The Real Mystery of the Ages II
By
Lonnie Hendrix
In the chapter of Mystery of the Ages dealing with human civilization, Herbert Armstrong wrote: “God placed man here to restore the government of God to the earth. Lucifer and his angels had been placed here originally. God had put them here on an unfinished earth. Remember, God creates in dual stages. Like a woman baking a cake, she bakes first the body of the cake, but it is not finished until she puts on the icing. The substance and body of the earth had been created before the angels were placed here. But God intended for the angels to develop the surface of the earth, to beautify and improve it. For this purpose he gave them his government to regulate their conduct and performance together in so doing.”
There are, however, a number of passages which indicate that the original home of the angels was heaven (Genesis 28:12, Matthew 18:10, 22:30, 24:36, Mark 13:32, John 1:51, Jude 6). Moreover, in the previous post, we quoted from the first two chapters of the epistle to the Hebrews to demonstrate that God NEVER intended for the angels to have ANY part of man’s potential or mission! Also, God did NOT place humans on this earth to “restore” the government of God. There are numerous passages which suggest that God’s ultimate aim/goal/purpose was to prove to humankind that they needed God’s government – that God’s Kingdom was the only thing that would bring mankind the peace, prosperity, and other blessings which they had sought in vain to establish for themselves (Isaiah 9:7, 11:9, Daniel 2:44, Revelation 21:1-4). Indeed, Jesus Christ instructed his disciples to pray for God’s Kingdom to be established on this earth (Matthew 6:10, Luke 11:2).
In this same chapter, Armstrong also quoted extensively from C. Paul Meredith’s thesis (which was heavily dependent upon the thoroughly discredited work of Alexander Hislop, The Two Babylons). For Herbie, modern civilization was founded in paganism influenced by Satan the Devil. In other words, he completely ignored and/or dismissed the influence of Judaism and Christianity on Western civilization. For him, those faiths were also riddled with paganism and deception and had exerted a mostly negative influence on humanity. Of course, this view of human history is neither Scriptural nor consistent with secular historical scholarship. Hence, it is clear that Armstrong’s teachings about human civilization were deeply flawed and based on erroneous interpretations of Scripture.
The next “mystery” which Herbert sought to unravel was that of the modern identity of the ancient people of Israel. Unfortunately, much of the information in this chapter was lifted from another important book by Armstrong which promoted the notion that the English-speaking nations of the earth were the descendants of two of the tribes of Israel, Manasseh and Ephraim (The United States and Britain in Prophecy). Now, I (and many others) have written extensively about how the teaching of Anglo-Israelism is both scripturally unsound and genetically and historically impossible. I have also written about how this teaching distorts the promises made to Abraham, and how they were to find their ultimate fulfillment in and through Jesus Christ. Likewise, I have pointed out how Armstrong fundamentally misunderstood the purpose of Israel (to introduce God to the rest of humanity), and that the way that Herbie taught Anglo-Israelism was inherently racist in nature. Hence, once again, we see that Herbert Armstrong did NOT understand who and what Israel was/is, and that his flawed understanding also necessarily had a profound impact on his understanding/interpretation of Biblical prophecy.
In the next chapter, Armstrong wrote: “Perhaps the greatest mystery of all will not seem, at first glance, to be a mystery to most readers of this volume. The reason that is true is the fact that the true purpose and meaning of the Church is as little understood as the Bible itself. The revelation of that mystery must come as a shocking truth. The real truth about the Church, the reason for its origin, and its purpose has remained hidden from even the professing Christian world.” Unfortunately, once again, Mr. Armstrong’s understanding of the nature and purpose of God’s Church was just as superficial and flawed as was his understanding of the other “mysteries” he addressed in this book!
The Greek word translated into English as “church” is ekklesia. And, according to Blue Letter Bible’s entry for ekklesia, the word indicates “a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly” (In this case, an assembly of Christians). Moreover, in ALL of the places where this word appears in the New Testament in relation to the Christian Church, the sense is clearly indicative of a spiritual organism – NOT any human organization or corporate entity! Moreover, the ekklesia is clearly referred to in those scriptures as the property of God and Jesus Christ – founded on the Day of Pentecost with God’s gifting of the Holy Spirit to Christ’s followers. Hence, the emphasis on the proper “name” of the Church is misplaced. In other words, it was/is God’s ekklesia whatever we humans choose to call it! The Roman Catholic Church, the Worldwide Church of God, and the Southern Baptist Convention were/are NOT the ekklesia! They are human organizations which may (or may not) contain some of the members of God’s ekklesia!
