I’ve watched professional wrestling for as long I can remember. Yeah, it’s fake, but it’s still fun.
The older I got, the more I understood what wrestling was all about. I learned that, in professional wrestling, there’s this thing called Kayfabe. Kayfabe has a fascinating history that goes back to the county fair carnival days of the 1800s.
Wrestling Kayfabe started around the 1920s. Wrestling Kayfabe began as the secret code of silence between the wrestlers and the referees. And these guys made a vow to never reveal the secrets of wrestling’s not being legitimate sport.
Today, wrestling Kayfabe has all changed. Starting around 1986, the wrestling alliances admitted that their matches are NOT genuine sporting competitions. Today, they acknowledge that professional wrestling is all staged. Pre-determined. Entertainment and not sport.
Right now, Kayfabe is an agreement between the audience and the wrestlers -- where both the wrestlers and the audience all acknowledge that it’s fake. And they all agree to pretend that it’s real.
Now, why would both the performers and the audience come to this agreement? I mean, in any agreement, you always ask, “What does everybody get out of the arrangement?”
First, the wrestlers get paid.
Second, the guy who owns the wrestling organization makes profit.
And what about number three? What does the audience get? Well, the audience gets to be entertained.
When a person pays money to watch a wrestling match, it’s a catharsis for that person. It’s similar to when you go see a movie.
When you go see a motion picture, you suspend disbelief. Yes, while you’re sitting in the theater eating your popcorn, you’re suspending your disbelief and simply enjoying yourself.
This exact same thing goes on in professional wrestling. People are willing to spend money so they can sit there, suspend their disbelief, and enjoy the show.
That’s the entertainment world. Movies and wrestling. Now, let’s talk about the religious world.
The Sabbath-keeping COGs have a similar relationship with their audience. We call their audience the membership. And everybody involved in this arrangement gets something out of it.
First, the ministers get paid.
Second, the organizations take in money.
And third, the brethren suspend disbelief by pretending that their church is really doing the work of God. That’s what the brethren get out of this relationship. The pretense that their church is preaching the Gospel and feeding the flock.
I know this statement is offensive to some but, just like the wrestling fan who suspends disbelief as he sees these performers smashing each other with fake punches, members of the COGs suspend disbelief as they hear their leaders talk about how they’re preaching the Gospel.
And I say that they’re suspending disbelief because they’re NOT preaching the Gospel. Too many times, they’re only accomplishment is sheep stealing.
The most recent example of this is the UCG/COGWA Reno NV sheep-stealing debacle. (See the February 9, 2020 “Banned...” article on the subject.)
Since the 1970s (starting with the Ambassador Review), people have been calling for reform in the Armstrong COGs. If reform is really going to happen, the first step has to be the removal of all the doctrines that HWA added to the teachings he learned from CG7. HWA added crap doctrines like headline theology, setting dates, racism, three-tithe system, church eras, end-time apostleship, top-down government, one-true church, marking/disfellowshipping, anti-science, etc.
As long as current COGs refuse to reject Armstrongism from their belief systems, they are stuck with a Kayfabe Religion. It’s all fake.
64 comments:
Yeah.
Karl Marx called religion "The opium of the people."
Nck
The problem is, Wes, HWA's lackeys made him into a Kayfabe apostle. May as well call him "Hulk Armstrong" or Herbert "the Rock" Armstrong. So, many of those who are attending the various splinters look to him as their apostle, a quasi-Biblical figure through whom was revealed all of the add-ons to the GG Rupert or COG-7 packages. They don't want to get rid of HWA's various hooks, favorite conspiracy theories, borrowed and plagiarized doctrines, national identities, or end times time table. To them, those are what made the WCG "God's True Church". They refuse to go back to "Sardis".
I believe that at this point, we have a failed movement that has become so bastardized that it could not possibly be used to get out any sort of end time warning or message. It is almost as if God has been trying to tell us that it's still very premature for that type of message, and if Jewish sources are correct, make that over 200 years premature. And, we used to snicker to ourselves as we noted that William Miller had been 130 years off in his timing!
BB
Which raises the question: Is Gerald Weston a face or a heel? What about Dennis?
