|
Post by prue on Jun 23, 2006 10:11:19 GMT -5
To To PruebertYes, I agree on most points - it always the fine structure that is a problem Sometimes there was one preacher, ie Phillip and at times Paul, sometimes more than two. Some were married, ie Phillip and Peter. Peter and John went out preaching to towns and villages ahead of Jesus and most likely without family. Seventy went out after that - presumably in 35 pairs. Peter may have gone to Rome. John, assuming he was the author of Revelation, was in Patmos. The Disciples did stay in Jerusalem, at least some, and at least for a while - but the second generation went everywhere. Jerusalem was a Roman city after 70 AD. I think, off hand, that Paul used the word "worker" to describe the preachers at one stage, ie "We then, as workers together with him, beseech you ..." But words like preacher, evangelist etc are fine. tired Bert
|
|
|
Post by prue on Jun 23, 2006 10:30:34 GMT -5
To ToPruebert This business of eisegesis and "reading the Bible to support your own preconceived notions" A deeper and more profound question to ponder is this:
who gave people the authority to change the ministry which Jesus established?
This would be a good subject for Cherrie. I wonder if anyone has ever attempted to honesty and fully answer it.
Bert
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jun 23, 2006 10:39:58 GMT -5
RE: who gave people the authority to change the ministry which Jesus established?
Interesting! That's almost the very same question Wm Irvine asked. He asked, "When did this change?" (Matt 10) And the end result of that question is what we now recognize as the 2x2 belief system.
Personally, I don't believe Jesus "established a ministry." He sent some men in pairs to herald his arrival as Messiah--the Two Witness method, per the OT. Heralding His arrival was a one time particular event--not something set up/established to be followed universally. The 2x2s have made a rule/commandment/requirement/essential of Jesus' instructions that were intended for an exceptional one-time occasion.
|
|
|
Post by junia on Jun 23, 2006 10:40:55 GMT -5
A deeper and more profound question to ponder is this: who gave people the authority to change the ministry which Jesus established?Bert Your question completely misses the point of the gospel. Jesus didn't come to establish a ministry. He came to reconcile us to God. As long as you focus on form, you'll miss the meaning.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jun 23, 2006 10:45:16 GMT -5
RE: i can not think of any other reason why God would have left us this record, other than wanting us to follow the same example. The books we read, ie Acts, Romans, Corinthians etc elucidate a lot.
A: Faulty logic. Just bcs you can't think of another reason doesn't prove/mean one doesn't exist. How about this reason? Because the Bible is a history book of God's people? It's a narrative. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RE: Hi Cherie. If you asked someone in say, 50 AD, if they were one of those people first called Christians at Antioch you might get a dialogue as follows...
A: Interesting, but not relevant to the article I'm writing on how to identify a 2x2 in our day and time.
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Jun 23, 2006 11:42:33 GMT -5
who gave people the authority to change the ministry which Jesus established?
This is an interesting question, indeed. However, do you realize that you have formed your own answers before hearing the answer? You are starting with the assumption that the ministry was changed. With that assumption made, you can reach no other conclusion than you already have. That is why you are being accused of practicing eisegesis....which is true.
To give you something to think about, because you start with your assumption that the ministry was changed, you invariably reject the body of spiritual work done by what many call the Apostolic fathers. I heard someone ask a very interesting question that caused me to consider a much different perspective. The sequence went like this... John was a disciple of Jesus. Who do I think would know more about Jesus' teaching...me or John? Polycarp was a disciple of John, which is a verifiable fact. So who do I think would know more about the teachings of Jesus....me or Polycarp? Iraneus was a disciple of Polycarp....who do I think would know more about the teachings of Jesus.....me or Iraneus? The point being that for the most part, the 2x2 fellowship rejects the work of the early church fathers. Why? Because somewhere in there, someone thought they had the authority to change the ministry and form of worship. Why do we think that we can see things more clearly from a 21st century perspective than the early church could?
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Jun 23, 2006 11:58:07 GMT -5
For prue and other 2x2s, it's all about the 2x2 ministry and the form thereof, rather than Jesus and only Jesus.
I agree that it's laughable to read prue's question regarding changing the ministry, considering that the 2x2 form of ministry is just another manmade form (one of many).
