Our favorite self-appointed prophet of the improperly named "continuing" Church of "god" is NOT happy that a web site took a swipe at "Armstrongism." Bwana Bob Thiel believes that the COG does teach 1st century Christianity and that he is now the sole agent of God actively practicing it in the 21st century.
The physical head of the old Radio/Worldwide Church of God was the late Herbert W. Armstrong. What he taught has been derided as “Armstrongism.” What were some of those teachings? Was the old Worldwide Church of God some type of weird cult or did it strive to contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered to the saints? Is “Armstrongism” improperly maligned and falsely described at GotQuestions.com? Are concepts such as the tribes of Israel, ‘soul sleep,’ and three resurrections unique to Herbert W. Armstrong or were they long part of original Nazarene Christianity? What about various holidays and Christianity? In this video, Dr. Thiel goes over his early experiences with “Armstrongism” as well as gives scriptures about persecutions that would affect Christians.
Here is what Got Questions (see below) said about Armstrongism that sent our glorious dear prophet over the edge, so much so, that he had to do a video about it. For some reason though he failed to mention the abject corruption that has plagued the church for the last 80 some years, the hundreds of splintered factions, the sexual assaults by church leaders, the theft of tithe money by top leaders for their own use, the rapes, the pedophilia, the stalkings and other perversions committed by leaders, the preaching of false doctrines that have enslaved members, and the current batch of perverted COG leaders leading splinter cults. He also fails to mention that his self-appointment is 100% against 1st century beliefs and practices of the church.
Any sane person knows that Bob Thiel and the COG as a whole do NOT practice 1st-century Christianity. The church has always been one that was growing and evolving as it grew. Besides, how can it practice 1st-century Christianity when most of the COG's today brag that they practice pre-1986 Armstrongism?
Question: "What is Armstrongism? Is the Worldwide Church of God a cult?"
Answer: Armstongism refers to the teachings of Herbert W. Armstrong, which became the teaching of the Worldwide Church of God. These teachings were often at odds with traditional Christian beliefs and at times were explicitly in contradiction to the Bible. The most well-known of Armstrong’s teachings is that of Anglo-Israelism. This is the belief that modern-day Jews are not the true physical descendants of Israel. Armstrong believed the lost tribes of Israel had migrated to Western Europe and that the present-day British and Americans were actually the heirs to God’s covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Armstrong believed that this knowledge was the key factor in understanding the prophetic passages of Scripture and that it was his mission to proclaim this message in preparation for the end times.
These beliefs of the Worldwide Church of God were not new and were rooted in an anti-Semitic misinterpretation of Scripture. The Bible is clear that God has not replaced Israel with any other nation and that His plans for Israel are right on schedule and will come to pass after “the fullness of the Gentiles” have come into the Kingdom (Romans 11:25). We can be sure that all God has said is true and will take place, because of His character and consistency (Romans 3:3–4). To attempt to revise God’s plans for both Israel and the Church is to call into question His nature, His sovereignty, His omniscience, and His faithfulness.
In addition, Armstrong taught that at death one is in a sleep-like state until Jesus returns to earth. There would then be three resurrections. The first would be of the faithful Christians. Second would be the bulk of the population who would have a second chance to accept the gospel and be saved, despite the clear teaching of Scripture that there is no “second chance” for salvation after death (Hebrews 9:27). Third would be those that had acted in such a way as to be ineligible for the second chance. They, along with the group from the second resurrection that rejected the gospel, would then be punished. The Worldwide Church of God did not believe in eternal punishment in hell, but rather a complete destruction through fire, i.e., annihilationism. The Bible, however, is clear that there are two resurrections, one to eternal life in heaven for believers and one to eternal damnation for unbelievers (Revelation 20:4–14). Here again, the theories of Armstrongism and the Worldwide Church of God directly contradicted the Word of God.