Dave Pack is definitely a heel. Is James Malm a face who became a heel? Bob Thiel desperately wants to be a face, but he's really a misfit like Andy Kaufman.
I think that Tonto is kayfabe. I used to watch the lone ranger as a kid, and there is no way that he is the Tonto here. In fact, Jay Siverheels, who played the real Tonto actually died in 1980.
Nonetheless, I could imagine a modern day kayfabe wrestling match between BYKER BOB vs TONTO, both of which have great names for a wrestling match. It might go like this...
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the main event.
In this corner, weighing in at 225 pounds, undefeated in 138 fights, the terror of route 66, adorned in the Harley Davidson black and orange trunks, the current world heavyweight champeeeeeen, BYKER BOB !
And, in this corner, weighing in at 218 pounds, before drying after a shower, the contender, the champion of the plains, wearing a combination tan deer hide, with Hi Ho Silver trim, fighting for wild west justice, COG native American reparations... Its TONTO!
Both dance around the stage, glaring at each other, when the bell rings. Both come out, Bible in hand, when- what do you know-they simultaneously slap each other in the head with the the Holy books and knock each other out at the exact same moment!
A draw is declared.
Suddenly NCK climbs thru the ropes, amidst jeers and boos, raises his hands in the air and declares himself the WWF champion by reason of default by the dual knockout of Tonto and Byker Bob. A riot then ensues in the stands, and the police are called.
Wes White , in the role of Vince McMahon gets paid millions for being the promoter and syndicator of this sham!
I would pay money for that show, wouldn't you?
Great article
Lol
In the 1980s there was no suspended belief. I mean it was pretty impressive to have a multi million circulation monthly magazine, a leader who was travelling 300 days out of the year visiting world leaders and church attendance that was populating 16,000 people in just one Feast site.
Now we have the likes of a Dave Pack who said he fulfilled Matt. 24:14 three years ago and understood what no man ever could understand and that is, just what really is the true gospel. His membership is told that they are the micro flock who the Father will give the Kingdom unto in the near future. All 2500 members have not suspended their belief one inch for a message that is too good to not believe.
I think the more apropos analogy would be what happened in the Roman Colosseum at a time in the past. The leaders profit from the gate fee, the "lion" gets to eat, the audience of "Banned" spectators gets entertained and the member having been trained to never suspend belief, gets devoured.
HA HA "Grabby" at 3:43
Byker Bob and I are going to have a grudge match, "Loser Leaves Banned" rematch. We are going to team up as a tag team, going up against the usurpers "NCK" and his cohort "NEAR EARTH OBJECT".
I aint no sucker, and this will be "PAY PER VIEW ONLY", and we are cutting Wes White out of the gate receipts!
Cant wait to see NCK in his tights, and a Mexican styled "Lucha Linche Wrestling Mask". May the best team win! ;-)
All religion is kayfabe. The preachers get paid, and the laity suspend their disbelief in what is obvious myth so they can deny the reality of death.
Can you stay here next to me?
We'll just keep drivin'
Because of you I see a light
The Buick's a Century, a '73 like you
Some strange religion
...
Now I know there's no easy ride
Some strange religion...
- Mark Lanegan, lyrics
Superb analogy!
Well said Wes! Like JFK put it: “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie—deliberate, contrived and dishonest—but the myth—persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.” Both lies and myths are promoted in society for our “entertainment” rather than enlightenment whereby we are all made a mockery of.
History is a fascinating subject. Did things go astray when Herbie added his peculiar doctrines onto COG7th Day teachings? Did it happen when Loma died? Some folks say that things got off track with William Miller, and that all of the churches which sprang from his movement are consequently flawed and twisted. Others would trace the flaw back to the formation of the Seventh Day Baptists and would say that they were the product of carrying the ideas of the Protestant Reformation too far (trying to recapture the "purity" of the early Church).
Unfortunately, most Christians are ignorant of the history of their religion - especially its origins. It is apparent to me that Herbert Armstrong's interpretation of that history was more flawed than most and ignored a great deal of the available evidence. When one compares what's in the New Testament with the other Christian writings of the First and Second Century, it is clear to me that early Jewish Christians kept the Sabbath and most early Jewish Christians met on Sunday. In other words, both traditions existed almost from the very beginning!