In terms of the Church, it is also important to point out that Herbert Armstrong did NOT understand the governance which God placed within HIS ekklesia! As Krischan has recently pointed out on this blog, the hierarchical structure which Armstrong instituted within his Worldwide Church did NOT reflect the decentralized and service oriented model found in the New Testament. Jesus told his disciples that he did NOT want them to imitate the leadership models found in the world around them – that he didn’t want them lording it over each other (Matthew 20:24-28, Mark 10:41-45, Luke 22:24-27). Likewise, Peter reflected the exact same attitude toward leadership within the Church (I Peter 5:1-3). Indeed, rather than imposing one person’s will over the Church, we see that controversial issues within the early Church were settled by reaching a consensus among the leadership (Acts 15).
Finally, before we leave the subject of the Church, we should point out that Herbert Armstrong also did NOT understand the commission given to Christ’s disciples or the content of the message which they were to deliver to the wider world! In the Gospel of Matthew, we read: “Jesus came and told his disciples, ‘I have been given all authority in heaven and on earth. Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Teach these new disciples to obey all the commands I have given you.’” (28:18-20) Moreover, the book of Acts and the epistles of Paul, Peter, James and John make very clear that the message was focused on the person of Jesus Christ and the salvation which was available through him!
Herbert Armstrong, however, insisted that he was the only one preaching the “true” gospel! He wrote: “Why do the churches disagree on what actually is ‘the gospel of Jesus Christ’? During the first twenty or thirty years after the founding of the Church in A.D. 31 a violent controversy arose over the very question of what is ‘the gospel of Jesus Christ.’ There ensued a hundred years in which all history of the New Testament Church was destroyed. It has been called ‘the lost century of Church history.’ When the curtain lifted, about the middle of the second century, there appeared an entirely different type of church calling itself Christian, but in the main preaching its own gospel ABOUT Christ, not the gospel OF Christ. The gospel OF Christ was the gospel Christ proclaimed. Jesus was a Messenger sent from God with a message, and that message was THE KINGDOM OF GOD. Christ’s message was Christ’s gospel-the gospel OF Christ. It had not been proclaimed to the world until the first week in 1953, when for the first time in about 1,900 years-a century of time cycles-it went out on the world‘s most powerful radio station, Radio Luxembourg in Europe.”
First, there was no “lost century of Church history.” Mr. Armstrong was either ignorant of the many Christian writings available to us from this period or he intentionally ignored them! Moreover, those writings make very clear that the message of the Church was focused on Jesus Christ and the salvation that is available to us through him (see the epistles of Ignatius, Clement, Polycarp, The Didache, etc.). In other words, there was no interruption in the preaching of the Good News about Christ and his Kingdom!
In fact, Herbert Armstrong’s focus on a physical government and kingdom represented a DEPARTURE from the message of Christ, the early Church, and millions of Christians down through the centuries until the present day. Like some of those early disciples, Mr. Armstrong appeared to expect the immediate overthrow of current governments and the establishment of a physical Messianic Kingdom. Once again, Armstrong appeared to either not understand or intentionally ignored the very spiritual and salvific nature of the Kingdom of God. He also failed to focus on the King of the that Kingdom, Jesus Christ. Indeed, for Armstrong, the focus on Jesus of Nazareth was the problem with the message of other Christians!
Hence, we have seen that Herbert Armstrong’s Mystery of the Ages failed to deliver on its promised demystification of the Bible. Sadly, Mr. Armstrong either misunderstood Scripture, or he intentionally ignored anything which contradicted his interpretation of it! Thus, the real mystery of the ages is how anyone could so pervert and twist the message of the Bible and the Christian Church! In other words, it wasn’t just a matter of administration or character – Herbert Armstrong’s theology (as outlined in this book) is quite simply NOT consistent with Scripture or the history of Christian thought and practice.
41 comments:
A+ Lonnie Hendrix
It's interesting that before Israel asked God for a king, they had the elder government social system. All citizens were involved in the choosing of their elders, including the parents of the proposed elders, so rotten apples were unlikely. This system gave everyone maximum freedom, a far cry from HWAs "(lording) government is everything" mantra.
For all the flawed reasoning by HWA, I do admire the trying to seek a solution for the fact that God seems to create in stages, or through an agile process, regarding all the pre humanoids before modern - adamic- man. LNick
Absolutely fantastic article, Lonnie!
