Place your order soon and you can be the first to have your favorite quote of Herbert Armstrong branded into the leather of the shoe!
What better way to take the gospel of Herbert Armstrong into all the world!
Wimpy Jesus quotes not allowed.
Saturday, March 30, 2019
Order Your New Shoes For Petra!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
54 comments:
Cool shoes! Do they come in mens' size 15??? Unfortunately, I just bought two pairs of New Balance 574s that will probably last me about 5 years.
BB
How many orders do you need? What do you want stamped on yours?
How about “Ask Dorothy” can I get them in time for Passover?
Can I get "Ask Dorothy" on mine and delivery in time for Passover?
If all you want to dwell on is a "story"(not a fact, but an unproven story) meant to disgrace, and slander a man whom you dont like, when you post at least use your real name, that way people may know who exactly said what. Cowards will hide behind pseudonyms.
You people believe any rotten thing that fuels anger, hate, and bitterness. That is what these "stories" are meant to do. To hurt YOU, and to warp your mind. It keeps you in a rotten mindset. And is used to manipulate you. So who is thr abuser?
Since they are merely "stories", you have to find proof. What about testimony from Dorothy? Even GTA recanted. No proof, only "stories" meant to hurt a man hated, and to hurt those of you who feel hurt! That is the sickness that won't be furthered in the world tomorrow!
The Truth will prevail! And it doesn't matter how many believe the lies!
Most victims do not want publicity- I know I don’t.
GTA recanted? When?
Yeah when a "story" is spread around by one side, and there is absolutely no proof of its validity, who is truly the victim? Who is damaged?
People are victimized by such stories, and those who spread the lies make victims of those who are deceived by them. The truth turns the tables on the liars and deceivers. And vindicates the victims, for the truth sets them free and opens their eyes to the real abusers.
This isn't about fearing publicity. It's about fearing the multitude of slanderers who have come against the truth. Me? I'm not afraid of those who can kill the body. I fear God who can take both body and spirit.
The Truth is the truth, and we ought to stand up for the truth, and be honest to even our enemies and make known who we are. That's being honest. If you become publicly known for standing up for the truth, then that is giving Glory to God. Even if the entire world hates you for it, stand.
They look like "bowling shoes" to me!
Samuel Kitchen--
Even HWAs own grandson said on record, and played here at banned, that HWA was guilty of the accusations, and that everyone in the whole HWA family knew it.
What is his evidence? His "belief"? Then why does he have to use "everyone in the HWA family" to validate his story? "Everyone knew it" is not evidence! It is hearsay.
And so no proof. Just because someone spouts a story, and people caught up in emotion say "yeah i agree, he did that" DOES NOT MAKE SUCH A STORY TRUE!
On record? Where is the second or third source that corroborates the claim? And can the claims by those sources be proved? Gene Bailey already went around people. There is no proof.
And these websites are just trying to keep you angry and filled with emotions, so you can throw away the truth of the Bible.
They work with these COG groups people. If you don't throw away what was taught and join these groups, you will join with these websites. A boaconstrictor that targets you! It constricrs either way you go.
What do they fear? A dead man's message they can't destroy!
So they spread lies, and stories just to get you to disbelieve what HWA taught!
They still fear YOU BELIEVING HWA!
Ha!
The question wasn't answered, when did GTA recant on his screaming at his father, "you **cked my sister?" ?
Also, does the transcript of the divorce proceedings not count as a second witness?
I personally don't know if it's true or not, I don't care because that idol fell a long time ago. HWA was a man, that's it. Nothing that he taught was original, others taught the same before him. G.G. Rupert for one.
There is also testimony from a deceased lady from Australia that when she was a child, prior to Herbie's library stint, that she attended the church of Scotland which kept the sabbath, all the feasts, and knew of the second resurrection being the first chance at salvation for the majority of mankind.
Herbie "restored" nothing, his wasn't even a unique combination of teachings as some claim, others taught the same set of doctrines long before him.
The only thing that Herbie added to that set of doctrine was his abusive "church government" lie, and his enormous ego.
This is why it's possible to maintain much of the doctrine while throwing Herbie out with the rest of the dirty bath water.
If others want to maintain that I'm following Armstrongism then so be it. I don't care, I know I'm not.
How long would I last in the old 1970's and 80's WCG when I say that going to resorts for the Feast is a tradition of man? How long would I last with my stance that tithing to a church organization is robbing God because he gave the tithe to the Levites and no one else? "Ministers" are not spiritual Levites!
How long would I last with my belief that the clergy class, the ministerial class is not biblical? How long would I last by my keeping an end of the 14th Passover and not the beginning?
People can call me an Armstrongite all that they want but I know that he wouldn't claim me. He'd kick me out. And good riddance!
Kevin McMillen
Can these shoes repel the djinn that the locals say live there in Petra?
So if you don't know if the "story" is true or not, then why spread it around? You want this sort of thing to be true. And the more you cry it out, you think you can have more people believe it and so the more you feel justified in believing it. Just because a lie is believed by the masses doesn't make it the truth.
You are no authority. This website is no authority. You say "he restored nothing", yet why should i believe YOU? Like i said the real abusers are the ones who stand up pretending some authority and using stories and fairytales to cultivate anger, hate and bitterness towards HWA, to keep a person in that attitude that is destructive. God is the supreme authority. He isn't the author of hate and bitterness and lies, Satan the Devil is.
So if YOU have any authority, it would be from him, and you know what? Christ conquered him long ago.
So it goes back to what authority.
HWA taught the truth of the Bible. I can prove it with scripture.
I can prove your arguments, and that is all they are, arguments, as baloney because you are arguing against the God of the Bible!
You listened to too many liars, who have told you stories, who want you angry and filled with bitterness and hate. They want company.
I'm not one of them.
But you guys seem content attacking me and what I believe.All because you believed "stories" that you want to be true.
Sammy, yeah yeah yeah, you can prove my arguments wrong. Dream on.