Armstrong also taught that followers of Christ should remain true to all of the teachings in the Old Testament. Thus, he held the Sabbath to be holy, and in Jewish tradition the Sabbath was observed from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday. He further believed that the Old Testament festivals such as Passover and the Feast of Tabernacles must be celebrated. The Worldwide Church of God taught that modern Christians should follow the dietary laws and tithe (up to 30 percent). Armstrongism was only one of many salvation-by-works philosophies that look to the keeping of the Old Testament laws as a means of salvation. But the Bible is clear that the opposite is true. Salvation is by faith alone in Christ alone, because the Law saves no one. “A man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified” (Galatians 2:16). Clearly, the philosophies of Armstrongism and the Worldwide Church of God were just that—worldly philosophies that seek to deny the only means of salvation, the exchange at the cross of our sin for the righteousness of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17), and replace it with the Old Testament Law, which Jesus came to fulfill because we could not.
After the death of Hebert W. Armstrong, the Worldwide Church of God began to embrace a more orthodox understanding of the Christian faith. Armstrong’s successors, Joseph Tkach, Sr., and Joseph Tkach, Jr., have led the Worldwide Church of God in a more orthodox direction, rejecting British Israelism, accepting the Trinity, etc. The organization/denomination now refers to itself as Grace Communion International. A brief history of the transition from Armstrongism to Grace Communion can be found at www.gci.org/aboutus/history. Although Grace Communion has come a long way toward biblical doctrine, there are still some serious errors in their theology, such as the teaching that everyone has been reconciled to God and forgiven of sin; that everyone, prior to repentance, possesses the Holy Spirit and is a child of God.
54 comments:
Self-Appointed So-Called COG Leader/Prophet Disturbed That People Do Not Believe That Armstrognism Practices "1st Century Christianity"
You could have ended the title at "Disturbed".
First Century Christianity???
At the very best, only in a loose form of typology.
Example: Did the First Century Church hold the Passover service using fluoridated water, terry cloth towels, tupperware basins, with men and women sitting together?
Answer : No
Did the first century church fly to FOT sites around the world and stay in luxury resorts and drink Jim Beam cocktail mixers?
Answer: No
Thiel is correct to find the "Got Questions?" answer objectionable. Consider this statement:
Armstrong also taught that followers of Christ should remain true to all of the teachings in the Old Testament.
Armstrongism never taught that Christians should practice ALL of the Old Testament teachings. Not only were WCG members exempted from all of the Temple-related observances, they were also freed from whichever Old Testament practices HWA didn't like.
For instance, Jews haven't tithed since the destruction of the Second Temple, as there is no temple worship for the people to support, so need to support the priests who would do that worship. HWA, by contrast, demanded that Christians send him a tithe, a tithe-of-the-tithe plus leftover second tithe, and twice in seven years another tithe.
Jews build booths in their homes and communities where they keep the Feast of Tabernacles, now that there's no Temple in Jerusalem. Strangely, though Christianity teaches that individual believers ARE Temples of the Holy Spirit, HWA demanded that his people rent hotel rooms in locations designated by the church.
Jews won't hire non-Jews to do work on the Sabbath. HWA had no problem doing so.
And so on.
"Got Questions" appears to be a pretty standard Protestant opinion site, but it doesn't understand Judaism at all.
Actually, Got Questions pretty much describes Armstrongism to a "t". Church members still cannot face the fact that they bought into a heretical belief system.
First, are we talking about Gentile or Jewish Christianity of the First Century? Gentile Christianity observed very few of the elements of the Old Covenant (no sabbaths, no clean/unclean meats, no tithing, no circumcision etc.) There was no centralized authority/governance within either branch of the church (the only reference to a united decision by the leaders of the church as a whole is the Jerusalem council in Acts). There were no colleges, seminaries or formal programs to train upcoming ministers. They also didn't have any New Testament - their services focused on oral presentations by apostles, evangelists and elders (and any references to Scripture came from the only ones then available - the Hebrew Old Testament).
Now, if we are focusing on the Jewish portion (the minority by the second half of the century) of the church, from the available evidence, we are forced to conclude that they don't measure up there either! There was no doctrine of Anglo-Israelism extant anywhere in the world in that century. With regard to festival observance, Jewish Christians (like their Jewish brethren of the day) observed all three festival seasons at JERUSALEM - not just the Feast of Tabernacles (and, as Tonto indicated, they weren't using plastics and hotels). Moreover, all festival observance (including that by Jewish Christians) ceased for many years after the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem by the Romans. I'm also not aware of any of these groups where all possessions are held in common, and the Jews NEVER had three separate tithes (there was ONE tithe used in a number of different ways).
