Monday, June 08, 2009

UCG's new brooms

Things are changing in the United Church of God. Remember the brouhaha when Aaron Dean spoke to a non-UCG group? The "powers that be" censured him severely, only to then have their noses rubbed in it when Dean was elected to the Council of Elders. Now, with more new faces added to the governing body, changes are in the air. Here is the preamble to the new guidelines on speaking to outsiders.

The United Church of God, an International Association (hereafter UCGIA), acknowledges that the Body of Christ is a spiritual organism transcending corporate boundaries. We do not claim that all Christians are among our fellowship, neither do we claim to be the only organization through which God may be working. UCGIA desires, therefore, to promote unity and cooperation and to share our beliefs and teachings within the broader Church of God community.

UCGIA also believes that a Christian teacher, in following the examples of Jesus Christ and the apostles, is to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Kingdom of God with other individuals and religious organizations, whenever granted opportunity. This responsibility encompasses professing believers and non-believers.

But wait, are those storm clouds gathering on the horizon? There are some very unhappy campers, in particular those who championed the old ways. The new force is also pushing several items on their agenda that have the potential to be highly divisive. It seems the generational change is not going to go unchallenged.

Poor old Clyde Kilough!

99 comments:

Questeruk said...

Are these published guidelines, or potential proposals?

Gavin said...

Published.
http://www.ucog.org/blog/?p=299

Anonymous said...

UCG split with WCG/CGI back in 1995 for the very things they're putting out now (true Christians outside COG-land)...... So now in 2009 what UCG is really saying is that they were wrong all along and shouldn't have split up with WCG/CGI. The next thing they'll say after a while is that the Sabbath is not required for salvation. Watch the UCG go down the toilet in the next couple of years.

Anonymous said...

Gotta watch those UCG "new brooms".

Their loyalties are questionable.
LOL

http://www.ucog.org/blog/?p=264



Anoneemoose

Anonymous said...

UCG is in confusion.Did you that LCG has published it,s audit report. I notice you never mention it whenever it is put out. Is there a reason for this? I hope you are having as great a weather as we are in my US neighborhood.

Anonymous said...

As I commented before,

"The changes that will occur in UCG will ultimately be the opposite of what they think will keep the UCG united. I believe the new "Free Thinking" leaders will attempt to unify the minds of the ministry and that this will cause more splinters in the UCG. The big joke for years is that there is nothing united about United. They are the group that is the furthest from being "like minded" of any of the ex-COGs. UCG enjoys the largest membership because it allows every wind of doctrine to go unchallenged so long as nobody breaks up the social club. The end result is that any attempt to have the ministry become like minded will most likely end horribly for the UCG body. If they want to become like minded, they will have to choose whose mind will be the one they all want to become enlikened to. Doing so suggests that they accept a leader and a governmental structure that promotes this like mindedness. The UCG wont be able to stomach following one man as a leader. If they could, David Hulme would still be UCG's Chairman."

So it appears that the UCG is starting to pronounce the doctrines of the new "Free Thinking" leadership it has elected. This will ultimately lead to a major split. Happy politicking UCG.

Anonymous said...

UCG seems to be a spiritualy closed container. The contents within were robotic AC grads/hirelings that opened the container only for cash and praise. Is UCG going to be only an administrator of salaries and pensions for the priestly welfare class? Or this time will UCG earnestly pursue spreading the good news? Time will tell.

Tom Mahon said...

Extract from UCG's statement...

>>We do not claim that all Christians are among our fellowship, neither do we claim to be the only organization through which God may be working.<<

This statement may be new, but the teaching that Christ is divided and God is author of confusion have been in place since 1995. For example, Larry Salyer left Global and eventually ended up being a minister in UCG. And he is not only minister that has jumped ship.

Ministers have left UCG and joined LCG, and visa versa. Only recently John Meakin left COG/Hulme and joined LCG, and Ron King jumped from several ships before ending up on board LCG. And the same may be said of many ministers and so-called brethren in all the other divided groups in cog-land.

So since 1995, there has been a tacit acceptance that all "Christians" are not in one particular fellowship, but are scattered amongst the various divided groups. But I challenge anyone from UCG, et al, to show from scripture that Christ is divided, or that God is working with a multiplicity of church groups that openly disagree with one another?

Byker Bob said...

The new policy could be described by some as being enlightened. It indicates growth away from the elitist cultic mentality.

If history is any teacher, these or any other reforms will not result in growth. The Armstrong movement was soley based on the personality of HWA. It never even met the potential demonstrated by the other Adventist groups, such as Jehovah's Witnesses, or Seventh Day Adventists. It stands today as having been divided and confused, and, as such, has already been in the toilet for years.

As far as unity goes, the unifying factor is Jesus Christ, working in individual Christians, transforming one heart at a time. The unity of Christ does not refer to particular corporate church entities. The vail to the holy of holies was split from the top down, indicating that all followers of our high priest, Jesus Christ, have direct access to Father God, unobstructed by any other man. Authoritarian church government stifles the workings of the Holy Spirit in individual Christians.

BB

larry said...

This actually is a good sign to see from the UCG. Maybe they will now drop their pride and consider rejoining the GCI. It is only pride that prevents them from returning.

We in the GCI still properly recall the parable of the prodigal son. And, we will be happy to forgive all and make amends. After all, we do understand.

Questeruk said...

Anonymous said...
"UCG split with WCG/CGI back in 1995 for the very things they're putting out now (true Christians outside COG-land)......"

Maybe you should read what the two paragraphs quoted actually say, not what you think/would like them to say.

Baashabob said...

Anonymous wondered:
"Is UCG going to be only an administrator of salaries and pensions for the priestly welfare class?"

This is not a matter of what they are going to become. That is what they are, and that is what they always have been.

Questeruk said...

I welcome this change.

The whole Aaron Dean thing was stupid. If someone is on the council, then they are in theory one of the twelve most trusted ministers in UCG. You would expect that they would be capable of deciding if it’s a good idea to speak to an ‘outside’ group.

Incidentally, if you read the background to the quote, you will see that this was actually presented to the Council for consideration in December 2008, months before new members were elected in May 2009.

Baashabob said...

Tom stated:
"But I challenge anyone from UCG, et al, to show from scripture that Christ is divided, or that God is working with a multiplicity of church groups that openly disagree with one another?"

For once (this is truly an historic occasion) I have to agree with you. But neither is the opposite true. Christ is not working with any any one particular group. Christ works with individuals not groups, and especially not with groups that use His name as a way to fund their cupidity.

Anonymous said...

"As far as unity goes, the unifying factor is Jesus Christ".

Well, that's obvious. How else could Christianity, after 2000 years, be so completely unified as it is today? I must say, Jesus Christ is one hell of a unifying factor.

