Dennis On: "Are not..." "Are too..."

"My eyes are anointed..."

"No!  My eyes are anointed..."

"Are not..."

"Are too..."

"And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, 

and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Matthew 16:18

Now there is a scripture that has launched a hundred thousand churches if ever there was one! 

Aside from my suspicion this text has been inserted years after the fact to support a much more mature set of practices and beliefs than any Jesus in Matthew would have had in mind, every COG leans heavily on this scripture to know without a shadow of a doubt, the Church they are is the Church the author of Matthew meant and put in the mouth of Jesus.

I'm pretty sure Jesus never had the concept of himself building any church. Jesus either thought he would not die and God would rescue him in the nick of Roman time, or if not, he would return immediately, or perhaps the "Son of Man" would, who he may or may not have thought of as himself, and kick the collective Roman ass once and for all.  Sadly, and of course, we know how that worked out.  

My personal regret about this scripture is that Jesus, who wrote NOTHING himself evidently, but is quoted here never went on to define what that Church would look like.  What would its beliefs and realities be?  What would it teach?  Who would get to have the final say?  Would it be a Jewish Christian perspective as Peter, James and John would have found correct, or would it be the Gentile Church as understood by the Apostle Paul?  If you believe these two groups "all spoke the same thing," or had the same one truth and Gospel, you are not doing your homework.  

The Gospel of Paul, with his Cosmic Christ and the soon coming "Son of Man" in a Jewish context were not the same Gospel message.  The Book of Galatians is clear that these men were at odds with each other and not on the same page.  Paul cursed those who brought another Gospel than the one Paul thought up and he was talking about the Jerusalem leadership, who Paul defined as "however, in all men is not that knowledge")  He even called them "reputed to be pillars" but went on to say that they added nothing to his own Gospel and actually he learned nothing from them.  When Paul chided Peter for his turn around in the presence of "those from James,"  it sounds like Peter was the bad guy and not near as mature as Paul.  In fact, in my view, Peter recognized at this meal that Paul had no intention of going along with the Acts 15 directives to place the Noahide rules on those who wished, as gentiles to become Christians.  I believe Peter probably noticed Paul was serving not unclean meats but meat offered to idols which Paul is said originally to have agreed not to do in Acts 15.  In I Corinthians 8 we see that Paul considered that view as "weak" and had no intention of teaching it in fact. 

In short, Paul was a liar and two faced in just the same way he accused Peter of being.  The reason Paul comes out looking so good and Peter so bad is that we only have Paul's story and really a dummied down version of that. We don't have Peter's view or a description of exactly what Peter found to be a problem with Paul's table.  Paul gets to brag about his bravely getting in Peter's face over the issue and "winning."  Peter gets to say nothing.  

So back to the original concept of Church building.  How nice it would have been had Jesus taken a few moments to outline exactly what that Church would look like.  But since he probably neither thought about it in reality or actually said these words added years later when there was a version of the "one true Church" up and running already, we can never know.  Jesus would not have known what his Church would look like because he never considered the concept.  Like bearing one's cross, the concept was a product of another time and the priests of those times were not unwilling to put words in Jesus or Peter or Paul's mouth to justify their current practices, when there actually was a Church.   

So we can see, and the NT is full of evidence that Peter was not to be followed according to John who thought him to be no better than Judas.  In a process called "Intercalation", the author of John always sandwiches a negative comment about Simon Peter between negative comments about Judas, Son of Simon.  While we miss the point, the readers of the day would have understand that Peter was no better than Judas and was the baloney between the two slices of Judas.  

We also have the sarcastic story of Peter , who said he would do one thing, (never leave Jesus) and did another, (Denied him) killing off Ananias and Sapphira who said they would do one thing (Give all) and did another, (held back).  We miss the point today but the audience of Luke and Paul would have clearly understood the sarcasm and humor behind it sending the message not to follow Peter the Judas and hypocrite. Peter denies...Judas betrays...no difference!

The Book of James , asking how you can have faith without works to show the faith in action and Paul's Book of Romans which makes great fun of works of any kind proving anything are not the same Gospel.   While the COG's try to see both men speaking the same thing, they really are speaking the opposite.  

Today in Fundamentalist Christianity in general and the COG's in particular the war designed to see which version of the True Church is the True Church wages on. 

Its a Church version of "I'm Spartacus...No, I'm Spartacus...oh no your not, I'm Spartacus!"   It's both funny and sad but also confusing and harmful to those that feel that their job in life is to discern EXACTLY which one of these competing views is the right view of Jesus and God.  Ok, and the Holy Spirit too.  

