tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post1760672790527626667..comments2024-03-28T10:21:50.226-07:00Comments on Banned by HWA! News and Observations About Armstrongism and the Church of God Movement: Dennis muses...NO2HWAhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02018654662518613623noreply@blogger.comBlogger29125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-52164619445546667292013-12-23T05:22:41.547-08:002013-12-23T05:22:41.547-08:00"The Lord's Day"? Might this not ref..."The Lord's Day"? Might this not refer to Sunday, but a peak into the future to the Day of the Lord when God intervenes? Does the NT refer to Sunday as the first day of the week, rather than "The Lord's Day." Joel uses the term, Day of the Lord often in his short book, referring not to Sunday but to a period of time when God intervenes in the world.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-76562541054680333432013-12-21T09:15:59.470-08:002013-12-21T09:15:59.470-08:00Anon 7:13, what a great definition of the end time...Anon 7:13, what a great definition of the end times! In fact, it works for any beginning and ending points.<br /><br />Right now we are in the end times of 2013, which began on January 1st and last through December 31st. Only a few days from now, on January 1st, we will enter the end times of 2014. In this way the end of days will last forever.<br /><br />Retired Profnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-12866224558991830052013-12-20T19:13:32.148-08:002013-12-20T19:13:32.148-08:00Corky 9:41. The term Last Days is used, as I unde...Corky 9:41. The term Last Days is used, as I understand it, to mean the time from the Death of Jesus to the second coming. Are we living in the last days? Yes. What about Paul, Peter, James and John? Yes. <br />Anonymous from Anon. 3:51.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-60173474580689150692013-12-20T18:51:33.363-08:002013-12-20T18:51:33.363-08:00A Personal Comment about historical teaching.
When...A Personal Comment about historical teaching.<br />When I see the effort of many to justify their beliefs or unbelief I by historical data I recognize that these are futile efforts. I will not go into detail why I think this, but will point out some things about that should be considered before we declare our opinions are stronger than those who have a different view.<br />One thing is that faith must come before reason. Unless we have something we believe there is no objective in reasoning. If there is an indisputable law, event, or principle there is no need for faith and trying to reason the why such a law, event, or principle exists would be futile. <br />Another thing is that all history is view from many different perspectives and is a matter of judgment on the part of the historian. The historical records related to the development of Christianity are not documented in the same manner current history is documented where we can rerun the events through technology. There are diversified opinions and what we accept is dependant on faith. The question is what faith. <br />I submit that faith is built on what we believe and why we believe it. I personally have built a strong belief that the universe has a purpose for its existence and we are an important part of that purpose. This importance is related to the intelligence and power that has generated and supports what we are a part of.<br />We may not understand this purpose, but the human mind has historically had faith that life had and has the responsibility of reflecting something greater than today’s human development. To me the biblical story reveals the fulfilling of this purpose as well as it can be reveal using human language and experience. It is human failings in producing the right kind of leadership that has distorted the biblical stories. Of course those who accept this faulty leadership can expect the problems we see. <br />ABAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-90899518478134255842013-12-20T05:42:14.344-08:002013-12-20T05:42:14.344-08:00PS While disconcerting and not what one has alway...PS While disconcerting and not what one has always been taught in the Sunday School version of Jesus, Psalm 22 is not a prophecy about Jesus and how he would die in the details. It is THE Psalm that the writer of the NT details went to to flesh out a story he actually knew little about in reality. That's why the story looks like a fulfilment of Ps 22. It is not. It is the source of the details in the story of Jesus death needed to tell the story.DennisCDiehlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10417850852638492246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-51318225156955836232013-12-20T05:31:01.682-08:002013-12-20T05:31:01.682-08:001 Corinthians 15:3-8
