From a reader:
Mr. Kubik's "Letter from the President" this week is quite transparent. He says he wanted a fourth term as President, but was "not reconfirmed" by the Council. A politely way of saying: you're fired. Mr. Kubik says he plans to retire, and probably move back to Indiana to spend the rest of his days running LifeNets. Best wishes to him for that - but I can't help thinking about other ministers who "retired" from UCG and wound up preaching elsewhere (like Mark Mickelson in Pacific COG).
Here is what Kubik wrote:
As many know, my wife Beverly and I went through a major change in our lives this week. Len Martin, chairman of the Council of Elders, earlier announced that I was not reconfirmed by the Council to continue as President of the United Church of God, an International Association. Mr. Martin and the Council composed a statement, which was distributed shortly after the ballot and which you may have already seen.
He also writes:
As was relayed to me, one of the Ambassador Bible College (ABC) students heard the news and asked instructor Steve Myers, “What will Mr. Kubik do now?” Mr. Myers replied, “He will continue to serve God’s people, just in a different way.”
That was well said and eloquently reflects our thoughts.
And then makes this weird statement:
To be certain, Bev and I are praying for a peaceful transfer, and that God will inspire and lead the new president. We ask and pray that you will do the same.
Is there trouble brewing under the surface in UCG? Are we about to see another shitfest in a COG break out with more power-hungry men jostling with each other to see who makes head honcho? We have never seen that happen, have we? After all, UCG is the most unified and loving Church of God to ever hit the scene, after Bwana Bob's improperly named "continuing" Church of God, of course.
Kubik had wished to stay on for more years and do more of his pet projects, but now that he has been made redundant, those fantasies are out the window.
To be honest, Beverly and I had wished to continue in this role and complete some projects that were in progress. But we accept this decision graciously. We are so thankful to have served nine years at the helm of the United Church of God. We will forever be thankful to God for this extended period of peace and stability in the Church of God. Our greatest blessing in the Church is you and the many personal relationships that we have shared with so many around the world.
As was noted by the reader above, Kubik will continue his good works with LifeNets:
I plan to retire from full-time work for the Church after the new president is named. As Mr. Martin mentioned in his letter, Bev and I founded LifeNets International 22 years ago, a humanitarian 501(c)(3) organization that has helped many thousands of people—including many Church members—around the world. We have been privileged to help so many people with education, habitat, mobility, food security, agriculture and fresh water—things that are easy to take for granted. We will continue that work.
We also very much look forward to spending more time being grandparents. We had already discussed plans to move back to Indianapolis, where we once worked together in 1995 with many others to organize and found the United Church of God.
He makes the next statement, like so many other COG's do as they add on burdensome laws and other old covenant pet doctrines, that he is saved by grace, even though he rarely ever talks about that dude that supposedly provided it.
The knowledge of the truth and the ability to freely practice it and worship God remain the most important parts of our lives. We are saved by grace and the understanding of our incredible human potential—observing God’s way with the help of the Holy Spirit to become more like Him and be part of His Family—is and will always be a humbling focus for Bev and me.
As I close, I urge you to “draw near to God and He will draw near to you” (James 4:8). Seek Him through prayer and the study of His precious word. Pray for each other, pray for the Church, and remember that God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, One whose sacrifice opened the way to salvation, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16). God is love! (1 John 4:16) Paul instructs us: “Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children and live a life of love” (Ephesians 5:1-2, New International Version).
As UCG joins all the other COG's in their rapidly shrinking relevancy, what remains to be seen of them? Will they ever really accomplish anything good and fruitful?
113 comments:
Any time there is a regime change, whether in a company, a church, or government, the new regime has the opportunity to be a continuation of the previous one, or one instituting slight and gradual tuning changes, or a radical departure. Since 2017, nationally, we have witnessed bizarre and catastrophic changes dominated by fringe elements from both political parties. Unfortunately what happens in the greater system often encourages similar behavior in smaller systems which function in the predominating system.
Much depends on whether Vic has functioned as a pressure release valve for the past 9 years, suppressing a likely explosion, or whether all is truly united at United. If, as an example, a Bill Watson type were to be bubbling beneath the surface, and his ideas had some traction, UCG could be in for some catastrophic changes, changes that caused people to leave the organization and join their former brethren at COGWA, or to indulge in some splinter-surfing to find a group more to their liking.
It is difficult just from what we read to know whether Vic had any inkling in advance that he would not be reconfirmed, or if this was a total shock to him. If it was a shock, that would mean that there had been discussions behind the scenes, discussions which had been secretly held without his knowledge. The way that the ACOGs treat retirement, it can act as a de facto gag order. There could also be nondisclosure agreements, and we may never know if anything unseemly had led to the decision not to confirm.
We may or may not learn more as the Kubiks move to Indianapolis. I am sure that Vic is well liked to the point that if he started his own splinter, some would follow.
Too bad cogwa would not have the chutzpah to do the same and get new blood in there. The leadership goes back to the old wcg but does not preach what was once taught.
'
My popcorn is ready and I can’t wait to see what stupidity they will come up with next!!
Where is it WRITTEN that there should be a Council Of Elders?????? It sounds more like the SANHEDRIN!! Is it not WRITTEN that “I AM the WAY, the TRUTH and the LIFE”????? (John 14:6) What book are you reading?? Oh, I forgot; the “ARMSTRONGISM Do It Yourself Play Book”!! Hmmmmmm, I wonder WHY Worldwide FELL APART???? It doesn’t matter if Mickey Mouse runs it because in the end it will come to NOTHING!!
Where is it WRITTEN that there should be a Council Of Elders?
In the HWA Playbook. Herbie had a Council of Elders, so a splinter-Herbist church has to have one too. Where UCG makes its mistake is that its COE, unlike Herbie's, can actually implement changes in the church. Herbie's COE, like Weston's and Flurry's, was just window-dressing, and a way to reward sycophants while keeping a lid on malcontents.
Poor Victor, such wasted talent. 😺😸😹
Come on, young men, recognize Mr. Kubik, I know he's not on par with Mr. Pack, but rather needs some affection displayed to him also.
I wonder whether or not Dan Dowd is bucking for this job
. Dowd is currently on the council and has pushed and politicked for sure according to a few friends. He has done things like putting out letters to the brethren under his own name, even though he holds no more formal a title than council member.
Self promoters are seldom good news.
You like to condemn God's servants, however, you're not sure the way that they are the best individuals on the face of the earth.
Honor your minister!
UCG is a democracy (which is sinful) GOD'S CHURCH NEEDS a TOP-DOWN GOVERNMENT
Self promoters usually end up as tyrants when given any type of authority.
5:31, I totally agree! Vic Kubik's decency as a Christian and as a human being place him way above Dave Pack. Dave has become a cartoon, and a ridiculous, villainous one at that.
I’ll give it to Victor; his note was more gracious than most and the verses he quoted at the end were not the typical COG fare…sounded like the actual gospel.
Yes, I think it was Thomas Sowell who said, effectively, the last person you should trust with power is the person who is clamouring and wanting it badly. It's then all about getting power over others, not serving.
Victor is lukewarm
Hey blog owners it's not 2002 anymore. As hamsters on a hamster running wheel you love too much for everything to stay the same. Wallowing in church politics a little too much.
Will the godless apostates at heart take over UCG? Time will tell. Hopefully not but who knows. Getting rid of Kubic could be a mistake but the apostates ultimately keep getting discouraged time and time again. They have no backbone to really come out of the closet. Time will tell as 'john' loves to write.
Well you should know Tonto. Spilling the beans now?
That UCG elders forum has caused more trouble than it's been worth over the years. The even has been odd blogs posts about forum arguments in internet blog wonderland.
Self promoters 'Tonto'? Ha ha! bit rich coming for your neck of the woods now. But hypocrisy is never given a thought by you. You who sit comfortably in a lifelong aristocracy of rule. And if the peasants, sorry members dare complain you turn a word out putting blame on them !! Ha ha.
"My popcorn is ready.."
They must be down to under 1000 members now,
~ but still exiting to watch ~
..along with the other wacko groups.
Do they still teach HWA's bankrupt racist Anglo-Israel-theory (lol)
Tonto,
From my understanding of Dowd, he is very much into the hierarchy: taking actions without consulting those members it affects, wielding biases, accepting expected favors from members.
I don't recall Jesus having to report to a Council of Elders - or even mentioning a COE. In that context, these corporate Churches are nothing more than the work of men with all its politicking, member abuse and corruption.
To answer Gary's question, "Will they (UCG) ever really accomplish anything good and fruitful?" No, they will not accomplish anything good and fruitful. They will keep their corporate Armstrong franchise ongoing for the purpose of generating enough income from the dumb tithe sheep to support a small group of church elites' while giving an appearance they are doing a work to justify their existence.
Jesus said, “By their fruits shall ye know them.” What have been United Church of God's fruits since the Indianapolis organizational meetings in the 1990s? My brother was an elder in the Worldwide Church of God. He was at the Indianapolis United Church of God organizational meetings. He left United about 1 year later never to walk back into an Armstrong Church of God ever again. He cited UCG was run so worldly with all its politicking, backstabbing and ministers jostling for position.
You have to be a pretty bad ACOG to disillusion my brother, who was a Herbert Armstrong loyalist since the 1960s. Would Jesus be a member of UCG? I DON'T THINK SO!
Richard
My brother was an elder in the Worldwide Church of God. He was at the Indianapolis United Church of God organizational meetings. He left United about 1 year later never to walk back into an Armstrong Church of God ever again. He cited UCG was run so worldly with all its politicking, backstabbing and ministers jostling for position.
UCG had no more politicking, backstabbing, and jostling than WCG. The difference is that the politicking, backstabbing, and jostling was much more openly visible in UCG than it was in WCG.
The formation of UCG was never about maintaining doctrines and teachings of Herbert Armstrong. They formed UCG for the express purpose of providing themselves an income. They knew they were about to be terminated from WCG and they had to have a way of keeping money coming into their pockets. Their position as ministers were more important than the lay members. The one obvious truth that they covered up is that their ordinations were invalid one they left WCG. UCG has been run by men with no ordination status.
The essence of the matter is that while the ministers, valid ordination or not depending on whether or an ordination is like an academic degree, or a specific sanction (this is debatable) may have been in search of a new gravy train, the majority of the members actually believe they are keeping the faith once delivered, obeying God, etc. Dave Pack and Gerald Flurry have discovered that they can cut some real hair burners, and the stench won't drive these types of members away. They are programmed to believe that there is no such thing as clerical abuse, in fact that what the minister says or does is of God, and it is the members's respnse to maintain a proper attitude towards their leaders, not to criticize or evaluate them.
Had a massive number of ministers not rebelled against the Tkach corrections, most of the WCG members would likely have stayed with the mother ship. My own parents were in the safety of the New Covenant, lived it and loved it for a little over a year, and as they watched UCG develop, they ended up returning to their own Armstrongite vomit, and going with UCG. I don't even want to get started on those who looked to "third in command" Rod Meredith and stayed with the new WCG up until the payoff came through to Leona McNair, and Rod suddently was inspired to start up Global, taking many more with him.
Ordination status??
There is no unbroken "line of succession" going back to Jesus Christ. Somewhere along the line someone just simply crowned themselves "ordained" and went forth.
Even HWA claimed no succession from the COG 7th Day, (although he later got credentials) , and said it was just the brethren en toto that ordained him back in Oregon.