But I will say it again.  Never in the history of whoever and whatever Jesus said, did, meant and taught has there ever been one true church.  There was not one to be found in the New Testament either.  What you find is a smaller more focused battle between the Jewish version of Peter, James and John and the Gentile version of the Apostle come lately Paul.  

It is no accident that Paul, who never met any earthly Jesus or quoted him ever because for Paul, Jesus was a cosmic hallucinatory version in his head, while the Gospels, written long after Paul died, are the bringing his Jesus down to earth version.  For Paul, Christ died in the heavens and was killed by demons and spirits while for the Gospel writers the Romans, oops, the Jews killed the earthly version.  They are not the same story.  They are not the same concept.  They are not the same Gospel.  And there never was one true coherent, all speaking the same thing Church of God EVER.

In my opinion, the Apostle Paul was the false prophet proven false by the Ephesian Church (home of John?) that was tried and found wanting in Revelation.  Vespasian was the Beast.  None of it has anything to do with today. It is what Paul was getting at when he noted "all those in Asia have turned away...may God not lay it to their charge."  Ephesus is in Asia.  All of them found Paul to be one donut short of a dozen and they all sent him on his way.  Paul, in his typical way, never seemed to ask why?  He merely noted that they were all wrong and he was still right and he hoped God did not hold it too hardly against the Ephesians.  However, the Jesus of Revelation assured the Ephesians that they had done a good thing by telling them "well done," so guess who won that argument?  The topics was the Ephesians finding certain Apostles to be found wanting.  They weren't talking about the original 12 you can be sure.  

Also, we have to note that of the 24 times Paul is called an Apostle in the NT, Paul calls himself one 22 of those times with Luke, his biographer adding the other 2. Seems no one else but Paul thought he was a genuine Apostle.  Kinda like today with the competing true Apostles telling their churches "and yes brethren, I am an Apostle,"  but no one outside that organization believing that to be true in any way.  Paul made himself an Apostle and said that Jesus and God did it.  He had to say Jesus and God because you can't prove that and no others humans were buying it.  It's kinda like saying that if the Apostle is wrong, God will correct him, not you or I.  But really, who would say such a stupid thing in real life?  :)

So for those of you who still struggle with seeking the one true and exactly right Church of God.....RELAX!  There isn't one.  Never has been and never will be.  There will always be many versions both similar and so very different from each other that are the one true church.   Don't stress over to eat or not to eat out on the Sabbath.  Forget about Moons and Moon Pies.  Don't feel obligated to go along with any man who says he and his wife are the Two Witnesses of Revelation 11 or this, that or any other prophet.  I mean really...what's the chance? 

The most amazing True Churches of God are really not all that amazing and the moment the guru dies, you are going to be back in the mud wondering if anything is ever going to work out in your lifetime.  Lighten up.  Don't fret about days and dates, time is short or the night being far spent.  2000 years is really a long time for time is short and the Book of Revelation being written to "show the things which must shortly come to pass," so long ago now.  Revelation is true. It really did try to show the things which would shortly come to pass in the 70's AD.  It was just wrong and the Romans won.  The brethren it was meant to encourage either ran for their lives or died on the spot on the ends of Roman swords.  That's what really happened and what really came to pass.

Personally, if I am wrong and ever get to speak to a genuinely resurrected Jesus or God, I am going to ask why they did not make these most important topics more clear.  I mean if it determines our eternal lives, should the gods leave any of that in the hands of humans to get right in the translation?  I think not.  I am going to mention that faith seems to be what is required but then along come the facts and ....well, things change. 

I'd like to ask why they did not write anything down themselves.  Even the Buddha wrote much and all the great writers of the day, some of whom actually lived just down the street at the right time, never seemed to notice the events spoken of in the Gospels. Maybe they were at a writer's convention and out of town for that year (according to Matthew, Mark and Luke)  or three years, (John). 

At any rate, whatever "more correct,"  "more true," or  "the original" Church of God means is up for grabs and debate. I do know that the Church of Brotherly love today seems hateful and nuts.  The Church that has restored has really just copied not true either stuff.  The Church that is United is terribly divided.  The Church that is alive seems small and dying.  And the true church that is a mere remnant is ...well, not all that impressive and can't get their message down the street, much less to all the world.

Relax...Take a deep breath.  You don't have to struggle over which organization, Apostle or view of scripture is the exact right one.  It does not exist.  It NEVER has, not in the pages of your Bible nor in present day reality.  It never will.  

While everything you see today in the COGs is very much, if not exactly what we see in the New Testament Church and its leadership doing and being exactly what we see in the NT,  I don't mean that in the way you might think.  

