Did you know that questioning doctrine has the potential of making you take the Passover in a wrong manner? To do so means you refuse to submit to Gerald Weston, who is the FINAL authority on doctrine after Jesus Christ.
Isn't it refreshing to know that all doctrinal purity has descended to us today directly through Herbert Armstrong, Rod Meredith and now finally to Gerald Weston? No theological decision can be made without this mans approval. No human on the entire planet has this much authority directly handed to them by Jesus himself. Both Dave Pack and Bob Thiel have been left whimpering in the corner.
Dexter Wakefield claims that LCG is always on a quest to "deeper and broader" in its doctrinal understanding, though for some reason they still refuse to follow the New Covenant teachings.
The notion that Living Church of God wants to go "deeper and broader" in their knowledge and understanding is a joke. They still are stuck in 1986 or earlier in all their actions and beliefs.
Beware of people who say that they have “new truth”—it’s usually old errors. The Church’s doctrines have been researched and thoroughly vetted for decades under Mr. Herbert W. Armstrong, Dr. Roderick C. Meredith and now Mr. Gerald Weston, and we are convinced that we have God’s truth. With God’s help, we want to go deeper and broader in our knowledge and understanding—but we should beware when someone wants to go differently.
The Apostle Paul cautioned the Church in Corinth to be constantly vigilant for those who preach doctrinal error. “For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough” (2 Corinthians 11:4, ESV). Here’s an action item: Don’t put up with it!And God forbid of some lowly church member has an epiphany and knows the church is wrong about something. That member must remain silent and and maybe let his pastor know, who will then, nine times out of ten dump it in the trash bin, or steal the idea and run with it himself taking all the credit. But usually, the minister will claim to be more intelligent than you and set you straight.
We always want to grow in grace and knowledge, and from time to time, a member may think we’ve made a mistake. Or perhaps he believes he has found something new that we should look into. When that’s the case, there’s a procedure that should be followed. Don’t advocate your idea among the congregation; rather, discuss it with your minister. But be prepared for him to engage in helpful analysis. The minister may have seen your idea before and, as a result, may have a ready answer with scriptures or related doctrines that you haven’t considered. That’s often the case. Or, if you both think that the idea needs to be considered further, it can be sent on to his Regional Pastor and possibly the Personal Correspondence Department.
If so, be patient in waiting for a response. If it’s worthy of further investigation, the Council of Elders does consider study papers and thoughtful commentary.Notice what LCG believes will happen if that member strike out on his own. It is the very same thing that Rod Meredith did himself!
Often, the leaven of false doctrine is used by individuals seeking to form their own little church group. They need a different doctrine or two to distinguish them from others in order to corral the sheep they need to support their small ministry. Those who have done this typically have several characteristics in common:
• They assert some unique doctrine or “revelation” that distinguishes their splinter group from others.
• Their evangelistic work is ineffective, and few new people join their group. So, they seek to take sheep from other organizations and fellowships rather than evangelizing the world.
• There is often a high degree of control of the group.Speaking of control, the irony here is astounding! Are they so dense that they cannot see this is exactly that they are doing to their members? And what about their evangelistic efforts? Their "evangelism" is ineffective and draw in no new people other than drawing in disgruntled xCOG members who jump ships like fleas from dog to dog.
LCG then takes another swipe of Bob Thiel and others who have left to start their own personality cults.
Christ warned us about these false ministers when He said, “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them” (Matthew 7:15–20).Obviously this never applied to Rod Meredith when he apostatized from the WCG to start two new COG's. None of the scriptures ever seem to apply when the various COGs are doing exactly what is spoken about.
LCG members apparently don't trust HQ to make wise decisions when it comes to doctrine, because many still question them, even in 2018.