Moreover, most of what we now consider to be the "fundamental" doctrines of the Christian Church were unknown to the saints of the First Century. Our notions about monotheism, trinitarianism, binitarianism, transubstantiation, fundamentalism, literalism, the afterlife, baptism, etc. would have bewildered First Century Christians. We tend to forget that the complex theological ideas (and the arguments which they produced) are the product of almost two thousand years of human thought. Hell's bells, most of us forget that First Century Christians didn't even have access to most of the writings that we refer to as the New Testament!
In my humble opinion, we start going off track when we go beyond things like love, kindness, patience, mercy, faith, repentance and prayer. In fact, we get into trouble when we focus too much attention on the few important symbols that we have (e.g. the cross, baptism, the bread and the wine, offerings, etc.). Humans like to embellish things and make them more complicated than they need to be. What are the essentials? What more do we HAVE to add to being saved by grace through faith in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ?
Frankly, it isn't ANY set of doctrines that identifies who is and isn't a Christian. I believe Christ said that the love we have for each other would mark us as one of his disciples - not your position on the exact nature of God or what happens to us after we die!
oops! Should have read: most early Jewish Christians kept the Sabbath and most early GENTILE Christians met on Sunday.
Nck
Many have made the point that communism and other ideologies are the opium of the people as well. People just switched gods.
Which is why I have unplugged from the mainstream media false god. The MSM is the crack of religion.
12:33
Communism sprang from genuine Maslovian needs.
I agree that MSM provids opium as far as entertainment and consumerism is promoted through kardashian godesses. All ideologies may sooth and distract more than solve the challenges of our time.
They are distractions from what really matters but might sooth the soul at times. Therefore I agree with Miller 10:01 regarding the fundamentals.
btw Isn't wrestling the king of sports? The turkish oily slippery kind, the japanese kind pushing special humans out of the magic circle, or the olympic kind and the sole entertaining kayfabe kind.
nck
A perfect description of the participants of this blog:
Rom 1:22 - Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Getting back to the original post by Wes White.
Doesn't the post remarks Wes contradict the fact you are running live webcasts of Ronald L Dart old sermons ?
What do you believe in Wes? The same as Ron or not?
I would go a step further and say that many people go through life like that...suspending belief and treating life like a movie. They just do what they think is expected, depending on the script they "bought into".
this is one explanation for all of the false members in the Church....clueless about the true mission of the Church, and proper behavior of genuine members...they're just playing the game. (this applies to some that are ministers as well)
"...most early Jewish Christians kept the Sabbath and most early GENTILE Christians met on Sunday."
a completely false statement.
I agree, they are full of their own importance.
No need to pay money grabby you can see them in church for free.
Anonymous 2/20 @ 6:11,
Sorry, it's the Armstrong narrative about Christian Sabbath observance that is wrong. There is abundant historical evidence that meeting on Sunday preceded the formation of a recognizable Roman Catholic Church (In other words, they did NOT change the Sabbath to Sunday). There was NO tradition amongst the Gentiles regarding Sabbath observance. Sabbath observance was a Jewish phenomenon.
If you believe the narrative recorded in the book of Acts, then you must confront the fact of the Jerusalem Council. The controversy swirled around the belief of some of the Jewish Christians of Judea that Gentile Christians in other parts of the empire should observe the precepts outlined in the Torah. The council clearly REJECTED such notions. They determined that becoming Jewish was NOT a prerequisite of being a Christian.
You may also want to take a look at The Didache, and the writings of Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Martyr (among others). The notion that most Christians continued to observe the Sabbath until the Emperor Constantine made Sunday the official day of worship is simply NOT supported by the historical evidence available to us.
Miller:
You raise a complex issue. It leads to the question: Are Armstrongites Christian or non-Christian? It is easy to see that they are non-Christian based on their theology but what about your criterion - the practice of love? Might not some Armstrongists be classed as Christian based on the practice of love (along with some profession of Christ - no matter how flawed)?
Paul wrote of the Circumcision Party:
"...if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you... You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace."