So who cares that their WCG ordinations were canceled? Ultimately, if you view someone as your minister, I guess that makes him one. Lost on everyone, is that the scriptures call us all (right now) "Kings and PRIESTS" in 1 Peter 2:9.
All of this matters ONLY if you believe in the idea of hierarchical "top down" layered status "caste system" Christianity, that I see as foreign to scripture.
Response to Anonymous criticisms of me above---
Ha Ha, still living in delusion that Im some kind of insider or ordained person or spouse of one, or part of the UCG nomenclature.
Truth here before man and God, and may the Eternal God be my judge that Im not lying in the least here, but I am not a minister , never have been, never a deacon, and not a member of ANY church . (I do have friends and relatives in all groups though) and after 50 years around this thing, I hear a lot of scuttlebutt, and what not.
If you want to "pigeon hole me" on where my head is at, then the COG 7th Day is the closest. I still challenge you to write me at tontosixkiller@gmai.com , put your phone number in it, and I will gladly give you a phone call at your convenience to your satisfaction.
PUT UP OR SHUT UP, for you are bearing false witness here.
Tonto said, "Ha Ha, still living in delusion that Im some kind of insider or ordained person or spouse of one, or part of the UCG nomenclature."
They don't get it so I find it hilarious that they still are hung up on this conspiracy theory. They are too funny to delete sometimes.
I take their conspiracy theory as a compliment. Apparently "they" believe that nobody can be as articulate and persuasive as some are here unless they were once ministers. It reminds me of Miami Steve Van Zant's remarks about the Young Rascals as he inducted them into the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame. "Some of us realized early on that in order to sound that Black, they just had to be Italian!"
What is so funny to me is that even if you were actually expelled from Ambassador College, the height of WCG cancel culture, people still think you are part of the Old Boy's Club.
I take their conspiracy theory as a compliment. Apparently "they" believe that nobody can be as articulate and persuasive as some are here unless they were once ministers. It reminds me of Miami Steve Van Zant's remarks about the Young Rascals as he inducted them into the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame. "Some of us realized early on that in order to sound that Black, they just had to be Italian!"
What is so funny to me is that even if you were actually expelled from Ambassador College, the height of WCG cancel culture, people still think you are part of the Old Boy's Club.
12.04
People assume that even if a person was kicked out of AC, they still absorbed it's culture. I believe that assumption is true.
I don't know, 3:18. It all goes back to the three people we all are which I brought up in another comment. You may be right, but I did not see it that way. To me, I saw myself as mocking and rebelling against that culture. Maybe it was because I was laughing or smiling as I rebelled. But the fact remains that nobody shunned me, I ended up going to work for the college for about seven years, and even after they shut down the department in which I worked, the college knew where I worked, and continued to use my services. I've never been able to figure all of that out, but perhaps you just gave me the answer.
Some truly were sincere.
In the second to the last paragraph, Kubik wrote: "We are saved by grace ..."
Are those not fighting or splitting words in COGdom?
I don't know much about UCG, but I did not realize that the COGs acknowledged the word grace, outside of official, written doctrine statements.
I'm glad Kubik is moved by grace enough to be thankful for it.
However, in the last paragraph, Kubik wrote: "One whose sacrifice opened the way to salvation"
He may have made a mistake, or accidently contradicted his statement on grace - or maybe just reverted to official COG doctrine of salvation not being entirely the work of the Savior.
Does UCG openly discuss grace and link it to salvation?
Or, is Kubik out of step with the UCG?
Anon, Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 2:25:00 AM PST, said:
"...Will the godless apostates at heart take over UCG? Time will tell. Hopefully not but who knows. Getting rid of Kubic could be a mistake but the apostates ultimately keep getting discouraged time and time again. They have no backbone to really come out of the closet. Time will tell..."
******
Well, years have gone by since Ucgaia was established in 1995, subsequently changed to Ucgia. David Hulme was the President voted in. Has time told us anything? Was UCG taken over and/or split and re-split into factions and fractions of what it began as? Did time tell anything?
Following is the memo sent to Victor Kubik by a minister regarding our hopes for Indianapolis. It was read by Vic Kubik on May 2, 1995, the last day of the Indianapolis Conference, to all attending (included about 150 “elders,” mates," deacons, etc.). Who sent it to Vic? I don't know. Is that minister still part of something related to Indy? Who knows? The memo said this:
******
CAN IT EVER BE? That cohesive, Christ-led entity that we all want so dearly? Or does Indy seal our fate to factions and factions? The hopes are high, the stakes are critical. Indy will be either a dawning of a New World Tomorrow, or the proof of our folly.
PIE IN THE SKY is what the detractors say. Some of them are us, you know. Our “leaders” have already laid foundations and are even laying superstructure. The meek words of just a few weeks ago… “We’ve just started this in case it’s of any help, but we’ll gladly dissolve it” are seemingly replaced with corporate structure lauding the wisdom of “follow me.” Has “unity” already slipped to a cliché, a buzzword of egotists? I’ve seen that once people invest time, money and gain supporters they “have God’s blessing.” After all, they prayed about it.
Dissolution of their structure for a greater cause becomes too great a defeat. The show must go on.
WHAT IS INDY? It’s a chance for a ground up, New Testament organized body of believers.
WHAT WILL INDY BE? I know what you and I want it to be. But do you know what many see it as? Separate leaders of several pre-formed groups pushing their system at each other, followed by the winner selling it to the ministry. The ministry is invited to view the outcome and cast in their lot, depending on who "wins" and if they like the smell of it.
WHO LOOSES IF INDY FALTERS? The churches back home. The little flocks who are staking their faith in Indy. The loyal pastors who have forfeited everything to wait on Christ and to come learn his will for their next step. I hope He’s there. He resists the proud and gives grace to the humble.
Just some concerns and fears…I don’t know what it WILL be, I know what it MIGHT be and what it CAN be. I’ll be there in support. Be careful who gets control. Make sure it’s God.
******
Yes, I often write that time will tell.
To be continued…
John
Continuing…
So, I thought I'd take that same memo and change the word "INDY" to "UNITED/cogwa/other split-offs" to show that time did tell us something, and now we may read the following:
******
CAN IT EVER BE? That cohesive, Christ-led entity that we all want so dearly? Or does UNITED/cogwa/other split-offs seal our fate to factions and factions? The hopes are high, the stakes are critical. UNITED/cogwa/other split-offs will be either a dawning of a New World Tomorrow, or the proof of our folly.
PIE IN THE SKY is what the detractors say. Some of them are us, you know. Our “leaders” have already laid foundations and are even laying superstructure. The meek words of just a few weeks ago… “We’ve just started this in case it’s of any help, but we’ll gladly dissolve it” are seemingly replaced with corporate structure lauding the wisdom of “follow me.” Has “unity” already slipped to a cliché, a buzzword of egotists? I’ve seen that once people invest time, money and gain supporters they “have God’s blessing.” After all, they prayed about it.
Dissolution of their structure for a greater cause becomes too great a defeat. The show must go on.
WHAT IS UNITED/COGWA/OTHER SPLIT-OFFS? It’s a chance for a ground up, New Testament organized body of believers.
WHAT WILL UNITED/COGWA/OTHER SPLIT-OFFS BE? I know what you and I want it to be. But do you know what many see it as? Separate leaders of several pre-formed groups pushing their system at each other, followed by the winner selling it to the ministry. The ministry is invited to view the outcome and cast in their lot, depending on who "wins" and if they like the smell of it.
WHO LOOSES IF UNITED/COGWA/OTHER SPLIT-OFFS FALTERS? The churches back home. The little flocks who are staking their faith in UNITED/cogwa/other split-offs. The loyal pastors who have forfeited everything to wait on Christ and to come learn his will for their next step. I hope He’s there. He resists the proud and gives grace to the humble.
Just some concerns and fears…I don’t know what it WILL be, I know what it MIGHT be and what it CAN be. I’ll be there in support. Be careful who gets control. Make sure it’s God.
******
Time will tell...something. What happened to God in their man=made organization? Was He ever involved? Is God in control of a bunch of split-off organizations all claiming to be some God's Church? The ministry used to thing God's Church was one organization. Was God busy elsewhere?
Vic now says: "...Bev and I are praying for a peaceful transfer, and that God will inspire and lead the new president..." How peaceful was the transfer from the former WCG to Ucgaia? What happened to the belief that God works through one, as in HWA? Or, Joe Tkach, senior? How many presidents have there been since David Hulme? Did time well us something?
A thinking reader pondered: "...I can't help thinking about other ministers who "retired" from UCG and wound up preaching elsewhere (like Mark Mickelson in Pacific COG)..."
Has time told us anything? United still believes Jesus Christ is the God of the Old Testament. Mark Mickelson believes, and can back it up with scripture, that God the Father is the God of the Old Testament (e.g. Acts 3:13). United needs to revise their theory, but will they? Time will tell. Meanwhile Mark is no longer part of Pacific COG, but ashortwork.com (for any interested besides perhaps the reader).
Will we all see more changes ahead of us?
Time will tell...
John
It's not.....Jesus Christ is the God of the Old Testament.....or......God the Father is the God of the Old Testament.....but it is.....Both Jesus Christ and God the Father are the Gods of the Old Testament.
Time has told us, John, that God was never part of that church corporate known to us today as Armstrongism. We were taught that if we had the correct doctrines, and if we practiced them fervently and sincerely, God would live amongst us as He had the Israelites during the time of the tent, and first temple, and owuld be our guide revealing His truths and prophecies to us.
Can anyone actually say that this is true, or was ever true of the Radio Church of God, Worldwide Church of God, any of the splinters, or GCI? I mean truly say it without having to pretend, or to make numerous excuses, backpedaling on all the false prophecies, or explaining away the state Armstrongism is in today? There may still be sincere people involved in these groups, but it has all come to nought.
Having grown up in Worldwide, it seems as if most of the spin offs are dying on the vine. It seems as most are still holding on to such archaic traditions as rented halls and blathering on worthless beliefs such as church eras and church government. These are beliefs that will condemn them to irrelevance and an eventual extinction. I remember back in the 70's & 80's the one thing I remember from most of the teens growing up was looking forward to the day they didn't have to come to services and sit for a butt numbing 2 hours+. I guess Flurry and Pack might have to call for a fast to pray for their ideological hero, Putin since they pretty much are the same in their behaviors.
Who said you were a minister Tonto ? Who ever said you were a man ?
Put your phone number up first LIAR. But you cannot can you. You've already been exposed anyways. Many know who you are.
One of the problems 'John' about UCG is that ONLY the UCG ministry hold on for dear life to the romantic vision of that 1995 indy 'conference'. ONLY the UCG ministry look back with rose tinted glasses at that speech.
The cold harsh reality is alot of UCG members hold no such rose tinted glasses. That constantly repeated speech meant nothing to them. It never has. Why? Because talk is cheap. Yes Luker sounded impassioned but the membership have seen and heard it all before.
Much of the membership are more in tune with God than the ministry. It is the ministry who are burnt out and desire a whitewash of a church. Changes are desired by the ministry but the powerful structure always stays the same. Funny that. But not funny at all to the membership.
This blog alone would not exist if the was not a tsuami of problems constantly emerging from the ministry.
Time will tell 'John' but on the ministry more so than the membership.
Well said, 7:51. We are clued in to the plurality of God in Genesis. "Let Us make man in Our image..."
While God is the God of the OT and NT, the issue is how He was God in the OT.