In the ministry, we have dealt with many of the same doctrinal questions for years: the proper dating of the Holy Days and calendar issues, private prophetic interpretations and many others. These issues come back year after year, decade after decade, as new people discover old errors. The Bible teaches us that Satan stalks about the fringes of the flock “like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour” (1 Peter 5:8). Those who regularly search the Internet for doctrinal issues probably do not appreciate the precious truth we have and may find themselves within that lion’s range of attack.Satan is the one behind all questions, so LCG members had better learn to be subservient and never question. Plus they need to examine their lives during this season to understand why they cannot submit to HQ. Their salvation depends upon it.
God said that He uses His ministry and His Church to maintain doctrinal integrity. The Church is the bulwark of the faith. The Apostle Paul reminded the evangelist Timothy, “These things I write to you, though I hope to come to you shortly; but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:14–15).
The ministry has both the responsibility and authority to maintain the doctrinal integrity of the Church. Even in the world, we don’t give a person the responsibility to do a job without also giving the authority that is required to accomplish it. Failing to do so would defeat our own purpose. And God is far wiser than we are.
God uses His faithful ministry to preserve the truth in His Church. That’s a big reason why the Church is the “pillar and ground of the truth.” And we’re required to judge who is a true minister of Jesus Christ, and, again, “You will know them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:16). But what are our obligations when we identify a true minister of Christ? We gladly accept the authority and service that Christ provides through His ministry and His Church. Sheep flee a wolf but follow a shepherd.The sheep should flee the wolf presently leading them astray and away from the New Covenant. The wolves have been devouring members for far too long now. When will the captives be set free?
We always want to grow in grace and knowledge, and from time to time, a member may think we’ve made a mistake. Or perhaps he believes he has found something new that we should look into. When that’s the case, there’s a procedure that should be followed. Don’t advocate your idea among the congregation; rather, discuss it with your minister. But be prepared for him to engage in helpful analysis
ReplyDeleteThis is the helpful analysis that is more likely to be given:
We regret to inform you that ________ has been disfellowshiped from the Church of God. We bear him no ill will and pray that God will lead him to repentance.
And your bum would then likely be "engaged" out the door, warp nine. "Converted people" don't question doctrine.
These fine people have always tried to get rid of the wrong leavening.
ReplyDeleteBB
For what it is worth, not any order, this is what I believe the COG's get wrong.
ReplyDeleteCrucifixion was not on a Wednesday, but on a Friday (cp. Mark 15:42; you can prepare food on holy days but not on Sabbaths).
Holy Days, with the exception of the special use of sabbat with Atonement, are not sabbats;
Resurrection was not on the Sabbath, but on a Sunday - just as the physical harvest began on a Sunday so did the spiritual harvest.
Modern usage of the phrase “three days and three nights” in the ANE does not conform to common modern Western usage; (cp. R. Eliazar ben Azariah [flourished late 1st and early 2nd centuries AD]: “A day and a night make an onah: and a Part of an onah is as the Whole”).
Christ rose on the third day - “the third day” is a Hebrew idiom for the day after tomorrow, (cp. Exod 19:10-11).
Christ died AD 30.
The First Day of Unleavened Bread of that year was on a Saturday/Sabbath according to the Calendar employed by John - the high day of John 19:31.
Timing of Passover sacrifice - end of the day; hence
Between the evenings is from midafternoon to sunset; cp. Mt 14:15 with 14:23.
(For Christ to be a true Passover sacrifice (1 Cor 5:7b) He had to be killed “between the evenings”).
Keeping the Passover can refer to ‘offering an offering’ (Num 9:5-7) or ‘eating the offering’ (Mt 26:18-18).
“After the sabbaths,” (Mt 28:1) is not after a holy day and weekly Sabbath. The plural ‘Sabbaths’ is used interchangeably with the singular ‘Sabbath’ for the ‘day,’ cp. Mt 12:1 (plural) and Mt 12:2 (singular); and is also used for ‘week’ - cp. first of the Sabbaths/week (Mt 28:1).
Modern Rabbinic calendar was not in use in Second Temple times. There were at least two calendars in operation in the time of Christ - the Synoptics use a different calendar to John.