Dennis C
DenniscDiehl@aol.com

Andrew On: "What’s the Difference Between “Good” and “Godly”?"

What’s the Difference Between “Good” and “Godly”?

One time I went to a bible study where the minister spoke for an hour or so about the difference between being “Godly” and being merely “good.” He was essentially arguing that everyone who was not in “God’s True Church,” their “goodness” was of “The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil,” while ours was “Godliness,” because as faithful followers, we were all partaking of “The Tree of Life.” During the course of laying out his argument, he made several ludicrous statements that left many people other than me also scratching their heads and asking some pointed followup questions. Now that I look back on it, I realize that by picking that topic, he was forcing himself into a position in which he would have to say a few ludicrous things because he was trying to prove something that wasn’t true.

I was raised in the theory, and believed for so many years, that because I was raised in WCG by parents who were faithful believers, that their children are therefore sanctified, as Paul says:

1Cor 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

And then, when I was baptized, so the theory went, I had to have the holy spirit, if for no other reason than because that is what the bible said God had promised. I had followed all the rules, just the way HWA and the bible said.

In time, I had to begin to admit to myself that I had no empirical evidence to suggest that this theory was true. When I talked to other people about my inability to confirm this theory with any sort of experience of power or help that might be associated with the presence of the holy spirit, they would say things like, "that's everyone's experience."

Finally, I had to admit that it made no sense for me to believe that I had the holy spirit. The real world told me that I was not who church leaders told me I was. We were not "God's people." "God's True Church" was just a social club of people with rich imaginations united by a generous helping of gullible. (Now, I just hate it whenever I hear people say "God's" anything, because I know that what I'm hearing is a lie being repeated by a stupid person who is willing to believe in anything for no reason.)

It doesn't matter where you put the holes, whether you attribute them to HWA, Church of God Seventh Day, some other broken link in the chain, or even the bible itself, it doesn't change the fact that I believed, I played by the rules, and God did not honor the promises that people, including Apostle Paul, told me He would. If God isn't delivering on things promised during this lifetime, then why should He be expected to deliver on things promised for after I die? Tilt. Train wreck. Full stop. End of story.

There are plenty of good, moral, and ethical people in the world who don't believe in God. I am just tired of the idea that all those decent people are “evil,” “lost” or “deceived” simply because they don’t believe in the social club, the rituals, the afterlife, etc. I am tired of the idea that I am somehow “better,” “special” or “holy” because I have performed the rituals and believed that God was working with me (even though He wasn’t). If there is an afterlife, can’t I just believe when I get there? Why should believing without any reason to so all-important? Can’t I just be honest about all of this? Why can’t it be good enough to be merely “good”?

What is the difference between being “Godly” and being merely “good”? In one case, I am deceived, superstitious, and elitist, in the other I am just a regular guy trying to do what is right. Either with or without an iPhone and a Prius (in my case, without). Hmm.  How about, can we just agree that religious people don’t have a monopoly on being deceived, superstitious, and elitist? And therein lies my point: there aren’t any real differences. We’re all just people who are trying to do what is right in our own eyes, even if we have radically different ideas about what is good and what is right.

The truth is, merely “good” is all I’ve ever been. I have no room for the baggage, the elitism, and the superstition anymore. All of that stuff just gets in my way. The idea that I was ever anything more than merely “good” was an illusion that was pawned off on me from before I was old enough to sort out the lies from the fiction. Maybe merely “good” without all that other crap is actually better than with it. It’s certainly more honest.

Don’t get me wrong, I believe that there is plenty of wisdom in the bible, and in many other religions and philosophies of the world too. The problem is, I think that because life is as complicated as it is, religion gets complicated too, perhaps overcomplicated. But maybe it shouldn’t. Maybe religion ought to be a simplifying force instead. The whole point of religion is to help us make sense out of life. Making sense out of life implies allowing us to see it in simpler terms. For thousands of years, the simplifying aspects of religion has been conveying peaceful wisdom, while the complicating aspects have been drawing people out into the battlefields. I don’t see why religion itself is not of “The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.”

So, what is the simple wisdom? Be honest with yourself. Do unto others as they would have you do unto them. Deal with each other in good faith. Be optimistic about others. Fall in love with humanity, warts and all.

Why can’t this be good enough? Can’t we just let all the other baggage go? All it does is complicate things and makes it more difficult to live up to any of the simple, yet profound stuff.

-Andrew

Will Wanton Women Be The Downfall of the True Church?