Unequivocally, Paul asserts that those who select OT ceremonial Laws (Erga) and include them in the New Covenant, not as just distinctives but as conditions for salvation, have rendered Christ of none effect in their lives. This principle subsumes Armstrongism and means that Armstrongists are outside the pale of Christianity - love or no love.
No doubt Armstrongists have some rejoinder to this. Herman Hoeh, I believe, was behind the carrying over of OT laws into the New Covenant for Armstrongism. The inclusion of keeping the Sabbath in the New Covenant as a condition for salvation required this kind of response from Hoeh or whomever. I do not now have the article he wrote about this.
Does love cover a multitude of sins? Even sins of heresy?
NEO,
I would say that sincerity, repentance, faith in Christ and love are essential elements. Hence, I'm confident that we could find Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, Armstrongites and others who would meet that criteria. In short, anyone who has God's Holy Spirit is a member of Christ's Church! Although we can discern the fruits of the Spirit, only God knows what the membership list looks like in the final analysis. We can exclude folks from membership in human organizations, but none of us has the final say about membership in the ekklesia of God.
To some of our anonymous posters,
I would say that anyone who makes sweeping statements and fails to offer any evidence to support those statements is the one who is full of him/herself! Humility begins with a willingness to acknowledge that it's possible you're wrong.
ANON 501 asks if I believe the same as the late Ron Dart. I am sure there may be some small areas where I might disagree with Ron, but (for the most part) he and I are on the same page. Have been for decades. And praise be to God that perfect doctrinal uniformity is no longer required or desired in order for Christians to work together. The days of demanding perfect doctrinal uniformity are gone forever. I now believe that, anytime you have two people who believe the exact same things on everything, one of them is redundant. (That's a joke. Please don't get all excited.)
I guess my beliefs can pretty much be summed up as being really close to those of the Denver Conference CG7. While their doctrine of the Holy Spirit is Binitarian/Trinitarian neutral, I am strongly Binitarian. And, while they don't promote the annual high days, they do allow for them to be practiced by their membership. I am a strong believer in and observer of the annual high days.
Hope that clears it up.
-----Wes White
The HWA era was effectively just 25 years, from about 1947 to 1972. The first 13 years was basically a radio ministry and the amount of members, even by 1947 was only around 50.
Armstrong never built local infrastructure and never really developed an effective management system either, and relied way too much on one man at the top to micro manage virtually everything across the world. Cracks started to develop in an unsustainable system, demonstrated by things like the 1974 split , and free press like the Ambassador Report.
Thus , the HWA empire was never effectively stress tested, was top heavy, and really , never fully functional. It happens all the time in business, with the start up founder hanging on too long, and meddling in stuff that is way over his head. The management of a large corporation is a real art form, very sophisticated, and requires a lot of personal development beyond having a couple of new novel ideas.
In order for things to grow, in many ways they have to become simpler and leaner. Armstrong made things more complex as it grew, guaranteeing its eventual tipping point. Also, HWA as the sole icon and branding , guaranteed a collapse once he was no longer the guru mentor. He created dependence on him , rather than individual empowerment and autonomy under God.
The 30% annual growth rate thing is unsustainable in human activity, and like a market bubble, will have a severe correction. If you view the COG HWA legacy universe as about 25,000 total today , starting with 19 members in Oregon in 1934, one sees that the rate of return over the last 86 years is 8.71%.
This is the equivalent growth rate of the Dow Jones Industrial average over the last 120 years. So whenever you see any organization "defying gravity" realize that it is not sustainable over the longer term. The WCG and it descendants have had to face a 25 year decline in order to shake out excesses , mismanagement, and poor structure.
It appears that there are still more lessons to learn amongst those groups. Whan one sees companies like Sears , once a behemoth and pioneer end up in bankruptcy and closure, it is apparent that sustainability over many generations is a very hard thing to achieve for any human organization. It appears to me that the COG universe is ripe for disruption, new paradigm, and innovation.
I dont think it will occur from within the groups, and will probably emerge outside of their universe and sociology and structures, in a type of garage born startup, like Apple or Microsoft did.