I thought the Living God was the pillar and ground of the TRUTH.
ReplyDeleteOk, here's the "Diehl"
ReplyDeleteThe price of admission to any church is exactly what Dexter is saying. The NT, Paul, ran into this problem of dealing with individual ideas about what the church did or didn't do, taught or didn't teach and explained or couldn't explain by finally saying...
1 Corinthians 1:10 "I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our LORD Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought."
He was begging with them to do so because of how chaotic things had gotten in Corinth with freeing them from various things that quickly got out of hand. Now I am no advocate of all just speaking the same things to have order. The need to do so springs out of the problem of trying to organize religion under the banner of "the truth", "the way", "precision of doctrine" and all the "understanding" that the chosen are to understand as presented by the hierarchy of ministry. (Aprostles, Prophets and Presiding Types). It
As a pastor, especially in WCG and it's believing the right things and doing them the right way culture, I forever had people want their ideas and studies which contradicted them not only listened to but changed to doing. I NEVER MET ANY MEMBER WITH AN IDEA DIFFERENT FROM THE BELIEFS OF THE CHURCH WHO, WHEN GETTING A MINISTERIAL OR COUNCIL EXPLANATION BACK SAID, 'OH...THANK YOU. NOW I SEE YOU WERRE RIGHT AND I WAS MISTAKEN.' They will die for and with their idea firmly established in their own minds.
It would be like me presenting the fact that evolution was true and that Genesis has meaning but is not how all we see came to be literally and being told by the minister that I was wrong because Genesis 1 clearly tells us how it all came about with other associated scriptures to back it up. I don't buy it and would only have the choice of being quiet or stirring up weekly division and ultimately having to be confronted for the mess I was causing in the minds of those organized by the one religion and associated leaders whose ideas were Gospel, not mine.
When Paul said …3I am afraid, however, that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may be led astray from your simple and pure devotion to Christ. 4For if someone comes and proclaims a Jesus other than the One we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit than the One you received, or a different gospel than the one you accepted, you put up with it way too easily. 5I consider myself in no way inferior to those “super-apostles.”… he was getting bombed with all sorts of other ideas about the Gospel or how it all is and had to react. WHEN PAUL SAID "WE", he always meant ME and MY Gospel.
continue....
How are these ACOG cults still functioning? The nonsense that flows from the ministry every Saturday should cause the lay members to pause and question why the hell are they sticking around wasting their time giving their hard earned money to those rats!
ReplyDeleteIn my experience, I had all sorts of ideas and attitudes about what the church should teach or not teach thrown at me year after freaking year. Some were casual about it and no biggie. Others were hostile and militant about their idea. One member threatened to call 60 Minutes on me when I simply would not teach that Passover was on the wrong day and done in the wrong way including the fact that we must stand up for it etc. It was my first church when I was 24 and the well was poisoned on this topic of Passover every time it rolled around. It was a mess and he simply would not sit on it as there was not a thing in the world I could do to help him. I told him that he could practice the Passover anyway he wanted if that would help him, but he wanted the entire church to turn on a dime on this topic for his satisfaction. Ain't gonna happen because the wheels of organized religion turn slowly (well unless you are the top guy and can just decide for everyone it's all gonna change as Tkach did or HWA declared on certain topics) and not often in your favor.
ReplyDeleteBecause of my inherent nature all I did in such cases was to encourage the person to be both patient, not get his hopes up for church wide change and do or not do as wished just dont' fuck up the church please. Well not in those words but definitely in that attitude.
Obviously LCG is having issues with opinions and ideas different from those "which we teach" That goes with the turf of any and ALL organized religious endeavors. They can't believe or even give attention to every last idea others have about how what they do and why they do or believe it . It's endless on endless topics.