Let's just discuss one of them, the end of the 14th Passoved. Chances are you think the beginning of the 14th is scriptural and you most likely think that you can prove it.
Your main point would be "Jesus said he was going to keep the Passover with his disciples". But right there dear Sammy ol' fellow is where you'd be wrong.
When Jesus supposedly told the disciples to go tell the master of the house, "where is the upper chamber where I shall eat the Passover with my disciples" if he was stating the fact that he would definitely be eating it then the Greek word for eat phago would have been in the indicative mood, the mood stating a simple fact. But it instead is in the subjunctive mood, meaning it was just a possibility, not a given fact that he would eat it.
Some translations say might eat rather than shall eat, this is close to the true meaning because Jesus was hoping that God would change his mind and find another way. That is what Jesus asked in prayer in the garden.
Jesus was hoping to eat the Passover at the correct time with his disciples, not on the evening of the fourteenth, but the evening of the fifteenth. God didn't find another way, Jesus was the Passover lamb who was killed at the commanded time, between the evenings, at the end of the fourteenth.
I'm pretty sure that you'll reject these facts and cling to Armstrong's error but I don't really care, the Greek is on my side of this debate.
Kevin McMillen
Well Kitchen Samuel or Samuel Kitchen I witnessed a well known name who is still alive within COG group tell how Herbert W Armstrong confessed to certain sins to the WCG Ministry in private.
He gave the impression that Herbert was very candid with them.
I have also witnessed Garner Ted in the early 80's ponder out loud about how WCG worship his dad but they wouldn't worship him if they had to live with him.
Kevin: Exodus 12
Prior to the angel of death PASSING OVER the children of Israel.
Verse 6 says they should KILL the lamb on the evening of the 14th.
Verse 7 says to take the blood and place it on the door-posts. When? After the lamb was killed.
Verse 8-9 says they should COOK and EAT the lamb "in THAT NIGHT".
HOLD ON. HOLD ON!
So thet kept the lamb UNTIL the 14th, they killed it on the evening of the 14th, then NIGHT came and they ate it during the night.
Verse 10. They eat the lamb before morning.
Verse 29-31. God passes over at midnight OF THE 14TH.
There was evening. Then night.
Pharoah rises up in the night and sees how every house has someone dead in it and "by night" commmands Moses and Aaron to RISE UP.
So before the sun came up, Pharoah said RISE UP.
Moses and Aaron did not disobey God's command in verse 22.
"none of you shall go out at the door of his house until the morning."
So now the night has passed, and the DAY PART OF THE 14TH COMES.
They spoiled the Egyptians during this day and left Egypt unto Succoth (verse 37) carrying their bread that was Unleavened. Then when they were at Succoth, they observed the NIGHT to be much observed.
Read the scripture.
Now Christ CHANGED the meat and blood of the lamb unto the wine and the bread. He broke the bread, and drank the wine with his disciples ON THE EVENING OF THE 14TH. This was a change from killing the lamb, cooking it and eating it, and using the blood on the door-posts. Which was done on the evening of the 14th, NOT ON THE 15TH.
Then during the night he was seized and went through the Kangaroo courts, and as the day passed and it was coming close to the evening, they crucified him and buried him.THIS WAS DONE SO THEY COULD OBSERVE THE ANNUAL SABBATH. (First Day of Unleavened bread).
His blood was SPILLED on the 14th. With his death he paid that penalty of death. He delivered us from death, which was the point of the blood on the posts and the death angel passing over. That is the meaning of Passover -deliverance from death.
You might want to assess what AUTHORITY guides you. Is it the Word of God? No, you yourself said "the greek is on your side " as you gave your "opinion". What authority are you? Your argument is not founded on the Word of God, but on what you have decided. How can one partaking of the tree of knowledge of good and evil(deciding for himself what is right amd wrong) instruct others on the tree of life(God deciding what is right and wrong)?
Satan is the roots of that wrong tree, the tree of death.
God is the roots of the tree of life.
Now God's Word is the authority I submit to.
Now the Word of God is truth. It doesn't matter how fanciful an argument is, but it does matter if it is founded on God's authority not on what men think is right.
The Bible is clear on what day the Passover is to be observed. Not on the 15th, but the 14th. From evening until evening.
But you sit there trying to attack my religious beliefs, trying to convince me of YOUR AUTHORITY and how God's Word is to be ignored and you believed?
I choose God and His Word. Herbert W Armstrong taught God's Word. He didnt have to use fancy arguments, and tricks to convince how HE IS RIGHT(like you are doing), but he went to the BIBLE and those who believed the Bible agreed with him!
And since you are not in agreement with the Word of God I'm simply not going to believe you.
And to the next comment: Fred was kicked out in 1978-79. And since you was with GTA in the 1980s it would be accurate to say you were a follower of GTA? It doesn't matter how many people believe a lie, or agree with a liar, but the truth matters.
And GTA did recant on his death bed. Look at Gene Bailey's research.
There was simply No proof just accusations. Dorothy didn't come forward either. So this sort of thing is only meant to defame and slander a dead man, and all of you are wasting time to do this against a dead man. Why? Because deep down you know he taught the TRUTH, and people are still believing the TRUTH OF GOD. And so you get angry, and you are led away with emotion into slandering and spreading rumors(unprovable stories) against HWA. All in hope to CHANGE the mindset of people with the WRONG ATTITUDES, attitudes that come from the Devil and not from God! Why would you want to fester hate and anger and bitterness towards HWA , whose been dead over 30 years? Because what he taught is still available and people can still believe it, and therefore you would be shown up as what you are, exposed by the truth of God.
Oh the Devil hates the truth. And after all these years the message preached by a dead man is still a threat. Ha!
Sam you are so blind. You actually think that your chronology of the events in Egypt is what the bible says and anyone disagreeing with you is in disagreement with the bible. You are amazing.
I think we both can agree that God commanded the Passover to be killed at a specific time. If the Israelites killed a lamb at any other time then that lamb was not the Passover. That time was ben har arbayim or between the two evenings.