Yeah, I'm not seeing much of a resemblance to First Century Christianity - just delusion!
The holy days, British-Israelism, the various resurrections, etc, is not the essence of Armstrongism. The essence is church totalitarianism. This is what profoundly impacted members lives. This is the elephant in the room that Bob, the Kitcheners and other Herbie fanboys pretend doesn't exist. This sin of omission is deception.
We don't know what type of towel Jesus girded himself with to wash his disciples feet Tonto.
Nor do we know the precise type of basin Jesus used to contain the water.
Jerusalem drawn from a well water ?
Answer: That is not the point.
“For some reason though he failed to mention the abject corruption that has plagued the church for the last 80 some years, the hundreds of splintered factions, the sexual assaults by church leaders, the theft of tithe money by top leaders for their own use, the rapes, the pedophilia, the stalkings and other perversions committed by leaders, the preaching of false doctrines that have enslaved members, and the current batch of perverted COG leaders leading splinter cults.”
Here are some helpful suggestions for avoiding some of the evil:
Save your family from destruction, from arrogant and malicious petty tyrants, and from old sex maniacs, sex perverts and predators. Do not go with Gerald Flurry.
Save yourself from endless, nonsensical, mind-numbing noise, and from the truly shocking destitution that results from so-called “common” theft. Do not go with David Pack.
Save yourself from a make-believe world of prophetic fiction where you support a false witness and ex-con. Do not go with Ronald Weinland.
Save yourself from demons, pagans, Fake News, and mental retardation. Do not go with Bob Thiel.
Save yourself from needless confusion, and from supporting a rebel bum. Do not go with James Malm.
Miller Jones said...
First, are we talking about Gentile or Jewish Christianity of the First Century? Gentile Christianity observed very few of the elements of the Old Covenant (no sabbaths, no clean/unclean meats, no tithing, no circumcision etc.) There was no centralized authority/governance within either branch of the church (the only reference to a united decision by the leaders of the church as a whole is the Jerusalem council in Acts).
Ahhh yes, Miller Jones showing up again to make a fool of himself, again. Priceless and entertaining!
Galatians 3:28. Seriously, amateurs should not try to handle adult concepts.
First Century Christianity practiced Pagan Mystery religions that preceded Jesus by thousands of years.
There's a street preacher guy roaming around in my city lately who sounds an awful lot like an Armstrongite in many ways, though he credits other sources for his inspiration (you could say he's sort of his own grab-bag of esoteric American doctrine from a century or two ago). He also thinks he's successfully purged his Christianity back to its "original form", if there ever was a particular form to begin with. I can't help chuckling when I've heard him shouting his "exciting new restored doctrine".
Any ACOG leader, even a complete amateur like Bob Thiel, could teach a college level course in fraud denial and obfuscation.
BB
Anonymous 10/29 @ 7:02,
Why do you think that the Apostle Paul was explaining the role of the law to the saints of Galatia? If they all understood it, do you think that he would have wasted his time on the epistle that has been preserved for us? As with many of his epistles, Paul was addressing PROBLEMS in those congregations. Likewise, if the saints there were all united and on the same page, why bother to point out that they shouldn't regard themselves as Gentile or Jew, slave or free, male or female? Hmmmmmm, any chance he wrote that because they regarded themselves as being one or the other?
Miller Jones said...
Gentile Christianity observed very few of the elements of the Old Covenant (no sabbaths, no clean/unclean meats, no tithing, no circumcision etc.)
Very true: Jehovah's Witnesses get this right and are much closer to historic 1st century Christianity than Armstrongism.
well, "GotQuestions" clearly doesn't understand the bible, or what HWA taught concerning the resurrections.....
not surprised.