You know, if HWA had not been surrounded by sycophants and/or biblically ignorant men, the majority of his heretical doctrines would never have seen the light of day. For instance, his (and his modern day wanna-be's) oft repeated verse "I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" is literally cut off at the knees by his ridiculous lie about the " true gospel not being preached in 1900 years" until he came onto the scene. But he totally missed the obvious flaw in his theory! Additionally, I heard him say, in a sermon, that there were in fact, two gods, as he understood John 1:1. "Two gods, in verity" were his exact words. This heresy (and the complete absence of the Holy Spirit, or a misunderstanding of Him, at best), among others, is the reason I said his members were effectively cut off from God. You should fully and properly understand the God you claim to worship, or what's the point?
I don't think he ever understood the consequences of his teachings. You are playing with people's lives here (both now and eternally). That is what makes me so angry about this movement and it's current crop of leaders. They have had ample time to read the Patristics, the Didache, Martin Luther's writings, other Bible translations, etc., to get to the truth of how Christianity formed their doctrines based on Scripture, but none of them seemingly have. Their focus has been who can best replicate the work of HWA. Theology and doctrine be damned, I am the most faithful to the teachings of WCG and HWA. Christianity would look at what these groups teach and not recognize any of it as Christianity, because it is not. It is a man made mish mash of Judaism with pinches of polytheism and humanism sprinkled in because it's founder had no idea what he was doing. It was more of a corporation than a church. Truly heartbreaking to think so many were/are deceived by it.
First, there was no “lost century of Church history.” Mr. Armstrong was either ignorant of the many Christian writings available to us from this period or he intentionally ignored them!
Just like orthodox churches ignore them because they need to cover up how they persecuted the original church out of existence. And I didn't get that from Herb the blurb.
An entire collection of books written by early Christians was rediscovered in 1945. Why weren't these books in the bible? The gospel of Philip. The gospel written by the brother of Jesus. Etc. This is what the orthodox "Christians" hide.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jv3iOS69Uws
It'$ no my$tery why he twi$ted thing$.
Thanks for the kind words and excellent comments.
Lonnie,
I am mostly critical of this site. But I want to compliment you on your attempt to bring up the low standards here. Most of what you wrote is a basic, and reasoned rebuttal to what you disagree with. That is good.
I would suggest you raise the standards even more by eliminating useless words that denigrate your opponent. Your rebuttal alone should be capable of upholding your opposition. To use words like “Herbie” not only diminishes your opposition, but you also. Why play with trailer trash talk when you are already presenting a reasoned rebuttal? That’s one of the main problems here, trailer trash talk, expecting it to prove one’s point. It never does.
In fact, it causes many of us to ignore and look down on what could be some valid arguments.
At the moment I am reading a book entitled “The Art of Deception.” It is the premise of the author to present how to use logic, and reason, to deceive people. And, if the reader sees how reason and logic is used that way, then the reader can recognize that rapidly, and avoid being deceived themselves.
The atheist is master of using logic and reason to deceive.
By the way, according to Rudolph Flesch, and others, the origin of using logic and reason came from games of Ancient Greek children. Those games were based on proving the opponent wrong no matter how correct he was. I.e. ab absurdem, ad hominem, etc.
No one today asks who made up these “laws” and why. But, if you can quote the Latin, they must be correct, right? They were made up to “prove” you wrong no matter how true your argument or statement is.
Anyway, I salute most of your thesis as an argument to present valid questions to rebut what Herbert wrote. Oh, have you noticed in the New Covenant everyone is called by their first names?
More later, maybe.
By the way, in knocking some of Herbert Armstrong’s statements, you are knocking several big name Christian teachers who Herbert was quoting verbatim. Like the lost 120 years of Christian history. Just sayin’. They made the statements before Herbert came along. It pays to study and not just quote other biased ill informed critics,
9:58 said:
"I am mostly critical of this site. But I want to compliment you on your attempt to bring up the low standards here. "
If this site and those of us who find great value in what is posted here are so disgusting to you why do you keep reading it?
That is what makes me so angry ...
Chill out. You act like you care more than God does. God laughs at the wicked. He does not get his blood pressure up over it.
9.58 pm
I was going to buy the book "The art of deception" at a bookstore for the sake of self protection, but the holy spirit warned me away from buying it. I came to the conclusion that law enforcement are collecting the names of those who buy this book.
People like HWA and his ministers deserve to be called Herb, Herbie and worse. Names like gooses, silly sausages, knuckleheads, twits etc is also appropriate.
Christ taught to call no man your Master, Teacher etc. Men are not to exalt themselves above others, giving them undue influence. Herb and his minion ministers in fact do just that, plus they practice murderous narcissistic devaluation. They mentally shrink their members to various degrees. Ministers sneaking in "we have met the enemy, and it is us" and similar into sermons is common. The bible teaches the opposite with it's "be a man, be strong, brave and courageous." Members shrinking the ministers back into their life size status by (no to their face) mild name calling is appropriate. If the ministers were not playing these cheating games, this game of psychological warfare would not be necessary.
