2007 9:38:44 GMT -5
quote - "Who do the 2x2s believe Christ is? Is not the Christ the Eternal Word and such the Incarnation of GOD in the Flesh, The Second Person of the "Trinity", (Godhead). The 2x2's do not teach this.
Jesus is all kinds of things, ie the lion, the lamb, the savior, our elder brother, the word, the life, the bread of life, the king of the Jews, the Messiah, Emmanuel, Shiloh etc etc.
Heritical answer that Denys Jesus is God the Son
But most of all Jesus is to be followed and obeyed, that we may receive grace and redemption. The outside churches do not preach this.
Quite the opposite. The 2x2 teach Grace plus and other churches do not. They teach simply the Grace of God in Jesus the Christ which you deny.
quote - ... The 2x2's teach a mix of heritical beliefs based on Gnotics and Arianism. John who also authored the Gospel is in agreement of Who Jesus is.
I have no problem with agreeing with John's view of the Christ.
Side step and therefore in context of above answers denying the Christ as God the Second person of the "TRINITY" (Godhead)
quote - "John also wrote to those that did not have love for their fellow Christians. John writes, that because they had not the love for their brothers they had not the love of God in them. How can one have the Love of God in them when they do not even want to know their brother who they can see?"
What is your point?
You deny Christ and therefore are a heritic and also do not have love for your fellow Christians and thus walk in Darkness. You do not have the love of God in you
quote - "The F&W deny love for others outside their own nest. Jesus commanded: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."
I have many friends, family and relatives outside of my church. Most of them I can say honestly I do love.
You deny the love for other Christans not in your group - John spoke clearly of this.
But, loving someone doesn't mean you accept their point of view, or way of living.
You side step by still denying Love for other Christians. You equate Johns teaching and Jesus instructions to be only related to those in your group and thus deny even the exsistence of other Christians. Blind and false and not Jesus WAY
|
|
|
Post by to bert on Aug 22, 2007 9:56:56 GMT -5
I went to a Sunday morning church, someone took the effort to host it in their home. Each person stood up and took the effort to give their own personal testimony. Each testimonial referred to the desire to have Christ in their life. Yes! We heard NOTHING about a monthly budget! 1) That doesn't mean there is no money. The reality is there is lots of it. 2) Mention of a budget would indicate someone is at least attempting to do something responsible (planning) with money. This doesn't happen in your church though. The workers just take the cash, do what they want with it, and are accountable to no one. 3) You will continue to hear NOTHING, even though SOMETHING is happening, because SOMEONE has SOMETHING to hide, and that SOMETHING is man handling money without accountability, which is often a recipe for abuse. I've heard about this in meetings. This is affecting many Christians. It should be mentioned. 1) Jesus mentioned the politics and politicians of his day. 2) I've heard the workers say from the platform that the friends shouldn't vote. 3) "Truth" is a dictatorship. Dictatorships don't go out of their way to mention democracy, unless it's to trash it. I haven't heard anything about this in my church either. So what? Maybe this means your church doesn't have a position on contraception. You know better. "Truth" doesn't have barbecues. It has "potlucks" or "get-togethers". I've heard these mentioned during and after meeting. I've heard these mentioned in testimony at convention before. To be fair, you should have seen the faces in the crowd. Priceless. I haven't heard anything about this in my church either. Though some in my church are obsessed with football and they talk about it often outside of church. I know some of the friends that are the same way though; It's difficult to get them on a non-football subject outside of meeting. Jesus died, and while I didn't hear about that very often in your church, I did hear about the friends and workers that had passed away. "Truth" has it's own hollywood, complete with superstars (workers), stars (strong saints), extras (weak saints), movies (word of mouth urban legends), and gossip (who's dating, who's getting married, who's getting divorced, who's pregnant, who's having an affair, who's on drugs (losing out), and who won on American Idol (who's going into the work)). I've heard about this in meetings. This is affecting many Christians. It should be mentioned. 1) Money matters in your church are dealt with in the dark; hence it is not mentioned in the open. 2) I have a wealthy 2x2 relative. He is frequently asked privately by the workers to fund some venture. LOL.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2007 10:02:50 GMT -5
What I mean is... these things are not mentioned from the platform as they are from the pulpit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2007 10:03:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by to bert on Aug 22, 2007 10:13:20 GMT -5
I thought Jesus was witness to Truth? "truth" (noun) is different from "Truth" (pronoun). "truth" (noun) was born long before William Irvine invented "Truth" (pronoun). I've read your site. This is history revisionism at it's best. No offense, but you don't strike me as the pioneering-leadership type. You seem to be more of the blindly-defend it type. Would you lie about your role? Did Irvine lie about his role? Would you want the workers to lie about your role the way they lie about Irvine's role? This has to be your best quote ever bert, simply because of it's irony. You are constantly blurring the line between "truth" (noun) and "Truth" (proper noun) and now you complain that someone else is doing it. Priceless!LOL. In your dreams. Despite your lies to the contrary, tens of thousands of people who stood in little Gospel meetings did not know about Irvine's role in creating your church. Huh?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2007 10:15:53 GMT -5
quote - "I've read your site. This is history revisionism at it's best." Well, that didn't answer the point, did it? ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2007 10:18:58 GMT -5
quote - "Would you lie about your role? Did Irvine lie about his role? Would you want the workers to lie about your role the way they lie about Irvine's role?