I was first introduced to the idea of Armstrongism being First Century Christianity back in the Eighties. In a sermon somewhere, I can't remember where, Herman Hoeh spoke about talking to a Jewish scholar. I think the conversation may have taken place on a trip that Hoeh made to Jerusalem. Hoeh described the beliefs of the WCG to the scholar and the scholar replied that the WCG must be the "heir to the Jerusalem Church (i.e., First Century Church)." I took this to mean those Jews who recognized Christ as the Messiah but retained some Jewish practices as a part of their religion. Remember there was no New Testament then, nor were there creeds or systematized dogma. But this notion of the Jewish scholar, though readily accepted by Hoeh, is incorrect.
Armstrongism is an instance not of the Jerusalem Church but of the Circumcision Party (Judaizers). The article on Judaizers defines this view as follows:
"Judaizers are Christians who teach it is necessary to adopt Jewish customs and practices, especially those found in the Law of Moses, to be saved."
I would object to the use of the term "Christian" in this definition. I think that is simply meant by the writers to convey that Judaizers had some kind of recognition of Christ. To put a point on the issue: There is an infinite distance between retaining Jewish cultural values in Christian practice and requiring elements of Mosaic Law for salvation. The Jerusalem Church, if it were a genuine Christian Church, would do the former. The Circumcision Party and Armstrongism definitely did the latter. The former is Christianity and the latter is a Jesus Plus cult. In the former salvation is correlated with living works. In the latter, salvation is,in part, generated by works and works of the superseded Old Covenant, at that. Paul took a stand against Judaizers in Galatians. This is also a stand against Armstrongism, the latter day instantiation of the Circumcision Party.
5.47 AM
Jehovah's Witnesses congregations clap at their services when a young person renounces going to college and settling to become a bus driver or similar instead. Now tell me whether that's godly? A visit to their dissident sites will warn reasonable people away. They also followed Herb with the 1975 prediction, and did not return the life savings that members donated to their church just prior to this date. How moral was that?
Miller Jones said...
Anonymous 10/29 @ 7:02,
Why do you think that the Apostle Paul was explaining the role of the law to the saints of Galatia? If they all understood it, do you think that he would have wasted his time on the epistle that has been preserved for us? As with many of his epistles, Paul was addressing PROBLEMS in those congregations. Likewise, if the saints there were all united and on the same page, why bother to point out that they shouldn't regard themselves as Gentile or Jew, slave or free, male or female? Hmmmmmm, any chance he wrote that because they regarded themselves as being one or the other?
October 30, 2019 at 3:57 AM
The problem Paul was addressing in Galatians was CIRCUMCISION. PERIOD.
Circumcision was the outward sign of accepting the OLD covenant, which was a quid-pro-quo with the children of Israel, ie obey ME and receive the promised land. We are now under a NEW covenant, which is rewarded with immortality in a spirit body.
Paul's teaching to the Galatians had NOTHING to do with the Ten Commandments, which is your entire attempt to wiggle out of, especially the fourth. You sound like Joel Olsteen or Franklin Graham.
The letter in Acts 15 addressed this exact issue, and the NEW gentile believers (beginners) were reminded to not slip back into their pagan ways and were given four directives to observe. (Which were not "Noahide laws btw.) Sexual immorality is condemned in the seventh commandment, so if the "law" was done away with, then why are new believers being instructed to observe the seventh command?
Nice try, MJ
Near Earth Object,
Your comments and posts always provoke thought, and I appreciate your contributions to these forums. I am, however, a little concerned with your reservations about the use of the term Christian. We don't want to do the same thing that Armstrong and his followers did/do on a regular basis - not allowing anyone with views which differ from our own to be recognized as a "true" Christian. We need to all get away from the notion that knowledge/understanding = Christian. People can be confused about many things or adopt notions about things that are wrong - that doesn't mean they aren't Christians. And, just for the record, there are some Christians present within the ACOG's. If someone repents, accepts Christ as their Savior and receives God's Spirit, they ARE a Christian!
Anonymous 10/30 @ 8:21,
You assembled a beautiful straw man!
What complete idiot wrote those last paragraphs of the original article. I was preparing for to read it all until I saw that NOTHING resembled what wcg taught, like the "dead being in a sleeping state" AND the BI thing about jews not being Israel.