The ONLY choices a member or even a minister has on topics of disagreement is to
1. Keep it to themselves and stay in the church peacefully . If it is a practice or way to do something, do it themselves quietly leaving room for differing perspectives which are ok
2. Present their concerns and ideas up the ladder and don't get their hopes up it will ever go anywhere
3. Screw up the local church with constant upheaval over the topic when possible
4. Leave and be sure to take a few members with you so you feel as if someone agreed with you and you were right. No one leaves or rejects final edicts on the topics thinking they were mistaken to begin with. THEY ARE NOT MISTAKEN IN THEIR VIEWS. NO ONE IS.
LCG wants to go "deeper and broader" in their understanding? Really? What are they teaching today that they weren't teaching decades ago? What new understanding are they sharing with their members. I doubt if they have grown in grace or knowledge over the years. They seem to repeat the same messages over and over again. It's like taking a trip back to the 70's to listen to or read their literature.
ReplyDelete...continue
ReplyDeleteMy solution to the problem of an religion being organized under a belief is to simply allow for diversity of thought and don't judge those who still wish to stay in the particular church for conclusions they personally reach in their study. The Bible is not a seamless whole and lends itself to a myriad of opinions on a myriad of topics. However trying to please everyone will not lead to an organized religion. It will be chaotic one.
I had my own views on any number of WCG teachings that directly affected me and my perceptions of common sense , compassion and such. I miraculously found that EVERY Divorce and Remarriage BS I had to attend to ended in the couple being fine to be married still. I didn't agree with anoint only and just have faith. I never taught about the Place of Safety or gave a sermon on British Israelism. If it came up, I simple deferred to the NT teachings that what matter did it make on salvation issues? NONE. Prophecy to me was always opinion and I never uttered the words d"3-5, 10 at the most, 20 years outside and Christ will return." I also never taught that dinosaurs and early hominids were "Satan's World" Any school kid would know that's just nuts.
Dexter wrote what he has to write if a church is going to be both organized and not wracked with division and chaos. The NT gives all the ammo a minister or church needs to ask for differences of views to be handled decently and in order with the idea that that the view of the Bible studier might not get far in the Organization as a whole. Thus the need for tolerance and allowing diversity of thought without penalty is the only way to go.
By nature and personality type, I have always been able or cursed with the trait of seeing both sides in any argument or dispute over whatever. I make a good negotiator it seems and that trait is why it was easy for me to just ask members to tolerate the views of others and allow for diversity of opinion without drama and trauma to the church.
In my view, that's all you can do and maybe why Paul was smart enough to say that the reason for speaking the same thing was not related to it all being true, precise and actually the be all, end all truth, but simply that there be no or at least less division in the Organized Religion and the Gospel which he came up with as well different from that of Peter, James and John (Galatians 1-2)
While Peter didn't actually write it, the author was smart enough to say ....
King James Bible 2 Peter 1:12
Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the PRESENT TRUTH."
He did not make the mistake of calling it The Plain Truth. All truth is merely present truth and subject to change and update.
Dexter and LCG has no choice but to explain the problem as they did. And as long as others are looked at as Wolves without admitting that wolves too get hungry and have needs to express their individual dietary preferences, it will ever be confrontational :)
"proclaim another Jesus?" They should know since the Jesus of the LCG is a banana republic dictator. Their Jesus does not believe in freedom of thought and freedom of expression. Their Jesus insists that all members be treated as children and criminals - all for their own good of course.
ReplyDeleteReligious studies are divisive by nature and prone to dispute and judgmental behaviors . One will never change that reality.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with an anal retentive legalistic church which believes or teaches that it as a corporate entity is the only path to salvation is that there is no room for tolerance or diversity of thought. In fact, winking, nodding, and permitting such diversity becomes subversive and counter to that church culture.
ReplyDeleteThe only real solution to the problem is for obsessive-compulsive authoritarian churches to disband. That way, you wouldn’t have ridiculous apologetics necessary, such as “even when we’re wrong, in God’s eyes we’re right”.