The Skeptic

Bamboo_bends said...

Someone wrote:

.....I challenge anyone from UCG, et al, to show from scripture that Christ is divided, or that God is working with a multiplicity of church groups that openly disagree with one another?


John 13:35 "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."

Romans 12:10 "Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves."

Romans 13:8 "Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled (completed) the law."

My fear is not that they might not pull it off, its that they may.

I do not care to see Armstrongism survive.

Having said that, the UCG has distanced itself a bit from the old man.

Anonymous said...

In response to Tom's statement,
Its too bad you are so ignorant of the scriptures. Christ is not divided. Nor does he sanction humanly incorporated organizations, or "groups" as you put it.
He says his Church, the called out ones, (the Ecclesia), is a spiritual body which transends human organizations. There is no division in that he has one body composed of humans who have his Holy Spirit. While there maybe disagreement among members, (there was disagreement between Paul and Peter and others), the spiritual ecclesia still exists, irrespective of what the misguided such as you, Roderick Meredith or others think.
Incorporated man made organizations are irrelevant to the Great God.

Anonymous said...

I think some are taking this statement a bit too far. United is not saying there are Christians in all of "Christianity." The statement seems to be a mere recognition of true Christians in other Church of God groups. I know for a fact their new chairman (Roy Holladay) does not believe there are true Christians outside the Church of God. Paul Kieffer has relatives in Living and commonly mixes with those in the Living Church of God. Granted, this statement may be bringing down barriers within the Church of God groups...but United is not expanding true Christianity outside the bounds of the Church of God community. This is really not new though...UCG has never claimed to by the only one true group. I have even heard Les McCullough make that statement from the pulpit. United actively seeked the merger between it and Larry Salyer's CGCF. Clyde Kilough and Jim Franks (what would be called the "old garde") travelled to Charlotte to meet with the LCG leaders a few years ago.

Yes, there is some internal division on the change in speaking policy (no longer requiring permission), but it is not a great change in the grand scheme of things. Even when permission was required, my understanding was that it was nearly always granted from the UCG Home Office. The Aaron Dean situation was an exception. So again, not much changes.

Purple Hymnal said...

Listen to Dick-head's sermon again. (If you can stomach it. Or just read the transcript I have linked here.) There is a very particular "understanding" UCG brings to these "new truths", to wit:

"UCGIA desires, therefore, to promote unity and cooperation and to share our beliefs and teachings within the broader Church of God community."

Hmm, nothing at all about those evil pagan cannibalistic professing Christians there; I wonder why???

"following the examples of Jesus Christ and the apostles, is to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Kingdom of God with other individuals and religious organizations, whenever granted opportunity."

"I don't come to preach Christ, I come to preach the Gospel OF Christ!" (Yep. You can still hear Herbie's voice hitching up into the supersonic at the end, can't you?) Is the Church stockpiling Steuben crystal, before they make crucial visits (read, photo-ops) to "world leaders"? They need to get on the ball, if they want that material included in the Feast film!!

"This responsibility encompasses professing believers and non-believers."

Because "professing believers" and "non-believers", in the Church's eyes are one and the same.

I'm sorry, what was that you were saying about UCG making changes? I can't hear you, over the roaring sound of this deja vu.....

United Church of God IS "the one true Church of God", no matter how much they try and deny it; they are the church through and through, that I remember from my childhood.

As I keep asking people, why would anyone in their right minds think that this is a GOOD thing??

Anonymous said...

The next thing they'll say after a while is that the Sabbath is not required for salvation. Watch the UCG go down the toilet in the next couple of years.


Anon.,

Half the people who hang out at the UCG behave like something out of the toilet, having already rejected God's ways in their own lives.

The UCG began with many different ideas already in place that had been taught to them by the WCG apostates, and the UCG could eventually disappear back into the world just like the WCG did.

There are simply too many bad characters in the UCG for it to have any hope.

Anonymous said...

Biker Bob: If history is any teacher, these or any other reforms will not result in growth. The Armstrong movement was soley based on the personality of HWA.

Exactly! But the sheep have not figured it out yet! They are in denial!

Anonymous said...

The big joke for years is that there is nothing united about United. They are the group that is the furthest from being "like minded" of any of the ex-COGs. UCG enjoys the largest membership because it allows every wind of doctrine to go unchallenged so long as nobody breaks up the social club.


AMEN!!!

the COGNITIVE DISSIDENT said...

As a former fringe-liberal in the WCG,I was pleased to see most of the nazi bungholes who gave me such a hard time gravitate to the nuclear containment vessel that is the UCG.

Fortunately, one can safely assume that this cult maintains the traditionally high suicide rate of Arm$trongi$m - ensuring a self-limiting control on the toxic influence of its effluence.

Mel said...

I wonder if the UCG statement saying there are true Christians outside their org is anything more than a recruitment tactic.

After all, if they were to say that Joe Smith who is not in the UCG is not a true Christian, it wouldn't appeal much to Joe Smith(with potential monies in his bank account) to join the UCG.

Tom Mahon said...

Anon said...

>>Christ is not divided. Nor does he sanction humanly incorporated organizations, or "groups" as you put it.<<

I never said that God approves of incorporated or unincorporated organisations. My point, which is based on the clear teachings of the bible, is that God's people are called to live together in unity of doctrine. Members or ministers might disagree about administrative issues, such as, should HQ be relocated to particular city, or where to locate the FOT sites, etc. But UCG, PCG, LCG, RCG, COG/Hulme and all the other COGs disagree with one another on some aspect of doctrine.

Yet they want sensible people to believe that they are led by the Holy Spirit of unity. If they were led by the Holy Spirit truth and unity, they would all speak the same things and be united in the same judgments(1 Cor.1:10).

In fact, if one examines what the bible actually teaches about Christian's conduct, one is bound to conclude that there aren't any Christians in any of these groups.

MJ said...

LOL! This is hilarious! In most cased United's speaker's policy has protected "outside" groups from some of the wackos within United who think they've been given a special gift of prophesy and are convinced they can bring other groups into the fold by being allowed to promote their own weird, and in most cases dangerous, doctrinal views.

Anyone who truly understands what is going on inside Aaron Dean's cranium (which becomes pretty obvious every time he opens his mouth) knows that he thinks he should be able to speak to whomever and wherever and whenever because he WORKED with HWA as a private assistant/aid! He thinks this somehow gives him credibility and he reminds us of it every chance he gets! Basically, he's got the major big head over his past and truly believed he is "special." He uses these opportunities to speak to outside groups as a means to promote himself...not United. GAG!