I really don't care about your chronology because if Jesus didn't die at the commanded time then he is not the Passover, and I believe he is the Passover.
We can argue the time that the lamb in Egypt was killed all that you want but there is no way of knowing for sure. However we do know exactly what time Jesus died, at 3pm on the 14th.
It's amazing how Armstrong and WCG always mocked the Jews for eating their Sedar meal on the 15th but what is really amazing is how God allowed the true Passover lamb, Jesus Christ, to die at the exact same time that the Jews were "incorrectly" (as you and Armstrong conclude) killing their lambs at the temple.
Jesus Christ is my Passover lamb, he died at the end of the 14th, I have no clue who your Passover lamb is if you deny that Jesus died at the commanded time.
Your pet theory, and your egocentric refusal to accept being wrong will be your downfall if you're not careful.
Kevin McMilken
I agree with Kevin, at least on this point: For Christ to be a true passover sacrifice He had to be killed between the two evenings. Even a casual reading of the NT reveals that between the evenings is at the end of the day.
Unfortunately Armstrongites (= Laodiceans?) seem to get so many things backwards.
Mk 14:12 And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat [phago] the passover?
Jn 18:28 Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat [phago] the passover.
I disagree with Kevin, in that Christ did eat a Passover meal before His crucifixion. How this is so see "Calendars" below which is from "The Crucifixion and Resurrection, Nisan 14 and 16 AD 30" (http://www.members.optusnet.com.au/futurewatch/id114.htm)
Calendars
...
"A problem is posed by the fact that the Synoptic Gospels appear to record the Last Supper as a Passover meal (e.g. Mark 14:12ff.), while John seems to indicate that Jesus was crucified at the time when the Passover victims were being slain, so that the Last Supper preceded the Passover (John 13:1, 29; 18:28; 19:31)" (Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, Revised, NICNT, p.684).
"The synoptic Gospels present the last supper as a Passover meal that took place at the normal time, i.e., on 15 Nisan, which began at sundown on Thursday. (The lambs were sacrificed earlier that day, i.e., on 14 Nisan [cf. Mark 14:12].) The meal was eaten that night, and Jesus was arrested, given a mockery of a trial, and crucified on the same day, i.e., by Friday afternoon... In the Gospel of John, on the other hand, Jesus' death takes place at the time of the sacrificing of the Passover lambs, before eating of the Passover meal (cf. John 18:28). On this reckoning, 15 Nisan began twenty-four hours later than in the Synoptics, i.e., on Friday at sundown..." (Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14-28, WBC, p.763).
"The evidence is thus confusing, and it is in the least surprising that scholars have come to very different conclusions. I do not see how we can be dogmatic in our present state of knowledge. The most natural reading of the Synoptists shows the Last Supper there to be the Passover. The most natural reading of John shows that Jesus was crucified at the very time the Passover victims were slain in the Temple. While it is undoubtedly possible to interpret the accounts in such a way that we make them tell the same story, it seems best to see them as the result of following different calendars. According to the calendar Jesus was following the meal was the Passover. But the Temple authorities followed another, according to which the sacrificial victims were slain the next day. John appears to make use of this to bring out the truth that Christ was slain as our Passover" (Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, Revised, NICNT, pp.694-695).
"To relate John's passion chronology with that of the Synoptics, who clearly describe the Last Supper as a Passover meal, would require a separate excursus; suffice it to day here that while John times his passion narrative with references to the official temple date of the Passover, our Lord and his disciples, following (it may be) another calendar, observing the festival earlier" (F.F. Bruce, The Gospels & Epistles of John, p.279).
"So also I. H. Marshall, "Our conclusion, then, is that Jesus held a Passover meal earlier than the official Jewish date, and that he was able to do so as the result of calendar differences among the Jews" (Last Supper and Lord's Supper [Exter, 1980], p.75)" (Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, Revised, NICNT, p.695).
Is it worth $189 to create a moral dilemma for the Kitchens, much like some wedding cake bakers have found when asked to serve gay weddings? Would they process an order that asked for "Praise Satanic Daughter-Raper HWA!"? Or would they impose a religious test on their work? Maybe instead of paying them $189, I could collect a nice court settlement over their refusal to serve me because my religious convictions differ from theirs?
The really sad thing is that you Armstrong worshippers are unable to think for yourselves.
In fact, your idol Hwa, never learned how to think for himself either. If it wasn't for what he plagiarized from the cog7th day, the sda, G.G. Rupert, Charles Taze Russell and others he'd have had nothing other than his abusive government.
I'm willing to bet that at this time of the year you are still vacuuming out your car, your sofa, shaking out your toaster (or most likely just throwing it in the garbage) all in an effort to "remove sin from your life".
How often were we told the definition of sin? "Sin is the transgression of the law". Which is the biblical definition and I agree with it.
So, tell me you who still practice vacuuming, once you have transgressed God's law, are you able to "remove" or blot out (per Col. 2:14) that sin? The very idea that we can "remove sin from our life" is nothing but self righteous legalism.
How much of an effort (more like forcing their wives to do it) do those Armstrong worshippers put in to "removing sin from our lives" by vacuuming, sweeping and shaking?
As I said, you're unable to think for yourself.
The Feast days are all symbolic, there's no point keeping them if you're not trying to understand the symbolism. They have no intrinsic value in just keeping them. They are there to learn about God and his plan.
Is it leavening that pictures committing sin or is it the eating of anything leavened that pictures committing sin?
Symbolically, what does those crumbs in our couch picture? Those crumbs in the toaster? Would they not symbolically, for that one week, picture our past sins?
How do we get rid of past sins? By accepting Jesus' sacrifice for us. There's nothing else that we can do to get rid of those sins. Trying to do so is legalistic self righteousness!
Symbolically, when we partake of the bread and wine at Passover we are picturing Jesus removing our sins. Those crumbs in the couch are symbolically forgiven. They have been removed, they are no more.