This is what the Pacific Church of God and Mark Mickelson get wrong.
I have listen to a sermon by Rick Ralston on the subject and read some of the Church literature - I do not buy it.
For example:
1) Jesus wasn't claiming to be the I AM of Exodus 3:13-14 in John 8:57-58; 2) Jesus cannot be Yahweh of the OT since it is God the Father's name; 3) God the Father was seen and heard in the OT and will return with Jesus fulfilling scriptures like Zechariah 14:3-4 that refers to Yahweh defending Jerusalem and His feet standing on the Mount of Olives; etc.
Rev 1:4 John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come...
"The description of God the Father, which resembles the divine name made know to Moses in Exodus 3:14, shows the ODDITY of some of John's language... the Greek equivalent of ‘Grace and peace from he who is ...' surely it should be ‘from him'? Perhaps John was seeing God as one who is always ‘he', the subject of every sentence, who governs every other part of speech and is himself governed by none" (Michael Wilcox, The Message of Revelation, BST, p.34).
The problem is too many read the Bible as if it is modern Western literature and can be understood using modern western thoughtforms and logic.
2Co 5:19a To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself
John 14:9 Jesus saith ... he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?
Jn 14:10 ... the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
"The deeds and words of Jesus are both a revelation of God. Both proceed from the Father and reveal what the Father is like. Though from a human point of view Jesus does them, they are said to be done by the Father (i.e., through Jesus), and they are called "his" works" (Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, Revised, NICNT, p.572).
The three verses and comment, especially its last sentence are helpful in understanding how God was God in the OT.
Mt 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
Zech 14:3-4 is "indirect messianic prophecy" - it "refers to passages that can be literally and fully realized only through the person and work of the Messiah - e.g. passages that speak of a personal coming of God to his people..." (Kenneth L. Barker, Zechariah, EBC, Vol.7, p.619).
Ex 20:1 And God spake all these words, saying...
In light of the above, who is speaking in 20:1?
Some thoughts on the Bible:
The Bible is ancient-Near Eastern literature - that is, it was written in the language and thought-forms of the day.
The Bible is "laden with cultural content that its audience intrinsically understood but is often opaque to a modern reader" (John H. Walton & J. Harvey Walton, The Lost World of the Torah, p.9).
"... when we read a text written in another language and addressed to another culture, we must translate the culture as well as the language if we hope to understand the text fully" (John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One, p.9).
"One of the greatest obstacles we face in trying to interpret the Bible is that we are inclined to think in our own cultural and linguistic categories... but it is a problem because our own categories often do not suffice and sometimes mislead" (John H. Walton, Genesis, NIVAC, pp.67-68).
Therefore "we cannot read it as if it were a modern Western document" (John H. Walton & J. Harvey Walton, The Lost World of the Torah, p.9).
"... we frequently need to put the brakes on and ask whether we're reading the Bible in light of the original culture or in light of contemporary culture" (John H. Walton & D. Brent Sandy, The Lost World of Scripture, p.13).
The God of the Old Testament must be the same as the God of the New Testament, where the word "God" is almost exclusively referring to God the Father.
In the Book of Acts, God is continually being contrasted with Jesus, and must therefore must be referring to the Father.
Acts 3:13 "The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified His servant Jesus, whom you delivered up and denied in the presence of Pilate, when He was determined to let Him go."
Acts 5:30 "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on a tree."
These verses prove exclusively that the God of the Old Testament was also "the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob", and "the God of our fathers", and that Jesus was His servant.
This same God was also "God Almighty"
Exodus 6:3 "I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by my name LORD (YHVH) I was not known to them."
so none of these terms, including YHVH, can be applied to Christ, but only to the Father.
None of the COG's have made a serious attempt to explain these verses, which are quite clear to me.
When Mark Mickelson was fired from UCG for preaching that the Father was the God of the Old testament, and not Christ, he was expected by some to go "Unitarian", which he resisted, but at the same time, he seems unable to explain where Christ is actually mentioned in the Old Testament, apart from being prophesied as the future Messiah.
Whether the decision of the Council of Elders to terminate Victor Kubik was influenced by this topic remains to be seen, but it clearly needs to be addressed. The problem appears to be that having rejected the Trinity, the COG's have come to the conclusion that God is now a "Binity", (essentially 2/3 of the Trinity), rather than attempting to refute the Unitarian position, which is well established in a number of books.
www.biblicalunitarian.com/books
Unfortunately, most Biblical Unitarians are not Sabbath keepers.
Kubik's board meetings failed to kill off HWA's stupid Anglo-Israel-doctrine
- a real dilemma -
with it they can't attract new members
without it they can't attract brain-dead-Armstrongites
The one obvious truth that they covered up is that their ordinations were invalid one they left WCG. UCG has been run by men with no ordination status.
Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 9:32:00 AM PST
What a foolish statement. To believe that one's ordination is lost upon leaving a physical organization, would mean that everyone that goes to another church organization would have to be rebaptized. Can anyone even imagine this? One can only believe this if they regard baptism as being plucked into an organization rather than into the body of Christ.
The point you made or referenced about past culture has always carried some weight, 12:43. Since it is exactly that (past), many of the critical details have been lost to antiquity. There is so much that we don't know, or actually have to guess even about the culture of Jesus' time on Earth. One of the ways in which Armstrongism got itself into so much trouble was through its reliance on the leaps, guesses, and interpolations of Alexander Hislop in the "The Two Babylons", a book which the majority of ACOG members still revere and rely upon in spite of the fact that so much more is known today about the culture of the times about which Hislop wrote and was gravely mistaken.
The assistance of anthropologists and historians is required for a cultural understanding, or cultural context of times in the distant past, and many theologians will not accept correction from such scholars, or allow themselves to be co-opted by them. It is clear that there were even grave misunderstandings regarding the nuances of the ancient Hebrew language, a language which was just as dead as the Latin language until it was revived late in the 19th century.
The Bible itself provides insights into the culture of its times, but is rather sparse, leaving much to the imagination. This is why there is another school of thought, although it is somewhat simplistic and unsatisfying. It has been said that God inspired the Bible to be written in such a way that it could be understood by the simple people of those times, and also by those of us who live during the times when knowledge has increased. Some say that the entire Old Testament is there only as an example, illustrating the necessity of Jesus Christ. For Jews, it is much more than that. Much effort was put into processing the information contained therein by learned rabbis and scholars, which is why the Talmud exists. Each of these perspectives have some validity.
All of this points to one inescapable conclusion: Literalism is impossible and untenable. There is no foundation upon which modern day Phariseeism can be built, let alone enforced. There are simply too many unknowns. That's how we ended up in motels in resort cities for the Feast of Tabernacles, rather than in Jerusalem in temporary dwellings made from Palm fronds.
Literalism is impossible and untenable. There is no foundation upon which modern day Phariseeism can be built, let alone enforced. There are simply too many unknowns. That's how we ended up in motels in resort cities for the Feast of Tabernacles, rather than in Jerusalem in temporary dwellings made from Palm fronds.
That's a bad example. It's very easy and straightforward for millions of Jews to reside in temporary palm-frond booths for a week, just as Scripture demands. Doing so is also a very Christian practice, as the palm fronds call to mind Jesus' entry into Jerusalem. Nobody ever waved a Holiday Inn at Jesus as He entered Jerusalem.
Is there any religious leader, anywhere or anytime, who told followers, "Here are my teachings, but be sure to verify them with anthropologists and historians before you dare to practice what I'm teaching"? If that's how a god works, it's a pretty useless and ineffectual god.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Put your phone number up first LIAR. But you cannot can you. You've already been exposed anyways. Many know who you are.
MY COMMENT:
Yeah sure! LOL! So that every whacked out COG mental case can call me on the phone ?? It would be worse than getting phone calls for CAR WARRANTY EXTENSION.
Since Im a nobody, my identity is of little concern, and what you are trying to seek is an ad hominem attack, rather than a discourse on what I post. Stick to the issues raised Anonymous , and stop trying to make this something personal about some spectator in the stands , which is what I am.
. I do however do not want any association to the whacked out world of WCG or the crazy splinters to be associated to me for career and business purposes, or even to my neighbors or local community. This is certainly wisdom.
In todays world, one must be extremely careful about Facebook persona, or any public postings on some form. The internet NEVER forgets, and I cringe when young people post pictures of themselves doing dubious activities , as it could haunt them for a lifetime.
It is rich and hilarious that someone who is anonymous rags on someone else for maintaining a degree of privacy. I at least have provided an email for contact. Ball is in your court!
Tonto wrote: "MY COMMENT: Yeah sure! LOL! So that every whacked out COG mental case can call me on the phone ?? "
We have seen a lot of whacktards on here over the years that are screaming mental cases. Can you imagine the hell they would cause if a phone number was posted? They would also take that phone number to their ministurd and squeal like a stuck pig about how the person was persecuting the church. There are too many mentally ill COG members out there to do such a thing.
Sweetblood777 said...
What a foolish statement. To believe that one's ordination is lost upon leaving a physical organization, would mean that everyone that goes to another church organization would have to be rebaptized. Can anyone even imagine this? One can only believe this if they regard baptism as being plucked into an organization rather than into the body of Christ.
Thank you Sweetblood for pointing out this absurdity.
We should campaign for Tonto for UCG president!
To believe that one's ordination is lost upon leaving a physical organization, would mean that everyone that goes to another church organization would have to be rebaptized. Can anyone even imagine this? One can only believe this if they regard baptism as being plucked into an organization rather than into the body of Christ.
Anyone who equates ordination with baptism has fallen for one of the biggest lies of Catholicism.
The truth is that baptism isn't an office. Eldership is an office.
An individual requests baptism. An individual does not request ordination (if he does, he shows himself unqualified). Ordination sets a man apart for service; it is not a higher initiation like you would find in a mystery religion. If an elder from one group quits and starts attending another group, it is presumptuous for him to insist that the new group must accept his service on his own terms. He may ask about being certified by his new group, but it is neither automatic nor bogus that his prior ordination may be accepted or rejected by that new group. Eldership is an office of service, not an indelible mark of spiritual status. To say otherwise would be like saying the CEO of Facebook can join Google and demand to be treated as Google's CEO. It might happen, but it isn't automatic.
Look at it this way. If ordination automatically follows you when you move from one group to another, then Bob Thiel is Prophet and Overseer of UCG, COGWA, LCG, and any other groups over which he chooses to claim authority. Ministers who seek to lord over others may like that approach, but neither Scripture nor any group of Christians today will accept it.
Various COG groups do require people coming in from other church groups to be rebaptized, including those that come from other Sabbath keeping backgrounds such as COG7 or SDA. Many times this is without regard to the person's fruits or actual acceptance of Jesus Christ, but is based solely on differences of doctrine and teachings between the groups, with the reasoning that those people weren't taught "the truth" in their former organizations which makes the legitimacy of their baptism suspect. Needless to say if the baptisms of these people aren't accepted, any ordination status bestowed by one of these groups would also be ignored.
As far as I'm concerned this is hypocritical considering HWA's baptism by a Baptist preacher was never questioned, nor were his ministerial credentials which came from COG7. One standard was applied to him, while another is applied to everyone else.
Concerned Sister
I apologize, 8:31. It wasn't my intention that my comment would completely go over your head. Nothing personal.
