Monday, January 24, 2022

Huh? Sure, Fine, Whatever...


"I'm fulfilling the clearing up of the Book of Revelation!"

These are snippets from the latest, non-Christian and extra-Biblical musings of Dave's, "Never Ending Story" as to just how correct he and the math still is about Christ's Second, or, the way it's going, Dave's Fifth Coming of his Christ saga.

Apologies for lack of context but I assure you, all of Dave's sermons on this BS sound like this from start to finish. I am sure that no member or minister can repeat or explain it as Dave presents it. I do not understand either the members or the ministry of the RCG. Brain dead it seems.  Besides, it changes every week or less anyhow. 

Most of this makes no sense to me and probably not to anyone hearing it at Church. One thinks that if they could hear the entire sermon, it would make sense. Alas, it does not make any more sense in its complete form than it does in snippet form. 




"HOW many STILL believe (as IF they EVER REALLY did!!!) that Moses, Solomon, Jeremiah, Zechariah, Christ and Paul, and perhaps others - PROVED the Kingdom of God comes in the winter month of Sebat?" That it can't be July,  it can't be April or the Feast of Tabernacles or something?................ šŸ– Ok so we still believe those things


"HOW MANY were convicted that when we move the 8 days out of the Feast of Tabernacles, where the 1st and last days of the Feast, and then the Last Great Day, retain their holy status, and we have to locate them somewhere as SABBATHS?......... HOW MANY STILL believe that?

In other words, do we have AUTHORITY to take these (8) days and move them, and because they're NO LONGER annual Sabbaths, they lose their holy authority, even though annual Sabbaths are more holy to God, there are only 7 of them versus 52 regular Sabbaths. Do we have ANY authority a little over a month ago, to move them and drop the holy status. Are they holy unless God says they're not, or are they not holy unless God PROVES to us AGAIN that they STILL are?"............. There's nowhere in the scriptures that suggests for a minute, that God SAYS they're NOT holy"...

"While the 5 answers remain ROCK SOLID - OR SCRIPTURES BREAK..........SEVERAL things would NOT sit well in my mind for SOME time... In fact, the number of things grew a LITTLE over time - and they resolved themselves"

"The days of his voice..... Either it was 2 messages..... OR the days his voice is PLAYING OUT as his message goes around the world to the brethren....

"My voice is not active anymore since I did Part 344 over 10 days ago... It's TOO far! They don't apply - it bothered me!!

I explained the Book of Revelation - that was a PROPHECY.

I prepared these things WITHOUT ONE THOUGHT - WITHOUT ONE THOUGHT, that I was OPENING UP the Book of Revelation...

It occurred to me DURING the delivery of Part 344, that I WAS FULFILLING the clearing up of the Book of Revelation..... Mr Holcombe and Haboush are both witnesses"....

I believe "Mr Holcombe" was a very close friend of mine back when I pastored in Ohio in my 20's. I ordained him a deacon along the way and then lost track of him over the years. I did call him a couple times in the past but he would not speak with me or return my calls. Then I found he had gone with RCG and Dave so that pretty much explains it.  Dave might not be too happy if John and I were still friends. 

Concerning Dave's view that he opens or fulfills the Book of Revelation-- wrong.  Really, really wrong!

The Book of Revelation, whether we understand it or not, is full of hyperbole and is a failed first century prophecy written in or around the Summer of 70 AD just prior to the Fall of Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans. I do understand the emotional disagreements with this, but Revelation was not written for a 2000 plus year down the road group of White Europeans to use as an explanation as to the times they, like all before them, thought or think they live in with Christ's Second Coming the prize. Even the early canonizers of the scripture were at a loss as to what to do with Revelation. But, as a Book for all times, it made the cut. 

This is not a study on Preterist perspectives but take a look at the concept sometime with regards to Biblical Prophecy and in particular the Books of Daniel and of Revelation should it interest you. It is the most satisfying view of Revelation I have studied to me. I recognize it might be so to you. 

"Preterism, a Christian eschatological view, interprets some (partial preterism) or all (full preterism) prophecies of the Bible as events which have already happened. This school of thought interprets the Book of Daniel as referring to events that happened from the 7th century BC until the first century AD, while seeing the prophecies of the Book of Revelation as events that happened in the first century AD. Preterism holds that Ancient Israel finds its continuation or fulfillment in the Christian church at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

The term preterism comes from the Latin praeter, which is a prefix denoting that something is "past" or "beyond".[1] Adherents of preterism are known as preterists. Preterism teaches that either all (full preterism) or a majority (partial preterism) of the Olivet discourse had come to pass by AD 70."