As a group, over the past twenty years, diversity of thought amongst the leadership has caused the splintering. When you couple that with the continued failure of their prophecy, they have pretty much debunked on their own the possibility that they could be God’s “true” anything. They are unreliable as a path to salvation, and not a single group amongst them could possibly be the gatekeepers.
BB
WHY CANT EVERYONE BE JUST LIKE ..... MEEEEEE!!!!
ReplyDeleteor ELSE!!!
I am not a member... about what day to keep the Passover... in the scripture an alternate day is mentioned for keeping the O.T.passover... it can be kept, under certain conditions, the following month... so there is liberty given for an exception within God's Word...
ReplyDeleteYes an No ---
ReplyDeleteMost of your points had to do with HWA's Good Friday/Easter Sunday debunk wedgie. I've seen the proverbial 101 different reasons attempting to justify this tradition. But, for myself, I don't think it is a big deal: regardless of what and when, it doesn't justify making the "Saturday to Sunday" switch. Like other Catholic doctrines Protestants keep, Protestants like to come up with their own reasons, rather than say that Constantine or the Pope was right...
A problem was raised by some ethnic Jews who accepted Christianity, and then believe they were "tricked" with such teachings as the Three Days/Three Nights criterion for Jesus as Messiah.
I agree with Dexter's statement that the 'new truth' is usually old errors.
ReplyDeleteMatthew 26:17, Mark 14:12, and Luke 22:7 have the Last Supper occurs on the same day as the Jews' Passover meal (NTBMO). Only John 19:14 has it a day early in order to advance the writer's Christology of Jesus dying on the same day as the slaughter of the Passover lambs. It's only the last gospel writer who claims Jesus is the Passover lamb.
The writer of John 'remembers' (synoptic gospel writers 'forgot') that Jesus' blood was 'shed' on the cross. Matthew 27:50 and Mark 15:37 have Jesus cried out with a loud voice before dying while Luke 23:46 has Jesus still able to utter something before dying. Why would the synoptic writers fail to explicitly mention the spearing when two of them did not have any qualms espousing the virgin birth? John 19:33-34 has the spearing postmortem. Who would sacrifice or shed the blood of a dead lamb? Also, where is the altar to drain the blood for it to be considered a sacrifice (Gen 22:9, Lev 17:10-11)?
For the proponents of the Greek aorist tense, why would the Roman soldier spear Jesus first before attempting to break his legs? The order given was to break the legs in order to hasten death which the soldiers did on the first 2 convicts (John 19:32). The spearing was to make sure he's dead. Unlike the 3 gospels, John does not explicitly mention any crying with a loud voice because Jesus is already dead (John 19:28-30). He explicitly mention the spearing, is he implying the crying with a loud voice? The 3 synoptic writers explicitly mention the crying with a loud voice but imply the spearing?
The author of John added the scene of breaking the legs of the 2 convicts in order to support his claim that Jesus fulfilled the requirement of a Passover lamb whose bones are not broken (Exodus 12:46, Numbers 9:12). Is this the reason why he omitted the breaking and blessing of bread in his Last Supper version? The breaking of bread supposedly pictures Jesus' broken body. Instead he concentrated on the foot washing which the other 3 gospels do not mention. He used a physical type for the 'bones not broken', where is the physical type for the requirement that the lamb should be without blemish? According to the gospel accounts, Jesus was scourged and beaten. Also, he was circumcised, which Philippians 3:2 refers to as a form of mutilation. Another problem for the author, Passover is not an atoning sacrifice. What sin was expunged? The sacrifice was only for the firstborn, not the entire household.
The writer added the spearing in order to claim that Jesus fulfilled Zechariah 12:10 (John 19:34-37). To support his Christology, he decided to tamper with scripture:
"They shall look on him whom they pierced.” (John 19:37)
"then they will look on Me whom they pierced" (Zec 12:10)
Almost all versions, including Brenton's LXX, correctly translated the Hebrew 'elay' to 'me', not 'him'. You can use the Biblehub's Interlinear option to verify. What is the context of Zec 12:10?
and they shall look unto Me because they {That is, the nations. See verse 9.} have thrust him through; (JPS, Zec 12:10).