These "new brooms" need to get over themselves already...they call for honesty and "transparency?" Hmmmm, let's start with addressing the alternative elder's forum instead of shutting down any discussion of it...after all, what do they have to lose? Respect? Nah...they never had it in the first place.

Anonymous said...

Jesus does indeed work with individuals. Howver, we are not to neglect fellowship. To this end individual Christians gather in a 'church'.

It is also reasonable for individual and independent congregations to work together with other like-minded groups. CGOM is an example.

Anonymous said...

MJ said ....

These "new brooms" need to get over themselves already...they call for honesty and "transparency?" Hmmmm, let's start with addressing the alternative elder's forum instead of shutting down any discussion of it...after all, what do they have to lose? Respect? Nah...they never had it in the first place.


Finally a post that addresses some of the issues within UCG. The alternate forum, unethical behavior, character assignation, while supposedly doing the well of God. Tell the brethren who participated and what was said on the alternate forum = transparency and if it is not true come out and state there wasn't an alternate forum.

Disagreement over administrative items is understandable and expected but the way we treat individuals that disagree is what needs to be addressed by the leadership if there is any. UCG structure has created this maze of bureaucracy and until someone is willing to address the issues with the ministry the members reflect the same attitude, disrespect and lack of love towards each other.

member

Bamboo_bends said...

Someone said....

"Yet they want sensible people to believe that they are led by the Holy Spirit of unity. If they were led by the Holy Spirit truth and unity, they would all speak the same things and be united in the same judgments(1 Cor.1:10)."


And which human is the arbiter of those judgments? There's the rub of basing fellowship on doctrinal conformity versus genuine brotherly love.

The thinking seems to be "yes you can join us, but park your questioning mind at the door".

Its really blasphemy to think ANY single finite human mind (or more particularly a small inner clerical elite) can really describe the totality and magnitude of who and what God is. All of us is smarter than one of us.

Why not face the fact the best we can do is make a good educated guess? And accept the fact that human minds can disagree and still care for each other. Looking at it all from 50,000 feet, the differences are fairly petty in nature. God is well aware of the limitations of inherent biology.

Bamboo_bends said...

MJ wrote:

Anyone who truly understands what is going on inside Aaron Dean's cranium knows that he thinks he should be able to speak to whomever and wherever and whenever because he WORKED with HWA as a private assistant/aid!


I can't think of a worst recommendation for oneself than saying one aided HWA during the years HWA was the most narcissistic, outrageous, and egocentric....

Anonymous said...

Tom said, "Yet they (various church organizations), want sensible people to believe that they are led by the Holy Spirit of unity"

You are looking at the wrong source here. You mentioned the Bible. "IF" you believe what it says....... "No man can come to me except the Father draw him", then you would understand that it is utterly futile for ANY individual by their own desire, to truely be called into a relationship with Christ and the Father without their input and approval. Christ said so. That is why you have so many morons trying to figure what is going on. Stupidity........ True spiritual understanding is unknown to the carnal physical mind, (one without the mind of God thru the Holy Spirit), hense you have the utter nonsence spued here. (But I must admit I get a lot of laughs here.)

ED said...

I think many members of the UCG want it both ways. They want some of the orthodoxy of the Armstrong era of the WCG and some of the liberalality of the Tkatch era of the WCG. But the reality is you must pick one or the other the law or grace. If you want the law go to the LCG, if you want grace go to the WCG/CGI. Why stay with a church that is inconsistant. Atleast the LCG and WCG/CGI are consistant doctrinaly!

Ned Flanders said...

The last anonymous would spend his time more fruitfully by learning how to spell to an elementary school level. Sheesh, have any of these spiritual geniuses ever learned to use a dictionary?

Bamboo_bends said...

Ned Flanders said...

The last anonymous would spend his time more fruitfully by learning how to spell to an elementary school level. Sheesh, have any of these spiritual geniuses ever learned to use a dictionary?



Dontcha know? Only those without the Holy Spirit use spell checkers...

Its kind of like tongues, all babbley-like, its looks like real words, but those of us deemed to be without the Spirit (who made him God?) are unable to discern the meaning and it seems like utter gobbledy-gook! Hmmmm!!!!

As to my misspellings, I don't blame them on the Holy Spirit, just dyslexia.

Tom Mahon said...

Anon said...

>>(But I must admit I get a lot of laughs here.)<<

I am sure the people here would love to share your laughter! But, alas, they can't, as they probably don't understand the joke, and don't like laughing with people who concealed their identity.

Anonymous said...

Aaron Dean IS special, for crying out loud. Everyone is, of course. We're all outrageously special, unique, irreplaceable -- but Aaron Dean had an enviable closeness to HWA during the final years of the latter's life, and during that time managed not to get the big head.

For anyone interested in the Herbert Armstrong perspective during those years, Aaron Dean is probably the best source. If he is well aware of that fact, he is being realistic; Mr. Armstrong highly appreciated his help, and Aaron didn't put on airs. He would have to be a fool not to realize the uniqueness of his role during HWA's final years.

Bamboo's critique doesn't sound like the HWA I knew at that fragile time: "the most narcissistic, outrageous, and egocentric." Nah. Those were the years of HWA's deepest regrets. I remember him saying, at a dinner created to honor his lifelong efforts, "Don't make the mistake I made. I thought that if I concentrated on the needs of The Work, God would take care of my family."

By that time, his wife, the love of his life, Loma, and his beloved son, Richard, were dead; his daughters, remaining son and grandchildren were more or less estranged, and he was acutely aware of the mistakes that had led to this situation.

Like just about every other form of religion, the parent Armstrong churches consisted of truth and error, with some errors being extremely serious. Nobody has it all right -- but we did have our positive moments, and they were very grand indeed (or I was on another planet, living my own private fantasy. But it sure seemed like Pasadena, CA.)

Anonymous said...

Hmmm, according to MJ it sounds like UCG's "new brooms" are trying to sweep some dirt under the carpet...

Anonymous said...

Bill L. writes:

I will pass out and faint if this policy will ever be a two way stret, ie...

That a speaker not in UCG will be allowed to speak at UCG.

Anonymous said...

Tom said "...... people who concealed their identity."

People don't want a visit from some god squad nutcase so they do what they have to do in order to protect their families.

Anonymous said...

Surely United are not going to do an "Uncle Joe" and go main stream Protestant.

Do I detect an "all inclusive",touchy-feely vein running through their wafflings?


Cheers,

Jorgheinz

Anonymous said...

Tom, the joke is reading stupid moronic posts by idiots who have no idea what they are speaking about. They vent emotion, not anything of substance but of pure human emotion...... this brings humor and laughter to those who understand their lunacy.

Tom Mahon said...

Extract from UCG's statement...