"If ordination automatically follows you when you move from one group to another, then Bob Thiel is Prophet and Overseer of UCG, COGWA, LCG, and any other groups over which he chooses to claim authority. "
The problem with this comment is that Bob was never ordained in ANY COG. All of them refused to do it. That is part of the reason he was so ineffectual in conning LCG members to join up with him. Bob is a fraud ever which way he turns.
The problem with this comment is that Bob was never ordained in ANY COG. All of them refused to do it.
You are mistaken. At the weird round-robin ordination in Africa, sometime after he founded his CCOG, Bob was ordained by his African elder who had a previous elder ordination by another Sabbath-keeping group (maybe Global Church of God? I don't remember). Bob might not even have understood at the time that that was what was happening, but in the eyes of the Africans under their African elder, Bob was being ordained into their group. And if that was a legitimate ACOG ordination, Bob is now ordained.
It's God that binds a couple in marriage, not some minister of religion. The ministers only role is in reading out the marriage contract and witnessing their exchange of vows.
With baptism it's similar except Christ must agree, ie, that person must be called by the Father. The minister or denomination in question doesn't matter.
Anon, Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 11:54:00 PM PST, said"
"...Well said, 7:51. We are clued in to the plurality of God in Genesis. "Let Us make man in Our image..."
******
Even before the making of man, Heylel, one of hundreds of names God has for Satan, knew that there was only one Most High: not two of them.
"I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High." Isaiah 14:14
Who was that one Most High? Moses was inspired to tell us:
Deut 32:39 “See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.
:40 For I lift up my hand to heaven, and say, I live for ever.”
Christ was dead for 3 days and 3 nights.
The "Word" ceased existence when it was made flesh (John 1:14).
It appears that both the "Word" and Jesus both had a beginning and an end, something only God (I Tim 6:16), the Father does not have:
It is something to consider; however, it isn't worth arguing over, b/c
Time will tell...
John
Zec 14:5 and the [ho] Lord [kurios] my God [theos] shall come, and all the saints with him (Brenton, LXX).
1Th 3:13 ... the coming of the [ho] Lord [kurios] Jesus, with all the saints of him
"... the title ho kurios [the Lord] is the special province of 1 Thessalonians...
"The first instance in the corpus where Paul uses language from the Septuagint and applies the kurios = YHWH directly to Christ appears in the eschatological goal of Paul's prayer for the Thessalonians in 3:11-13... Here Paul's intertextual appropriations of Zech 14:5 seems certain, since the language is too close to be merely accidental...
"The christological import of this sentence lies with the fact that the kurios of the Septuagint is "Yahweh my God," who will himself come to the Mount of Olives and carry out his eschatological victory over the nations. In Paul's theology, the future coming of the Lord is always seen as the return of the present reigning Lord, Jesus Christ. What Paul has done seems clear enough: the future coming of Yahweh is now to be understood a the future coming of "our Lord Jesus," who alone is kurios in Paul's new understanding, resulting from his own encounter with the risen Lord (see 1 Cor 9:1). One can scarcely miss the ease with which Paul now reads the kurios (= YHWH) of Zechariah as referring to Christ, the Lord. So much so that in 2 Thess 1:7-10, the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ has altogether assumed the role of judging God's enemies as well...
"Once one recognizes Paul's intertextual appropriation of the language of the Septuagint, whereby kurios = Yahweh is now kurios = Christ, one becomes aware of the many exclusively Yahweh-phrases from the Septuagint that are also applied to Christ..." (Gordon D. Fee, Pauline Christology, pp.43-45).
Dt 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD [YHWH] our God ['Elohim] is one LORD [YHWH] :
Deut 6:4 Hear, O Israel, The Lord [Kyrios] our God (Theos) is one Lord (Kyrios). (Brenton, LXX)
1Co 8:6 But to us there is but one God [Theos], the Father... and one Lord [Kyrios] Jesus Christ...
"[Paul] has kept the "one" intact, but has divided the Shema into two parts, with theos (God) now referring to the Father, and kurios (Lord) referring to Jesus Christ... [Paul] is reasserting for the Corinthians that ... there is indeed only one God... but at the same time, he insists that the identity of the one God also includes the one Lord..." (Gordon D. Fee, Pauline Christology, pp.90-91).
Tit 2:13b the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
“... the term God is rarely applied to Christ in Scripture” (D. Edmond Hiebert, Titus, EBC, Vol.11, p.441).
“In three reasonably clear instances in the NT and five that have probability Jesus is called God... “Jesus is Lord” was evidently a popular confessional formula in NT times, and this formula Christians gave Jesus the title Kyrios which was the Septuagint translation for YHWH. If Jesus could be given this title, why could he not be called “God” (theos), which the Septuagint often used to translate ’Elohim?...” (Raymond Edward Brown, An Introduction to New Testament Christology, p.189).
Heb 1:1 God [Theos], who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son...
Jn 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord [Kyrios] and my God [Theos].
“... the most remarkable thing that happened in the faith of the earliest followers of Jesus is that they came to identify him - Jesus - with Yahweh, in calling him Lord, and in many other ways. So, yes it is certainly true, from a whole-Bible perspective, that the God Yahweh of the Old Testament ‘embodies’ (if that is not too human a word) the Son... But on the whole it is probably more appropriate in most cases that, when we read about Yahweh, we should have God the Father in mind” (Christopher J. H. Wright, Knowing God the Father through the Old Testament, p.17).
Am I the only one here who scrolls right past the lengthy posts that start many of their lines with a Scripture verse citation, followed by comment on those verses? TL;DR
From scripture... I said, “You are gods, And all of you are sons of the Most High. Psalm 82:6
There are many gods. They can be people, angels, God and Christ. When mentioning who is the God of the old testament, the problem lies in how that's worded by some. Mark Mickelson isn't denying Christ is a God. He's emphasizing that the Father is THEE God of the old testament. He's exalting the position of the Father, just as Messiah did in regards to His Father. There's no lowering of Christ in this or denying His divinity,as some try to say that's what's being done. Their reasoning makes no sense. There is one YHWH (the Father) and two gods. UCG has taught there are two YHWHs. There was a sermon by a prominent minister in UCG called, "The Compact." It was given three or so years ago. He said in the sermon that there was a compact, an agreement between two beings, on who would come down and it was decided on Christ. This is just mumbo jumbo. There were visitors in services that day and one went up to a member afterwards and said, "You teach this?" Another non baptized person said to me, "Did you hear what he said?!" They were flabbergasted. Tragically UCG doesn't know their Creator or His Son as they should. Messianics often know them better than the split offs, sadly.
Anonymous 3:04 wrote,
"Acts 3:13 "The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified His servant Jesus, whom you delivered up and denied in the presence of Pilate, when He was determined to let Him go."
Acts 5:30 "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on a tree."
"These verses prove exclusively that the God of the Old Testament was also "the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob", and "the God of our fathers", and that Jesus was His servant."
I am not going to argue the Trinity with you. It is abundantly documented. But let me point out an issue you must address. What you are saying is this:
1. God is the Old Testament God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
2. And Jesus is NOT the Old Testament God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
The question that this view raises, for both Trinitarianism and Binitarianism, is how can Jesus be on this earth as a human and yet be God. Your conclusion is that he can't be both and therefore God is God and Jesus is God's servant. So you would say, my deduction, that God and Jesus are two separate persons. However, this is a violation of the Shema. It is also a rejection of Binitarianism. This is instead something called Bitheism - a form of polytheism involving two god beings. Or, even farther afield, this may be Arianism depending on how you see Jesus in relation to God. And essentially you have rejected the Judeo-Christian theological tradition.
I will go no further. This has been much debated already. I will say that Dugger and Dodd seem to indicate that Arianism maybe had some merit - I would have to find the passage in their writing. And I read Arianistic statements made by Armstrongists now and again though I think they are probably inadvertent. I am puzzled by this persistent Arianistic influence.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Arianism became a big thing for a while among some Armstrongites, and former Armstrongites. One God. Jesus as a created or humanly begotten being who did not preexist with Father God. If I'm not mistaken, I believe that Anthony Buzzard and Ken Westby, among others, arrived at this position through their own studies, and began to teach it. There were panels and lectures put on in various areas, and Dixon Cartwright reported on these events in The Journal. It is another thing that people became all bug-eyed over, like sacred names. There were arguments over these topics which literally lasted for years on some of the forums and blogs.
I realized many years ago that in our human state, there will always be some unknowable mysteries surrounding our existence and beliefs. People who are fanatical about their answers to these mysteries generally use them to judge and invalidate others, or sometimes to feel sorry for them. Pretending to have all the answers, or to be the supreme authority, is a dangerous position to take. Our minds are like a parachute. They only work when they are open.
March 7, 2022 at 12:43:00 AM said:
This is what the Pacific Church of God and Mark Mickelson get wrong. I have listen to a sermon by Rick Ralston on the subject and read some of the Church literature - I do not buy it. For example: 1) Jesus wasn't claiming to be the I AM of Exodus 3:13-14 in John 8:57-58; 2) Jesus cannot be Yahweh of the OT since it is God the Father's name; 3) God the Father was seen and heard in the OT and will return with Jesus fulfilling scriptures like Zechariah 14:3-4 that refers to Yahweh defending Jerusalem and His feet standing on the Mount of Olives; etc.
What a relief I'm not the only one who sees it like you!
Ever since I was encouraged to listen to Mark Mickelson's sermons while he was still with UCG I felt some unease as to where he was heading. I agreed with his main thesis that God the Father is both God of the Old and New Testaments, but I was left confused somewhat as if this was "new truth" when I always thought this was a given in Christianity and particularly in the COGs since we are all instructed by Christ Himself to pray to, "Our Father who art in heaven."
Shortly after I heard he was removed from UCG, lost his pension and was now with Rick Railston's Pacific Church of God. I admit I enjoyed listening to Railston's sermons in the past, but his association with Mickelson and the skewed theology that has developed since hasn't sat right with me. Those 3 examples you noted were just some of what I felt were Mickelson's "dogmatic re-interpretation" of the Bible, which left me unsatisfied and I even wrote him telling him so. But, I never got a reply. My understanding is such that I believe God the Father has never been seen or heard by man; that He uses agents to speak and act on His behalf who then proceed to perform God's will as if God Himself is doing the actual speaking or activity; that the LORD visiting Abraham in Genesis 18 via 3 men and then "the LORD" discussing with Abraham His judgment on Sodom that 1 of these 3 men was the pre-incarnate Lord Jesus Christ who also was the "Angel of the LORD" throughout the OT; that it was the Lord Jesus Christ who was present before Moses at the burning bush and later at Mt Sinai who spoke on God's behalf and this explains the Jewish religious leaders hostile reaction to Christ when He equated Himself with the I AM of Exodus 3:14; that it is the Lord Jesus Christ who will fulfill Zechariah 14:4; and that it is only at the end when God the Father will finally come down and live with mankind in the new heavens and new earth (Rev. 21-22).
Having researched the history of WCG for a couple of decades now I was aware of the late Kenneth Westby, his Association for Christian Development and his "One God" seminars. I was also aware of the Sacred Name and Bible calendar movements and how it seemed like a lot of ex-members of WCG would follow a familiar path that would first lead them to discover the true name of God and then the true Bible calendar! So it was my concern that this would happen to Mickelson especially after he joined Railston's group and they started to use "Yehovah" as the name of God, which I think they took from Nehemiah Gordon. Suffice to say I'm not surprised that Mickelson has now moved on to create his own group and they've gone one step further in rejecting the Jewish calendar for their own "Bible" version.