What we have to do now is try as best we can to refrain from sin. We put out the loaves of bread in our cabinets, the cookies, the crackers. This pictures our feeble attempt to refrain from sin. For almost every year we find that loaf of bread in the back of the freezer that we missed. Or the cookie that somehow was hidden in the back of our cabinet.
All this symbolizes our refraining or fleeing from sin, if we're an alcoholic, removing that loaf of bread is symbolic of keeping alcohol out of our lives.
This is one reason Israel was commanded to remove all leaven on the first day. It didn't take weeks of preparation, though they turned it into a weeks long process with their legalism.
But the preparation for the days of unleavened bread is easy. Jesus has forgiven our past sins so now we, on the first day, remove the leaven products that we would otherwise eat. Cookies, bread, cakes, we don't have to vacuum out every corner of our house.
Doing anything more is self righteous legalism. Which is what Armstrong and his cult taught.
Have a great Passover and Days of Unleavened Bread.
Kevin McMillen
Yes and no, I have no problem with your respectfully disagreeing with me. Twenty years ago I would have disagreed too because at that time I thought Fred Coulter actually "had a clue".
But since then I've seriously contemplated the "supposed" problems in the gospels, (I don't mean to imply that you haven't) and looked into the Greek as best as I can and have come to the conclusion that Jesus was hoping that God would find another way to accomplish his plan without Jesus having to die.
This is easily seen in the gospels. First Mark 14:14 when the KJV says "where I shall eat", that statement in english gives the impression that Jesus is speaking an undisputed fact. """I SHALL EAT""", but the Greek doesn't say that. For it to say that in the Greek the verb "to eat" (phago) would have to be in the Indicative mood. The mood that indicates facts.
However the verb is in the Subjunctive mood, indicating only the possibility of the event in question happening, the event being eating the Passover.
We also see Jesus praying that God would do it another way, showing that Jesus wasn't completely sure of future events in hopes that God would change his mind.
I would recommend you studying (if you haven't already :-)) Greek verb tenses and moods before making a final conclusion on the subject.
Jesus never once said that he would eat the Passover that year, at least not if you depend on the Greek. Which is all that we have to go by because we don't have his actual statement in the language that he spoke.
Kevin McMillen
Yes and No asked the question:
Armstrongites (= Laodiceans?)
*****************
I have no clue as to whether the seven churches in Rev. 2 & 3 represent eras or not, nor do I care. We are told to listen to what the Spirit says to all the churches.
Although if they are eras the WCG was not Philidelphian. If they're eras then the Laodicean era began near the end of the 19th century. Anywhere from the mid 1800's to 1900 imo.
That is when our whole society became rich and increased with goods. Plus, what better way to keep the true Philidelphians from the hour of trial than by being in the grave.
WCG going from 150,000 members to 20 some thousand or less sure looks like a spewing out of his mouth. So if I had to pick one of the seven to represent Armstrongs """era""" that would be Laodicea. I
Kevin McMillen
As an addendum to my 8:25 am post. In the last paragraph I want to make sure everyone knows that I don't believe that the WCG was exclusively the only true church. Just because I see the membership leaving as a possible spewing doesn't mean that God isn't spewing others not in WCG also.
God determines who's in his church and it isn't an organization and perfect obedience and understanding has nothing to do with it.
I'm a firm believer that the "One True Church" can be made up of some Catholics, Protestants or whatever, church denominations and organizations are irrelevant. Who God has called and placed his Spirit in is what matters.
Kevin McMillen
9.30
Wcg and hwa believed exactly what you said at 9.30.
It is just that they saw the church as a school with better chance than other schools to learn the truth.
But hwa often said that god could be working with some in other denominations. Especially politicians withpower.
Really this blog is not the place to learn about the teachings of wcg. Although it excells in calling out the crazy teachings of individuals. And there were many private interpretations. But hwa was not exclusive about god of limiting gods inclusiveness however he did put limits on the physical church like just another human leader.
Nck
Regarding HWA,why didn't Dorothy or others exonerate him with a simple word? She died decades after these "rumors" were known. She had ample time to dismiss them, but did not. Her denying them would not have created a big hullabaloo. It wouldn't have brought more scrutiny to HWA, but rather, less. There is no viable excuse for her not denying these rumors if they were false. If it just so happened she had mental/emotional issues that prevented her denials surely there was someone in the family to come to HWA's aid. If it is all lies, he was still the sort of man that alienated his entire family to such a degree that none would support him. Turning the "hearts of the children", indeed.
nck,
That was not the taught belief. If you were outside the WCG, you were not a first fruit.
Ekklesia 7:34
I have no idea why people would disagree with me ever.
HWA said it many times.
He put in mass publication to millions of readers that he was baptized by a non cog minister.
I have a question to you as to the teaching pertaining to what resurection David or Abraham would be part of??
HWA did not limit God as many think HWA did because some of HWA s teachings limited them in their personal growth.
As to COG HWA also believed that some cog7 would be part of the first res.
He often said he did not know what God would decide.
Nck
Ekklesia
HWA was a top marketeer and natural PR talent. It would be extremely stupid to deny or even adress the topic from that perspective.
Moreover that entire generation did feel that they did not need to adress an issue if no wrong was comitted.
Therefore we the current generation find ourselves apologizing for slavery or other things that have nothing to do with us 200 years after the fact.
Nck
Nck, you're missing ecclesia's point, incest is more than just a trivial "wrong", especially by one claiming to be God's representative on earth.
I really don't understand your need to "address the wrong" if you feel nothing happened. Looks like you're in support of the methods that you say "we the current geration" are using or else you'd have just remained silent.
Kevin McMillen
Meh. That's the only possible argument "I won't dignify that remark blah blah blah", but I don't think it flies. Why didn't Dorothy or the family deny it in the 1980s-2000s? It is known that the most effective way to address a false rumor is to address it and deny it. the only reason not to is because there is truth to it or a related truth to it. The rumor was very damaging and a denial by Dorothy would have been very effective then or up to her death. I cannot imagine not giving a single sentence denial if my parents were accused of such a thing.