What a moron. I'll skip this thread.
nck
Anon MJ critic:
The only thing I'll comment on is circumcision. The word has different inferences, and in Galatians it is short for ritual conversion.
Anon MJ critic:
The only thing I'll comment on is circumcision. The word has different inferences, and in Galatians it is short for ritual conversion.
October 30, 2019 at 10:37 AM
If you call getting the skin of the tip from your penis being cut off as "ritual conversion", then I guess we agree.
5.47 AM
"Jehovah's Witnesses congregations clap at their services when a young person renounces going to college and settling to become a bus driver or similar instead. Now tell me whether that's godly?"
Where did I say early Christians were paragons of intellectualism? In fact early Christianity was characterized by working-class superstition, read eye-witness Roman analyst Celsus.
Anon 8:21, you wrote:
"The problem Paul was addressing in Galatians was CIRCUMCISION. PERIOD."
That is not correct. There are a number of places where it is clear that circumcision alone does not render up a meaningful statement, for example:
Galatians 3:24 - "The Law was put in charge to lead us to Christ …" Circumcision, even in the fullness of its covenantal meaning, does not have the scope to give this statement contextual meaning.
Since Christ affirmed nine of the commandments and transformed the fourth one, there is no foundation for stating that there is a hidden attempt here to undermine the 10 commandments. Galatians has everything to do with the Old Covenant in which the 10 commandments are embedded. The spirit of the 10 and of other laws was transferred to the New Covenant.
Jesus Christ gave a declaration of what the New Covenant consisted of in the Sermon on the Mount. He gave us the whole package. Then along came the WCG and they commissioned Herman Hoeh to scan the Old Testament to see what Jesus mistakenly left out, what from the Old Covenant Christians are supposed to still keep as if Christ did not know what he was talking about. (Hoeh's work was published in the Good News magazine.)
The temerity. The unmitigated presumption.
NEO 10/30 @ 3:43,
Well said - I agree (as is related in a number of past posts on my blog).
Reality about the Tkach's? Basically, all that they did was to officially switch the WCG from the Jewish Christian mold to Paul's Gentile Christian mold. Of course, this second mold and Noahchide Law were always denied as ever having existed by HWA and his lackeys. They taught instead that Gentiles lived as Jewish Christians until Simon Magus hijacked the gentile churches, starting proto-Catholicism. This theory is in no way historically accurate, as anyone who has ever read Irenaeus or the works of the other antenicene church leaders realizes.
BB
BB
I like what you said. It is an oversimplification.
Re: Why the Church booklet
The COG movement was born from a Revolutionary mindset.
As a matter of fact it was claimed that "2/3rd of the bible was prophecy/or yet to occur."
HWA's uncle printed communist pamphlets amongst others andn young HWA worked there. The ongoing discussion in 1910 communism between bolsjewiks and mensjewiks, later stalinists and leninists is whether a people or group of people is able to transform itself into "revolutionary man" OR if a Revolutionary Guard or 1st fruits should set the example for the masses.
In HWA's philosophy the people of Israel had failed god and humanity by being man. Their first rebellion against god was their attempt to set up a king rather than live "under law' and be ruled by judges.
HWA's philosophy contained that "the church" was to be the Revolutionary Guard for implementing the Kingdom of God and not fail God in this regard. LATER the MASSES would follow.
This discussion surfaces in EVERY REVOLUTIONARY movement since the dawn of time. An elite to show the way to enlightenment or mass conversion.
What the Tkaches did was not only abandon the idea of a revolutionary guard as "salvation" became available for all now instead by invitation by god almighty they also placed the wcg membership under the strain of being "the last to understand this concept."
This was counterculture and collapse would be imminent. "Knowledge" reserved for this elite (although NOT a prerequisite for salvation) like BI was cut and the foundation of the movement crumbled in rapid pace.
Perhaps a good thing for detractors to see an organisation they oppose disappear but not a good thing for people heavily invested into or having to reconcile contradicting concepts.
nck
Leaves us to the question.