9:58PM said: "...Oh, have you noticed in the New Covenant everyone is called by their first names?"
I have! ;-) I came across this study paper by T. Alex Tennent a while back entitled Is the position of Pastor what Jesus wanted ruling over His spiritual body? and was sharing it around as I found his reasoning sound and it actually lined up with my own view. For instance, in the NT the fundamental Christian doctrine of the "priesthood of all believers'' is taught (Ex 19:5-6; Heb 4:14-16; 1 Pet 2:4-9; Rv 1:4-6; 5:6-10; 20:6). Along with this is the view that we are all brothers and sisters in Christ. Hence, various titles, such as "Dr," "Mr," "Pastor," "Father," "Reverend" etc. to me are actually wrong and inappropriate for Christians.
Also 1:17PM you're not alone as I feel there is much more to the story than what we've been taught by the European Christian Church over the centuries. Like the saying goes, "History is written by the victors" and "The persecuted once in power begins persecuting its opponents."
If the name "Herbie" somehow spooks someone from examining truth, then they're not really looking for it. Toughen up a bit! Leaving a scam, shedding one's brainwashing, is not for sissies! Trailer talk, or trash talk has been part of contemporary life for decades now. It's actually kind of humorous. Don't be so insular!
By the way, I really don't care whether you see the light and leave the flawed teachings of HWA behind. Being an Armstrongite is its own masochistic self-punishment! It is totally your prerogative to continue punishing yourself!
You can condemn HWA all you want for the cultish way the church was run, but the facts are the Bible doesn’t teach you go to heaven or hell, you don’t have an immoral soul, God is not a Trinity, the law was not done away, the Sabbath wasn’t changed to Sunday, Easter and Christmas are false pagan holidays and Holy Days do layout God’s salvation plan. Try a dispute what I listed from scripture. It would be fun to see you try
I read posts on this site for the same reason most read books, go to movies, watch tv, etc.
To see how low the characters can go, and to see how human nature works. To see how much criticism the critics can handle when someone points out their faults and bad character traits. To see how they can dish it out but can’t take it themselves.
And, to see how this WCG splinter group is no different from the dozens of other Splinter groups. This is the “Church of God for those who criticize everyone else but are flawless in our own eyes.”
Think about it, former members, or children of members, deacons, former minister become atheist, ad infinitum.
Only difference is this site is a secular version of the WCG. The others claim to be right and all the other splinters wrong. The same “Armstrong Acolytes” here doing in a secular way what the splinter churches do in a “spiritual” way. The pots calling the kettles black, and vice versa.
Visiting this site is really no different from visiting a local church service in the WCG world, except this service offers no incentive to work on self improvement or the fruits of the spirit.
So, thanks for asking why I keep reading things here, it’s a real education.
Folks, I appreciate the support, but let's remember that we are trying to help people see the light and leave this heresy behind. Christ said that he was the fulfillment of this passage from Isaiah: "The Spirit of the Sovereign Lord is upon me,
for the Lord has anointed me
to bring good news to the poor.
He has sent me to comfort the brokenhearted
and to proclaim that captives will be released
and prisoners will be freed." (61:1)
Anonymous Friday, May 19, 2023 at 8:11:00 AM PDT,
The condemnation here is of HWA's THEOLOGY. However, I agree with you that Scripture teaches human mortality, that eternal life is God's gift to us through Jesus Christ, and that there will be at least two more resurrections of the dead. Still, there are a number of passages (like the thief on the cross) that have understandably led some to believe that heaven is the next step for the faithful. Likewise, there are a number of passages which suggest a place of imprisonment and a "lake" of eternal fire. Hence, it is understandable that many Christians have a different perspective on this issue than you and I do. Also, I would point out that what you, I, or they believe about what happens when we die does NOT change God's reality (whatever that is). Thus, our personal convictions on the subject are NOT determinative of our salvation status.
As for the other things you have mentioned, it has been demonstrated here and elsewhere that there is a very sound scriptural basis for the doctrine of the Trinity. Likewise, I have written a great many posts recently on my own blog about a Christian's proper relationship to the Torah. If you're interested, I invite you to peruse them at your leisure here: https://godcannotbecontained.blogspot.com/ Now, while there is nothing wrong with a Christian observing Sabbath (I still observe it myself) or the Holy Days, there is no scriptural obligation for them to do so. Moreover, Scripture and the First and Second Century Christians make it very clear that Gentile Christians did NOT observe either - that they observed Sunday as their day of gathering and worship. I have also pointed out in numerous posts that Armstrong's narrative about the pagan influence on Christian holidays is inaccurate and misleading. Finally, I have also written extensively about Armstrong's erroneous understandings about the symbolism of some of the Holy Days (e.g. Day of Atonement and Feast of Tabernacles).