It's even more entertaining to read prue's lament about honest answers, considering her own past actions (or lack thereof) in that area.
|
|
|
Post by ex-teenager on Jun 23, 2006 12:42:36 GMT -5
For prue and other 2x2s, it's all about the 2x2 ministry and the form thereof, rather than Jesus and only Jesus. I agree that it's laughable to read prue's question regarding changing the ministry, considering that the 2x2 form of ministry is just another manmade form (one of many). It's even more entertaining to read prue's lament about honest answers, considering her own past actions (or lack thereof) in that area. Some things are also part of Jesus, such as his teaching. You can't mix and match. Have it all, or leave it all.
|
|
|
Post by ilylo on Jun 23, 2006 12:47:55 GMT -5
I agree. However it has been documented in many ways how 2x2ism relies on the pick-and-choose method of using some verses in an attempt to uplift itself while leaving other, neighboring, verses unread.
|
|
|
Post by noted on Jun 23, 2006 12:55:11 GMT -5
I agree. However it has been documented in many ways how 2x2ism relies on the pick-and-choose method of using some verses in an attempt to uplift itself while leaving other, neighboring, verses unread. ive noted this in every church ive attended that being around 20 different ones, no way is it unique to the 2x2s.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jun 23, 2006 15:31:50 GMT -5
Do the 20 churches you've attended claim to be God's only true way? (One would think the "true way" would be above picking and choosing.)
|
|
|
Post by nope on Jun 23, 2006 17:48:08 GMT -5
Do the 20 churches you've attended claim to be God's only true way? (One would think the "true way" would be above picking and choosing.) No because they are all false
|
|
|
Post by pick and choose on Jun 23, 2006 20:30:30 GMT -5
I agree. However it has been documented in many ways how 2x2ism relies on the pick-and-choose method of using some verses in an attempt to uplift itself while leaving other, neighboring, verses unread. have you ever met a christian yet who doesn't?
|
|
|
Post by firstborn on Jun 23, 2006 20:48:49 GMT -5
as i see it - two by twos, as they are called here, are simply people who meet in homes, hold to the exampe of the bible as seen in Acts and the letter of the Apostles, and send out homeless preachers two by two. true, this may mean little to you, but i can not think of any other reason why God would have left us this record, other than wanting us to follow the same example. The books we read, ie Acts, Romans, Corinthians etc elucidate a lot. thank you. prue Then if that is the case follow all the examples in the new testament not just the ones u chose to follow, right?
|
|
|
Post by firstborn on Jun 23, 2006 20:52:17 GMT -5
I agree. However it has been documented in many ways how 2x2ism relies on the pick-and-choose method of using some verses in an attempt to uplift itself while leaving other, neighboring, verses unread. sorry ilylo, didn't see your post, you put it better anyway.
|
|
|
Post by nitro on Jun 23, 2006 21:49:41 GMT -5
Do the 20 churches you've attended claim to be God's only true way? (One would think the "true way" would be above picking and choosing.) Mormons and Jehovah Witness . But I think both of those are listed as cults.
|
|
|
Post by vaudois dreamer on Jun 23, 2006 21:56:10 GMT -5
To ToPruebert This business of eisegesis and "reading the Bible to support your own preconceived notions" A deeper and more profound question to ponder is this: who gave people the authority to change the ministry which Jesus established?This would be a good subject for Cherrie. I wonder if anyone has ever attempted to honesty and fully answer it. Bert Good question, Bert! I don't believe Jesus wants anyone to change His Itinerant ministry which he started as an apostle and a preacher of the Gospel. The Great commission (Matt. 28:16-20) has confirmed the Gospel message was the same, the apostolic Itinerant ministry did not change for centuries.... The Vaudois and many similiar groups like them have proven to be so.... Nathan Do you dream about the Vaudois? Do you insert the word "Vaudois" into every conversation just because? Have the Vaudois ever written you a letter, or sent you a thank you gift for keeping them in the limelight? Do they pay you everytime you use their name? Just curious...
|
|
|
Post by prue on Jun 24, 2006 5:53:50 GMT -5
To Junia and Cherie. You said that Jesus didn't come to establish a ministry
some questions: Why did Jesus speak of the gospel being preached in all the world? Why did those in the book of Acts and the pastoral letters refer to preachers and preaching? Did Jesus say the ministry he established was to cease with him? How do you think Jesus expected the gospel to be preached without a ministry? Why did people continue to go out preaching after Jesus died? Do you think Jesus had a new priesthood in mind?
|
|
|
Post by prue on Jun 24, 2006 6:05:14 GMT -5
Hi Cherie, Bert here (and in the previous article also)
you wrote "A: Interesting, but not relevant to the article I'm writing on how to identify a 2x2 in our day and time."
which was in answer to my question "If you asked someone in say, 50 AD, if they were one of those people first called Christians at Antioch you might get a dialogue as follows..."
We don't feel the need to wear togas or ride donkeys, but in issues pertaining to truth, we feel that how those people lived, (and I might add, preached) is highly relevant to us. And if you live as they lived, and follow Jesus, you will experience first hand some of what they faced from a mocking world.