>>UCGIA also believes that a Christian teacher, in following the examples of Jesus Christ and the apostles, is to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Kingdom of God with other individuals and religious organizations, whenever granted opportunity.<<

Who in UCG could be called a "Christian teacher?" In 1995 when WCG broke up, Les McCullough was the UK regional director. He visited and delivered a sermon in my local congregation, and never spoke a word against Tkach's changes, even though he disagreed with them. My local pastor Peter Shenton and the two local elders, Ian Martin and Paul Roberts behaved exactly the same way. In fact, Ian told me: "In this situation, every man for himself." What a fine example of Christian love!

Against this background of duplicity and deceit, all the UK ministry, led by Les McCullough, were planning to join UCG, hoping that the deluded flock would follow them with their tithes and offerings, which is what has exactly happened!

But this is not how Jesus or the Apostles behaved. In the midst of brutal, savage and cruel persecutions, Jesus and the Apostles never ceased to preach the gospel and protect the brethren from false ministers and their poisonous doctrines. So I don't know whose example they are following, but it is certainly not Jesus' or the Apostles!

Of course, the Apostle kept in mind what they were told by their Lord and Master, when he said: "Anyone who denies me before men, I will deny him before my Father, and the Holy angels in heaven." I wonder what these evil men will have to say to Jesus in the day of judgment?

Sadly, the so-called ministry of UCG et al, are a cabal of hirelings, fleecing deluded flocks of the their tithes and offerings to maintain a lavish lifestyle. The sooner this wickedness is brought to an end, the better!

Anonymous said...

I don't think that any of the COG organizations can be truly considered to be The Church. Not a one of them, that I'm aware of, truly teaches Sabbath keeping. They all give it lip service, but in practice they openly pollute and profane the Sabbath.

The Church is scattered among those groups though. They are the assembly of people that truly worship God and follow His instructions, instead of the instructions of men.

Anonymous said...

Well there is a financial fallout to this bad news. I just lost a fortune with the collapse of "Heinz Marchel GmbH & Co KG" a manufacturer of meat hooks.

Looks like God will have to hop back on the merry-go-round to find a new crew of "chosen servants" to spread the warning message!

And soon!

Holy and Chosen,
The Anointed One.

Karen said...

Anonymous said....
"Jesus does indeed work with individuals. Howver, we are not to neglect fellowship. To this end individual Christians gather in a 'church'."


OH REALLY?!
I prefer to fellowship or assemble on a park bench on a summer day with other Christ believers talking about our lives and the blessings which flow from God. And then fellowship and assemble at the Senior Center helping out in the kitchen and visiting with friends about the Bible and the Glory in God. No church bldg. No "membership" required, yet fellowship and assembling complete.

God is not bound by an address, bldg, congregation or DAY of the week. Those are all man made explanations.

Tithe/offerings are direct from me to someone in need, maybe not given by a check in the mail to some corporate church bank account to be managed by some religious leader, but needed & given just the same.

I feel sorry for all these religious people so bound up in laws and regulations. When actually, the work of Christ is individual and needs no corporate sponsorship or leadership.

kiwi said...

Last Anonymous of 10 June: I wonder if HWA's 'deep regrets' extended to the chart he displayed, where he portrayed himself as third-in-command of the universe, under God the Father and Jesus Christ? [Worldwide News, 6 March 1981]. (I do exaggerate but only a little - third in command of the spiritual body of Christ which was the Worldwide Church, which was the most important organisation in the universe. Wasn't it)? I don't know why the Pope ever thought he was the shoo-in ;-)

Tom Mahon, you've totally lost me. A few subjects ago, you said you never believed in some fundamental CoG doctrines, even when you were a member of the denomination. So why lament the lack of 'purity' in any of them now?

Sheesh, I think I need a lie down.... People are so strange.

Anonymous said...

Kiwi, people were always making charts and publishing information to ingratiate themselves with the boss, or more sincerely to encourage him. In person, HWA by no means came across as the #3 honcho in the universe. He was very unassuming and personable, unless someone got his dander up.

I probably didn't see what you saw in the Worldwide News, but from what you recalled, it must have been a mite heady. And to think that so great a mantle has passed on to Gerald Flurry -- or was it to Dave Pack -- or RCM? No. Not long ago I read that Bill Dankenbring is the true inheritor of HWA's ministry, which should make him #4 in this life, and in the next! Woah, Nellie. I'm gonna sit down for a while too.

Ned Flanders said...

Anon

You're dreaming! I remember 1978 and Herb ranting about being in effect a Pope because Christ had passed authority to Peter. It was upon this rock of deception (quite an innovation at the time) that Crazy Joe built his ludicrous claim to "episcopal" structure (so he wouldn't have to reform the top-down system.) The WN article - front page blaring headline - isn't hard to track down.

And yes, there was the obscene flow diagram beginning with God the Father, then going to Christ, and THEN - surprise! - Christ's "apostle."

I guess he couldn't be a megalomaniac 24/7 - but he sure came close! The latter end of HWA was a bible pounding, jowl shaking, control freak. The documentation defies your rosy glasses.

Anonymous said...

Anon wrote that HWA said,
"Don't make the mistake I made. I thought that if I concentrated on the needs of The Work, God would take care of my family."

Didn't HWA at least have a doctor's number to call when his wife had a bowel blockage?

He sure had doctor's numbers to call to renew his many prescriptions.

So, while Herbie was high on drugs his wife died.
Go figure.


What "work"?
Conning money out of people?

Byker Bob said...

Unreal! People are actually concerned with the mantle of HWA, when a Christian's thinking is supposed to be rooted in Jesus Christ!

You have to wonder how many of this cult's ministers would even want to be involved if they had to wear a bag over their heads, and received no financial compensation for preaching their version of the gospel.

BB

Purple Hymnal said...

"I remember 1978 and Herb ranting about being in effect a Pope because Christ had passed authority to Peter. It was upon this rock of deception (quite an innovation at the time) that Crazy Joe built his ludicrous claim to "episcopal" structure (so he wouldn't have to reform the top-down system.)"

I'm....I have no words for the visceral reaction I am having to this comment. Gobsmacked comes close.

I mean, yeah, I remember Herbie going on ad nauseam about the primacy of Peter (then following it up with verbatim quotes from Hislop's Two Babylons), especially right before he died, but really, now.

THIS is what Senior predicated the changes on?

Really?

THAT'S IT?!

And yet, and yet, and yet the Christianizing cult-meisters were soooooo happy to get Senior (and the tithe slaves, can't forget the tithe slaves, who are now paying into the filthy rich coffers of the evil NAE) onboard with THEIR "one true theology", that THEY COMPLETELY MISSED THIS?!?!

WHAT?!

Mark said...