Sorry Miller but you are wrong. Sunday wasn't even a word 2,000 years ago. The phrase used in the bible is "mia ton sabbaton" which means first the Sabbaths. Search your N.T. throughout, every time that phrase is used it's just prior to Pentecost. Was there a significant "first Sabbath" prior to Pentecost? Yes and there were six others. The seven Sabbaths count to Pentecost. "First the Sabbaths" "Second the Sabbaths" "Third the Sabbaths" and so on until seven Sabbaths were complete.
It's pure assumption by you and supposed knowledgeable historians that have assumed "mia to sabbaton" meant Sunday rather than the first week/Sabbath in the count to Pentecost.
It's a good thing that it's not some jerk Armstrongist nor NEO's call on just who is and isn't a Christian!
Miller, the evidence is throughout the entire blog. If you're too blind to see it, I'm not going to color code it for you.
Anonymous (1:4) wrote: "It's a good thing that it's not some jerk Armstrongist nor NEO's call on just who is and isn't a Christian!"
I don't know. I might be more liberal than god is on this topic.
I consider it above my pay grade to determine who is and who is not a Christian. But I can consider the theological issues in abstract. And I might add that I am not an infernalist perched on the edge of my chair eager to send a bunch of people to Hell - a common attitude among the religious. I am a Trinitarian Universalist and I do not believe in a Hell of eternal damnation.
Anonymous 3/2 @ 1:38 PM,
In answer to the points you raise, I suggest the following:
https://www.livescience.com/45432-days-of-the-week.html
https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-qa/qa-archives/question/what-does-mia-ton-sabbaton-mean/
By the way, I didn't reference the passage in Acts which you refer to here (Acts 20:7) - I referenced the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) in my remarks. Nevertheless, your passage also supports the notion that they were meeting on the "first of the sevens" or the first day of the week - known to us as Sunday. I have no problem in acknowledging that the days of the week have been/are known by many different names. However, the concept of a seven-day week is old and cuts across many different cultures (in other words, it wasn't unique to the Hebrews). And, among professional historians, there is widespread agreement that Constantine's 321 edict about "the venerable day of the sun" merely formalized what was already the practice of the vast majority of his subjects, both pagan and Christian.
Anonymous 3/2 @ 1:38,
Thanks for sparing me the color coding - I like good-ole black and white!
10.28 AM
Talking of individual empowerment and autonomy under God, the definition of paternalism is 'the view that individuals are incompetent to run their own lives, and thus require a nanny-state to control every aspect of those lives.'
I don't see this in my bible, but rather the opposite:
Matthew 25.15 'And to one he gave five talents,to another two, and to another one. to each according to his ability; and immediately he went on a journey.'
Paternalism is a false god in the HWA universe. God has given humans an awesome God plane mind, yet here's Herb and his minions treating all members like literal children. I believe this stench in Gods nostrils.
4.56 AM
Christ did call some people fools, but He pointed to evidence and gave a line of reasoning.
NEO 3:33,
Well said!
I knew a number of up-and-coming "rasslers" as a teenager, worked alongside them as a cam op and later director early on. Some went on to big money, some didn't.
I won't mock the business, those guys risk a LOT to entertain people, even though I'm not a fan of it. Kayfabe was serious stuff back then at the territory level. All of us crew were ordered to keep the inner workings of the business under wraps.
4:14pm The evidence is throughout this blog. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
"There is abundant historical evidence that meeting on Sunday preceded the formation of a recognizable Roman Catholic Church (In other words, they did NOT change the Sabbath to Sunday). There was NO tradition amongst the Gentiles regarding Sabbath observance. Sabbath observance was a Jewish phenomenon."
those that abandoned the Sabbath in favor of Sunday effectively left the Church (or were never truly in it to start with, which is why they abandoned the Sabbath)....those of that mindset went on to form what became the RCC...so it might be technically accurate to sat that the RCC did not make the change, those early "founding fathers" did, and they effectively led the way for the creation of the RCC.
and....the Sabbath was/is not a "jewish thing"...never has been. it's God's thing.
keep on spreading your falsehoods....it won't change a thing.