TBH when HWA rises from the dust to be judged by God he'll have a lot of apologies to give to a lot of people for all the deception and destruction he's been behind!
John said:
“Christ was dead for 3 days and 3 nights.”
The Pacific Church of God says: “After three days and three nights in the grave (72 hours) He was resurrected”.
But was it 72 hours, or thereabouts?
Mt 16:21b and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
Mt 17:23a And they shall kill him, and the third day he shall be raised again.
Mt 20:19b and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again.
Mk 9:31b and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.
Mk 10:34b and shall kill him: and the third day he shall rise again.
Lk 9:22b and be slain, and be raised the third day.
Lk 18:33b and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again.
Lk 24:7b and be crucified, and the third day rise again.
Lk 24:46b it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
Ac 10:40 Him God raised up the third day, and showed him openly; .
1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
Ex 19:10 And the LORD said unto Moses, Go unto the people, and sanctify them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their clothes,
Ex 19:11 And be ready against the third day...
“the third day” is a Hebrew idiom for “the day after tomorrow”.
This ‘concept’ is seen in Jesus’ saying/instruction:
Lk 13:32 And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.
The day Christ was killed and buried is counted as the first day. This is inclusive reckoning, which is well know from the count to Pentecost.
This idiom is seen with regard to the “peace/well-being offering” for a vow or a voluntary offering, but not for thanksgiving offering:
Lev 19:5 And if ye offer a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the LORD, ye shall offer it at your own will.
Lev 19:6 It shall be eaten the same day ye offer it, and on the morrow: and if aught remain until the third day, it shall be burnt in the fire.
Lev 19:7 And if it be eaten at all on the third day, it is abominable; it shall not be accepted.
Say a person wanted to spend the weekend with friends or family in Jerusalem; he could also share a sacrificial meal with God and the priests while there.
If he did the latter on the Friday, he would offer his sacrifice and have meat to eat on the same day he offered it and on the Sabbath. As there is no food preparation on the Sabbath enough boiled meat is kept over from Friday for the Sabbath. But he is not to eat it on the third day, which in this scenario is Sunday, the first day of the week.
Therefore, according to the Hebrew idiom, Sunday is “the third day” from Friday; it then follows that if Christ was killed on a Wednesday, the first day, then the third day from Wednesday is Friday; the third day from Thursday is the Sabbath, according to Biblical inclusive reckoning.
Mt 12:40b so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
But what about 12:40? But what about the 11 references above to the Hebrew idiom of “the third day” which precludes a literal 72 hrs.
"The entire scheme is based upon the twisted interpretation of a single Bible text. The "three days and three nights" phrase is forced into artificial conformity with current English forms of speech, instead of the common usage of the people living at that time" (Joe Crews, Three Days and Three Nights, amazingfacts.org).
It would be like arguing, that as a minute equals 60 seconds, I will be there in a minute always means that a person will be there in a literally 60 seconds.
“the third day, ”three days and three nights” and “in a minute” are all idioms.
"One of the greatest obstacles we face in trying to interpret the Bible is that we are inclined to think in our own cultural and linguistic categories. This is no surprise since our categories are often all that we have, but it is a problem because our own categories often do not suffice and sometimes mislead" (John H. Walton, Genesis, NIVAC, pp.67-68).
Anon 6:28 No you are not alone brother!! Scroll past the pompous comments.
Women are not allowed to be President in UCG.
Kettle. Pot. Black.
Whats all this apostasy comments, that go on and on, got to do with Victor Kubic not serving another three years as UCG President ???!
Is this your true beliefs ?
Jesus is not the God of the Old Testament.
Jesus was not three days and three nights in the grave.
Non believing in British Israelisim.
Any more?
Anonymous cited as evidence that Jesus was not the God of A, I, J:
"Acts 3:13 "The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified His servant Jesus, whom you delivered up and denied in the presence of Pilate, when He was determined to let Him go."
As a counterpoint, follow this logic:
1. Jesus is Creator: "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (John 1:3)"
2. Yahweh is Creator: "Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD (Yahweh), the Creator of the ends of the earth..." (Isa 40:28)
3. Yahweh is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob: "The LORD (Yahweh) God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you..."
By transitivity, we have rooted in scripture the logical inference that Jesus is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Acts 3:13 and the three numbered scriptures make sense in Trinitarianism and Binitarianism but not in polytheism. If an Armstrongist denomination holds to Bitheism, a form of polytheism, they cannot make sense of Acts 3:13 along with the three numbered scriptures cited above.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
IMHO: 3 days, part or whole: Nisan 14, 15, 16. Three nights, part or whole: a few minutes of darkness Friday afternoon, Fri night, Sat night (maybe only a few minutes). In 33 AD.
Hebrews 1:1-3 NASB (parentheses mine): God (the Father), after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son (Jesus), whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom He also made the world (both the Father and the Son created). And He (Jesus) is the radiance of His (the Father) glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power (the Holy Spirit).
No "Trinity". The Holy Spirit is God's power - Acts 1:8.
Neotherm's reasoning is refuted by a Greek pronoun. God is not His own servant, unless they are separate beings. But if they are separate beings, we have Bitheism and Acts 3:13 shows Jesus not to be the God of the Old Testament. Binitarianism fails, though, because Jesus cannot be both subordinate to God yet also coequal with Him. You can't have one God who is both greater and lesser than Himself. But, if you somehow twist things so that you do, Acts 3:13 becomes clear evidence that Jesus was not the God of the Old Testament.
Onesimus states, “ I felt some unease as to where he was heading.” That’s in regards to Mark Mickelson. I’ve been in the COGs for decades and have not felt unease at all over Mark’s messages. He hasn’t started his own church but is accepting studies from various individuals. I personally don’t believe he got his name for the Father from Nehemia Gordon.
It’s fascinating to read people’s differences on what they’re “hearing” regarding Mark’s messages. Wil Berg, Terry Swagerty and Boyd Yahn are also on A Short Work with Mark. All have been dismissed from UCG and pensions taken away. Their studies are informative, IMO. Gleaning much from them.
12:46 PM
BINGO!! You nailed it! 👏
Correction to comment about Boyd Yahn in post at 1:15 pm. He wasn’t employed at UCG so he had no pension taken. I needed to correct my post on that part.
Anon, Monday, March 7, 2022 at 11:43:00 PM PST, said:
"...John said:
“Christ was dead for 3 days and 3 nights.”
The Pacific Church of God says: “After three days and three nights in the grave (72 hours) He was resurrected”.
But was it 72 hours, or thereabouts?....................."
******
Thanks for your lengthy explanation of idioms and shinning some light on my comment of Christ being "dead for 3 days and 3 nights."
I had in mind the thoughts of Matthew 12:40 "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."
I wasn't even thinking about how long Jesus Christ was dead: a time period of 72 hours. He died in the daylight hours of an afternoon, and put into the "heart of the earth" sometime just prior to sunset.
Now, the context for the 3 days and 3 nights was this:
******
[[Deut 32:39 “See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.
:40 For I lift up my hand to heaven, and say, I live for ever.”
Christ was dead for 3 days and 3 nights.
The "Word" ceased existence when it was made flesh (John 1:14).
It appears that both the "Word" and Jesus both had a beginning and an end, something only God (I Tim 6:16), the Father does not have:]]
******
The point I was striving to make was that only God the Father could say the words "I live for ever," but neither Jesus Christ nor the Word could say those words.
Anyway, thanks for sharing some of the opinions of others of different reference sources that you cited and explaining idioms. There is no doubt that, to use another idiom, what I said did not leave you "up in the air!"
John
Anonymous 12:46
I see the pronoun, but I am not sure where you see a refutation. God is not HIS own servant because God the Father is God, and God the Son is God, and God the Holy Spirit is God. Each is a separate person but of the same essence, so each person is willfully and functionally separate but is the same in essential being and purpose.
Jesus was termed a "servant" because he was in an incarnate form that has undergone Kenosis. Yet, he remained fully God and fully Man in dual category. As Paul wrote in Philippians 2:
Who, though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God
as something to be exploited,
7 but emptied (Gr. kenoó) himself,
taking the form of a slave,
being born in human likeness.
And being found in human form,
8 he humbled himself
and became obedient to the point of death—
even death on a cross.
This shows that Jesus in his pre-incarnate state was co-equal with God the Father. And it also shows that he somehow - a mystery - mitigated his innate Godly capabilities in the process of incarnation. Through his Godly nature he was still the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob only that aspect was temporarily greatly diminished. God the Father and the Holy Spirit yet remained undiminished in the role of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It is as if Jesus in his kenotic state entered upon a new role. This is where the subordination comes into the picture.
I do not know if there is a statement in Armstrongist literature about the divine state of Jesus Christ. I do not that Kyriacos Stavrinides mentioned that there was a belief that Jesus was made entirely incarnate and subject to death and if he had sinned he would have died. He was just a physical human like the rest of us. Stavrinides said that sounded melodramatic in Spokesman Club but it just was not true. The literature is extensive.
Moreover, your assertions do not at all counter the transitive logical argument that I constructed. Bi-theism is rank paganism and is non-Biblical. The Gospel of John extensively covers the coinherence of God the Father and God the Son. HWA struck out big time on the Trinity. And people who claim the God of the OT was entirely separate from Jesus have also struck out big time. Only Dr. Arius, the rank heretic, would like that argument.
******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
The disUnited Church of Godlessness is where a lot of unrepentant, unconverted unbelievers went to behave very badly while playing church. They were bad in the WCG and even worse in the UCG.
The old WCG “ministers” went to the UCG mainly for the money after the WCG's income dropped so fast and so far after the Great Apostasy of 1995 that they were let go. They had stayed in the WCG in spite of the doctrinal changes of the apostate Tkaches until their paychecks disappeared. Then, former Tkach goons like Victor Kubik simply moved over to the UCG. The old WCG “ministers” in the UCG are bad enough. The newly-credentialed fake “ministers” in the UCG are even worse.
The UCG “ministers” welcome in godless perverts and kick out their victims. Then they say that “The UCG meets in peace.”
NEO writes:
“Bi-theism is rank paganism and is non-Biblical. The Gospel of John extensively covers the coinherence of God the Father and God the Son. HWA struck out big time on the Trinity. And people who claim the God of the OT was entirely separate from Jesus have also struck out big time.”
Jn 14:28b my Father is greater than I.
Jn 10:30 I and my Father are one.
Thanks NEO for sharing your understanding; but it is not my understanding. Bi-theism is not rank paganism and is Biblical; and it was one thing HWA got right. It is the Trinity that is “rank paganism and non-Biblical”. You won’t convince me otherwise, and also I will not convince you. But as John says, time will tell.
Some thoughts:
As I have mentioned before, typology suggest that Adam and Eve are antitypes of God and the Word. (See John Sailhamer’s insightful comments in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary).
Ge 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Ge 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Just as Adam existed before Eve, so God existed before the Word. And just as Eve was “taken out of Man” the Word was ‘taken out of God’.
Heb 7:9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, paid tithes in Abraham.
Heb 7:10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.
While the Word/Christ has not always existed, there is a sense He has always existed.
Jn 20:17... I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
Jn 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
It is a given that God was God of the OT and the NT. But for those who knew Jesus Christ, like Thomas, Christ was also God in the NT; for those who did not ‘know’ Jesus they did not realize He was their God.
Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and for ever.