The scene is in the future, at the start of the messianic age. Jerusalem will be a 'cup of trembling/drunkenness' (Zec 12:2) and a 'burdensome/heavy stone' (v3). A Jew who is feeble will be like David (v8). In that day, God will destroy the nations that come against Jerusalem (v9). The nations are the ones that pierced him (v10). But a Jewish leader will be killed (v10). He will be mourned like the mourning when Josiah was killed by the archers of Necho (v 11; 2 Chr 35:20-25).
Ric,
ReplyDeleteNum 9:1-14 speaks of the 2nd Passover. Aside from those who were ritually unclean; those who were traveling, if they were late, may keep it the next month (v3). Why would they be late? They were not using a calculated calendar at that time. Aside from sighting of the new moon, the aviv barley determines the new year which by the time of discovery may not be enough time for some Israelites to travel to Jerusalem.
If you are doing the NT version by yourself, major ACOGs follow the Hillel II calendar, which is tonight. Here's the LCG calendar - https://www.cogl.org/calendar.shtml
One member threatened to call 60 Minutes on me when I simply would not teach that Passover was on the wrong day and done in the wrong way
ReplyDeleteThat night they ate artos bread instead of unleavened bread. Strange that they could still claim they follow Christ when in fact they do the opposite. And that night wasn’t a Passover night.
The Ferrar Fenton translation accurately captures the meaning of Christ's words in these verses:
LUK 22:15 And He said to them: "I have longingly desired (G1939 epithymia G1937 epithymeÅ) to eat this Passover with you before My suffering; 16 however, I tell you that I will not eat of it, until it can be administered in the Kingdom of God.
And too a Jesus with two broken legs might not get around as well post resurrection story...
ReplyDeleteThere is a sociological phenomenon here that stands out. Let me state it like this:
ReplyDeleteMillerite Maxim 42: Millerites always generate heresy.
(I did not have a term appropriate for "heresy" above. What is it when one develops a heresy which is a departure for an existing heresy? A secondary heresy? Or maybe heresy-2. Then the word above could be heresy-N for any number of levels of abstraction from the original heresy.)
Can you imagine a member of the United Methodist Church approaching the UMC minister with a new theological revelation? Yet this happens with the Armstrongist fragments frequently, leading to the proliferation of small, odd Millerite churches, each with a different message to hawk in the back pages of Cartwright's newspaper.
When I first started working at AC BS, there was a group there that left the WCG because they believed that mushrooms, strawberries and bananas were unclean. They started their own little congregation somewhere in East Texas. I thnk they were also stockpiling food and encouraging others to do this. Yet,I believe they were honest and sincere. They knew they had to get away from the corrupt and unclean mushroom eaters who did not have the inspiration and enlightenment that they had. I don't know what happened to them. When I eat mushrooms, I don't even think about them. As I reflect, they were virtually a model for Millerite church expansion.
The Anti-mushroom Sect exemplifies the fact that Millerism/Armstrongism attracts people who are a conduit for odd and divisive ideas. The Armstrongist fragment churches are little engines that generate heresy. This is because the formation of these fractals is driven by an algorithm that always has and always will engender heresy. It is an algorithm of egocentrism, desire for financial gain and a desire to control other people's minds.
In response to Hoss, I do not see, as you would, that the Friday-Sunday scenario is a tradition, but it is the correct exegesis of the accounts of the time surrounding Christ’s death.
ReplyDelete"One of the greatest obstacles we face in trying to interpret the Bible is that we are inclined to think in our own cultural and linguistic categories. This is no surprise since our categories are often all that we have, but it is a problem because our own categories often do not suffice and sometimes mislead" (John H. Walton, Genesis, NIVAC, pp.67-68).
This observation is especially relevant for the COGs in regard to their doctrines.
Also a first of the sabbaths resurrection does not change the Sabbath to Sunday.