From The Religion of the Occident

"Revelation was the swan song of Militant Jewish Christianity. When Jerusalem was destroyed, when Rome waxed greater and more powerful, when the False Prophet gained more and more followers (Note: To the author, this was the Apostle Paul who was hated by Jewish Christians), when the book itself was proved totally false within two years, when it became evident that the Jewish Messiah Christ would not come, the Hebrew Christians lost their virility and their cult faded under the combined assault of orthodox Judaism and of Gentile (Pauline) Christianity."


If you'd like my perspective on "The Second Coming as the Eternal Carrot" see:

https://ezinearticles.com/?The-Second-Coming-The-Eternal-Carrot&id=94672

or not...

In short, the "you" of the NT meant them not us, or anyone else of another time, every time.

And "This Generation shall not pass" has indeed passed and, apologetics notwithstanding, was never meant to imply any other future generation than the one Jesus is said to be speaking to in the Gospels. 

Dave's fetish with Revelation and his part in it are delusional and ignorant. 

Thanks for reading and your consideration here. 


   



LCG: Did Its Recent Fast Bring Them Closer To God And More Humble?

 Notice that this is NOT the kind of fast that LCG thinks is profitable for edification




Gerald Weston explained the purpose of a fast to some of his inquiring members as follows:

"...a clear statement that fasting is for the purpose of drawing close to God...fasting is a means of humbling ourselves...we draw close to God in humility. This applies to us individually and as the collective Body of Christ. Let us spend extra time in prayer, study, and meditation this Sabbath as we draw close to God in humility and oneness of mind."

That Sabbath is over. Anyone feeling that oneness and humility, besides Weston and Winnail? Was it so wonderful that fasting will no longer be necessary?

At least, Weston didn't ask his members to make their voices to be: "...heard on high," Isaiah 58:4, because God isn't interested in prayers and fasting to get for self.

Might fasting actually have another purpose that the likes of Weston/Winnail, and other former hirelings of the former WCG, hadn't thought of?

Think about it. Moses and Christ fasted for weeks. David did it for days. Were they any humbler? Were they any closer to God?

Weston/Winnail, as are Kubik, Franks, Thiel, Pack, Weinland, Flurry, etc., other former WCG hirelings (not sure who these people really are today?), all believe in their Mickey Mouse Millennium, to one degree or another lord it over others, and want their members to fast. Why? What has fasting ever done during the days of HWA, and since 16 January 1986?

Aren't true Christians, something other than organizations, associations, groups of men striving to rule, lord, and control the lives of men and women....already humbled by God and are hence close to God?

Did Moses and Jesus fast for the reasons Weston gave? If yes, then prove it to us with scripture!

Jesus told us this:

John 17:21 "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me."

: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."

Can a Christian get any closer to God than that: the Father in Christ, and Christ in every Christian? If these verses are true, that's pretty close to God and that Bridegroom (hint for Weston referencing the Bridegroom being taken away: well, He was away for 3 days and 3 nights), if you ask me.

Fasting is for some other reason(s), but not for what Weston said. Jesus fasted for 40 days and He wasn't going to get any closer to His Father, who was always with Him. And Christ is in them (John 17:23), those to be dragged by the Father and sealed by God's Spirit to be Firstfruits, part of a Bride to be built over time.

Will the likes of Weston, Winnail, other former WCG hirelings determine some other reasons for fasting other than the ones they burden their members with? Will they learn why Christ just may not be "in them:" if that is the actual situation?

Time will tell...

John

The Church of God International's Messaging Problem



The Church of God International's Messaging Problem


Over the years since leaving CGI, I have watched the evolution of that organization with fascination. For those who are unfamiliar with this history, CGI began as a reaction to the autocratic and intellectually stagnant atmosphere within the now-defunct Worldwide Church of God. Unfortunately, one of the "founding fathers" of the organization was the morally flawed son (Garner Ted Armstrong) of the autocrat (Herbert W Armstrong) who ruled over the parent organization. Eventually, the moral failings of GTA became so egregious that some folks abandoned CGI (like Ron Dart) while others (like my own father) forced GTA out of the organization and attempted to institute a more spiritual and democratic direction for their organization. It is as they say, however, good intentions so often go astray.

Like many of the other organizations which descended from Herbert's Worldwide Church, CGI began as a mix of true believers who sought to perpetuate the "core" doctrines of Armstrongism and those who recognized that there were real problems with some of the teachings of the parent organization. Over the years that followed those major disruptions within the organization caused by GTA's indiscretions, these two groups grew further and further apart. Unfortunately, the conservative forces within the church (those loyal to Armstrongism) came to be led by Pastor Bill Watson of Ohio. The reformers, on the other hand, were represented by men like Charles Groce, Vance Stinson, and (more recently) Jeff Reed. The illusion of unanimity between the two groups has been preserved by the desire of the men in both camps not to further dilute the already diminished resources and reach of the organization. Both sides recognized that a rupture between them would effectively destroy the ability of the church to promulgate its message to a wider audience.