Miller Jones, March 1, 2020 at 10:01 PM, wrote:
******
"...In my humble opinion, we start going off track when we go beyond things like love, kindness, patience, mercy, faith, repentance and prayer. In fact, we get into trouble when we focus too much attention on the few important symbols that we have (e.g. the cross, baptism, the bread and the wine, offerings, etc.). Humans like to embellish things and make them more complicated than they need to be. What are the essentials? What more do we HAVE to add to being saved by grace through faith in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ?
Frankly, it isn't ANY set of doctrines that identifies who is and isn't a Christian. I believe Christ said that the love we have for each other would mark us as one of his disciples - not your position on the exact nature of God or what happens to us after we die!..."
******
Miller, regarding essentials, you asked: "What more do we HAVE to add to being saved by grace through faith in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ?"
I believe you do not need to add anything more to being saved, but you may want to consider some subtraction if the following words of the Apostle Paul are acceptable:
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:" Ephesians 2:8
Isn't that sufficient? Time, ...Miller time? ...time will tell.
John
We have cliches to cover that, 3:47. "The accuser is usually the doer." or, a golden gasser from the past, "He who smelt it dealt it."
If you read the history of the early church, 6:27, you will learn that Sunday-keeping gentile Christians were martyrred right along side sabbath keeping ones. They refused to recant and resisted to death. Molten lead was poured on some, others were boiled to death in oil. They were stretched on crippling devices. In order to have chosen to endure these tortures rather than relinquish their faith, they would have to have had God's Spirit.
There was no lost century. There is history available for those whose curiosity compels them to read, verify, and challenge.
BB
8:35am Your argument is merely playground fodder. That's exactly how a five year old would answer.
The strawman in the room is that sabbatarians claim that Sunday keeping started with Constantine. That is not true. The claim is that he made it law, not that he started it. There's no doubt that Sunday keeping started early on, but that doesn't make it correct. Paul and Peter both warned that there were those among the early christians who would pervert the teachings of Christ. Sunday keepers claim those perverting the teachings are sabbath keepers and sabbath keepers claim the reverse. There's no way to prove either stance.
Byker Bob shows a remarkable ecumenism when he writes:
Molten lead was poured on some, others were boiled to death in oil. They were stretched on crippling devices. In order to have chosen to endure these tortures rather than relinquish their faith, they would have to have had God's Spirit.
It's remarkable to see you acknowledge that some Muslims and Buddhists have had God's Spirit, as they chose to endure tortures even to the death rather than renounce their faith.
3.47 AM
Exactly, have a look at the evidence of this blog. There are many well thought out arguments, with supposed supporting evidence. People express their opinions and use persuasion to try change others point of view. That's how adults relate to one another. In Herb-world, all that matters is the "truth," with every manner of abuse leaped upon the unbelievers. That's buily morality, and Christ did not behave that way. Rather He always responded with counter arguments.
There are many points of view on this blog that I disagree with, but that's OK. The truth doesn't need a bodyguard.
PS bullies don't trust freedom. Which is the real reason why the Herb splinter ministers tell their members to avoid dissident sites. They assume everyone else has their same poor character.
"Frankly, it isn't ANY set of doctrines that identifies who is and isn't a Christian."
apparently you haven't read the bible...or understood much of it.
" I believe Christ said that the love we have for each other would mark us as one of his disciples ..."
and so many want to redefine "love" to mean some warm fuzzy feeling we get inside.....that is not the biblical definition of love.
we will not be judged on our feelings....we will be judged on our actions.
Bacchiocihi makes it pretty clear in his book Sabbath to Sunday, that there was Sunday observance by the early 100s.
Practices such as the Sabbath continued in the first century. As late as the 4th century Church Father John Chrysostom complained that some Christians were still attending Jewish synagogues. So there was a graduated movement towards Sunday over time, especially after 100 AD with Constantine just formalizing what had become a general practice, with the minority still observing Sabbath.
Under the Roman Emperor Trajan , during the Kitos Wars, there was much Jewish rebellion and insurrections. Rome came down hard on the Jews. Many Christians at that time , to differentiate themselves from the Jews, started using Sunday as an identifier of NOT BEING A JEW, so as to avoid being confused with them and put to death.