Well, put it this way: If I went out preaching and people started asking questions, trying to put my message into a human context as they did with Jesus - I wouldn't answer them. The message is Christ, not myself. Some would say I was "lying" but that is to be expected.
|
|
|
Post by to bert on Aug 22, 2007 10:20:12 GMT -5
No, I have given examples of lies. Just return a few you think the Workers are engaging in. I would love to, but being the unreasonable bigot that you are, nothing I say and no proof I provide will get past the scales on your eyes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2007 10:20:50 GMT -5
quote - "The tens of thousands who stood in little Gospel meetings, and who knew about Irvine, LOL. In your dreams."
Actually, a tremendous number of people heard the truth and professed in the early days. They ALL knew about the first workers from Ireland.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2007 10:22:45 GMT -5
quote - "I don't read Irvine in my bible, but you seem to see him everywhere in your own. Huh?"
If I say I believe in home worship, itinerate preaching, having no name etc someone here shrieks "Irvine!" But I read this in my bible, not in any Irvine book.
|
|
|
Post by omg on Aug 22, 2007 10:26:54 GMT -5
quote - "I've read your site. This is history revisionism at it's best." Well, that didn't answer the point, did it? ;D Why would anyone answer the point when you keep making stuff up? jeez
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2007 10:28:47 GMT -5
What stuff-up?
|
|
|
Post by jeez on Aug 22, 2007 10:29:20 GMT -5
quote - "Would you lie about your role? Did Irvine lie about his role? Would you want the workers to lie about your role the way they lie about Irvine's role? Well, put it this way: If I went out preaching and people started asking questions, trying to put my message into a human context as they did with Jesus - I wouldn't answer them. The message is Christ, not myself. Some would say I was "lying" but that is to be expected.Be honest in a way that doesn't invite strife: "Three years ago, I felt moved to preach the Gospel according to Jesus Christ as it has been revealed to me." Or is strife something you yearn for?
|
|
|
Post by jeez on Aug 22, 2007 10:30:47 GMT -5
quote - "The tens of thousands who stood in little Gospel meetings, and who knew about Irvine, LOL. In your dreams." Actually, a tremendous number of people heard the truth and professed in the early days. They ALL knew about the first workers from Ireland.hey there's a technicality - nevermind the hundred thousand that were lied to afterword
|
|
|
Post by LOL on Aug 22, 2007 10:31:37 GMT -5
"Truth" has it's own hollywood, complete with superstars (workers), stars (strong saints), extras (weak saints), movies (word of mouth urban legends), and gossip (who's dating, who's getting married, who's getting divorced, who's pregnant, who's having an affair, who's on drugs (losing out), and who won on American Idol (who's going into the work)).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2007 10:34:35 GMT -5
quote - "Be honest in a way that doesn't invite strife: "Three years ago, I felt moved to preach the Gospel according to Jesus Christ as it has been revealed to me." Or is strife something you yearn for?"
Here are people who caused "strife" as you put it: "You have no name, are you hiding something?" (ie John the Baptist) "You are nothing special, you are one of us!" (ie Jesus and Moses) "You are not one of the apostles!" (ie Paul) "It is not from the beginning!" (ie Jesus)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2007 10:37:28 GMT -5
quote - ""Truth" has it's own hollywood, complete with superstars (workers), stars (strong saints), extras (weak saints), movies (word of mouth urban legends), and gossip (who's dating, who's getting married, who's getting divorced, who's pregnant, who's having an affair, who's on drugs (losing out), and who won on American Idol (who's going into the work))."
It is caricature and stereotyping at its worst, but I will pay it! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by to bert on Aug 22, 2007 10:55:09 GMT -5
With all due respect bert, I have to move on.
I haven't been a 2x2 for a few years now. As such, I don't have the stamina I once did for arguments, political posturing, and word games that you do.
Maybe someone else can pick up the ex-torch and carry on. I'm sure some ex will eventually. After all, there are dozens of us here for every one of you.