Hi 8:11
You write:
“... the facts are the Bible doesn’t teach you go to heaven”
I disagree.
Rev 7:9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;
Rev 7:14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
Rev 7:15 Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.
Rev 7:9-15 is the prospective part of the retro-prospective insert prophecy of Revelation 7. This pictures the “priestly” role of the Saints in the higher realm of heaven during the Messianic Age. The lower realm of heaven, where Satan and the demons are now, is where the Saints will exercise their “kingly” role during the Messianic Age.
(To emphasize the two realms of heaven, in my 3D model of Ezekiel’s Temple I have the Holy of Holies 4 cubits above the Holy Place - members.optusnet.com.au/futurewatch/33a00600.jpg).
Eze 43:7a And he said unto me, Son of man, the place of my throne, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever...
Lk 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
2Ch 9:8 Blessed be the LORD thy God, which delighted in thee to set thee on his throne, to be king for the LORD thy God: because thy God loved Israel, to establish them for ever, therefore made he thee king over them, to do judgment and justice.
“The Davidic throne was actually, as we've seen, the throne of the Lord. And since Jesus is the Lord, the throne ultimately remained His to take back” (Tom Robinson, "The Throne of Britain: It's Biblical Origin and Future").
At least in one thing Tom Robinson is correct.
To read the Bible it is necessary to have some appreciation of the ancient-Near Eastern “principle of agency” as it informs quite a bit of what is said.
The throne of David under both the OC and NC was/will be Jesus Christ’s throne as “principal”. In the OC the Davidic kings, such as Solomon, were installed on His throne, as His viceregents/agents. Christ, as God’s agent, had a dwelling presence in Solomon’s Temple and will have a dwelling presence in Ezekiel’s Temple.
As Christ completes the second half of His prophetic week - members.optusnet.com.au/futurewatch/375ecc60 - he will appoint a relative to shepherd his people, just as he appointed Peter to feed his lambs/sheep in his absence after the completion of the first half of his prophetic week.
Eze 45:17 And it shall be the prince's part to give burnt offerings, and meat offerings, and drink offerings, in the feasts, and in the new moons, and in the sabbaths, in all solemnities of the house of Israel: he shall prepare the sin offering, and the meat offering, and the burnt offering, and the peace offerings, to make atonement for the house of Israel.
45:17 pictures the human Davidic princes in their role as an earthly Melchizedek Priests in the Messianic Age
Eze 46:2 And the prince shall enter by the way of the porch of that gate without, and shall stand by the post of the gate, and the priests shall prepare his burnt offering and his peace offerings, and he shall worship at the threshold of the gate: then he shall go forth; but the gate shall not be shut until the evening.
Eze 44:23 And they [the Zadokite priests] shall teach my people the difference between the holy and profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean.
While the Davidic king/priests, as Temple builders and patrons of Temple worship, supervise the Levitical priests, they are not allowed to enter the inner court.
Though originally 25 years old see also members.optusnet.com.au/futurewatch/id5.htm
Armstrongism is mental illness, 8:47. The people who never were mentally ill in the first place, or whom Herpes W. Armstrong wasn't able to make mentally ill, are the ones who have left.
Anon847,
Why do you call this a secular site? There is more Biblical discussion on this site daily than any of the cog sites.
Flurry actually worships Mystery of the Ages! I'm surprised he hasn't bought a chocolate factory to make miniature chocolate statues of HWA for Feast of Tabernacles gifts!
Mike, I call this a secular site because that is exactly what it is. Biblical discussion? You’ve got to be kidding. Even atheists can quote biblical verses.
Oh, it is biblical in one sense, the new covenant describes it quite accurately. Or, should I say, foretells it more than accurately.
Thanks for the question.
Don’t give Flurry any ideas 7:20! lol!
For those who are familiar with Armstrongism, the combination of MOA and Hoeh's Compendium of World History comprise a package that is really the definition of an alternate reality. Jones's has given us a review of MOA of exceptional insight. The subtext of his writing in my mind is that belief, not faith but sheer dogged human belief, is nearly unassailable. There will always be people who just want to believe something else. Some will die suddenly and violently for their alternative (q.v., Branch Davidians). Others will die psychologically little by little every day. Jones is trying to save a few through liberal application of something called truth.