The Heretic Marcion of Sinope (c. 85 – c. 160 AD) declared that the Jewish God was a different God, inferior to the Christian one also emerged at that time leading to a transition to Sunday keeping as well.
IF the first century Christian church were blatantly violating the Sabbath, they would have been severely persecuted by the Jews for that reason alone. There is no evidence that Christians were ever persecuted in the First Century for keeping the Sabbath. Rather they were being killed and rounded up by folks like Saul, because they believed that Jesus was the Messiah, and the very Son of God.
Bacchiochi's extensive and well documented evidence, shows that phariseeism and legalism , combined with gnostic elements, are what Paul is complaining about in his letters to the churches , in regards to Sabbath observance and other ordinances as well. I guess they had James Malms in those days too. Paul did not teach an abrogation of the law, but rather , a new covenant , Christ led , keeping of the law, without the added and unnecessary legalisms that the Jews, without Gods authority had added to it.
"The truth doesn't need a bodyguard."
Please show me exactly where I said that it did. All I said was that Rom. 1:22 is a perfect description of the participants of this blog. Why do you feel the need to play bodyguard for the blog?
Liam 3/3 @ 12:05,
I enjoyed your comments, and I share your respect for Bacchiocchi. For those who are unfamiliar with my own beliefs and practices, you may be interested to know that I continue to observe the Sabbath and continue to believe that it's the only day which God ever designated for weekly worship. Nevertheless, the historical and theological arguments advanced by many Sabbatarians (including Herbert Armstrong and company) are flawed and self-serving. Moreover, many of their arguments are designed to exclude those who observe Sunday from the body of Christ.
You stated that "IF the first century Christian church were blatantly violating the Sabbath, they would have been severely persecuted by the Jews for that reason alone. There is no evidence that Christians were ever persecuted in the First Century for keeping the Sabbath." As stated in my earlier remarks, the Jewish Christians who comprised the Judean Church continued to observe the Sabbath (I would say that a majority of them probably also continued to observe the festivals until it became impossible to do so in 70 AD). Hence, there weren't very many Sunday keepers to persecute within that branch of the Church. Moreover, the Jerusalem Council settled the issue thus: Jewish Christians would continue to observe their traditions, and Gentile Christians would not be coerced to adopt those traditions.
Paul's attitude was to follow the dictates of your conscience - to not allow anyone to judge/condemn you because you observed/didn't observe the Sabbath(s). As more and more Gentiles came into the Church, the number of Jewish Christians observing the Sabbath became a smaller and smaller percentage of the whole relatively quickly. Even so, both traditions continued throughout the First Century. Thereafter, both camps became less and less tolerant of each other. There were many reasons for this (like Christians not wanting to be swept up in the Roman persecution of Jews which culminated in the destruction of the temple, loss of Judean autonomy and two major wars - which you referenced in your remarks).
Byker Bob is correct to point out that many Sunday observers died as a consequence of their faith in Jesus Christ. It is ironic that pagan Romans viewed these people as Christians, but some Sabbatarians have regarded them as not being part of THE Church!
Christ didn't do away with the Law - He fulfilled it! The premise of our religion is that Christ did what no other human has ever done - He kept the Law! Hence, it is illogical to advance the argument that we are obligated to observe the precepts of the Old Covenant because He did. I continue to observe the Sabbath, but I am under no illusion that doing so will earn me anything or make me superior to a Christian who worships on Sunday!
12.38 PM
So everyone on this blog is a fool, except you. Go back to your comic books.
12.38 PM
Do you want to see a real fool? We'll, look into the mirror and say "hello fool."
As John cena would say "Never Give Up" But the COGs will always do what's "best for business"
It seems not that many Christians were persecuted in the Roman Empire through the State but localized and sporadic through local mobs and magistrates. Like pogroms.
Also Jewish religion seemed to have bee regarded as "genuine" and tolerated throughout the empire except for its use as "national religion" in Palestine itself, but viewed differently in Nikea or Marsillia. (didn't Mary flee there)
Well.
I'm not well read on the topic.
Even 5000 Christian martyrs would be a lot in an empire comprising only 20 million people. I heard in Pinochet's Chili "only" 7000 political prisoners perished. Enough to keep the entire nation in terror for decades.