New International Version (NI...1 Corinthians 15:3-8<br />New International Version (NIV)<br /><br />3 For what I received (IN VISIONS)I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[b] and then to the Twelve. (SO CEPHAS WAS NOT OF THE TWELVE) 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born."<br /><br />This muddled view is how Paul knew Jesus died etc. It was not that he knew it literally happened. He knew it "according to the scriptures" or the Old Testament which he used to weave his own ideas about it all and often misquoted and misapplied. <br /><br />Here Cephas is not Peter or Peter was not a part of the twelve in Paul's mind. Jesus appeared to a group of 500+ but no details, no who, when where and why. We never hear from one of these folk about what that was all about an no one else records such a thing. Is he making it up? How can we know.<br /><br />Paul says he, and he was speaking of himself, went to the third heaven but could not report what he saw or heard. Really? Why tell us about it then? <br /><br />The point being that for many, including Paul, the story of Jesus, from birth to death and meaning is not derived from Jesus but from the scriptures, i.e. the OT. This is not difficult to see when you read the accounts of Jesus birth and death. DennisCDiehlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10417850852638492246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-76199242360593120542013-12-20T04:00:36.191-08:002013-12-20T04:00:36.191-08:00Ultimately, how does one know the person in the Bi...Ultimately, how does one know the person in the Bible quoted to declare the mind of God or what it is all about really said that? Maybe the author of the book said they said it, but how can one know?<br /><br />"Thus saith the Lord..." comes to mind. Really? How did that happen and did anyone else hear it. In the mouth of two or three witnesses and all that. Even Paul's witnesses to his supposed Damascus road experience were confused in what happened. And it is Luke who tells the story, not any Paul or "witnesses."<br /><br />There are times in scripture where scriptural citations are attributed to Jesus where it is a mistake. Jesus quotes John 7:38 about if one believes in him rivers of living water shall flow from within him, as says the scripture. What scripture? There is NO such scripture in the OT. <br /><br />Mark 2:26 says Jesus says David entered the house of God "when Abithar was high priest and ate the loaves of presence. (I Sam 21: 2-7) However the high priest was not Abithar but Ahimelech. Matthew and Luke notice this mistake and leave out the talk of the High Priest. If the reading is accurate, this Jesus is unaware he is quoting a wrong version of the story. Or "Inspired John" is wrong in saying Jesus said this and is just making it up for effect.<br /><br />In short, one can't know what Adam , Eve, Moses, Abraham, Isaiah, Jeremiah, originally anonymous Gospel writers, Peter, James, John or Paul actually said or what the Jesus they quote said or did. <br /><br />The muddled and contradictory birth and resurrection stories about Jesus are witness to this problem.<br /><br />These are books written by men who may or may not be who they say they are. They write to expound their own ideas and were not ashamed to put words in the mouths of others they never said or ever could say. <br /><br />With forgeries of letters and such written by this or that Apostle rampant in the first and second century, it's all a crap shoot. It's why we have theologians who study such things spending careers trying to sort it out, wheat and chaff. <br /><br />I would assume that most early "church fathers" were as divergent and perhaps somewhat strange and opinionated as the folk we have around today who also keep churches "on track." Eusebius was known in some circles as "the liar" and Augustine was known for some rather disgusting views and ideas about how it all is. <br /><br />It's just too bad the Gospels are all written in the 3rd person and no historical Jesus ever wrote a word evidently. The life of Jesus is often explained using the Old Testament and not actually knowing anyting about him it seems at times. Paul certainly never new Gospel Jesus or quotes him so his views are from the hallucinatory Jesus in his head. I don't trust that kind of knowing.DennisCDiehlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10417850852638492246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-57423321087383273192013-12-20T01:55:11.206-08:002013-12-20T01:55:11.206-08:00Byker Bob said...