Krischan
The Bible discussions usually happen when Churchofgoddians and the occasional troll come here to correct us with Armstrongism.
The throne mentioned in Rev. 7 is the one Christ will sit on after he returns. It’s on Earth, not in heaven.
MOA contains a misunderstanding of God. It begins with the angels failing in their mission in Chapter 2 and then being replaced by man. If you read the language it very much seems to say that God's original plan failed and man was created to solve the problem. God's Plan A rolled over so he had to go to Plan B to which the creation of humankind was incidental.
The problem is that HWA is speaking of God as if God were a man. God is not bound by timespace. Or as James states in Acts 15:18: "Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the Cosmos." (Someone might asks, "What about before the Cosmos?" God is timeless so that period is covered also.) God does not have to fall back and re-group. He is in absolute control of the Cosmos. God is not a Demiurge who only fabricates. God creates Ex Nihilo. Since God is absolute, he could have managed the direction of the angels, if he had needed to, and brought their assignment to success in a way compatible with the extent of their free will. (This is a good argument of universal salvation, but that is another topic.)
Armstrongism comes from an emphasis on the Old Testament where God is portrayed anthropomorphically. Hence, HWA's humanistic scenario comports with that origin. There is much to be said here but I will just point this out briefly.
Krischan
Krischan wrote that:
Armstrongism comes from an emphasis on the Old Testament where God is portrayed anthropomorphically. Hence, HWA's humanistic scenario comports with that origin. There is much to be said here but I will just point this out briefly.
===========
Questions:
1. I thought Herbert Armstrong wrote from the point of view that the ENTIRE old and new covenant were to be used together for explaining what he taught. What causes you to think otherwise?
2. Other than human reasoning external to the Bible, and in spite of the Bible, what makes human reasoning superior to how the Bible describes the Creator, which you seem to claim, makes Him too much like a man?
3. And, what makes you think your reasoning is superior to what the Bible says?
4. The Bible says man was made in His image, so why is it wrong to conclude that is so? And, would that not mean He can and should be described in terms that illustrate what He claimed? If He meant what He said, in the very beginning, then we are theopomorphically like Him, not the other way around, so why say otherwise? The Bible says in the simplest terms what is true, why isn’t that acceptable?
Thanks, Oh, real quotes from the Bible would be most helpful, not quotes from questionable men who had to reason it out because Yahweh was too stupid to inspire men to write what He wanted us to be taught. Again, biblical answers please.
Follower of the Way
Follower of the Way,
From Genesis 1:26-27, Herbert Armstrong deduced: "We know the form and shape of man. That is the image, likeness, form and shape of God." - MOA p. 46 He went on to write: "In various parts of the Bible, it is revealed that God has a face, eyes, a nose, mouth and ears. He has hair on his head. It is revealed God has arms and legs. And God has hands and fingers." - MOA p. 46 (although I would not dispute that God is sometimes described this way, no scriptural citations were given) He continued: "If you know what a man looks like, you know what is the form and shape of GOD, for he made man in his image, after his very likeness!" - MOA p. 47
1. According to Strong's (Blue Letter Bible), the Hebrew word translated into English as "image" is "from an unused root meaning to shade; a phantom, i.e. (figuratively) illusion, resemblance; hence, a representative figure, especially an idol..." In similar fashion, the Hebrew word translated into English as "likeness" indicates a "resemblance/model/shape/similitude" (same source). Hence, while it is accurate to say that humans were made in the image of God, it would be very misleading to say that God looks like a human! When we say that, we are effectively making God in our image/likeness! If God has a nose, mouth, ears, hair, arms and legs, does he have a penis/vagina? Does he have pecs/breasts? pubic hairs?
2. What makes you think that Herbert Armstrong's REASONING is superior to the Bible?
3. In the Old Testament, God appeared as a burning bush (Exodus 3), a pilar of cloud/fire (Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), a whisper or disembodied voice (I Kings 19), a man (Genesis 18, 32), and as an angel (type "the angel of the Lord" into Strong's online and see the scriptural references that pop up). In Isaiah, the question is asked "To whom then will you liken God, or what likeness compare with him?" (40:18)
4. In the New Testament, Jesus Christ said that God is a Spirit (John 4:24). The Holy Spirit is portrayed as an invisible force (Luke 1), as a dove (Luke 3:22), and as tongues of fire (Acts 2:3). And, concerning Jesus himself, we read in the epistle to the Hebrews: "Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power." (1:1-3)
Thanks for the questions - the Bible supplies the answers.