Nobody who continues to root themselves into his doctrines will even acknowledge his evident hypocrisy. Isn't that sad and a raw commentary on those who still believe in this false prophet even 23 years after his death.

Tom Mahon said...

Kiwi said...

>>Tom Mahon, you've totally lost me. A few subjects ago, you said you never believed in some fundamental CoG doctrines, even when you were a member of the denomination.<<

Under the thread that reviewed Anthony Buzzard's books on Unitarianism, I stated that there are no scriptures that prove there will be an earthly millennium. I also averred that the doctrine of the trinity can be proved from scripture.

Also, as a member of WCG, I didn't swallow hook line and sinker everything that was written or spoken from the pulpit. I adopted the attitude of the Bereans, and "searched the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so." When I found that something wasn't right, I rejected it.

Sometimes I tried to discuss my findings with ministers, but they were invariably of the opinion that God wouldn't reveal anything to anyone who wasn't a minister. What madness!

However, to date, no one has posted any information to show that there will be an earthly millennium, where people will live together in peace and happiness for a thousand years. And at the end of the thousands years, for reasons which no one has ever explained to me, Satan will be released to go out and deceive all those who are still alive. The deceived will then become enemies of Christ, attack Jerusalem, and will have to be destroyed. Where in the bible, pray tell, can we find this madness? Nowhere, thank God!

Anonymous said...

"However, to date, no one has posted any information to show that there will be an earthly millennium, where people will live together in peace and happiness for a thousand years. And at the end of the thousands years, for reasons which no one has ever explained to me, Satan will be released to go out and deceive all those who are still alive. The deceived will then become enemies of Christ, attack Jerusalem, and will have to be destroyed. Where in the bible, pray tell, can we find this madness? Nowhere, thank God!"


oh it's in there, clear as day, for those with eyes to see and ears to hear. (the millennium is not all peace and happiness however, it takes almost 1000yr for it to become that)

Phron said...

Tom-tom beating his own drum:
"Also, as a member of WCG, I didn't swallow hook line and sinker everything that was written or spoken from the pulpit. I adopted the attitude of the Bereans, and "searched the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so." When I found that something wasn't right, I rejected it."

That's quite a testimonial! You searched the scriptures daily to see if those things were so. Hmmm, and how many years did you continue to associate yourself with that "cabal of hirelings"?

Methinks you are admiring yourself in the mirror while wearing some very rosy glasses. Any person with average intelligence would almost immediately discover that hardly any of the things we were being fed was compatible with the scriptures, once they started to actually look. But it took you how many years?

Tom, we would have a lot more respect for you if you stood up like a man and admitted that you were duped, conned, and fleeced just like all the rest of us. It's ok to say "My name is Tom, and I am a recovering Armstrongaholic".

Robert said...

>>Any person with average intelligence would almost immediately discover that hardly any of the things we were being fed was compatible with the scriptures

God would not be very consistent expecting only the Jews to obey these the Old Testament Laws. What happens then, to the Jew that does not want to obey these laws, it is not his fault he was born a Jew? Yet, God, would be mean requiring him to obey all of these laws, whilst the rest of the gentile nations could have an easy ride into the Kingdom! Hardly very fair is it?

Either there is ONE LAW for everybody, or God favours nations and people requiring different standards depending on RACE. It would mean our enlightened age of racial equality is a FARCE! It would also mean that God treats races differently, judging Jews and Gentiles with different rules and standards! This is called dispensationalism. Yet today's Christianity teaches just this--God treating Jews and Gentiles differently! Yet ironically, the churches fail to see the racial inequality in their own theology!

Mark said...

"God would not be very consistent expecting only the Jews to obey these the Old Testament Laws."

God does not "expect" or require that the Jews keep the OT laws. He WANTS them to believe in his son Jesus Christ. Yet, they reject Him, as they have since He walked the earth. Jesus is the dividing line between Jews and Christians. Jesus is also what binds the Jews and the gentiles (if they believe in Him).

Mark said...

"oh it's in there, clear as day, for those with eyes to see and ears to hear. (the millennium is not all peace and happiness however, it takes almost 1000yr for it to become that)"

The rapture has more credible evidence than God intentionally releasing Satan for one last "taste of evil".

Ned Flanders said...

Mark writes: "God does not "expect" or require that the Jews keep the OT laws. He WANTS them to believe in his son Jesus Christ. Yet, they reject Him, as they have since He walked the earth."

Ugh! Supercessionism meets anti-Judaism and goosesteps hand in hand. Hello! Jesus, Peter, Paul, Mary, James... all Jewish!

Tom Mahon said...

Anon said..

>>oh it(the earthly millennium)is in there(the bible), clear as day, for those with eyes to see and ears to hear.<<

Well, I may not have eyes to see or ears to hear, but some people here might. So, why not post the references for their benefit?

SmilinJackSprat said...

The millennium is an ancient Jewish interpretation of the creation week of six days being followed by a Sabbath of rest, in light of Moses' statement in Psalm 90:4 - "For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by..." NIV.

Presumably the first 24 hour day that was reckoned in terms of conditions here on earth was the day on which man was created. Since then, every week of six days followed by a Sabbath of rest has foreshadowed the greater reality -- that after 6 millennia outside the Garden of Eden, we'll start a thousand years refurbishing program under Messianic leadership. When the planet is ready God will return to enjoy His creation, by that time returned to Edenic conditions.

Creation is by no means finished at this point, 2009. We joined the Creator's project in Eden, but with free will we've fallen somewhat short of the best we might have done. Now we're almost ready to get started with the really good stuff. Unfortunately, someone once noticed that it tends to be darkest just before dawn.

Mark said...

"Supercessionism meets anti-Judaism and goosesteps hand in hand. Hello! Jesus, Peter, Paul, Mary, James... all Jewish!"

The fallacy that because Jesus was a Jew that we should be Jewish is illogical and totally debunked in the new testament. In fact the NT speaks *against* becoming like a Jew.
Of course, the COG religion is one of having one foot planted in the old covenant and one foot planted in the new covenant, being lukewarm on both sides.

Purple Hymnal said...

"Mark writes: "God does not "expect" or require that the Jews keep the OT laws. He WANTS them to believe in his son Jesus Christ. Yet, they reject Him, as they have since He walked the earth."

Ugh! Supercessionism meets anti-Judaism and goosesteps hand in hand."

Not that I always agree with Ned, Mark, but he got it in one.

Purple Hymnal said...

"When the planet is ready God will return to enjoy His creation, by that time returned to Edenic conditions."

One planet, out of the hundreds of millions of possibly inhabited planets that exist in the universe.

Yeah, no, that's not elitist at all.

Mark said...

"Not that I always agree with Ned, Mark, but he got it in one."