More recently, this uneasy truce between the two camps has been sorely tested by the radicalization and extreme polarization of American society at large. In short, the larger tensions between liberals and conservatives within the United States have exacerbated tensions between the two camps within CGI. Indeed, the same denigration of the motives, morals, and intellectual capacity of the other side which has characterized the larger society has excited those same kinds of recriminations within the church. The reform camp sees the other side as stubborn reactionaries that are preventing the church from reaching a wider audience. Likewise, the Bill Watson camp sees the other side as being caught up in the same deception and wickedness that is afflicting the larger culture and views them as an obstacle to getting out their message of warning.

Of course, for CGI, this tension is further underscored and exacerbated by the fundamental differences in the way the two camps react to those "core doctrines" of Armstrongism. Watson (and most of his supporters) still embraces Anglo-Israelism and its attendant notion that the church's primary mission is to proclaim a warning to the "nations of Israel" (chiefly the English-speaking peoples of the earth). Hence, for these folks, the message of the church should be one of warning against the evils of socialism, homosexuality, globalism, gender identity, abortion, immigration, etc. In other words, the culture war on steroids! Most of the reformers, however, reject the teaching of Anglo-Israelism and believe that the church's messaging should be focused on the commission to preach the gospel which God gave to his disciples. For the Watson camp, the thirty-third chapter of Ezekiel is paramount. For the Groce/Stinson/Reed camp, the twenty-eighth chapter of Matthew is supreme. Sure, both camps claim that their objective is to proclaim the Gospel of the Kingdom of God to the world. Nevertheless, we can see that their respective understandings of what that encompasses are fundamentally different.

How have both sides handled this dilemma? Heretofore, the reformers have told themselves that the conservatives are simply stuck in the past and haven't seen the light yet. They pride themselves on being inclusive and not censoring the messaging of the conservatives with which they disagree. The conservatives, on the other hand, feel like they are being stifled and censored! They feel like the impact of their messaging has been thwarted and diluted by the reformers. Of course, for those of us on the outside, it just appears that this organization is speaking out of both sides of its mouth. The messaging is mixed, and both sides have only succeeded in engendering a great deal of cognitive dissonance in their audience!

Addendum:

I just finished listening to a sermon by Vance Stinson that was apparently delivered this past Sabbath titled Shepherding the Flock. In the message, Mr. Stinson directly addressed some of the issues raised in this post about the church's messaging.

More particularly, he addressed just how divisive the issue of mRNA Covid-19 vaccinations has been within the church. In fact, Mr. Stinson pointed out the specific post by Jeff Reed (which referred to the widespread misinformation about the vaccines within America and called them a blessing) that this blogger had previously called attention to as causing so much discord within the church (and within my own family). According to Mr. Stinson, the issue has proven to be so divisive that the Executive Council of the Church has made the decision to not allow ANY further posts regarding Covid-19 mRNA vaccination (anti or pro) on their organization's website.

As I suggested in the above post, Mr. Stinson claims that this step has been taken to avoid dissension and promote unity within their church culture. However, while he insisted that this did not amount to censorship because it would apply equally to both sides, he repeatedly stressed that nothing further would be allowed to be posted on the subject.

Mr. Stinson went on to suggest that there was a strong biblical principle upon which the Executive Council's decision was based: That the shepherds of the flock have a responsibility to forgo their rights to express their own opinions on subjects for the sake of the flock. According to him, the primary responsibility of the shepherds is to promote unity and harmony within the church. In adopting this position, he comes very close to the point which I was originally trying to make with regard to these kinds of issues - that ministers of Jesus Christ had absolutely NO business wading into controversial political and cultural issues.

However, Mr. Stinson failed to address a minister's responsibility to protect his flock from harm and to tell the truth. Moreover, it hardly seems even-handed and fair to this observer to allow all of the many ridiculous statements about social distancing, masking, and vaccinations that had provoked Mr. Reed's post in the first place to stand (remain posted as part of the sermon archive). In other words, in this instance, it appears that those who have made the most noise have prevailed (irrespective of the merits of their objections or the truthfulness of their messaging). And, I'm betting that the Executive Council's decision will NOT satisfy folks in either camp. As John likes to say, time will tell.


Lonnie Hendrix