Dennis, Sunday keeping mainstrea...Byker Bob said...<br />Dennis, Sunday keeping mainstreamers of today actually have made this verse their own! They reason that the day of Jesus' resurrection is "the Lord's day".<br /><br />I understand that. I grew up with that understanding. The point would be that the author was a Jewish Christian and would not have thought the least of that phrase being something akin to "Sunday" In my view it would seem the phrase is describing the contents of the rest of the book he is about to write ending in the coming of Messiah etc. <br /><br />Who would care if he was in vision on Sunday or a Tuesday. On a Friday night we might expect he did have good drugs! lol. <br /><br />Even a bigger concern to me would be the visions of others who said they "saw" and "heard" are suspect in any case. We only take that seriously because it was so long ago and is in the Bible. We'd not take it seriously under any other circumstances and would suggest rehab. DennisCDiehlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10417850852638492246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-30442587309670942192013-12-19T21:55:59.368-08:002013-12-19T21:55:59.368-08:00Ignatius of Antioch, also known as Theophorus, not...Ignatius of Antioch, also known as Theophorus, not only did not keep the sabbath, but also indicated that to indulge in such lawkeeping demonstrated a lack of faith in Jesus Christ. Ignatius was a disciple of John's, and the legend is that he had been one of the little children blessed by Jesus. He was also the third bishop of Antioch, and was martyred for his beliefs. <br /><br />He is probably one of the disputed sources to which RSK refers, disputed mainly because some of his works have been tampered with, and there is also a body of works spuriously written in his name. No doubt HWA rejected Ignatius as being one of the "conspirators" because he was the first writer to apply the term katholicos (universal) to the church.<br /><br />BBByker Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15602697337552385535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-65859852144777252932013-12-19T19:41:21.209-08:002013-12-19T19:41:21.209-08:00Sabbatarian authors make it their own too, by a di...Sabbatarian authors make it their own too, by a different line of reasoning.<br />The first undisputed reference to the first day of the week is dated apx 140CE to 180CE. There are some contested references as far back as 70CE. <br />Revelation's author uses the term "kyriake", an adjective. The same word would later be used for the first day of the week around fifty years later, but as noted, it may have had a different meaning at the end of the first century.<br /><br />(Yes, I know someone is going to want to post something akin to "BUT I DONT WANT A WORLD WITHOUT GOD STOP TALKING IN THOSE BIG WORDS YOU'RE SCARING MEEEEEE", but I think it bears mention being the only use of that phrase in the Bible.)RSKnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-76241067978107828602013-12-19T09:46:21.879-08:002013-12-19T09:46:21.879-08:00Dennis, Sunday keeping mainstreamers of today actu...Dennis, Sunday keeping mainstreamers of today actually have made this verse their own! They reason that the day of Jesus' resurrection is "the Lord's day".<br /><br />If we read the writings of some of the earliest Antenicene Fathers without unjustifiably placing them in the "Catholic" box, we learn that Sunday keeping had emerged as a trend amongst Christians much earlier than the second century conspiracy theory by which HWA rationalized his own theology. Apparently, a Christian's heart transformation occurred not only in Jewish settings, but was also very functional in broader cultural applications, such as the gentile communities. Sunday keeping Christians were being cruelly martyred, right next to the sabbath keeping ones, not for their legalism, but for their belief in God, and in Jesus Christ.<br /><br />Certainly, while retaining their own culture and heritage, Jewish Christians of the day would have realized this. Otherwise, Gentile Christians would have been considered ceremonially unclean (as were the Samaritans with whom Jesus interacted, and also used as examples in His own teaching), and therefore unfit for fellowship. Jesus is described in scripture as stating that He came to save the world (not just the Jews). The parable of the banquet has been interpreted as Jews being invited first, and upon their excuse-making, the Gentiles are invited instead. Paul used the phrase, "to the Jew first, and then to the Gentile...."<br /><br />Elements of the old HWA theology remain in our thinking for a long, long, time, and even creep into our new explanations. All theologians assign greater or lesser weight to specific scriptures. Relative preeminence of these, or emphasis upon them, can totally alter one's perspectives and beliefs. Apocalyptic literature was very popular, especially amongst the Jewish zealots, during the lifespan of Herod's temple. Revelation is unique in that it appears to be Christian apocalyptic literature. HWA would have classified it as Jewish Christian, because in his theology model, that was the only authentic kind of Christian. His explanation poses some serious problems in terms of understanding, if indeed the book is capable of being understood at all.<br /><br />BBByker Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15602697337552385535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-15708044640333183262013-12-19T09:41:26.353-08:002013-12-19T09:41:26.353-08:00Anonymous said...
Corky: Comment on the expression... Anonymous said...<br /><i>Corky: Comment on the expression, "I am coming soon (Rev 22); might there be a distinction between the term SOON coming and the IMMINENT coming, meaning that it is to be expected at any time? Or the term, the Kingdom of God is near or at hand; might this mean that it was made available to the Jews, but the Jews, for the most part, rejected it?</i><br /><br />NO. The context of the entire NT makes it clear that Jesus' return was imminent at that time and that the writers were living in the last days (Heb. 1:2) etc...<br /><br />To make "at hand" mean "made available" is making excuses for the NT writers being wrong. Otherwise, "the time is fulfilled" can't make any sense (Mark 1:15).Corkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15894537940881776504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-2288617449474944032013-12-19T07:17:26.957-08:002013-12-19T07:17:26.957-08:00Anonymous said...