Ah yes, just what I always hoped for- Aggie Atheist as my referee!

Questeruk said...

"that's not elitist at all."


We demand equality for ALL planets!!

Robert said...

>>>The fallacy that because Jesus was a Jew that we should be Jewish is illogical and totally debunked in the new testament.

Only debunked by taking scriptures out of context, accepting at face value bible translations as accurate renditions of scripture and reading the works of christian authors that expose the same view as biblical proof of one's position.

You also have to explain why Paul deliberately went to the Temple (after 30AD) to purify himself to proof that he was not preaching against circumcision. (See Acts 21;21-16). This act alone testifies that your position of not doing anything Jewish is a lie because Paul deliberately went out of his way to observe the Jewish law of purity.

But don't believe me, read the Bible for yourself!

Anonymous said...

Robert, do I understand you correctly? There is no requirement that would have Gentiles live Jewish. Paul was Jewish so he had no choice, but he argued tooth and nail against pushing Gentiles into Judaism (circumcision). Why strap an honorable Gentile with the additional burdons of Jewish law?

Taking on a whole new culture could lower the new Jew's dignity at least for a while, and then what? By that time he or she would have been at least partially estranged from his or her first culture, and friends and relatives would have been left somewhat high and dry. This could be an extremely unhappy business.

The idea that Christians should be Jews because Jesus was Jewish is not a New Testament teaching. Quite to the contrary. Jesus said, "...you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves."

It can be dangerous for a mature individual to take on a whole new meticulous culture in adulthood. Why bother? Chances are, the conversion will make the convert less holy as a struggling neophyte Jew than as a righteous and confident Gentile. Neither has greater potential for acceptability with God. This is the point of Acts 15, and of much, if not most, of the material in Paul's letters.

Mark said...

"This act alone testifies that your position of not doing anything Jewish is a lie because Paul deliberately went out of his way to observe the Jewish law of purity."

First of all, just because Paul does something doesn't mean that his conscience convicts him that he is obligated to do it. He was merely doing it as testimony to "not give offense", much the same as abstaining from eating meats offered to idols. Paul had a higher purpose for doing this and it wasn't out of duty to keep the law. Why else would they have been informed that Paul was teaching Jews to turn away from Moses? Because HE WAS!

Funny, if purification is such a big deal for observing the law, why don't COGs follow Paul's example here and get purified?

Everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial. Paul said that and Paul had no sense of obligation before God to keep the law. That's how radical the gospel is. Once you get it, though, you get it. You can reject it though, which is what the COGland has been doing for decades. But when you believe the gospel, the new testament makes sense and these things don't trip you up.

The Implacable Berean said...

Greetings all, Robert's last comment on Paul going up to the the temple as we read in Acts 21 raises an interesting question to me, perhaps our host may want to pursue it further.
In Acts 21:17 all is going well for Paul in Jerusalem, until someone, the text does not state who speaks, takes Paul down with a scorching remark, Acts 21:21. Paul is instructed to go to the temple (NIV study Bible references Num 6:2) and do the Nazarite Vow.
Vs 26 Paul goes and as instructed, would seem to be to initiate this voluntary vow, which would be the one as found in Numbers 6.
This would be while the temple was still standing, 60 CE give or take, perhaps 10 years before the Romans decided to do some urban renewal there.
Here's the question; Mainstream Christianity teaches the concept of Vicarious Atonement with regards to the death of Jesus. One sacrifice by the Son of God, to take the place of all sins.

Why would Paul, some 3 decades after the death of a savior he probably never met in person, go to do a vow, part of which has as it's ceremony, a sin offering (see Numbers 6: 14.
Could we say that by doing this, according to the teaching of Vicarious Atonement (VA) Paul was denying JC's sacrifice? Or perhaps the concept of VA as we know it was unknown to the early church?
The concept of VA has some interesting history behind it. Would like to know what you folks think on this.
"Multi famam, conscientiam, pauci verentur." (Many fear their reputation, few their conscience. -Pliny, Letters)

Anonymous said...

Mark, you say (and many believe), "Paul had no sense of obligation before God to keep the law. That's how radical the gospel is." I can't imagine how anyone might come to that conclusion.

Paul said, after arguing against Jewish conversion (circumcision) from every imaginable angle, that "I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law." In this statement Paul defines the male Jew, many years after Jesus' crucifixion.

So in Paul's own words, despite everything Jesus did and endured, anyone who makes a genuine conversion to Judaism is obligated to live Jewish from that time forward. Conversion means entering into the "brit milah," or "covenant of circumcision."

Ritual circumcision is the rite of passage into the covenant between God and Israel. It is required of every Jewish boy on the eighth day of his life, and is also required of all males who later choose to enter that covenant.

The point of all this is that once one enters the brit milah, whether as a baby or later, that person is Jewish, and there's no getting out. Some things simply don't change.

larry said...

Mark,
The purpose of Paul's actions at the temple was to show that he had not "rejected" Judaism. And he hadn't.

The accusation that he was turning Jews away from Moses was simply wrong. What Paul was doing, quite rightly, was showing that keeping the "Law" was not NECESSARY. This is an incredibly important distinction, and one that people on THIS Board are still wrestling with.

If a speed limit is 60, and then changed to 90 (or no speed limit at all), it doesn't mean that you can't still drive 60. It DOES mean that people who still continue to drive 60 are no more "righteous" or law-abiding than those who choose to drive faster, and vice versa.

Paul was not turning people away, he was simply showing that Law Keeping was optional, and was NOT the way to Salvation. (which it isn't)

In the USA, most males are circumcised as infants. It is a custom, it is not required. And there is no stigma for doing it or not doing it. In other countries, circumcisions are not the norm.

Byker Bob said...

Based on some of the most recent comments on this thread, I'd like to recommend a book I've been reading, as possibly providing some insights: Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene, by Bart Ehrman.

BB

Anonymous said...

I thought the was something peculiar going on.
The "new brooms" are my worse nightmare, they will turn United back by 30 years into a HWA worshipping place.

Mark said...

"In this statement Paul defines the male Jew, many years after Jesus' crucifixion."

No, that is not the case. He defines those who are obligated to live according to the law of Moses and those who are under grace. Those who continue in the Law of Moses will be judged by the law (and ALWAYS fall short). Those who walk by faith in Jesus, through grace, will not be judged by the law.

This is the defining moment in the old covenant vs. the new covenant. If Paul reverted back to the law, then he would make Christ's sacrifice of no effect. He did not, and we have salvation by grace through faith. Judaism (the law) does not offer this. This is uniquely Christian. (and for al you atheists who want to go all "gnostic" on me, save your breath, your religion was also debunked in the New Testament).