No, the lack of a denial is very heavy evidence.
10:44 eklessia
Are your parents high profile captains of industry, or better even religious leaders.
No! The rule in PR used to be to not adress false accusations or those that would stick with an audience.
I URGE YOU TO NOT THINK OF A YELLOW ELEPHANT!
OOPS, I'm sorry, I guess you just did!
Another example. The issue with Joe Tkach's wife was not publically adressed. Do memberd have rights to know about the families of their leaders? Would it have reflected badly on the godly image of "the chosen one"?
HEY Kevin.
Good point. But I am not a dead man's PR agent. I'm to "teach" the living.
Or at least have some fun while adressing some sets of reasoning.
Nck
10:44
WOW
I just read, "the lack of denial is very heavy evidence".
Thank God for lawyers as long as humans are around. If it werent for lawyers man would be like animals and beasts.
I do agree that Jesus is about the best defense lawyer ever. At least I hope he is, when my case is set to appear. :-)
Nck
I love this original Greek!
The Greek itself is a translation of what was said in probably Aramaic.
Nck, a church must be different in its approach to a widespread rumor. Incest is heinous and is a simple matter. Industry heads are generally accused of fiduciary issues and a denial was often not given because they hoped it would blow over without further investigation that might then indicate lying or other irregularities. Incest is entirely different. There aren't tax returns and such to investigate. All that need be said is an HWA denial and more importantly a Dorothy denial
A simple one time, "That's disgusting. And is completely false." would not have created a firestorm, but the lack of denial did. Further, the firestorm still remains, Dorothy or others could have also said it didn't happen in the not so distant late 1990s. HWA was dead and his empire was crumbled. Surely, this is a time when Dorothy could have made a quiet denial and shut up the rumors; surely at this time other relatives could have come up and denied it rather than say that it was a known family secret. Surely some family member would strongly come out to absolve HWA. Surely there were family members that had enough concern for HWA and his legacy that they might just deny a rumor. Why didn't they? Didn't they care enough?
Also, you said in a post I meant to respond to that:
HWA said it many times.
He put in mass publication to millions of readers that he was baptized by a non cog minister. SO, WCG WAS NOT IN EXISTENCE YET
I have a question to you as to the teaching pertaining to what resurection David or Abraham would be part of?? AGAIN, WCG DIDN'T EXIST YET AND OBVIOUSLY NOT THE MODERN AGE OF THE CHURCH
HWA did not limit God as many think HWA did because some of HWA s teachings limited them in their personal growth.
As to COG HWA also believed that some cog7 would be part of the first res. SOME FROM THE PAST (AS hwa IDENTIFIED THEM AS SARDIS), BUT NOW THAT WCG WAS THERE THERE WAS ONLY ONE TRUE CHURCH
He often said he did not know what God would decide. THAT'S AWFULLY BIG OF HWA-- GOD DECIDES, NOT HWA.
I never heard a minister say that others outside the WCG would be in the first Res.
TLA, pick at nits much? You understand what is meant when one says the original Greek. Why don't you go to Amazon with your protest, or the publishers of this book:
https://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Original-Greek/dp/0759800774
Kevin McMillen
11:40
There was no firestorm nor a widespread rumor. The church grew from 70k to 100k after robinsons book and under tkach sr to 150k. And could under sr have grown to a million if he had just halted the changes.
The PR problem was succesfully quelched. That generation felt that you need not deny a lie. The catholic church after 2000 years of millions of children abused only adress this issue for the past 10 years. While something did truly happen there.
The only person currently in the know about the manner of discussion would be Ramona and the divorce proceedings might reflect that.
Churches
I responded to Kevin in favor. You narrow that down to the first fruits. That is ok.
I heard ministers say that remnants of the 7 churches of revelation are in existence. At the time we believed that scripture says, "some have not soiled their clothes", or "let he who has ears listen".
This reminds me of hwa sayinf that many in wcg "did not get it". I guess he meant the self righteous, who insist on sheaf and moon observations etc etc.
On the other hand he met people outside the church like the architects of Mendenhall or the sculpture maker or Eckbo garden architects who "instinctly" felt the mission of the church and create from hwa's thought pattern.
Hwa must have contrasted behavior from people inside with those inspired people outside the church and conclude that god works in mysterious ways with people.
This is what I acknowledged when Kevin said that God can work with clay and raise up members for "his plan and purpose." As a matter of fact hwa said that many times too.
For an exact answer I should study the chapter in MOA on "the church". But I dont think I will shortly.
Nck
1)
Look ekklesia
This is the EXACT statement on what WCG believed.
But I am confident that your statement is true also that you never heard a minister say that a member of another church WOULD be in the first resurection. However as the LEGAL person that I am WCG never stated that a member of another church COULD Not be in the first resurection.
I am known for being very EXACT on "legal" issues on banned.
Start quote:
In this context, the Worldwide Church of God believes itself to be God's true church organization. As stated above, by strict biblical definition everyone with God's Holy Spirit dwelling in him is a member of God's Church, regardless of whether that person is on the membership rolls of any particular church or attends services or even has any formal allegiance. Nonetheless, we believe that God is dealing with mankind through one main body of called-out, converted individuals, which is His Church, and not through numerous contradicting and opposing bodies. The Worldwide Church of God claims to be that main body of true Christians, and for this sincere belief we make no apologies. (Indeed most churches believe similarly to a greater or lesser degree.)
The Worldwide Church of God, however, does not consider itself the sole repository of God's Spirit. It is not for us to determine—nor is it any man's prerogative to judge— whether this or that person outside church jurisdiction has or has not been truly converted and has or has not received God's Holy Spirit. (The obvious exception is when a sincere individual comes to an ordained minister of God for spiritual counsel.) Nevertheless, the Church would hardly have any reason for existence if it did not consider that it had a unique calling from God. Granted, some of its basic beliefs correspond broadly with those of other Christian churches; yet it does have certain fundamental doctrines by which it differs considerably from all others. But perhaps the most important difference is its approach:
The Worldwide Church of God endeavors to pattern itself after the New Testament church in a way without parallel in modern Christianity. This does not mean there exists an exact correspondence, naturally, since twenty centuries of environmental and cultural changes necessitate some differences in perspective and application.