Follower of the Way 9:46
I agree with the response made by Jones. My responses follow. -- Krischan
"1. I thought Herbert Armstrong wrote from the point of view that the ENTIRE old and new covenant were to be used together for explaining what he taught. What causes you to think otherwise?"
HWA taught more than just a "point of view". He advocated the retention of the details of the Law of Moses as a requirement for salvation and this contradicts the New Testament. This topic has been extensively treated on this blog. Jesus also taught from the entire old and new covenants. But what Jesus taught is very different from what HWA and Herman Hoeh taught about the Law.
"2. Other than human reasoning external to the Bible, and in spite of the Bible, what makes human reasoning superior to how the Bible describes the Creator, which you seem to claim, makes Him too much like a man?"
This reminds me of Gerald Waterhouse looking at an arcane prophecy in Revelation and saying, "There it is. All you have to do is read it." The Bible is interpreted by everyone who reads it. You and me. Some bring more research and rationality to it than others but it remains an interpretation. That is why the Body of Christ, with the help of the Holy Spirit, must engage the scripture to find meaning in context.
"3. And, what makes you think your reasoning is superior to what the Bible says?"
OK. Here we go. What you really want to say. "What makes you think you know so much?" Right? I don't really know what part of what I said put a burr under your saddle. It is a fact that HWA believed in a limited, anthropomorphic God.
See: https://armstrongismlibrary.blogspot.com/2022/12/god-absolute.html
"4. The Bible says man was made in His image, so why is it wrong to conclude that is so? And, would that not mean He can and should be described in terms that illustrate what He claimed? If He meant what He said, in the very beginning, then we are theopomorphically like Him, not the other way around, so why say otherwise? The Bible says in the simplest terms what is true, why isn’t that acceptable?"
See: https://armstrongismlibrary.blogspot.com/2021/11/the-transcendence-of-god-and.html
"Thanks, Oh, real quotes from the Bible would be most helpful, not quotes from questionable men who had to reason it out because Yahweh was too stupid to inspire men to write what He wanted us to be taught. Again, biblical answers please."
I know you are trying to be purist and Biblical and literalist but your statement is just naĂŻve. I cannot find a scripture for you that says “God is absolute” but one can deduce that he is. Such ideas and vocabulary were not a part of ancient Hebrew and the Bible was written in context. You can find scriptures in Leviticus that state that God finds the aroma of sacrifices to be pleasing. That does not mean that God has a nose. See my linked essay above. Just finding something written in the Bible is not a license to unplug your mind. God has always spoken to us in allegory. Its not because he is stupid but that we are limited by our human condition.
Addendum to my comment at 8:04
I have always found the Armstrongist reaction to the nature of an absolute God puzzling. They believe in a much smaller, less powerful God - a God who is limited by a body and its processes and must live in spacetime. A God who requires a spirit force or energy, putatively equated with the Holy Spirit, to accomplish things in the Cosmos.
Yet scripture, right at the outset, speaks of a God who simply spoke and the Cosmos were created and he made the creation out of nothing. And we know when he did this he created spacetime. He created the material universe which we draw upon for allegorical talk about him with only an occcasional glimmer of his essence.
But when you confront an Armstrongist with a God who transcends his own creation, God who is absolute, they recoil. Because HWA taught a limited God, in solemn and worshipful deference to HWA, they will not believe in anything else no matter how rational.
This kind of lèse majesté is very odd. They seem to throw their hands up in alarm and say "Please, let me believe in a little God so my devotion to HWA will not be disrupted!"
Didn't HWA put in this book that the reason of why God brought the flood was because (negro) black men were marrying white women, causing the violence to bring about the flood. LOL
If God is not anthropomorphic how did he speak - “God said”?
Anonymous said "If God is not anthropomorphic how did he speak - 'God said'?" Are you suggesting that God requires a larynx, mouth, tongue and air to speak? Really?
10:43
I did not find that he specifically called out Black on White interracial marriage but he did attribute the Flood to interracial marriage and to gluttony. MOA p. 148. While HWA did not spend much time on gluttony (maybe out of deference to the Feast of Tabernacles), he did take time to condemn interracial marriage. There are some problems with his viewpoint.
1. You can't find a condemnation of interracial marriage anywhere in the Bible. We know this from modern genetic analysis. Even the scripture in Genesis that HWA uses to attribute the Flood to the "evil" of interracial marriage says only "marrying and giving in marriage." The statements, oft quoted, in Ezra and Nehemiah pertain to people who were very similar to the Jews genetically. These two books do not condemn interracial marriage but interreligous marriage. No doubt this is disappointing to any Southerners who joined the WCG specifically because it condemned interracial marriage.