Was Jesus the Che Gueverra of his time?
nck
"ritual conversion"
It was a bit more involved - one must agree to observe the entire Torah, written and oral ("traditions of the elders"), undergo circumcision (if male) and be immersed (baptized) and if living in Israel before 70 CE, pay the temple tax and present an offering ("sacrifice"). Modern conversion to Orthodox Judaism is similar.
At 9:44 AM on Oct. 30, nck promised, "I'll skip this thread."
For one heady moment there, I was tempted to give up my habitual skepticism and believe there could be a merciful god in heaven after all. Then I scrolled down and saw that all hope for the existence of a benevolent deity had been dashed, less than three hours later.
Paul's letter to the Galatians was totally about how they were keeping the law for salvation. Whether the old covenant law, or the "universal" (as some call it) law it doesn't matter. The law was never intended as a means for salvation. That was the Galatian's problem, they thought that keeping the law could earn them brownie points with God. Just as that was a problem in the WCG.
Many, if not most Sabbath keepers (I'm a Sabbath keeper) like to twist Gal. 4:10 into saying the Galatians were going back into paganism. They were not. They were legalistically keeping the Sabbath and feasts thinking that is how one pleases God. God is not impressed by anyones law keeping, even if they do it correctly. (reference the Pharisees)
All the law does is show us what is sin. Nothing more. If we keep the law we are unprofitable servants. It earns us nothing. If we break the law and not confess our sin to Jesus we earn death.
Law keeping has absolutely nothing to do with earning salvation. Some of us knew this even in the days of WCG.
Nck
Che Gueverra clubbed people to death. He was an animal.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
"ritual conversion"
It was a bit more involved - one must agree to observe the entire Torah, written and oral ("traditions of the elders"), undergo circumcision (if male) and be immersed (baptized) and if living in Israel before 70 CE, pay the temple tax and present an offering ("sacrifice"). Modern conversion to Orthodox Judaism is similar.
October 31, 2019 at 8:02 AM
So basically you are agreeing with my position on circumcision. Thank you.
Blogger nck said...
Leaves us to the question.
Was Jesus the Che Gueverra of his time?
nck
October 31, 2019 at 12:27 AM
Not too sure about that perv Gueverra nck, but he certainly was a spiritual anarchist.
Anonymous said...
Paul's letter to the Galatians was totally about how they were keeping the law for salvation. Whether the old covenant law, or the "universal" (as some call it) law it doesn't matter. The law was never intended as a means for salvation. That was the Galatian's problem, they thought that keeping the law could earn them brownie points with God. Just as that was a problem in the WCG.
Many, if not most Sabbath keepers (I'm a Sabbath keeper) like to twist Gal. 4:10 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] into saying the Galatians were going back into paganism. They were not. They were legalistically keeping the Sabbath and feasts thinking that is how one pleases God. God is not impressed by anyones law keeping, even if they do it correctly. (reference the Pharisees)
All the law does is show us what is sin. Nothing more. If we keep the law we are unprofitable servants. It earns us nothing. If we break the law and not confess our sin to Jesus we earn death.
Law keeping has absolutely nothing to do with earning salvation. Some of us knew this even in the days of WCG.
October 31, 2019 at 11:20 AM
So, what's your point? This is mumbo-jumbo.
Blogger Near_Earth_Object said...
Anon 8:21, you wrote:
"The problem Paul was addressing in Galatians was CIRCUMCISION. PERIOD."
That is not correct. There are a number of places where it is clear that circumcision alone does not render up a meaningful statement, for example:
Galatians 3:24 - "The Law was put in charge to lead us to Christ …" Circumcision, even in the fullness of its covenantal meaning, does not have the scope to give this statement contextual meaning.
Since Christ affirmed nine of the commandments and transformed the fourth one, there is no foundation for stating that there is a hidden attempt here to undermine the 10 commandments. Galatians has everything to do with the Old Covenant in which the 10 commandments are embedded. The spirit of the 10 and of other laws was transferred to the New Covenant.
Jesus Christ gave a declaration of what the New Covenant consisted of in the Sermon on the Mount. He gave us the whole package. Then along came the WCG and they commissioned Herman Hoeh to scan the Old Testament to see what Jesus mistakenly left out, what from the Old Covenant Christians are supposed to still keep as if Christ did not know what he was talking about. (Hoeh's work was published in the Good News magazine.)