Christ’s rising from the dead as the firstfruits of them that slept was the antitype of the offering of a sheaf of grain at the beginning of the barley harvest. The resurrection of Christ and the beginning of the grain harvest do not occur on the Sabbath.
Banal Bob strikes again.
ReplyDeleteYes and No ---
ReplyDeleteYes, I see the symbolism, and I remember Ron Dart pointing that out years ago while still teaching the Wednesday-Sabbath doctrine. Also, the Pharisees and Sadducees keeping different days for Passover and different Sabbaths for counting the Omer.
But if you have the correct exegesis, why are there so many "reasons" given to explain Good Friday/Easter Sunday? One site counted Jesus' arrest and crucifixion as one of three days; apparently St Jerome said the "darkening of the sun" -- erroneously attributed to an eclipse -- counted as a day and a night. Halley (of Bible Handbook fame) used the idiom answer, and didn't mention Jonah.
My concern was that Jews who converted to some form of Christianity returned to Judaism because they didn't buy the Three Days/Three Nights arguments. They also had a lot of problems over prophetic fulfillment, as they didn't accept dual fulfillment.
Hoss asks:
ReplyDeleteBut if you have the correct exegesis, why are there so many "reasons" given to explain Good Friday/Easter Sunday?
An answer may be that the explainers didn’t grasp all the angles that are required to arrive at the correct understanding on the subject.
In the early twenty-first century, especially from the preceding 200 years, we are fortunate to have such a wealth of commentaries, books and papers on the Bible to draw upon to make a more informed decision.
I have put together enough angles, at least I think I have, that I would consider need to be looked at to make an informed decision of whether the Friday-Sunday argument is correct.
If you are interested, these angles maybe found at members.optusnet.com.au/futurewatch/id114.htm - I appreciate that it is a bit amateurish, that some points need more work and others have explained most of the material a lot better than what I have presented.
This article brought to memory a couple of stories that I herd. The first being a story Dave Pack gave about being in a council of elders meeting in Global when he said Roderick Meredith pleaded with the men if they had anything new - "Does anyone have anything" - "We have to give the brethren something new". Dave Pack rose right up and said "We don't have to give the brethren anything new - the brethren are Philadelphians and Philadelphians hold fast to what they have been taught" (By HWA).
ReplyDeleteThe second story given by Dave Pack occurred during his new understanding sermon series. Mr. Pack related how an older lady in the church was very concerned about all this new understanding teaching. The older lady stated that if HWA was Elijah and he restored all things how could he (Pack) be teaching anything that is new. The older lady stated quite vociferously, all things mean all things. To which Mr. Pack stated "We sent two headquarters ministers unto this fine old lady to get her straightened up". Incredibly, a few weeks later Mr. Pack proclaimed that he must be the Elijah That Prophet and not HWA.
So which is it, Hold fast or proclaim something new, or put little old ladies in their place? For many of these leaders it is all three so long as they are good at walking a fine line and can continue to keep the tithe money coming in.
Just the read of this article and stories above make plain that underneath that suit coat shirt and tie is a undershirt with a word written that start with a large H.
"For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus"
ReplyDeleteI was in LCG for nearly 15 years. Trust me, they VERY RARELY ever mention Jesus.
I used to sing special music on occasion when I was a member of LCG.
ReplyDeleteI remember being told certain songs were not okay to sing because they were "too Jesus-y".
How can something be "too Jesus-y"???
First of all in LCGers don't call Him Jesus... His name is Christ.
For some reason, the mention of "Jesus" is frowned upon.
Perhaps this is part of the reason why those people (in LCG) are so off point when it comes to love, mercy, forgiveness and kindness. I wonder if Jesus will look upon them at His return and say, "I never knew you".
I pray that God opens they hearts and softens their stiff necks.
Once I left LCG and let the love of Christ grow within me, my life has changed exponentially for the better. They don't even realize what a cage they have themselves in. Jesus is the answer!!!