I would suggest for those in the OT, who ‘knew’ the preincarnate Jesus Christ, he was also their God; for those who did not ‘know' Jesus they did not realize He was their God.
I would then suggest that both the Father and Christ were the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Ac 3:13a The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus...
Ge 48:3 And Jacob said unto Joseph, God Almighty appeared unto me at Luz in the land of Canaan, and blessed me,
Ge 48:14-15a And Israel ... blessed Joseph, and said, God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk,
Ge 48:15b the God which fed [ra‘a] me all my life long unto this day,
Ge 48:16a The Angel which redeemed [ga’al] me from all evil, bless the lads;
It is suggested that 48:15b and 48:16a is a synonymous parallellism. The implication being is that the God-being that fed Jacob was the Angel [of God]
Ge 31:11 And the Angel of God spake unto me in a dream, saying, Jacob...
Ge 31:13a I am the God of Beth-el...
Ge 32:24 And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man...
Ge 32:30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.
"The angel had appeared at three crisis-points in his life, at Bethel (28:13), in Paddan-aram (31:11,13) and at Peniel (32:24-30). Jacob had recognised this angel as God himself, so that he called the place where he wrestled with the angel ‘the face of God' (Peniel). Through the intervention of the angel God had rescued him from both Laban and Esau, and had brought him home in safety, according to his promise. The angel who had so protected him he calls his ‘redeemer' (Heb. goel), the one who stepped in to rescue a relative in time of trouble (cf. Lv 25:25-28; Nu 35:19)... This then was the God whom Jacob-Israel prayed as he adopted his two grandchildren..." (Joyce G. Baldwin, The Message of Genesis 12-50, BST, p.202).
Compare the parallels between the Angel and Jacob the individual and the Angel and Jacob the community.
Tonto was caught a few times. Changes his/her photo and name. Tonto is a manipulator.
Anonymous 10:26
What do you think of Charles Taze Russell? My guess is that your missionary work here has not been very productive. And it won't be. Armstrongists, like JWs, are very brand loyal.
Anon, Wednesday, March 9, 2022 at 10:26:00 AM PST, posted Some thoughts:
As I have mentioned before, typology suggest that Adam and Eve are antitypes of God and the Word. (See John Sailhamer’s insightful comments in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary).
Ge 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Ge 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Just as Adam existed before Eve, so God existed before the Word. And just as Eve was “taken out of Man” the Word was ‘taken out of God’.
******
The Bible speaks of shadows, patterns and figures in lieu of antitypes.
John Sailhamer suggesting "Adam and Eve are antitypes of God and the Word" makes no sense; however, Adam and Eve being a shadow/pattern of Jesus Christ and the Bride, respectively, makes sense.
Adam was created from the elements of the earth, and Eve was created from something out of Adam: one of Adam’s ribs.
Jesus Christ is to be a Groom. The Bride is composed of sealed Firstfruits that make up God's Church. Something, not a rib, of Jesus Christ will be in each member making up that Bride.
John 17:23 “I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.”
Anon wrote: "...While the Word/Christ has not always existed, there is a sense He has always existed..."
That also makes no sense, as neither the Word/Christ has always existed. Both had a beginning:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God (ton Theon)..."
God only has immortality, but there was a beginning, and at that beginning the Word was with God, who existed before that beginning.
"And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;"
Jesus Christ was/is the "beginning of the creation of God." God created the Word, taught and educated Him, and eventually used Him to create all things, but it was all accomplished by the power and authority of God, The God, The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Is the Word the beginning of the creation of God: the first thing or person in a series, and yes, long before the Word was made flesh?
Time will tell...
John
NEO,
I have no thoughts on Charles Taze Russell. I have read about him in the past but can’t recall anything I have read.
In regard to what you call “missionary work” I have no illusions concerning productivity.
John writes:
“The Bible speaks of shadows, patterns and figures in lieu of antitypes.”
Heb 9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures [Gk. antitypa, 499] of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
HELPS Word-studies:
499 antítypon (from 473/antí, "corresponding to" and 5179/typos, "type") – properly, an antitype which corresponds to (fulfills) a type (a predictive symbol). See 5179 /typos ("a theological type") for extended discussion.
What are you saying by this comment? For me the English translation “figures” doesn’t capture the scope of the original Greek “antitypa”.
Rom 5:14b [Adam] who is the figure [typos] of him that was to come.
John writes:
“Adam and Eve being a shadow/pattern of Jesus Christ and the Bride, respectively, makes sense.”
In my example I am not referring to horizontal typology, as in your example, but vertical typology as in Hebrews.
Heb 7:9 One might even say that Levi, who COLLECTS the tenth, PAID the tenth through Abraham (NIV).
John, does Heb 7:9 make sense to you, seeing that Levi was yet unborn?
“Hebrews 7 contains some of the most interesting examples of rabbinic exegesis to be found in the New Testament... Viewing vv.9-10 as “artificial” and “playful” may be taking the writer’s reasoning too lightly... [it] deserves special attention because it is predicated on a biblical perspective much larger than Hebrews 7” (Fred B. Craddock, The Letter to the Hebrews, NIB, Vol.12, pp.95, 88).
John you quote Rev 3:14.
Rev 3:14b the beginning of the creation of God; (AV).
Rev 3:14b the Origin of the creation of God, says this: (NASB; “Originator” (BST).
Rev 3:14b the ruler of God’s creation. (NIV).
“The term arche can have several meanings: (1) beginning (temporal or aspectual), (2) ruler, authority, office, (3) cause” (David E. Aune, Revelation 1-5, WBC, p.256).
Hence the translations above.
Seeing that arche has several meanings, on what grounds do you favor the first meaning in Revelation? The context? Can you be sure this is the case here?
BTW, I was suggesting that "Adam and Eve are antitypes [vertical typology] of God and the Word" not John Sailhamer, who said this:
"In [Gen 1] v.27 it is stated twice that man was created (bara') in God's image and a third time that man was created (bara') "male and female." The same pattern is found in Genesis 5:1-2a... The singular man ('adam) is created as a plurality, "male and female"... in a similar way the one God ... created man through an expression of his plurality (..."let us make man in our image"). Following this clue the divine plurality expressed in v.26 is seen as an anticipation of the human plurality of the man and woman, thus casting the human relationship between man and woman in the role reflecting God's own relationship with HIMSELF" (John H. Sailhamer, Genesis, EBC., Vol.2, p.38).
Rev 11:15 The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and HE shall reign for ever and ever.
Rev 22:3b but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve HIM:
The last phrase by Sailhamer, from a bi-theism point of view, would better read “thus casting the human relationship between man and woman in the role reflecting God's own relationship with the Word" - which it is argued, would better reflect “us/plurality”.
To trinitarians, is the throne of Rev 22:3 also the Holy Spirit’s? Will the HS be served as well? Are the kingdoms of this world also become the kingdom of the Holy Spirit?
Anonymous 11:32
You did not explicitly deny being a JW. But, in any case, I think you might receive a warmer reception on a JW blog site.
NEO wrote:
“You did not explicitly deny being a JW.”
Now I understand why you asked about Charles Taze Russell. If I was a JW it would be surprising that I couldn’t recall anything about him.
You also wrote:
“But, in any case, I think you might receive a warmer reception on a JW blog site.”
Maybe, maybe not.
But my heritage is HWA/COG and that is why I come to Banned to see what is happening in the COGs.
Anonymous (12:10)
If you want to exit your heritage church pronto, tell you minister that you believe this from one of your earlier posts:
"While the Word/Christ has not always existed..."
That is a JW viewpoint.
NEO,
I have long gone.
Ex 7:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god ['elohim] to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.
One Sabbath I was talking with the minister’s wife and a deaconess and the latter mentioned that ’Elohim was a uniplural word; when I heard that repeated I decided that I could not continue to attend any longer with a COG with all their misunderstandings - the straw that broke the camel’s back.
As mentioned before in posts I also believe that “The Crucifixion was on a Friday;” “Christ’s resurrection was on Sunday”; and “The Saved will go to Heaven”; etc.
(I also believe that animal sacrifices are also required for the Millennium to succeed).
So while I do not attend a COG, I am still interested in what goes on in COG-land.
An analogy may help.
I no longer live in the country of my birth where I lived for over twenty years. I will never return to live there as my children and grandchildren were born and live in the country I now reside in. Though I will never return to live in my country of birth, I am still interested in what goes on there.
Ez 16:29b abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.
I am presently following the above, without a Sabbath days journey (Num 35:5).
Perhaps Mr. Kubik's failure to be reconfirmed as President is indicative of a potential reunited Church of God as splinters consider merging. A consolidation would facilitate only one top spot, and the proposed confederation passed on Mr. Kubik as their leader. Just a thought.
Anon, Sunday, March 13, 2022 at 12:33:00 PM PDT, said:
"...Perhaps Mr. Kubik's failure to be reconfirmed as President is indicative of a potential reunited Church of God as splinters consider merging. A consolidation would facilitate only one top spot, and the proposed confederation passed on Mr. Kubik as their leader. Just a thought."
******
That thought is a very speculative one to think a bunch of splinters would merge back into one as if it were some sort of a continuing convergence leading to a reunited Ass. United was formed by a bunch of men, former hirelings of the former WCG organization, so they would continue to receive a paycheck.
While HWA and JWTkach senior were alive, most of the members of the WCG were told that God works through one individual as a servant of God until death. Supposedly, God completed whatever work He had in mind to be accomplished with HWA and then he died. Then, supposedly, God completed whatever work He had in mind to be accomplished with Joe W Tkach senior, and then he died.
Both men were taught and preached that one does not vote in a servant, but then along came them former hirelings to form the United Association, and what was one of the first thing they did at that Indianapolis Conference in 1995? They started voting, using the preferred word of balloting. Contrary to what HWA taught, they used Acts 6:1-8 to justify their balloting to determine who would be in charge of what...including the top job of servant.
If you were Satan, how would you seek out 7 men of honest report and full of God's Spirit and wisdom?
Of course, they claimed they all prayed about it to God to direct the balloting, and a David Hulme, who was looking for a "home," was selected, voted in.
Now, what kind of an organization would it be that would be man-made in such a way that the top individual, top job of servant, could very simply be voted in?....and out? and in? and out? and in? and out? etc. Does that sound like something "of God," or "of god:" Satan?
Why would anybody set up an organization where you could be the servant and just be voted out?
What was the overall result? Servants over the years voted in and out, splits, factions and fractions. If Satan could have his way with such an organization as that, what might that thing do?
John 10:12 But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.
:13 The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.
Even Doug Winnail was one of the hirelings initially with the United Ass. when it was created, but he didn't care for any of those sheep, and very shortly after fled to GObAAL, which over time imploded, and Doug again scattered to the Living group. Other former hirelings did similar things.
With the scattering confusion still exists. Some believe in a Mickey Mouse millennium expecting "another Jesus" to very soon return to reign on earth for 1,000 years, and then fail after Satan exits the bottomless pit and again deceives the entire world and causes wars and disruptions worldwide. That's why it is Mickey Mouse: a Mickey Mouse millennium.
Some believe Jesus Christ won't return to reign on earth until after that 1,000 years, after Satan exits the pit and is put down, actually killed. Others believe other things.
Some think Jesus is the God of the OT; others think God the Father is the God of the OT. Some believe salvation will be provided by God's grace; others (e,g, Doug Winnail, Kubik, Franks, Weinland, Flurry, Thiel, Rogers, Pack, etc...no, not Thiel as he wasn't even a WCG hireling) think salvation must be earned by only those who qualify and meet certain prerequisites/requirements. This all seems like a big joke or sorts...