These things certainly are a narrative, but you are a person who argues by implication, and you imply this is a story, just a story, from another age.
but these things are also unchanging truths, and they are also matters of life and death.
|
|
|
Post by prue on Jun 24, 2006 6:11:14 GMT -5
Hi Zorro. These figures you mention, Polycarp and Iraneus - from what I have read of them, they form a line which led to the early Catholic church. I read the words of some of these "founding fathers" from time to time and continue to find things that I never found in the writings of the apostles.
|
|
|
Post by prue on Jun 24, 2006 6:15:09 GMT -5
To Firstborn (do you have older siblings?)
You wrote "Then if that is the case follow all the examples in the new testament not just the ones u chose to follow, right? "
You need to be specific. And also, what faith do you follow?
Bert
|
|
|
Post by firstborn on Jun 24, 2006 9:20:59 GMT -5
To Firstborn (do you have older siblings?) You wrote "Then if that is the case follow all the examples in the new testament not just the ones u chose to follow, right? "You need to be specific. And also, what faith do you follow? Bert I'm the oldest. If the argument is, we follow the new testament teaching and that is the bases of the 2x2s doctrine but we chose to follow some and ignore others, where's the argument? As a sinner my faith is in Jesus, I do attend a Christian church that recognizes all Christian's as brothers and sisters in Christ and yes, that is refreshing.
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Jun 24, 2006 10:24:32 GMT -5
Hi Zorro. These figures you mention, Polycarp and Iraneus - from what I have read of them, they form a line which led to the early Catholic church.
It has been widely accepted for centuries that the Catholic church can make the only legitimate claim to apostolic succession. I have no intention of ever defending the Catholic church, with its history of abuse, etc. However, I feel history does no favors for the 2x2s either. None of that is the point for me. The point is that when one is dogmatic about reading a preconceived conclusion into the Bible it leads to error. Your conclusion leads to the need for a "Church" (system, organization, etc) that is "right". Such a church does not exist. Such a need necessarily forces massive amounts of "explaining away" for resolution in ones heart. You need to assume that godly men in history went wrong because you can't find your system in their lives. You need to believe that others outside of your system aren'y godly and saved. For me, I believe the "Church" God established is universal, invisible, established in the Spiritual realm and has never ceased to exist from the moment Jesus rose to Heaven. I don't have to explain anything away and can accept all believers as brothers and sisters in Christ. I believed as you do for 30 years and will never put my spiritual life back into that tiny box again.
|
|
|
Post by nitro on Jun 24, 2006 11:33:53 GMT -5
This is for Prue/BERT--There are several places in the NT where Christ is referred to as the firstborn . My opinion is you may have been suggesting that he was referring himself as Jesus. T/F The Hebrew word denotes the firstborn of human beings as well as of animals (Ex 11:5), while a word from the same root denotes first-fruits (Ex 23:16). All the data point to the conclusion that among the ancestors of the Hebrews the sacrifice of the firstborn was practiced, just as the firstlings of the flocks and the first-fruits of the produce of the earth were devoted to the deity. www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/m/o/morelikj.htm
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jun 24, 2006 13:29:27 GMT -5
To Bert: I am curious as to why you care what I believe, and want to engage me in particular, in this discussion.
I am not out to persuade people to accept my beliefs. I am largely interested in Wm Irvine and the history of the 2x2s which goes back to Wm Irvine and 1897.
Let me tell you where I am coming from. I believe there was a transition period (there is more about this in the subject of dispensationalism). That there was a transition time between the Old covenant and the New, during which time Jesus was on earth. Many things were done during that period that were one-time or exceptional events/things. They were not intended to be done always or universally by Christians. In my perspective, Biblical examples are not law, not requirements for salvation, and some are not even good ideas for all times and all peoples.
BTW, I want to make this clear. I don’t believe the Bible is JUST a historical narrative. It has instructions for salvation, prophecy and much more. But it IS a historical narrative. The OT didn’t give the history of just any people. It traced the history of God’s particular people, the children of Israel.
Whereas it appears to me that you believe that the best route is to follow most closely to what you read about in narratives in the NT. You believe there is value in taking an example or incident in 50 AD as a universal law or essential requirement to get to heaven. Please tell us where you are coming from your point of view.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2006 0:14:13 GMT -5
Hi Nitro, Bert here. When I asked about "firstborn" I was in no way connecting him to anything biblical - I just wanted to know if his pseudo name here meant he was the first born in his family. Please don't take it the wrong way. I should ask Teenager when he will turn 20! I am curious to know where these names come from. Some are quite funny. ie White Rabbit Ilylo (something to do with Greeks?) LilWolfMisty HorseWoman and your own... p.s. My own name is not Bert, but Prue is Prue. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jun 25, 2006 0:29:00 GMT -5
Pruebert,
I'm still awaiting a reply.