Mark said...

"Paul was not turning people away, he was simply showing that Law Keeping was optional, and was NOT the way to Salvation. (which it isn't)"

No, you are missing the entire point of the gospel message. Paul wasn't showing that the Law is optional- keep it if you want to or not, it is up to you. The law was meaningful and had its purpose in its time, but it is NO LONGER in effect. Paul is consistent in his teachings that the Law is dead, and keeping it (even optionally) makes Christ's sacrifice of no use.
Since you are still with the WCG, it makes sense that you would take the position that you do. You still try to make peace with the judaisers. That's honorable, but not necessary for this gentile.

Purple Hymnal said...

Glad to hear you're reading Ehrman, BB; next you need to pick up his "Lost Christianities", and then maybe "The Misquoted Jesus" -- if you dare open your mind that much further.

Karen said...

There are over 600 laws in the Old Covenant. If you or the Jews want to live by the old covenant...go ahead. It's a trap!

COG's love to say the New Covenant is not fully established yet. They want to keep some of the 600 OC laws and some of the NC laws.

It's all nuts and crazy.

The "Holy Days are a picture of God's Plan" cannot be proven from scripture. People who believe that will believe anything....so long as they believe in the PERSON who say it.

larry said...

Mark,
I think we are both saying the same thing, although I agree that you probably expressed it better. Paul WAS teaching that the Law was dead, so keeping it was not necessary.

Nevertheless, if a person desired to observe the Sabbath, the Holy Days, circumcise their sons (not their daughters), and tithe, that is not dishonoring Christ's sacrifice.

However, assuming that those actions made one more "righteous" or that they were necessary for Salvation, DOES dishonor (and make of no effect) the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. So does judging others who believe, because of what they do or don't do.

SmilinJackSprat said...

To Mark:

Imagine living in a society without law. {{{Shudder.}}} "And crown thy good with brotherhood, thy Liberty in Law."

One may either be self-ruled by law, or suppressed by dictators. If Jesus gave anyone the idea that he had removed from mankind the principle of self-rule under law, it was unintentional. Israel's Torah (the "Law") is Life, the Wisdom and DNA of the universe. To remove Torah is to undo Creation and crush the possibility of Life -- meaning eternal life.

When David was the anointed king (messiah), he wrote, "Oh, how love I thy Law (Torah). It is my meditation all the day long." And then there was God's instruction to Joshua: "Be strong and very courageous. Be careful to obey all the law (Torah) my servant Moses gave you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, that you may be successful wherever you go."

Why would a God whose character is completely reliable, change on so important a matter as His Instructions or Torah/Law? Like that of Moses, Joshua's great success was predicated upon adherence to the Torah of Moses, as God had urged. The Law made Joshua's success possible -- not impossible.

One doesn't change a winning game, not even when one is Jesus. Who would follow a Jewish messiah who dared to discard or make moot the Torah? The thought is suicidal. Torah is the life-breath of Israel, and by extension, through Jacob's family, including Jesus, it will become Life for all mankind.

Mark my words, whether in this life or the next you will live to see it happen.

Purple Hymnal said...

"(and for al you atheists who want to go all "gnostic" on me, save your breath, your religion was also debunked in the New Testament)."

Please define exactly what you mean by "your religion" in the passage above, Mark?

I am not now, nor have I ever been, nor will I ever be, a member of a Gnostic religious group. And, to my knowledge, since I am the only atheist on the ex-member Internet who has openly discussed gnosticism at length, your little dig is not very subtle at all --- but it is an excellent example of the type of attitude and closed-mindedness professing Christianity engenders.

But then, Christians have been burning books for two thousand years now, with no sign of stopping.....

Purple Hymnal said...

In re: Larry's comment, is that really how Junior manages to hang on to the tithe slaves these days?

Small wonder the Wallenites are so entrenched, if that's the case.

Mark said...

"but it is an excellent example of the type of attitude and closed-mindedness professing Christianity engenders."

Yet another throwback from Armstrongism. Attack "attitude" and name call. That's smart.
Try not to take things so personally, k?

Purple Hymnal said...

"Try not to take things so personally, k?"

So, tell me, Mark: Who, exactly, were you referring to with this comment?

"(and for al you atheists who want to go all "gnostic" on me, save your breath, your religion was also debunked in the New Testament)."

If you were NOT referring to me, I would dearly like to know who you were referring to, with that comment. I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to correspond with someone else on the ex-member Internet who has a similar worldview to my own.

Mark said...

"If you were NOT referring to me, I would dearly like to know who you were referring to, with that comment. I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to correspond with someone else on the ex-member Internet who has a similar worldview to my own."

I think your worldview is that it is all about you. But that's neither here nor there. If you fall into the category of "all atheists" with a gnostic fascination", then I WAS talking about you. I would hope that you could contemplate your naval enough to know for yourself if you fall into that category.

If you do fall into the above category, then you don't have to jump into every topic of theology and impart us with your new state of enlightenment. We get it, we know you've found your wormhole and can now travel through the space-time continuum with your backpack of wisdom. I wish you well on your journey.

Byker Bob said...

That's actually "Misquoting Jesus", Purple Hymnal. That book is setting just to the left of me as I type this. And, the open mindedness for which you complimented me is a gift from God, and is responsible for bringing me to my current understandings and beliefs. Two years ago my mind was locked, and shut tight as a drum.

A person must be very discerning when reading Bart Ehrman. Much of what he writes and quotes is helpful, but "Peter, Paul and Mary Magdalene" had a very blasphemous excerpt in it regarding Holy Communion, one which I deeply wish was not in my memory banks.

Ehrman is a religious historian, and a respected educator. However, I am not sure that he has the Holy Spirit. Some of his writings do indicate deep understanding, while others are straight out of the twilight zone.
His books are probably like any other book one might read, in that they are not 100% truth. Reading them becomes an exercise similar to panning for gold. But, I trust God's Spirit to lead me to the truth, only this time without the "help" of exploitative, authoritarian gurus. It's amazing what happens when one has an independent personal relationship with Father God, and Jesus Christ!

BB

Corky said...

Mark said . . . I wish you well on your journey.
--------------------------------
I wish you well on your journey too, and the sooner you get started, the better.

We all know who you were talking about so I don't believe any navel contemplation need take place.

You remind me of an arrogant, condescending little twit of a WCG deacon. That's what you are, isn't it?

Mark said...

Yet another perfectly good thread hijacked by the atheists.

Anonymous said...

The "new brooms" are disoriented and are sweeping the dirt into the UCG.

Purple Hymnal said...

"If you fall into the category of "all atheists" with a gnostic fascination", then I WAS talking about you."

And yet, you see nothing "un-Christian" in your earlier comment?