Only in Armstrongism and Sabbatarianism will this kind of thinking be found.  Weird, weird people!

Out of 6,000 years of human history since Adam: Only 144,000 firstfruits! My mathematics says. This is an average of 24 firstfruits a year.

If the seven Churches of Rev are the firstfruits, for arguments sake say Christ returns 2,000 years after starting to preach. This is an average of 72 firstfruits a year.

Say half of them are called during the last 50 years; this would mean 1440 firstfruits a year.

As most the people called in this generation have fallen away. Will this mean a new work to replace them?

More scriptures on the Firstfruits:

These are a very special people indeed.  Will they be tried with Women? / False Churches? Will they be tried with following the Lamb?

Will they be tried to have guile in their mouths?

Rev 14:4  These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.

Van Robison On "The Foundation of Man-Made Religions"

Fred Coulter's Armstrongite Bible

The Foundation of Man-Made Religions

As a reader one thing anyone can learn from reading from a wide range of sources, is that no matter what you say, there are always those who will differ.  This is natural and what a dull world if every human being thought exactly alike.  I have read on the websites of many who have the belief that "the Bible is infallible and inerrant" and is "totally inspired by God."  The "Holy" books of all the religions of the world are in fact the primary source and foundation that have fueled a world of division, antagonism, elitism and a host of other human problems.  I suppose if we had been born on Mars and it was inhabitable and we were brought up believing in a book called "The Writings", which was a collection of writings from "prophets" and "prophetesses" of other inhabitable planets and which found their way to Mars, then that is what the common people would accept as "truth."  In that book of "The Writings", it may say "all these writings are given by inspiration of God" and that would seal it for many who would forever believe that indeed God was the author.

The world is full of theologians, "scholars" and believers in the Bible, who think the Bible itself "proves" that it is the word of God.  If indeed God is not the author of confusion, you have to scratch your head and wonder how the world is so divided into so many different interpretations of the Bible and thus innumerable churches and major religious beliefs.  The general excuse is "well those who don't believe as we do, just don't understand the Bible."  Yeah sure!  Some people have been highly offended when I told them that the church world is full of Bible worshipers, who think the Bible is God.  They always have a retort to "God is not the Bible and the Bible is not God."  God is not ink on paper, but not only do millions of churchians seem to think so, but so also do other religious groups who think their "Holy" books are God also.  Religious minded people love to quote passages from their "sacred" writings, which is their source that supposedly validates what they believe.

As far as the Worldwide Church of God and its offspring are concerned, their view of the Bible is peculiar to the interpretation of Herbert and their leaders.  This is of course true of all groups and no one is convinced that anything that differs with their views is acceptable.  I have emailed several splinter groups or their representatives in the past and expressed a few views, and the general reply is silence, but also a time or two---hostility. People simply do not want their comfort zone rocked.  I agree that it is unsettling to be told that the Saturday Sabbath has nothing to do with salvation or eternal life, or material blessings for observing it, if you have been indoctrinated that it is paramount.

Most people have had the idea of Bible infallibility so pounded into their thinking for so many years, that to even entertain that their "Holy" book is full of holes is unthinkable.  To question or challenge the Bible is tantamount to questioning God Himself and so to them, it is off limits.  In the Old Testament anyone who picked up sticks on the Sabbath was to be put to death, and no one who can reason would believe that this represents the God of love, portrayed by Jesus Christ.  And yet millions say "the Bible is totally inspired by God."  Surely something is intrinsically wrong with a book that is the foundational source that causes some people to believe that they have rights to your property by force, or that they can kill the men and women and children in conquest and save the virgins for themselves.  Writings that purport to enslave people to rulers of men, must have been penned by aliens, but not by God.  Giving a priest class of people "right" to your pocketbook, because they represent God on earth is far fetched.  The clergy class of "professional" Bible-thumpers are naturally ecstatic, because they can pick out passages in "The Writings" that give them status and free money at your expense.

I wonder how many more thousands of years will pass before people the world over come to their senses about "The Writings?"  We know instinctively the basics of right and wrong without having to read it in ink on paper, scrolls or on papyrus.  Don't we all know that it is wrong to murder your next door neighbor?  Do we need a "licensed" preacher to stand in a pulpit and tell us this?  Who were all these dead men, who penned "The Writings" and attributed them to God?  Were they LYING SCRIBES with an agenda to control the world and pocket a treasure chest full of coins, compliments of their sheep-like followers?  How do "The Writings" identify the splinter groups of the WWCG as the "one and only true church of God" on earth?  I guess some people believe in magic.


Van Robison

Dad of the Year!