I'm sure someone will.
|
|
chris
Junior Member
Posts: 90
|
Post by chris on Aug 22, 2007 11:25:03 GMT -5
To bert WOW You are the ultimate SPINMEISTER............................... America needs you Bert, What a spin you could create on economics, politics, etc.(esp religion) We could be at the top if you could only set things straight. I'll buy your plane ticket.
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Aug 22, 2007 17:02:31 GMT -5
So, honestly, start your meeting with your official name and your bank accounts. This would be honest enough for me.A question: are you saying that any church that does not begin its Mass \ Service \ Worship by announcing its "official name" and handing out copies of its budget is not an honest church? The official name of Jesus and His Word preached -- I think that's what they are trying to say. Christ's Forever, Jessi
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Aug 22, 2007 17:32:18 GMT -5
The problem GIT is that you do not want to reply to my challenge and you try to turn the discussion away.
This is untrue. As I have stated, in my personal view, your "challenge" is nonsense for several reasons. Firstly, Roman Catholics don't open Mass by directing parishoners to anti-Roman Catholic websites (of which there are many), and neither do Baptist pastors open Sunday services by saying, "Look here folks; there's a Satanist group out there who have a lot to say against Christianity; go check out their website."
Who would want to send the flock running into the maw of the wolf?
But, the existence of ex-2x2 websites on the internet have been common knowledge for ages. If the Friends really want to look them up, then they will do so. It's that simple. My family and I have checked out these websites and discussed them. We found nothing in them we did not already know, or which really affected our Faith. We found them repugnant in their obvious bitterness and unforgiveness.
Ex-2x2s are not an organised group, with regular meetings, workers, conventions. Some may be misguided, some may be evil - you cannot generalise.
I've met exes. I know exes. In my experience, there are a number of elements that hold true, whether the exes are in a local community or halfway across the world on the internet.
Are we to get our own eyes out are evil and devious. And your posts prove this more and more.
Out of curiosity, can I ask you to clarifiy: are you saying that I am evil and devious?
|
|
|
Post by there it is on Aug 22, 2007 17:51:24 GMT -5
There it is again.... GIT refers to people who are more honest about 2x2ism than himself are the "maw of the wolf."
What a twist.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Aug 22, 2007 17:52:05 GMT -5
Every (I MEAN EVERYONE) worker I heard during the more than 20 years I was with this cult mentioned in one in every two gospel meetings that the workers had no income, kept no bank accounts - they lived by the faith alone. Another lie.
True. The Workers do not have an income derived from employment. They are supported by the freewill offerings of the Church, and by a yearly stipend paid from a single account supervised by a Head Worker and two or more qualified elders. The stipend consists of about $200 for personal accessories. Additional monies are apportioned for ministry health, such as Worker's glasses, surgery or medical treatment.
That is not what the numerous workers said in the hundreds of meetings I have been. They explicitly mentioned that this church came directly from the time of the apostles without interruption. You now have changed this for the purposes of your reply, but THIS IS NOT WHAT IS PREACHED in gospel meetinsg all around the world.
Are you quibbling because "apostolic succession" style continuance is no longer preached? This is now the standard position in Western Australia, and other places in Australia. You should rather regard the Church with higher esteem for accepting this realisation. Many built their faith atop this belief (such as the exes) instead of Christ; but those who built their house upon the Rock can accept these revelations, growing stronger and more clear-sighted as a response.
So how come you do not manifest the fruits of the spirit?
But how are we poor 2x2s to manifest them if no exe guides us? I thought you and your compatriots were guiding and teaching us concerning the fruit of the Spirit?
How come you become aware of sexual and other scandals too late? How come you treat the perpetrators of these scandals by sending them in another far away field WITHOUT informing the locals about the lilainous acts committed.
"Offenses must needs come". Human beings are not perfect. But it is strange that I have never heard of any sexual scandals in my part of the world (or in India or in Malaysia). I wonder why?
And above all why do you so often need to aply excommunications and other punishmenst, not to the guilty but to the people who ask questions about your behaviour?
The manner in which the questioning is done reveals much. No one has a problem with a meek question asked with the purpose of greater understanding. Questions given out for the purposes of challenging something are wrong. If there is an issue, phone the person up, and speak to them about it. Simple.
No, it VERY DIFFERENT. Few days ago GIT was putting ORDER above love and compassion (not for the scandal bering workers but for the brethren who dare question the authority).
Paul did not show love and compassion to the incestuous man, put him out of the Corinthian church (excommunicated him), turned him "over to Satan", until he repented of his sin. If you think the Church should descend into chaos and anarchy in the name of love and compassion, then you are deeply misguided as to the nature of the Church as preached by the Apostles.
Of course, you heard because you read fora like this. Surely never heard in the context of the meetings. In the long time I was at the meetings I heard this again and again - we are the pure way of God, thinsg that happen in other churches never happen in ours, and so on and so forth.