"(and for al you atheists who want to go all "gnostic" on me, save your breath, your religion was also debunked in the New Testament)."

OK, as long as I understand you correctly Mark: YOU are "the one true Christian", and every other group that may or may not have existed in the 2nd and 3rd centuries (excluding the group you are now in thrall to, of course) is not "true Christianity".

Hmmmmm, now where have I heard that before? It does sound somewhat vaguely familiar.......Just can't put my finger on it......

Purple Hymnal said...

"That's actually "Misquoting Jesus", Purple Hymnal."

Brain fart, of course it is, and I actually own a copy. D'oh! *smacks forehead*

"Peter, Paul and Mary Magdalene" had a very blasphemous excerpt in it regarding Holy Communion, one which I deeply wish was not in my memory banks."

Can you provide a page number, or an exact quote? On a brief skim, and from memory, I cannot find anything in my copy of the book that fits this vague description of yours. Also, how are you defining "very blasphemous" here, Bob?

The following passage from the book asserts that the passage referring to "drink" actually refers to a panentheistic spirit within, instead of alcoholic spirits without!

From pp.91:
"Similarly, in 1 Cor. 12:13, Paul points out that everyone in Christ has been "baptized into one body" and they have all "drunk of one Spirit." The word Spirit (PNEUMA) would have been abbreviated in most manuscripts as PMA, which understandably could be—and was—misread by some scribes as the Greek word for "drink" (POMA); and so in these witnesses Paul is said to indicate that all have "drunk of one drink."

Pneuma (or the spirit within us all that engenders gnosis) is reflective of a more panentheistic ideology, than the literalized/ritualized meaning the Constantinian church attributed to later versions of the text, which is what engendered the rituals that the Romans syncretized later.

And this, from pp. 93:
"Another example occurs in Paul's letter to the Romans, where Paul states that "since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God" (Rom. 5:1). Or is that what he said? The word for "we have peace," a statement of fact, sounded exactly like the word "let us have peace," an exhortation.

And so in a large number of manuscripts, including some of our earliest, Paul doesn't rest assured that he and his followers have peace with God, he urges himself and others to seek peace. This is a passage for which textual scholars have difficulty deciding which reading is the correct one."

Isn't there some kind of "peace ritual" practiced in modern mainstream Christan churches? I have seen such a ritual referred to several times, on the Ship of Fools Mystery Worshipper reports website, but I don't know if that is what Ehrman is referring to here, or what the ritual in question even is.

Is this what disturbs you from Ehrman's book, Bob? That what was essentially a throwaway reference to a panentheistic worldview (similar to that espoused by some Quaker groups, and that is compatible with contemplative/meditative teachings), ended up being transformed into a legalistic ritual? Or are you, as I suspect, more disturbed that this is what Ehrman, respected New Testament scholar, is actually suggesting?

So can you give me the page number or the exact passage in question you are referring to from Misquoting Jesus that you consider to be "very blasphemous"? I would appreciate the opportunity to discuss it further, and I'm not entirely sure what you're driving at, here.

"Ehrman is a religious historian, and a respected educator. However, I am not sure that he has the Holy Spirit."

On second thought, forget it, Bob. At least you've given me an incentive to reread the book.

Corky said...

It's amazing what happens when one has an independent personal relationship with Father God, and Jesus Christ!

It's also amazing what happens when one has a personal relationship with Mary, the mother of God or Saint Christopher. However, what happens may not be as real as one thinks.

Purple Hymnal said...

"Peter, Paul and Mary Magdalene" had a very blasphemous excerpt in it regarding Holy Communion, one which I deeply wish was not in my memory banks."

So I reread Misquoting Jesus today, and I can't find any passage in the book that speaks of Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene together, in conjunction with a eucharist ritual, Bob. As a matter of fact, the only time a eucharist ritual is mentioned in Misquoting Jesus, is where I have mentioned it above.

I really would be interested in knowing which passage it was you were referring to Bob, even if you do pre-judge Ehrman's character as a human being, simply because his worldview doesn't agree with yours.

Are you perhaps thinking of a passage from Lost Christianities, or another Ehrman book?

Mark said...

"OK, as long as I understand you correctly Mark: YOU are "the one true Christian", and every other group that may or may not have existed in the 2nd and 3rd centuries (excluding the group you are now in thrall to, of course) is not "true Christianity"."

I never said I was the only true Christian. But gnosticism is heresy and isn't Christian, just as Weinland's view of Jesus is heresy. Do you label yourself as a Christian? If so, then you must abandon gnosticism. (not that I think you will, I just threw that in there for good measure)

The larger, and more important question, in my opinion, is why you care how anonymous people on this board label you?

Corky said...

Oh, so we're going around looking for blaphemers now? What's next, witch hunts?
---------------------------------
"Peter, Paul and Mary Magdalene" had a very blasphemous excerpt in it regarding Holy Communion
-----------------------------------
Your personal opinion.

My personal opinion is that when anyone preaches anything about an unknown and an unknowable god - it's blasphemy.

Purple Hymnal said...

"Do you label yourself as a Christian?"

Holy effing hell in a handcart NO. Just NO.

I'm sorry I gave you that mistaken impression Mark. Can we part ways amicably, in that case?

Purple Hymnal said...

"The larger, and more important question, in my opinion, is why you care how anonymous people on this board label you?"

Corky answered this one already.

"We all know who you were talking about so I don't believe any navel contemplation need take place.

You remind me of an arrogant, condescending little twit of a WCG deacon. That's what you are, isn't it?"


And no, I really don't care, you just didn't have the balls enough to accuse me by name, instead of letting a snide little dig slip in under the radar like that.

Come to think of it, Corky's right, the Gestapo used to do EXACTLY that. How long were you a deacon in the church, Mark?

"My personal opinion is that when anyone preaches anything about an unknown and an unknowable god - it's blasphemy."

Dare I say it? AMEN, Corkster, amen!! ;-)

Byker Bob said...

Purps, I'm beginning to seriously wonder about your reading comprehension skills. As I tried to share with you, the blasphemous excerpt is in "Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene" And, you actually quoted that title back to me, but then for some reason or other went looking for the quote in "Misquoting Jesus", another Bart Ehrman book which I've also been reading. In fact, several days ago, when I mentioned reading PPMM, you actually suggested that I also read "Misquoting Jesus".

If new levels of blasphemy turn you on, go get PPMM, and look about half way through the third section of the book, which is devoted to Mary Magdalene. I can't get you the page number just now, because I've already returned that book to the library.

BB

Miguel de la Rodente said...

Regarding Gnosticism: The Demiurge is a cypher. The cypher's first name is Lou. Lou Cypher. Get it? Lucifer!