So, Anon, thanks for "just a thought," but will you thought bear the fruit you have in mind?
Time will tell...
John
John: You're calling the Christ of Rev 20:4 "another Jesus". UNBELIEVABLE.
Anon, Sunday, March 13, 2022 at 9:14:00 PM PDT, wrote:
"...You're calling the Christ of Rev 20:4 "another Jesus". UNBELIEVABLE..."
••••••
Revelation 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
:3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.
:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
;5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
:7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
Anon, you just read six verses there, and each verse makes mention of a thousand years, but did you see any mention of Jesus Christ reigning on this Earth for a thousand years? No!
Another Jesus, as in the following verse is what I had in mind:
2 Corinthians 11:4
"For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him."
The Christ of Revelation 20:4 is not "another Jesus," but still with His Father in heaven until all enemies are subdued, until after Satan exits that pit, again causing deception and wars worldwide, and is killed.
Is Jesus Christ of Revelation 20:4 going to return and reign on Earth very soon for a thousand year period, or is she going to be at Earth later after that thousand year?
Time will tell...
John
That paragraph near the end of what I just wrote, should actually, correcting a typo from the word she to the word he, have read as follows:
Is Jesus Christ of Revelation 20:4 going to return and reign on Earth very soon for a thousand year period, or is he going to be at Earth later after that thousand year?
Anonymous at 12:33:00 PM PDT said...“Perhaps Mr. Kubik's failure to be reconfirmed as President is indicative of a potential reunited Church of God as splinters consider merging. A consolidation would facilitate only one top spot, and the proposed confederation passed on Mr. Kubik as their leader. Just a thought.”
Highly unlikely.
The UCG cannot reunite or merge or consolidate. It can only split and splinter and decline.
Watch and learn.
"but did you see any mention of Jesus Christ reigning on this Earth for a thousand years? No!" +++++++++++++++++++
Yes, in context. In Rev 20:4 - ..reigned with Christ..; 20:3 - ..the nations.. with 20:8-9 - ..nations which are in the four quarters of the earth.....the breadth of the earth....; reigning in the midst of His enemies - Ps 110:2.
Anon, Monday, March 14, 2022 at 12:11:00 PM PDT said:
[[John said]] “....but did you see any mention of Jesus Christ reigning on this Earth for a thousand years? No!" +++++++++++++++++++
[[Anon 12:11:00 said]] Yes, in context. In Rev 20:4 - ..reigned with Christ..; 20:3 - ..the nations.. with 20:8-9 - ..nations which are in the four quarters of the earth.....the breadth of the earth....; reigning in the midst of His enemies - Ps 110:2.
******
Anon 12:11:00, I believed what you responded with for about 28 years, until I learned about the Mickey Mouse Millennium where people believe Christ is “very soon” to return to earth and reign here for 1,000 years, people were not going to learn war anymore, etc. and I learned that from HWA of the former WCG, but it all was a false theory of prophecy that has failed to this day. And if you see Jesus Christ very soon land on earth to reign here, please send me an email message. Well, send it to all of us!
It didn’t work! It won’t work, for the reasons I already pointed out in my previous post above (Sunday, March 13, 2022 at 11:57:00 PM PDT) on this thread. Why didn’t it work?
Isaiah 28:13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little;…”
Yes, like you are striving to do now by bringing up Ps 110:2, which makes no mention of 2 words discussed such as: Christ, and earth. You went out of the context of Revelation 20, jumped on to Psalm 110 and you are going down a pig’s tail, down a corkscrew: in circles that don’t completely close. So, what may we expect to happen using such an a la carte pick a verse here, pick a verse there from all over the place in the Bible, like striving to put a puzzle together?
“…that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.” That is the end result as recorded in Isaiah 28:13.
Yes, HWA thought it was a nice way to understand prophecy, but it won’t work. You just made up a theory. You didn’t even think that Jesus Christ returning to earth a second time, after His resurrection, was His “second coming.” Satan had the world come up with another theory from what God intended and people swallowed it. Doug Winnail swallowed it also; he too was snared (2 Tim 2:26!) by Satan at Satan’s will and didn’t even know it: apparently still doesn’t know it. He still is blind, and teaches false “junk food” theories regarding the Bible, but that is allowed. And you are allowed to keep believing what you believe., but be prepared to spend some time in some ditch. No big deal!
To be continued…
John
Continuing…
Now, to cover one area of your concern: where you cited Rev 20:4 and you conclude it is talking about “reigned with Christ” on earth for 1,000 years!
Really? You didn’t prove that with that verse, which says this:
Revelation 20:4 “And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.”
Was 1,000 years mentioned? Yes.
Was “reigned with Christ” mentioned? Yes.
My conclusion? “....but did you see any mention of Jesus Christ reigning on this Earth for a thousand years? No!”
I don’t want to go down that corkscrew, the pig’s tail, but Jesus Christ has been reigning in God’s Church, composed of sealed Firstfruits, for the past approximately 2,000 years.
Most within the varius xcogs, from the former WCG days, driven by another spirit, are filled with false theories, another Jesus, another gospel, and false timing of events regarding the comings of Jesus Christ.
Will you research the Bible to learn the timing of where Jesus is now reigning from and how long, learn the timing of when Jesus will gather the sealed Firstfruits of God’s Church at that first resurrection (and then return to heaven or return to earth?), timing of the 7 Trumps (Wrath of the Lamb), timing of the 7 Vials (Wrath of God), timing of the second resurrection and who will be in that resurrection, and the timing of when Jesus Christ will reign in glory with the saints on earth and The God, the Father, is with them? Etc.?
Time will tell…
John
Hi 9:14,
Just for the record it is possible that Christ's second coming will occur in the next 20 to 30 years - to complete the second half of His prophetic week.
The second half of Christ's prophetic week starts at the end of the Antichrist's prophetic (full) week.
Regards
Anon, Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 12:11:00 AM PDT, said:
"...Hi 9:14,
Just for the record it is possible that Christ's second coming will occur in the next 20 to 30 years - to complete the second half of His prophetic week.
The second half of Christ's prophetic week starts at the end of the Antichrist's prophetic (full) week..."
******
Anon,
Which antichrist did you have in mind, because the Apostle John tells us that there are many antichrists (I John 2:15 "Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time...")!!!!
Whether Anon 9:14 agrees with you, or not, there are at least 500 other who, for the record, do not agree with you regarding you theory of "Christ's second coming in the next 20-30 years."
For the record we have this:
Acts 1:3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them FORTY DAYS, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
That is the evidence of Christ's second coming to earth, which lasted 40 days, and then Jesus left to return later with some other coming(s).
Those 500+ witnesses of God will be resurrected in either the 1st or 2nd resurrection (there is no need for a 3rd resurrection: another false Mickey Mouse satanic theory) and they will explain why they disagree with your record for a second coming.
All the world is deceived and truths are turned into lies.Is it not possible for Christ's second coming to come at any future date. Satan has taken the entire world hostage, captive, with his lies. That is just another one of them.
Which record will be preserved for all eternity: your or what's in the Bible?
Time will tell...
John
John, I am not interested in your “mickey mouse” interpretation of the “second coming”. I am interested in the Bible’s interpretation, specifically the author of Hebrews - “second time” = “second coming” - yet future.
Heb 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for [apekdechomai] him shall he appear [optomai, future tense] the second time without sin unto salvation.
2Th 2:1b ... the coming [parousia] of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
“What will happen a second time is his appearance, but this time it will be “apart from sin”; that is, his second appearance will not be to deal with sin since that work was done once for all. Rather, the Second Coming (that this is a reference to the parousia is clear) will be for the consummation of salvation for those who eagerly awaiting his coming. Verse 28b could be translated, “He will be seen by those eagerly expecting him for salvation”.... The writer may here be returning to the image of the Day of Atonement ritual. While all the worshipers waited outside, the high priest entered the Most Holy Place to sprinkle blood on the mercy seat, in the very presence of God. Will the high priest reappear, or is to audacious for any person to approach God? The people eagerly await his “second coming” (Fred B. Craddock, The Letters to the Hebrews, NIB, Vol.12, p.113).
“Christ will come back a second time and then he will not be concerned with sin. The thought is that sin was dealt with finally at his first coming. There is nothing more that he should do. The second time he will come “to bring salvation.” There is a sense in which salvation has been brought about by Christ’s death. But there is another sense in which it will be brought to its consummation when he returns. Nothing is said about unbelievers. At this point the writer is concerned only with those who are Christ’s. They “are waiting for him,” where the verb apekdechomai expresses the eager looking for the Lord’s coming so characteristic of the NT” (Leon Morris, Hebrews, EBC, Vol.12, p.93).
“All the blessings which he won for his people at his first appearing will be theirs to enjoy at his second appearing” (F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, Revised, NICNT, p.233).
Anon, Friday, March 18, 2022 at 12:55:00 AM PDT, said:
"...John, I am not interested in your “mickey mouse” interpretation of the “second coming”. I am interested in the Bible’s interpretation, specifically the author of Hebrews - “second time” = “second coming” - yet future.
******
Anon,
Are you telling me that I cannot believe the writers of Acts 1:3 and I Corinthians 15:3-8, which are so easily understandable and explainable without any further explanation? Are you telling me that those writers, eye/ear-witnesses are liars, and that I need to go to the interpretations of writers of Satan's world to find the truth?
If you are so interested in the Bible's interpretations, e.g. Hebrews, then why are you looking to other's interpretations to explain Hebrews?
I find the Bible does not need interpretations by others. Oftentimes, just reading it is sufficient. The difficulty comes with people believing what they read.
Hundreds of eye/ear-witnesses know, and know that they know, that Jesus Christ returned to this earth a second time, but in a different form. They all will live again. Will you tell them eye/ear witnesses that they were deceived? That that second coming they experienced was some sort of a sham, a charade? Are you going to tell them that they needed Paul's words in Hebrews with lots of interpretations by a bunch of other non-eye/ear-witnesses?
If God wasn't smart enough to preserve for us the words, even words relative to Christ's comings, in the Bible, then shame on Him, but God isn't a dummy. And He isn't all that helpless.
You appear to be more interested in the opinions, the thoughts, the interpretations of others than you are in the Bible. You appear to be very comfortable with the interpretations of the likes of men such as: Craddock, Morris and Bruce...and you are welcome to all of that, especially since you apparently believe you need their assistance.
Obviously, they don't impress me, and I intend to stick with the eye-witnesses God already us with in what was written regarding Jesus' "second coming" to earth after His resurrection as recorded in Acts 1:3 and I Corinthians 15:3-8.
So, was the information provided about Jesus Christ's second coming to earth, as clearly spelled out in Acts 1:3 and I Corinthians 15:3-8 part of God's truth to us, sufficient for us? Or did God lie to us such that non-eyewitness human interpreters were needed to provide us with some other theory to explain God's truths?
Time will tell...and have a good day!
John
Correct 12:55. Hebrews 9:28 says ...a second time...., does equal second coming.
IMO: At Jesus' death His spirit went to heaven, re-entered His body at His resurrection, was seen by ALL the apostles 40 days including Thomas who didn't see Jesus until 8 days after His resurrection - John 20:24-26; Acts 1:2,3,13 - which means Jesus ascended to heaven on Pentecost (!!) early in the morning, then the apostles went back to Jerusalem and received the Holy Spirit which is God's power and not another "person".