Whoever he was, he was "in ... Anonymous said...<br />Whoever he was, he was "in the Spirit on the Lords Day". Not much of Sabbath keeper... :)<br /><br />I have never been able to get the sense of that. It does seem a simple statement of "I saw a vision about the Day of the Lord," which is , after all, the theme of the Book.<br /><br />Even if written in the 90's and not the 60's, the church was way too young to have Sabbath/Sunday issues and I find it hard to believe they would use that kind of terminology. You'd think they would say, "I was in vision on the first day of the week..."<br /><br />As a Jewish Christian writer, no matter who it was, Sunday as a Sabbath would make no sense to the author. Maybe to a Gentile Christian but later I would think and not this guy.<br /><br />The other possibility was the phrase was redacted into the text to bring it up to speed for the later church in the second century. Such is the case with "Go ye therefore into all the world" etc in Matthew. Jesus had no Gentile mission in mind as Gospel Jesus and thought God would intervene in his lifetime and run the Romans off. These words were probably added later in the game to give the mission of the church credibility.<br /><br />You see edits in the NT not infrequently. Luke 3:23 says Jesus was about thirty and the son of Josephy (as was supposed)..."<br />The "as was supposed" was added later to be sure the reader did not think that was true for doctrinal reasons.DennisCDiehlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10417850852638492246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-80833765166497494702013-12-19T06:50:36.200-08:002013-12-19T06:50:36.200-08:00Pagels view and yours is the early church, or what...Pagels view and yours is the early church, or what has been considered the early church era, is a scam: Somewhat like HWA view super-sized.<br /><br />Your sort of gnostic yourself: The self and the divine are identical.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-41344667728456983672013-12-19T04:57:13.690-08:002013-12-19T04:57:13.690-08:00Whoever he was, he was "in the Spirit on the ...Whoever he was, he was "in the Spirit on the Lords Day". Not much of Sabbath keeper... :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-49832319653392012222013-12-19T03:58:15.189-08:002013-12-19T03:58:15.189-08:00anon asks:
"Is the author of Revelation Jewi...anon asks:<br /><br />"Is the author of Revelation Jewish, Greek, both, christian, etc? I mean according to Pagels, not you."<br /><br />Pagels notes that the Book of Revelation was written in by a Jewish Christian for Jewish Christians. When she says he was not a Christian, she means as we think of today. He was not a Pauline/Gentile Christian. She also, as many others, notes this was not the John of the Gospels. That is a mere tradition. John, like James and Mary is not an uncommon name and often get confused when used in the NT as well.<br /><br />Any number of NT books are written in the name of a disciple or apostle but not actually written by that person. I and II Peter, for example are not really written by any Peter of the Gospels. It was written by someone claiming to be Peter which makes it a forgery. Long story. Ephesians and Colosians also were not written by Paul the Apostle for other reasons. Paul's original writings are Romans, I and II Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, I Thessalonians, and Philemon. I and II Timothy and Titus are so alike they were probably written by the same author, just not Paul. <br /><br />One is not going to hear the actual origins of the NT, who really wrote what and why in Church. NT Church is one big assumption that the text is authentically what it claims to be which, in places, it is not. DennisCDiehlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10417850852638492246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-55899843837287411052013-12-19T02:43:49.824-08:002013-12-19T02:43:49.824-08:00ANON SAID
GIVE ME SOME SPACE AND I'LL SHOW TH...ANON SAID<br /><br />GIVE ME SOME SPACE AND I'LL SHOW THE BASIC MEANING.<br /><br />Anyone, I imagine, can see the basic meaning. It's the specific ones that are more interesting and telling. <br /><br />Aside from no comments on the actual intent of the article, that being that without the Book of Revelation, the COG's would not have much left to preach at folk, anyone think theologians are way off to think the false Apostle and false prophet of Revelation, may be Paul himself and who the Jewish Christian community was rejecting?<br /><br />What might the COG's think if it ever dawned on them that Paul would not be their theological friend near as much as James would and that the conflict is evident between them in the New Testament. What if they could not have both and had to pick one? This would more accurately reflect the dilemma between the Jewish Christians under James and the Gentile ones under Paul.<br /><br />How different fundy churches would be if the Book of Revelation did not make the cut and was not included in the canon as many wished it had not been. <br />DennisCDiehlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10417850852638492246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-71796767552949034292013-12-18T19:26:52.079-08:002013-12-18T19:26:52.079-08:00Anonymous said...