2)
Yet the attempts of the Worldwide Church of God to follow the examples of Jesus and the early church has sometimes earned it the label "Jewish." This we consider quite complimentary and appreciate for several reasons, primarily because it corroborates our claim to be following the teachings and practices of the Apostolic Church. In reality the Worldwide Church of God does appear Jewish-Christian to modern observers simply because traditional Christianity has long since departed from the doctrines, customs and practices of the original apostles which were indeed "Jewish." First century historians who specialize in early Christianity would recognize that we are the nearest modern counterpart of the earliest segment of what they call Jewish-Christianity, the segment associated with the names of Peter and James and others of the original apostles. For this we make no apologies; after all, the early church itself was looked upon as an upstart, egotistical sect in its own time just as some have considered us to be.
One area where the Worldwide Church of God has been accused of deviating from the early New Testament Church ironically demonstrates just the reverse. The claim is sometimes made that while the early church preached the doctrine of grace through Christ, the Worldwide Church of God preaches the doctrine of obedience to the Law of God. Though often distorted—e.g. the Church does not preach that salvation can be earned (see the appropriate doctrinal statements in this systematic theology)—there is an element of truth here, and a significant element at that. To understand the critical parallelism, it is necessary to first compare the religious environments of first century Judaism in which the early church began with twentieth century Christianity in which the Worldwide Church of God began. Judaism of the first century was extremely strict by modern standards; its teachings were well—known and stressed the enormous importance of keeping not only God's law but numerous additions to that law as well. In this environment, it would have been ludicrous for the early apostles to emphasize the need to keep God's Sabbath, for example (see Sabbath). They stressed what was new and revolutionary—that salvation was a free gift and could not be earned, that Christ's death paid the penalty for sin, that forgiveness and grace was available through Christ, that Christ was resurrected, etc. Today, the religious environment is almost diametrically the reverse, necessitating a change in the emphasis of doctrinal teaching in order to produce the same overall result. The prevalent Christian message for centuries has been about the person of Christ, His shed blood, grace, salvation, etc. to the exclusion of the importance of keeping God's law which Jesus and the apostles knew so well. Consequently, owing to opposing religious situations and circumstances, in order for the Worldwide Church of God to clearly present to the world precisely the same overall concept of God's total revelation as did the early New Testament church, it is essential that more emphasis be put on keeping God's law. What we preach and practice today is, in the final result, as close as possible to what the apostolic church preached and practiced. Whatever differences there may be only reflect either cultural disparities and/or shifts in stress or accent needed to generate the desired doctrinal identity.
End quote.
nck
"Firestorm" was not the right word particularly regarding the current situation, but making the denial also would not have caused a firestorm. Even still, many that have left Armstrongism point to learning more about HWA as the beginning of their departure. So, while it wasn't a firestorm, it quietly and steadily had a firestorm effect in individual lives.
And while it is beating a dead horse, firestorm and 1970s denial practices aside, the 1990s were different than the 70s and still no efforts were made then to clear HWA's name by Dorothy or his family. Quite the contrary. This speaks volumes about the man that his own family chose to defame him rather than clear him. If the most salacious accusations weren't true; there was something wrong in that his family did not apparently have love for him.
It's interesting Nck. I believe WCG protected themselves with a few paragraphs as you stated above. But, it also does not say those outside the WCG will be in the 1st resurrection. It seems that their real belief is that the Spirit works on people and will lead them to the WCG. If it doesn't, the negative portions of the parable of the sower applies.
They taught those that left WCG were lost. I think that is an important distinction. Their beliefs were really that the HS only exists in those being lead to the WCG and those in the WCG.
Further, a Church's doctrine is known by its teachings, not its plausible deniability paragraphs. The teachings are what was taught/preached to the members, and from every pulpit and every AC class, being in WCG or headed toward WCG were the only paths 1st fruits could be on.
Anyway.
I feel our exchange was/has been enjoyable. Thank you for the manner of and sharing your perspective.
Nck
9:04
Since this "debate" can go on endlessly regarding "first fruits" and the somewhat unique teaching that all men will get a fair chance to enter the kingom I will make one more point.
The teaching went a bit beyond mere "protection clauses." This is evidenced by a debate we had some years ago hear on banned that some members never got "re baptized" , or "baptized by a wcg minister if you will."
It was probably felt that these persons showed plenty of fruit of the spirit and that their earliee baptism was performed in a "valid" / "legal"/ proper rites way.
Nck
Hi Kevin,
it appears that we can agree on the timing of the Passover sacrifice, but not on Christ eating the passover on the night before His killing between the evenings.
Mk 14:14 Say to the owner of the house he enters, ‘The Teacher asks: Where is my guest room, where I may eat [phago - subjunctive] the Passover with my disciples?’ (NIV).
Jn 18:28 Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat [phagosin - subjunctive] the passover.
The context of John suggests that “the Jews” (vv.31, 38: 19:7,12) - “the chief priests and the officers” (19:6) would have eaten the passover on Friday evening.
Mt 26:17 Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat (phagein - infinitive) the passover?
Mt 26:18 And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep (“indicative”) the passover at thy house with my disciples.
As noted “keep” is in the indicative mood.
Mt 26:16 keep (pioi) the (to) passover (pascha).
In Matthew account of the address to the “owner of the house” the expression of keeping of the passover is used, which appears to be used interchangeably with eating the passover; as suggested by creating a synonymous parallelism out of Exodus 12:48:
Ex 12:48a And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep (poiesai) the (to) passover (pascha) to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised... (LXX).
Ex 12:48band he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. (LXX).