Whatever Christ it is that you confess, do you consider Linda to be a sister in that same Christ?
|
|
|
Post by prue on Jun 25, 2006 6:32:43 GMT -5
Rob. Regards accepting Linda as a sister in Christ. I did answer this, but never went back to review that thread. Sorry. We did like Kobus deVilliers The Altar of Obedience on the Dale Spencer Notes Part 1 thread. We saved that article; sums up nicely how we feel about the altar. Each person who goes their own way does so for the purpose of establishing their own altar. Linda and ourselves serve at different altars. We agree on that. I added excerpts from that sermon here if you care to read it. Regards, Prue and her typist. Kobus spoke of some Catholic nuns: They have made this sacrifice and given their lives and feel that they are doing it for God’s Kingdom, the same as I did. They were living with a hope in their hearts that God would take notice of this and that God would eventually accept them into His Kingdom and give them a place at His right hand. I knew that they were sincere and sure that what they were busy with was the right thing and I wondered “Am I being very proud of myself to think that MY sacrifice would be accepted and theirs not?” I wondered, would God not take notice of that? They were doing it in all sincerity and would He not take notice of that? It worried me.
(later in a service) The last speaker... (said) that one could bring a very costly gift, very precious, but if you would put this on the wrong altar it would not be accepted but even a lesser gift that is brought to the right altar it will be accepted because it is not the gift that sanctifies the altar but it is the altar that sanctifies the gift. ... understand that this is what God expects of us, to honour the altar. One could be too inclined to look at the gift, that which goes on the altar as if that is the most important thing.... Exodus where it speaks about the first altar that was made. It says there in Exodus 29 verse 36 “Thou shalt offer every day a bullock for a sin offering for atonement and thou shalt cleanse the altar when thou hast made atonement for it and thou shalt anoint it to sanctify it. Seven days thou shalt make atonement for the altar and sanctify it and it shall be an altar most holy. Whatsoever touches the altar shall be holy. ” God said this had to be done. This altar was there, it was made out of stone and it was only a stone structure, until it was sanctified, until everything was done that God commanded should be done to it. There was a sacrifice brought unto it for seven days, a bullock, and eventually it was anointed, atonement was made for it and it was sanctified and declared holy, MOST holy. So holy that everything that would touch the altar would be holy. We read in Hebrews 13 verse 9 “Be not carried about with diverse and strange doctrines for it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace and not with meats which have not profited them which have been occupied therein. We have an altar of whereof they have no right to eat who serve the tabernacle.” We have an altar, a different altar. Not an altar built of stone but an altar which God approved of. So much so that He could lay His Son upon that altar. The greatest sacrifice that ever was brought and that altar was the altar of obedience. His Son was obedient. It says there in Philippians, and I often think of that part, where Paul says “Let this mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus who being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God but made Himself of no reputation and took upon Himself the form of a servant” and it says “He became obedient, humbled Himself and became obedient, even the death of the cross, wherefore God hath also highly exalted Him and given Him a name above every name. That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow. Things in heaven, things on the earth and even things under the earth.” He became obedient, obedient unto death. This was the altar on which this supreme sacrifice was laid, this altar of obedience... God saw that sacrifice and it was a sacrifice so great, so holy, so noble, so that no other sacrifice could ever equal it. God thought that this was so great a sacrifice that no other sacrifice could ever be laid upon this altar, this altar of obedience. It says here in this verse in Hebrews that we have this altar whereof they have no right to eat which serve in the tabernacle. It also says not to be carried about with diverse and strange doctrines because it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace and not with meats which hath not profited them... It is a good thing that the heart finds its comfort, be steadied, be assured because of grace, because of this grace, which has been bestowed upon us, because of what the Lord Jesus did. Let us find our strength there, find our comforts there and not in meats, not in the gifts. Sometimes we can make so much of it and we think of all that we have done. We could almost call it what we have sacrificed. We shouldn’t even use that word because what we do is so very little and God is not impressed at all by what I bring and what you bring. Our sacrifice doesn’t count at all, it is just that which the Lord Jesus brought that impresses God. The only thing that we can do, what we may do, we may come forward and we may touch this altar. Not with our hands but touch it with our hearts. With this feeling of gratitude that He gave this sacrifice and God’s heart was moved to forgive the sins of all the world, because of that sacrifice. The only thing that we can do is to humbly come forward with reverence, and touch this altar because they that touch this altar would be holy. It appears that they (nuns) give so much, they do so much, they bring greater sacrifices. They can heal the sick and they do so much for the poor and they have their eyes fixed on some kind of a gift and think that God could be impressed by that, but God is not impressed by that. He is impressed by that which the Lord Jesus did and the only thing that we can do is humbly come forward and touch that altar.
|
|