2. In Late Second Temple Judaism, at the time of Jesus, the Book of Enoch was a standard reference. In Enoch the marriages that led to the Flood were between angels and human females. For what it's worth.
3. The only anthropological divison the Bible acknowledges is between Jews and Gentiles. This, or course, is not the same as a racial division.
4. HWA makes much of the purity of Noah's lineage through misunderstanding of the Biblical language. Supposedly, Noah was racially pure. The science stands against this. Except for most Black Africans, other races are mixed with Neanderthal ancestry - not only a different race but nearly a different species. It can be found in our genomes. And the admixture occurred well before the time of Noah. A minister in the Field House in Big Sandy stated (I was there) that one thing that distinguished HWA was that he was puure in his generations like Noah. While that was flattering, now we know that it is not true. HWA, like other Europeans, has Neanderthal ancestry. If this is disputed by anyone in Splinterland, to prove the case they should give a genetic test to some of HWA's relatives or descendants. With some consultation from a geneticist, this can be sorted out pronto.
This is now arcane history but you can see the roots of Armstrongist beliefs on this topic.
So far I find no real substance in the replies to my questions. Sad.
I do find your claims that HWA Believed in a small limited “god” laughable. That is not proof for your stances, or using absurd and trivial excuses like, does he have a nose, or larynx, or a penis, or pubic hair.” Totally childish.
Most of what is claimed here about what HWA was supposed to have taught is pure carnal minded twisting. Of course, I understand the need to make such distorted statements, to do otherwise would make your stance appear ludicrous. Oh, frankly, it is.
So, the Creator lied to us in His Word? Well, you have once again denounced what the Bible is. It is irrelevant that the vocabulary was not up to the task then to explain how great He is. No, He caused SIMPLE words to be used so mankind could understand what He inspired to be written.
Spirit is a substance that exists, and can take shape, and can also act like the wind, can carry information, etc. The Father has a form, just as He said in many places.
He does not need some of the items on the human body that you question whether He has them or not. Unlike humans who need reproductive organs, He doesn’t reproduce the way humans do.
Again, I would like to see real scriptural proof for your humanistic attempt to prove Yahweh isn’t as He describes Himself.
And, please stop trying to make your case on a lie. I am not an “Armstrongist” whether you like it or not. That’s just a false statement to belittle my comments because you don’t have enough proof to support your thesis.
Follower of the Way
8:48
"Spirit is a substance that exists, and can take shape, and can also act like the wind, can carry information, etc."
How about a scripture for that?
Anonymous 8:48
You have a viewpoint that is called Biblical Literalism. I sometimes think it should not be considered a viewpoint but a pathology. Here is what is wrong with that viewipoint:
When you read language that says God indicates that God has a body, you believe it literally. When you read the term "Beast" in the book of Revelation it is either a man or a collection of nations. So in one place you have decided that the language is literal and in another place that it is metaphorical.
This is called interpretation. You have made a decision as to how your are going to receive the languge of the Bible. Like as not, you have no hermeutic - no rule by which you interpret; you just follow the opinons of someone else - like HWA. Everyone interprets the Bible and you are not excluded. Your interpretation is an attempt at Literalism colored by Armstrongism.
If God has a body, where then did his nose come from? Since he is eternal would not a nose be a part of his eternal essence - uncreated as God is uncreated? Why would God have a nose from eternity even before the concept of matter in gaseous form was ever created. So he can breathe a "spirit" gas? Does not his dependence on a "spirit" gas for his "spirit" nose make him dependent on external resources? If you think he is dependent on anything, is what you believe in really God? Or do you believe in the limited, dependent, superhuman god of HWA? You don't believe in God. You believe in something like a superhero from a DC Comic Book because you rule out metaphor.
8:48 said “He does not need some of the items on the human body that you question whether He has them or not. Unlike humans who need reproductive organs, He doesn’t reproduce the way humans do.”
How do you know if God Almighty and the Word (or the Lamb or Jesus Christ) don’t have sex organs? How do you know they don’t reproduce like Adamkind does? And even if they don’t it doesn’t automatically mean their creation like the angels of God don’t either. eg In the conversation re marriage in the resurrection Christ tells the Jewish leaders there’s no marriage as we will be like the angels. He says nothing about gender. I remember discussing this with others once and giving the example of how animals don’t marry and yet have gender so only God knows what we will be like in His kingdom, but as the Scripture states we will look like Christ whatever He looks like.
Post a Comment