The context
Mt 26:19 And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and they made ready the passover.
Lk 22:13 And they went, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover.
Mk 14:16 And his disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover.
Mk 14:18 And as they sat and did eat...
suggests to me that Christ and the disciples partook of the Passover on the prescribed evening of the fifteenth on the calendar used by the Synoptists.
Mt 1:22 Now all this was done (gegonen - indicative), that it might be fulfilled (plerothe - subjunctive) which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
Jn 14:16a And I will ask the Father, and he will give [dosei - indicative] you another Counselor
Jn 14:16b that he may [ei] - subjunctive] abide with you for ever; (AV).
Jn 14:16b to be with you forever— (NIV).
“I know that one of the challenges of teaching first year Greek (and writing a first year Greek grammar) is knowing how far to simplify. If you don’t simplify enough, the students are overloaded. If you simplify too much, student misunderstand basic concepts that then have to be relearned in later years.
“Maybe it is time to forget “may” and “might” in subjunctives.
“(This is why I have gone away from “may” in my own grammar, and added the following to the third edition. “Notice how rarely I use “may” or “might” in the translations. Use of these key words is only to help you get comfortable with the subjunctive and are not always required.”)” (billmounce.com/monday-with-mounce/my-second-thoughts-about-subjunctives-purpose-clauses).
This is a selective quote as I think, (erroneously?), that there is more to this, based on the above, but I am out of my depth to argue so.
Hello Yes and No,
The thing that I don't understand is that you agreed earlier that Jesus died at the commanded time, ben har arbayim, but you also believe he ate the Passover the evening before.
How? If the Passover was to be killed at a specific time then the Passover that Jesus supposedly ate the night before his death couldn't have been killed at the commanded time.
There is not two different correct 14th of Abib's! It doesn't matter if there are different groups keeping different calendar dates. There is only one correct time to kill the Passover.
So either Jesus ate the Passover that night, which was killed at the commanded time, or Jesus died at the commanded time. It can't be both.
Kevin McMillen
Kevinmcmill64@gmail.com
Yes and No,
So the one instance in Matthew where keep is in the indicative mood overrides the three verses where eat is in the subjunctive mood?
Forget may and might in subjunctives? Sounds like something my SDA friends do when they find a biblical puzzle that doesn't fit their theology, they cut and twist the puzzle piece until it fits.
Here's what a Koine Greek web site ( https://ancientgreek.pressbooks.com/chapter/4/ )
says about subjunctives:
The SUBJUNCTIVE mood expresses unreal or hypothetical actions, such as wishes, conditions, and possibilities:
she might run, if he could stop…
As I said, all three times that the KJV has Jesus saying "where is the room where I shall eat the Passover" the verb "eat" is in the subjunctive mood. Read again the above description of the subjunctive mood. Hypothetical, wishes, possibilities.
As I said, if he was definitely going to eat it then the verb eat would have been in the indicative mood.
Here's what that site says about the indicative mood:
The INDICATIVE mood is most common, and expresses facts:
she runs, he stops
We can either cut and twist the puzzle piece to fit our preconceived beliefs, or we can accept what the Greek grammar shows us.
Which lines up perfectly with Jesus being the Passover and dying at the commanded time, ben har arbayim, between the two evenings, between noon and sunset.
There is no way that he could eat the Passover and be the Passover!
Kevin McMillen
Kevinmcmill64@gmail.com
Hi Kevin,
“There is no way that he could eat the Passover and be the Passover!”
I think that there is a way:
Lk 22:7 Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed.
Mk 14:12 And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover? (AV)
Mk 14:12 And on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they were slaughtering the Passover lamb, his disciples say to him, “Where do you wish that we go to prepare, so that we may eat the Passover? (Craig A. Evans, personal translation).
Mk 14:16 And his disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover.
Mk 14:17 And in the evening he cometh with the twelve.
Mk 14:18 And as they sat and did eat,...
I am sorry, but when I read the above I can only come to the conclusion that Christ and the disciples ate a Passover meal, the evening after the day that Luke said the passover must be killed - which would have been between the evenings.
“Forget may and might in subjunctives?”
While it may not mean much, this is the background of whom I was quoting, according to Wikipedia:
Bill [Mounce] authored the bestselling Greek textbook, Basics of Biblical Greek, which won a 2003 Reader's Preference Editor's Choice Award in the Sacred Texts category. He was the New Testament chair of the English Standard Version translation of the Bible, and is serving on the NIV translation committee.
Looks like we will have to agree to disagree on many things.
Regards
I'm not trying to argue, and I realize that the verses as translated imply that Jesus ate the Passover, I'm just trying to understand just how you think there could be two correct Passovers, both killed at the commanded time.
The Passover that, possibly, Jesus ate, and Jesus our Passover.
There is only one correct 14th day of the first month, with only one correct ben har arbayim. So how can it be both, possibly misunderstood verses aside?
As I see it they got the room well ahead of the Passover, they made preparations for the Passover which would be eaten on the 15th, but the night before they merely ate a meal, as we all do most every night, and Jesus gave them the emblems that would picture his death.
He couldn't have given them the emblems on the 15th when the Passover was always eaten, for he would be dead.
When Jesus said, "with desire I have desired to eat this Passover" everyone assumes he's talking about the lamb before them on the table, but he could have been meaning that he really wanted to eat the Passover the next night, (the correct and commanded time) but if God didn't find another way, then he wouldn't eat it again until the Kingdom.
I don't see any problem in the scriptures with the meal that they ate not being the Passover. We have merely been placing preconceived ideas into the chronology of that night.
Again, not arguing, I just can't see how you reconcile two Passover's both killed at the correct commanded time.I
Regards to you too,
Kevin McMillen
Kevinmcmillen64@gmail.com
Hi Kevin,
I am not trying to reconcile two Passovers, per se.