The temerity. The unmitigated presumption.
I demolished this post from you NEO, but Gary did not let it go through.
Don't worry, more to follow.
October 30, 2019 at 3:43 PM
12:29pm No, it's not mumbo jumbo, you just don't understand that God's law and the Mt. Sinai covenant are different. The covenant is an agreement between God and Israel that if they obey his laws then he will bless them. In this agreement God made a way for them to be forgiven of breaking the law when necessary and that way was the sacrificial system and the Levitical priesthood.
When Israel broke the covenant that system ended but God's law didn't end. Jesus' death officially ended that agreement and system but it didn't do away with God's law.
It's not mumbo jumbo, it makes perfect sense. Except for those who refuse to understand.
12:32 Talk about mumbo jumbo, you make no sense at all.
12:32 I see that the mumbo jumbo was mostly neo's, but the way you post is mind blowing.
I wish people would learn how to quote others correctly and then comment.
12:29 The point is that God's law has existed since creation. The breaking of said law is the only reason that we needed a New Covenant and a savior. The Mt. Sinai covenant was merely an additional covenant needed because Abraham's children were transgressing God's law, that Sinai covenant ended at Jesus' death. The Promise covenant was the promise of a savior to die for the world's transgressions. Law breaking kills, law keeping doesn't save.
11:05
Retired Prof. You don't care how "everything" was revealed and confirmed to hwa. First the revolutionary concept of starting "self rule" under cog7. Then shifting to a rule through a "first group as pacemakers." You are not seeing the 1905 headlines and communist discussions in that as it swayed the American worker into huge riots and civil unrest until 1920??
Hwas ideas preceded "an intense 6 month library study."
Non of you knows HWA. It is too painful to accept the truth and history of ideas. Rather repeat 2000 year old discussions then the 1920 ones that America swept under the rug and are to painful to accept.
Nck
Can churches - any church - be trusted in uncovering the actual origins of Christianity?
Here is researcher R.G. Price's take on how it all happened:
“...the Jesus of Paul, was a figure that was “revealed through scriptural divination.” As to the nature of that figure, that may be difficult to pin down, but the point is that the figure of Jesus came not from some person named Jesus, but from interpretations of the Jewish scriptures, that’s the main point. It’s certainly possible that within that context, some subgroups described a purely celestial figure and others described and early being, but in any event, all of the descriptions came from scripture.
And what I’m focusing on now a lot in my research is the role of millenarianism in the rise of the cult. As it turns out, the year 44 was a sort of height of millenarianism within the Roman world. This looks a lot like the time that Paul started his efforts.
The interesting thing about this is that the Romans saw the new era as the end of Roman rule. Indeed the Etruscan priests at the head of Roman religion were in a frenzy of predictions about the end of Roman rule around this time. At Qumran, what we see is Jews taking the opposite side of that coin. Jews saw the new era as their time: Roman rule was going to end as Jews would become the new world power, ruled by the Priestly Messiah. The War Scroll from Qumran talks specifically about how this would all happen with the war of Armageddon.
The Paul comes along, and what does Paul do? He tells the Gentiles (the Romans) that instead of the new era being one where Romans would lose power and the Jews would dominate, the new era was going to be the final era, where the whole world would be destroyed and all people who believed in the Jewish messiah would be reborn in a new heavenly kingdom, free from the strife of the material world.
This is where Paul, I believe, was in conflict with James and the others. James and the others were preaching more along the lines of what we see at Qumran. They were preaching a Jesus who would punish the Romans and bring about Jewish salvation.
And who is Jesus? Jesus is Joshua. There were several cults of Joshua in the first century that believed Joshua would return and be the messiah who would lead the Jews into the new era. Jesus is just a re-interpreted version of an eternal heavenly Joshua, much like Enoch and Melchizedek had been re-interpreted as eternal heavenly beings.
I think what happened was that in the 40s CE, during the height of millenarianism, this Joshua cult sprung up and Paul glommed on to it and claimed to have had visions of the resurrection and developed a line of theology that appealed to the people who thought they were going to be on the bad end of the new era, giving them a way to hitch their wagon to the new savior. (The prophecies were that a powerful “race of men” would fall and a “race” that was oppressed would rise to power).