John writes:
“I find the Bible does not need interpretations by others. Oftentimes, just reading it is sufficient. The difficulty comes with people believing what they read.”
Or what they hear. Listening to Mark Mickelson comes to mind.
Seeing that Passover is approaching, would you like to share with us, from your reading of the Bible which day of the week Christ was crucified and which day He was resurrected?
Anon, Friday, March 18, 2022 at 10:01:00 AM PDT, said
"...Jesus ascended to heaven on Pentecost (!!) early in the morning..."
That's ridiculous. Pentecost was days away when Jesus completed His being seen for 40 days by over 500 eye-witnesses:
Acts 1:3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
4 And, being assembled together with [them], commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, [saith he], ye have heard of me.
5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye SHALL be baptized with the Holy Ghost not MANY DAYS HENCE.
John
Anon, Friday, March 18, 2022 at 12:53:00 PM PDT, said:
"...John writes:
“I find the Bible does not need interpretations by others. Oftentimes, just reading it is sufficient. The difficulty comes with people believing what they read.”
Or what they hear. Listening to Mark Mickelson comes to mind.
Seeing that Passover is approaching, would you like to share with us, from your reading of the Bible which day of the week Christ was crucified and which day He was resurrected?
******
I don't know what came to your mind regarding Mark Mickelson, but his thoughts have changed on the Passover, as well as many other things: some of which does not make sense and cannot be backed up by the Bible. The fact that He knows that the Father, and not Jesus Christ, is the God of the Old Testament was a good change that he made in his life.
Mark will observe Passover his way; Frank Nelte will observe it his way; Don Roth will do it a different way from both of them, and who knows what you believe?
Whatever you believe regarding Passover, the timing of Christ's Crucifixion and resurrection, are your convictions. There are all sorts of opinions out there. Sometimes people's observance differs by a month.
Stick with your convictions unless, and until, it is proved to you otherwise; that's what I do.
John
Hi 10:01,
Ac 1:3a To whom also he showed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days.
My understanding is that Christ did not ascend to heaven on Pentecost.
Jn 20:26a And after eight days again his disciples were within... (NIV).
I see the “eight days” in the 40 days
As an aside eight days from Sunday is the following Sunday, according to Biblical inclusive reckoning - compare the count to Pentecost.
Ac 1:12 Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey.
“A sabbath day’s journey was about 1.2 km (3/4 mile); the expression s a Jewish one, and is not to imply that the event took placed on a sabbath. The point is rather that the ascension (like the resurrection appearances of Jesus in Luke 24) took place in the near vicinity of Jerusalem” (I. Howard Marshall, Acts, TNTC, pp.66-67).
As an aside Pentecost is not a shabbat; it is less holy than Atonement and the seventh day of the week.
Lev 23:3 Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day ... is the sabbath [shabbat] of the LORD in all your dwellings
Lev 23:24 In the seventh month, in the first day of the month, shall ye have a sabbath [shabbaton],
Unfortunately two different Hebrew word are translated as “sabbath.” In the LXX the Greek is sabbaton for the seventh day and anapausis for Trumpets
Through the principle of “gap-filling” the holy days, where food may be prepared, are shabbatons:
The "on" suffix affixed to "shabbat" implies a diminutive.
Ge 5:1a This is the book [sefer] of the generations of Adam.
"If you've had even a bit of experience with the Hebrew language, chances are you know the word for book is sefer.
"Now, in English, we add -let to a noun to make it small and cute. For example, we add -let to pig to make piglet. Likewise, we add -let to book to make booklet. Such "small and cute" nouns are called diminutives.
"In Hebrew, we add "on" to the end of a noun to create a diminutive. In the case of sefer, we say seferon for booklet" (ulpan.com/how-to-say-booklet-in-hebrew/). The quote has been edited for ease of reading).
Lev 23:3 Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is the sabbath [shabbat] of rest [shabbaton],
"... the term sabbaton implies a minor sabbath (except in the compound sabbat sabbaton)..." (Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 23-27, AB, Vol.3, p.2040).
Among the Jews there is disagreement about the noun shabbaton in the above construct chain: Is it still a noun, or an adjective modifying shabbat.
John, I asked:
"...would you like to share with us, from your reading of the Bible which day of the week Christ was crucified and which day He was resurrected?"
Is that a no then.
For the record, from my reading of the Bible, Christ was crucified on a Friday and rose from the dead on Sunday.
Anon, Saturday, March 19, 2022 at 1:17:00 AM PDT, said:
"...John, I asked:
"...would you like to share with us, from your reading of the Bible which day of the week Christ was crucified and which day He was resurrected?"
Is that a no then.
For the record, from my reading of the Bible, Christ was crucified on a Friday and rose from the dead on Sunday.
******
Anon, yes, at the time I wrote the answer to your question was a "No," but I didn't write it to you.
For over fifty years now I have been convicted that Jesus Christ was murdered in the midst of the week on a Wednesday, and placed into the heart of the earth just before sunset the same day.
Matthew 27:50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
54 Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.
55 And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him:
56 Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s children.
You may stick with your conviction of a Friday crucifixion, like so much of this world does; however, has God provided numerous witnesses to whether Jesus Christ was crucified on a Wednesday or not? God has all of His "bases" covered in Matthew 27:50-56 and elsewhere, and you one day in the future will have the opportunity to interview some of them.
When that day comes will you still believe in a Friday Crucifixion?
Time will tell...
John
".... but ye SHALL be baptized with the Holy Ghost not MANY DAYS HENCE."
****************************
Next verse: WHEN THEY THEREFORE WERE COME TOGETHER..... Why? To receive the Holy Spirit. This meeting is after the "not many days hence" have passed.
John you write, after quoting Matthew 27:50-56:
"You may stick with your conviction of a Friday crucifixion, like so much of this world does; however, has God provided numerous witnesses to whether Jesus Christ was crucified on a Wednesday or not?
There is nothing in these verses that support your claim for a Wednesday crucifixion. These eye-witnesses can confirm the day Christ was crucified; which was Friday:
Mt 16:21b and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
Mt 17:23a And they shall kill him, and the third day he shall be raised again.
Mt 20:19b and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again.
"third day. In the Hebrew idiom, this means the day after tomorrow..." (S. Goldman, revised by Ephraim Oratz, Samuel, Soncino, p.122).
If Christ was crucified on a Wednesday then, according to this ancient-near Eastern idiom/inclusive reckoning, the "third" day from Wednesday is Friday.
Mt 12:40b so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
It has been taught: R. Eleazar b. Azariah says, "A day and a night constitute a span, and part of a span is equivalent to the whole of it." (oocities.org/haqq_1/TALMUD-Shabbat-9-3.htm).
R. Eleazar b. Azariah "flourished late 1st and early 2nd centuries AD" (Encyclopaedia Britannica).
Mt 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
"While referring to the example of Jonah (Jon 1:17) Jesus uses a phrase which appears only here, in Jonah and in 1 Samuel 30:12. Yet it clear even in Matthew that Jesus was raised "on the third day" (Mt 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; compare Mt 27:63 "after three days" and this agrees with the narrative (Mt 27:57-28:1). What are we to make of this?
"First we know what we mean by the phrase in Matthew 12:40: we would mean a seventy-two hour period or at least most of that period. Second, we know that Jesus was not in the tomb more than thirty-six to thirty-eight hours, since he was buried at evening ... on Friday and rose by morning ... on Sunday. Third, we know that the phrase "three days and three nights" was not a problem for Matthew, for he can use both that and "on the third day" and include no explanation, which he does in other cases where he sees a problem.
"Having seen what we know, we now need to look at what we may be assuming erroneously... we may be assuming that first-century Jews thought about time in the same way that we do. In fact they did not. Any part of a day could be counted as if it were a full day, much as in Canada and the U.S.A. a child is deductible for income-tax purposes at the full year rate even if he or she was born at 11 p.m. on December 31. The "three days and three nights," then may simply refer to three twenty-four hour days (sunset to sunset periods), and Jesus was in fact in the tomb parts of three different days..." (Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Peter H. Davids, F. F. Bruce, Manfreed T. Brauch, Hard Sayings of the Bible, pp.380-381).
"One of the greatest obstacles we face in trying to interpret the Bible is that we are inclined to think in our own cultural and linguistic categories. This is no surprise since our categories are often all that we have, but it is a problem because our own categories often do not suffice and sometimes mislead" (John H. Walton, Genesis, NIVAC, pp.67-68).
"The entire scheme is based upon the twisted interpretation of a single Bible text. The "three days and three nights" phrase is forced into artificial conformity with current English forms of speech, instead of the common usage of the people living at that time" (Joe Crews, Three Days and Three Nights, amazingfacts.org).
9:56 - March 8 writes:
“IMHO: 3 days, part or whole: Nisan 14, 15, 16. Three nights, part or whole: a few minutes of darkness Friday afternoon, Fri night, Sat night (maybe only a few minutes).”
Mt 27:51 And [kai], behold [idou], the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
Mt 28:2 And [kai], behold [idou], there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
Typology suggests, without going into much detail, that it was Sunday morning that Christ rose from the dead.
"51 The dramatic kai idou, "And look!" indicates that the extraordinary events that follow in vv.51-53 were the immediate effects of Jesus' death. The earthquake, which will be followed by another in 28:2, is a well-known symbol of God's mighty interventions in the affairs of the world (e.g., Judg 5:4-5; Ps 114:47), especially in judgment (e.g., Jer 10:10; Joel 3:16; Nah 1:5-6), and, following on the unnatural darkness of v.45 (note that earthquake and darkness occur together in Amos 8:8-10), tells the reader supernatural events of great significance are taking place" (R. T. France, Matthew, NICNT, p.1079).
"Another earthquake ... now rocks the Jerusalem area, apparently before sunrise. While not uncommon in this region, this second earthquake surrounds the supreme supernatural event, the resurrection of Jesus. A. T. Robinson quotes Cornelius a Lapide as saying, "The earth, which trembled with sorrow at the Death of Christ as it were leaped for joy at His Resurrection." (Robertson, Matthew, "Word Pictures in the New Testament, 1:240-41).
Lk 2:9 And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.
Lk 2:10 And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
Lk 2:11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.
"The conjunction "for" (gar) that begins the phrase "for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven" (28:2) suggests that the earthquake accompanies the appearing of the angel or is the means used by the angel to roll the stone away, or perhaps the angel's moving the stone causes the earthquake. The miraculous conception, birth, and infancy of Jesus were superintended by an angel of the Lord (1:20-21; 2:13, 19), so it is not surprising that an angel of the Lord now superintends the resurrection, thereby framing Matthew's story of the divine message God gives to his people in the person of his Son, Jesus Christ" (Michael J. Wilkins, Matthew, NIVAC, p.937).
Zec 14:5 And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.
2Th 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
Perhaps a future earthquake will hit Jerusalem destroying the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount paving the way for the building of a Temple for the Antichrist to ‘sit’ in.
Noting the Al-Aqsa mosque reminded me of the intention to inform Hoss concerning the supposed death of Dennis Michael Rohan in 1995:
“Some sources say that he died in 1995,[4][5] but an investigation by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) in 2009 found that was still alive then and a few years later he spoke to an ABC journalist” (Wikipedia).
I can also confirm that he did not die in 1995 as I received a letter from him dated 17 July, 1999, the only contact that I had from him.
Post a Comment