Often the narrative is worse than the actual numbers. I'm not calling it propaganda, but narratives serve identities. And the Christian identity was shaped VS Rome's persecution also.
Nck
It would be interesting to know the statistics on martyred Christians. Based on my own reading, I would just bet that the majority of them were actually Sunday keepers.
BB
If this is how you feel then why don't you leave ? Why don't you step down ? Why do you live such a double life?
Why do you preach in church then type the opposite away on here?
You use this website for your own selfish agenda.
You will try and take over this website to stop anyone who knows how high up you really are. You have not a jot of honesty.
You love the fake life.
Nck
John Steward Mills in his book "On Liberty" also claims that the Roman persecution of the Christians was sporadic and half hearted. He gives other examples where governments throughout history successful destroyed other religious groups that they strongly opposed. Perhaps the Romans heard about Pilates wife dreams, warning him to have nothing to do with Christ. A wise move.
And your announcers for to ight are Stoned Steven and yours truly the Ocelot!
If this is how you feel then why don't you leave ? Why don't you step down ? Why do you live such a double life?
For at least a few of us here, we have a spouse or close family member deeply "in" and would risk our family's economic security and even our remaining together as a family if one pushed to leave while the other insisted on staying.
12:13
Ah yes, Mills. It has been decades ago before I was a person. The Chinese as modern Romans are attempting the Uigur after the Tibettans. The police joined my conversation with a monk in Lhasa as I switched to the paintings on the wooden ceilings. No Dalai Lama pictures in my travel book to rip out and give as a present.
The young Syrian Lady who prayed "The Lord's Prayer" to me in her original native Aramaic in the hills over Damascus probably drowned somewhere between Turkey and Greece, perhaps found her apocalypse at Patmos.
A sad affair.
Re Life of Brian zealots: What did the Roman's ever do for us? ..... besides running water, strait roads, peace, trade, stability..............
I might just book tickets for that amazing Falun Gong dance show Shen Yu as my way of protesting and honoring Mills.
Nck
5:06pm & 5:39pm I bet you're ecstatic that Summer break is getting closer. What grade will you be moving up to? Third?
7.32 AM
So someone writes that every poster on Banned is a fool, except himself of course, yet you claim that I'm the one with the problem. Really?
9:56am That pretty much sums it up.
4:56am didn't call them fools, Paul did in Romans.
Anon, March 2, 2020 at 4:56 AM, said
"A perfect description of the participants of this blog:
Rom 1:22 - Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,"
Anon, the Apostle Paul was not making a reference to anybody on this blog, but he did give a perfect description of the participants. Who were the participants?
Read some context:
Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Who held the truth? Men or angels?
:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them. [{in them: or, to them }
Who are "them?" Who did God show that which may be known of God? Was it to men or angels?
:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: [{so … : or, that they may be }]
Who is without excuse? Men or angels? Who clearly saw invisible things of God from the creation of the world? Angels existed then. They knew and understood things made, even God's eternal power and Godhead. These verses are not referring to human beings of long ago, but of the evil angels.
:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Who knew God? Who wasn't thankful? Who had the foolish hearts? The evil angels!
Human beings did not know, long ago, about The God, known as the Father, but Jesus Christ began revealing Him to His disciples:
John 17:25 O righteous Father, the world hath NOT KNOWN thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.
Even the Apostle John admitted the world was ignorant of that God:
1 John 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the FATHER hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it KNEW HIM NOT.
Anyway, FWIIW (For What It Is Worth), the fools of Romans 1:22 has nothing to do with "...the participants of this blog..."
Also, for FWIIW, in the Bible the word man or men is often actually referring to a spirit being, and not a human being.
For example in the OT: Genesis 19:1-5, 10-13, Exodus 15:3; Daniel 9:21; Zech 2:1-3
For example in the NT: Revelation 21:13; Luke 24:4-5 in conjunction with John 20:11-12, etc,
Also, it was the evil angels, those fools, that are being referred to in Romans 1:22-25 and yes, they will eventually be taken and destroyed, and time will tell...
John
Post a Comment