Then, when the First Jewish-Roman War happened and the Jews were decimated, the Gospel of Mark was written as a sort of statement against the Jews who had believed, like those at Qumran and, I argue, James and his crew, that the new era would be one of Jewish supremacy.”
Wow.
To summarize 9:51.
Revolution!!!!!!! (social revolution, social justice)
Which is the point of my remarks on first century christianity (born out of opression, slavery and technological progress in communication and transport through the Roman Empire) and armstrongism (born out of revolutionary quaker stock, early 20th century american communism and worker strikes and technological progress (1939 world of tomorrow fair) and the great depression and the rise of the american empire.
nck
3.27 PM
Early Christians did not, like the JWs, clap or in any way encourage each other to bury their pounds in the ground. Dumbing down your followers to make them easier to control is morally obscene. Why don't you join the Jehovahs Witnesses if you're so keen on them?
"... accepting the Trinity ..."
Which originated in Egypt thousands of years before Jesus supposedly became the Son of God.
After Christians plagiarized the Mystery Religion of Osiris they had to destroy pagan books and wipe out the religion to hide the true origin of their fake literal Messiah.
Paul had a cosmic Jesus because the Mystery religion godman was never a literal person in the first place.
12:25 & 12:27 Can you please provide us with written resources from prior to 10 ad proving those comments?
3:49 yeah, whom was st Jerome quoting when he said that all ancient religions practiced the trinity.
I know people think hindu have billions of gods. That is not so. They are all manifestations of the ONE principle. So hindu are billionarians rather than trinitarians.
Nck
nck, St. Jerome didn't write prior to 10a.d. and why would he have to be quoting anyone? Perhaps he was just stating what he had heard from others.
My point? There is absolutely no proof that the supposed pagan virgin born, dying, and rising gods ever existed except for writings from after Jesus was supposedly alive.
7:29
I think you make an excellent point. I'm not judging. Oral history or access to alexandrias library.... Who is to say. I've been there. It's a, state of the art library. The old one is a parking lot.
Nck
nck
đź‘Ť
Bill
Did the first followers of Jesus consider him 'god'? The first ones were Jews and unlikely that they would believe that there is another God. The gospels were written years/decades after his death. The gospel of Mark, believed to be by some to be the first gospel written though not the first NT book written, mentions him as the son of God after baptism. Matthew and Luke both claim that he was born of a virgin. John, the last gospel written, claim he coexisted with God the Father.
IF Jesus did not have a human father as asserted by Matthew and Luke, what was his tribe (Num 1:18)? Since only in Matthew and Luke we find the virgin birth, the two gospels are the only ones with genealogies to present the Davidic lineage (Luke forgot the Solomon ancestry). IF Mary was of the tribe of Judah and descended from David, would she have been able to pass lineage and crown (Num 1:18, Jer 33:17)?
Jehosheba ... In 2 Kings 11, Athaliah killed all the remaining royal heirs (v1). Notice that the next verse tells us that Jehosheba hid Joash to preserve the line. Question is why Jehosheba was not killed though she was the daughter of King Joram. IF she bore a son, would her son be eligible to become king? The answer is NO. The Davidic kingdom is patrilineal, passed from father to son (Jer 33:17).
There is an interesting youtube video on Bart D Ehrman's channel titled 'The Defenders Conference 2019 - Gospel Differences Panel Discussion'.
"Then, when the First Jewish-Roman War happened and the Jews were decimated.."
Well, you could say the Qumran faction* (James crowd) got their apocalypse, but the result was 'negative' (no 1000-year Judaic-centric utopia.) This proved Paul's unpopular universalistic Christianity prescient and catapulted Pauline Theology to the fore!
Now time for damage control:
- Enter Gospel writers -
"Open your Septuagints & Homeric literature and create some good material!"
*along with RG Price's book, see also Dead Seas Scrolls' scholar John Alegro's book on Qumran
sorry wrong thread. will fix
km
Post a Comment