Talk about being incomprehsible....Anonymous said...<br />Talk about being incomprehsible... do you ever read your own posts? You need and editor or something."<br /><br />That would be "you need AN editor or something..."<br /><br />DennisCDiehlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10417850852638492246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-13827513513949522202013-12-18T15:51:51.042-08:002013-12-18T15:51:51.042-08:00Corky: Comment on the expression, "I am comin...Corky: Comment on the expression, "I am coming soon (Rev 22); might there be a distinction between the term SOON coming and the IMMINENT coming, meaning that it is to be expected at any time? Or the term, the Kingdom of God is near or at hand; might this mean that it was made available to the Jews, but the Jews, for the most part, rejected it? HWA was a poor scholar. But does that mean what he studied was wrong?<br />Just because his interpretation was wrong, doesn't necessarily mean that what he studied was wrong. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-79946860844815600552013-12-18T15:21:01.038-08:002013-12-18T15:21:01.038-08:00Anon December 18, 2013 at 1:03 PM
Before you lear...Anon December 18, 2013 at 1:03 PM<br /><br />Before you learn us, tell us all if you have a degree in theology. <br /><br />Tell us if you have a History Degree.<br /><br />Tell us what, if any education you might have as a qualifier towards higher education.Jameshttp://www.hwarmstrong.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-5230455048566166142013-12-18T14:09:27.529-08:002013-12-18T14:09:27.529-08:00Well, obviously you did not take Mr. Shelton's...Well, obviously you did not take Mr. Shelton's typing class there, AC alumnus, or you might know about a little thing called the shift key.<br /><br />Also, grammar is clearly not your strong suit, as exemplified by "There is a (sic) origin to this book."<br /><br />But, hey, have a go at it. Hopefully you will share knowledge that you picked up while starting from scratch in the aftermath of the changes and doing your due diligence to clean up the ludicrous errors taught by classic WCG and the ol' perv.<br /><br />BBByker Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15602697337552385535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-45176270289815418082013-12-18T13:03:40.000-08:002013-12-18T13:03:40.000-08:00FROM A FORMER AC STUDENT AND WORLDWIDE CHURCH MEMB...FROM A FORMER AC STUDENT AND WORLDWIDE CHURCH MEMBER. I DISAGREE WITH MANY ON THEIR COMMENTS ABOUT THIS BOOK. GIVE ME SOME SPACE AND I'LL SHOW THE BASIC MEANING. THERE IS A ORIGIN TO THIS BOOK. I CAN UNDERSTAND WHERE PEOPLE ARE COMING FROM AND I DO CARE. TO ME THIS BOOK IS QUITE REAL AND IT IS MAYBE TO A SMALL DEGREE I CAN HELP.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-63573611329466341282013-12-18T12:55:35.970-08:002013-12-18T12:55:35.970-08:00Talk about being incomprehsible... do you ever rea...Talk about being incomprehsible... do you ever read your own posts? You need and editor or something. <br /><br />Is the author of Revelation Jewish, Greek, both, christian, etc? I mean according to Pagels, not you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-79382045802546750592013-12-18T12:34:27.681-08:002013-12-18T12:34:27.681-08:00Yep, "the revelation" was that Jesus is ...Yep, "the revelation" was that Jesus is coming soon, in fact, his return was "at hand" at that time. So quickly was he returning that he was about to catch them unawares. They needed to repent quickly, so quickly that they were to allow all to remain as they were, no time left to convert them (Rev. 22:11).<br /><br />Well, that didn't <i>pan out</i>, did it?Corkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15894537940881776504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-226103369043606765.post-85770061238418556362013-12-18T11:10:29.079-08:002013-12-18T11:10:29.079-08:00I've come to look upon the Book of Rev. as &qu...I've come to look upon the Book of Rev. as "the fifth Gospel." Really. Jesus said He would never forsake his church and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. Fast forward to 95 AD and all the apostles are dead, except for John and the persecution of the church led many to believe that Jesus had forsaken them and the church would not survive. Opens with Jesus on his throng (See, I'm still here!) and he write a letter to the churches in Asia Minor (I know what is going on!). Then he tells of bad things happening, but end on a high note with the curse lifted and a new heaven and a new earth. The good guys are going to win and we will return to what Adam and Eve had before the fall of man. This, I think is Good news (Gospel). It is good news that Jesus came once and more good news when he comes back. Looking at Rev. as a book to encourage the church gives it a different slant. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com