Not everything spoken by the Friends is correct. Only what is based on the scripture is right. We seem to understand this concept - opinion is different from scriptural fact.
Convention grounds, permanent houses for meetings who go from father to son or who are sold to willing couples so that the meetings can continue. Nathan even mentioned that several constructions at convention grounds are ensured with funding from the secret trust funds managed from workers.
Secret trust funds that you know about.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH ...
We agree!
|
|
_
Junior Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by _ on Aug 22, 2007 18:54:03 GMT -5
The Workers do not have an income derived from employment. They are supported by the freewill offerings of the Church, and by a yearly stipend paid from a single account supervised by a Head Worker and two or more qualified elders. How is this any different then my local pastor who is supported by the freewill offerings of the Church members? This goes back to what I wrote a while ago - What is the difference between the two…
1. preacherA is sustained by his congregation through charitable contributions in the form of gifts, monetary offerings, and donations. The method the preacher receives such things is informal, impulsive, and unsystematic.
2. preacherB is sustained by his congregation through charitable contributions in the form of gifts, monetary offerings, and donations. The method the preacher receives such things is structured, reasonable, and orderly.
They both are supported by the members of the church, yet some say the first is godly and the second is ungodly. Since both receive the same sort of gifts, offerings, and donations… It seems to me that the only difference between the two is the technique/manner in which such things are bestowed to the preacher…
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2007 18:57:26 GMT -5
I think the difference between a worker's requirement versus that of a minister is quite obvious. A minister is his own man (or woman) and requires an income to support his house, car, spouse and children.
|
|
_
Junior Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by _ on Aug 22, 2007 19:09:15 GMT -5
I think the difference between a worker's requirement versus that of a minister is quite obvious. A minister is his own man (or woman) and requires an income to support his house, car, spouse and children. Are you suggesting that workers are not their own man (or women) and do not need the offerings/gifts/charity of the fellowship's members to have a place to stay, food to eat, cloths to wear, car to drive, medicine to take, or glasses to see? Just because there is a difference in their lifestyle choice does not mean there is a difference between the two preachers listed above... BOTH receive offerings/gifts/charity from the church to support their life and lifestyle...
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Aug 22, 2007 19:20:05 GMT -5
They both are supported by the members of the church, yet some say the first is godly and the second is ungodly. Since both receive the same sort of gifts, offerings, and donations… It seems to me that the only difference between the two is the technique/manner in which such things are bestowed to the preacher.
The major objection is the admission of money into the worship service - some denominations even make it an integral part of worship, going to the point of blessing the money; praying over the gifts and so on. From the denominational\ex-2x2 perspective, this is an act of charity and giving, and it this act - this virtue - that the minister blesses and thanks God for.
We in the Fellowship however believe that charity and gift-giving needs to conform to the guidelines established by Jesus, when he said, "Let not your right hand know what your left hand does" in relation to alms giving. It is to be done not to be seen of men; charitable giving is to be hidden so only God knows. Hence the envelopes tucked into the Worker's cases at the end of the meetings, containing a name written on the front, but no mention of the giver.
The original intent of making "the collection" a public thing was so that people would be shamed into giving more cash in order not not to lose face before others. You will find many theologians, particularly Roman Catholic theologians (who often are not afraid to criticise their church through history) making an open admission of this. In other words, a public collection encouraged\encourages hypocritical, pharisaical giving.
Moreover, some churches really shake their congregants to get as much money out of them as possible. I'm sure there's more than a few people out there who think that one can only worship in exchange for money - because many preachers say to their congregants, "Freely have you recieved, now freely give".
But as one Worker pointed out one time, this is a hideous misuse of the scripture. The context of the verse is Jesus talking to his disciples regarding the Gospel, "Freely have you recieved my words, now freely give". It had nothing to do with money, unless of course, one images Jesus was a millionaire.
Money, on public display, encourages hypocrisy and wrong motives. This has been proven over-and-over again.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Aug 22, 2007 19:26:24 GMT -5
Just because there is a difference in their lifestyle choice does not mean there is a difference between the two preachers listed above... BOTH receive offerings/gifts/charity from the church to support their life and lifestyle...
A difference? That's like saying crack addicts have problems - a graphic understatement.
A pastor requires a furnished house, with enough room for wife and kids and pets, and needs to pay a whole bunch of bills - taxes, education (paying back seminary college loan; kid's schooling), needs to pay electricity, gas, water, phone bills. Etc, etc, etc. When you factor in the fact that Pastors function as individuals, whereas workers function as a unit of two or three, there is a collossal difference.
Honestly. I thought you'd find a better argument than this!
Let's put it another way. A dialogue question Bryan. Which requires more upkeep - a worker, or a denominational pastor?
|
|