“The most natural reading of the Synoptists shows the Last Supper there to be the Passover. The most natural reading of John shows that Jesus was crucified at the very time the Passover victims were slain in the Temple... According to the calendar Jesus was following the meal was the Passover. But the Temple authorities followed another, according to which the sacrificial victims were slain the next day. John appears to make use of this to bring out the truth that Christ was slain as our Passover" (Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, Revised, NICNT, pp.694-695).
I agree with Leon Morris and accept, present understanding, that this is what happened. The issue you have with it is not a problem for me. In trading it is often said “don’t fight the Fed”; in this case, for me, “don’t fight the history”.
From “The Crucifixion and Resurrection, Nisan 14 and 16, AD30” - http://www.members.optusnet.com.au/futurewatch/id114.htm
Example of Calendar Differences
Lev 23:11 And he shall wave the sheaf before the LORD, to be accepted for you: on the morrow after the sabbath [“sabbat”] the priest shall wave it.
Lev 23:11 and he shall lift up the sheaf before the Lord, to be accepted for you. On the morrow of the first day the priest shall lift it up (LXX).
Lev 23:7 In the first day ye shall have an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein.
Lev 23:8 But ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD seven days: in the seventh day is an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein
“By the Second Temple period, tradition had connected the elevation of the sheaf to the first part of the Festival of Unleavened Bread, and a fierce interpretive controversy raged over whether “the day after the Sabbath” meant the first weekly Sabbath after Passover (Nisan 14) or the ceremonial sabbath on the first day of Unleavened Bread, which always came on the Nisan 15 (vv. 6-7). The latter interpretation is weaker because verse 7-8 do not use the term sabbat (“Sabbath”) with reference to the partial rest days bracketing Unleavened Bread" (Roy Gane, Leviticus/Numbers, NIVAC, pp.389-90).
[Mk 15:42 And now when the even was come, because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath,
[Holy days, living aside the Day of Purgation, are not “sabbats” - food preparation is allowed on these days; hence no preparation day for these days, as there is for the Sabbat - bracketed material not in article].
"Two Methods of Reckoning. The question became an outstanding point of contention between the Pharisees and the Sadducees. The Pharisees interpreted the “Sabbath” as the festival day of Passover, Nisan 15, which was also the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Thus, they waved the first sheaf of barley on the following day, Nisan 16, and from that day they counted fifty days to Pentecost. The chief support for this interpretation comes from the Greek version (Septuagint) of Leviticus 23:11: “The priest shall wave the omer on the morrow after the first day [of Unleavened Bread]”... This means that Pentecost was celebrated by most Jews fifty days after Passover, on whatever day of the week it fell...
“The Sadducees, however, supported by the Boethusians, the Karites, and the Samaritans, took the word "Sabbath" to mean literally, the first Sabbath that fell during the week of Unleavened Bread. Support for this interpretation comes from the fact that the word “Sabbath” by itself is never used in the Bible to refer to an annual feast... This means that they counted the fifty days from the first Sunday after Passover. Consequently, Pentecost for them always fell on the same day of the week, namely, Sunday.
“It is interesting to note that in the particular year of Christ’s death and resurrection, the two methods of reckoning concurred on the date of Passover. This is because, according to the Johannine chronology of the passover ... Passover (Nisan 15) fell on a Sabbath, and the offering of the wave sheaf on Sunday (Nisan 16). This fulfilled the Pharisaic interpretation of Leviticus 23:15, which counted the fifty days from the day after the Passover (Nisan 16). Amazingly, it also fulfilled the Sadducean interpretation, which counted the fifty days from the first Sunday after Passover. Pentecost described in Acts 2 fell on a Sunday by both systems of computation. Perhaps it is providential that Christ fulfilled both interpretations in the year of His death and resurrection" (Samuele Bacchiocchi, God's Festivals in Scripture and History, Part 1, pp.168-70).
(Bacchiocchi’s observation, in the last paragraph, may need to be qualified by the following argument).
Two different reckonings led to, except in the above example, Pentecost being kept on two different days in the year.
Alternative Explanation
“... without a doubt the scriptures document two Passover observances: one before and one at the time of Christ's crucifixion.
“Whatever the circumstances were that occurred during the end of the month of Adar and the beginning of Nisan ... a discrepancy occurred either in the [Calendar] Court’s calculations or the sighting of the new crescent. This discrepancy resulted in the month of Adar being declared short (29 days) and then full (30 days), which allowed for two consecutive days of Passover observance” (B. L. Cocherell, The New Moon and the Passover, bibleresearch.org/observancebook5/b5w36.html).
Yes and no, whether two groups of men used two different calendars, or methods of determining the 14th day of the first month is moot.
Who cares is the Saducees used a beginning of the 14th and the Pharasees used an end of the 14th. There is only one accurate "between the evenings", so unless between the evenings means anytime on the 14th between sunset and sunset, then Jesus couldn't have eaten the Passover and died as the Passover.
If the lamb could be killed any time on the 14th then why the need to say, between the evenings? God could have just said kill the lamb on the 14th.
Sorry but it's impossible for both the eating of the Passover and dying as the Passover to be correct.
Not trying to judge, nor am I telling anyone how and when to keep Passover. All I'm saying is that it's impossible to have it both ways. Christ both eating the Passover and being the Passover, so the problem has to lie in either the translation or our preconceived ideas trying to understand what happened.
It can't be both!
Kevin
Hi Kevin,
You write:
"Who cares is the Saducees used a beginning of the 14th"
Please provide evidence to support that the Sadducees killed the Passover at the beginning of the 14th.
This is the first time that I have heard this. I always thought that killed at the end of the 14th
I was just writing from memory but I found this site that says the Saducees and Samaritans kept the Passover 24 hours before the Pharisees:
https://truthinscripture.net/2017/02/06/jesus-death-and-resurrection-which-jewish-passover/
Others have claimed that the Saducees and Pharisees disagreed on "between the evenings" but kept the Passover at the same time. I think they are confused. They kept Passover the same day, but one at the beginning and the other at the end.
Kevin
Post a Comment