Comments on Ambassador Watch: Garner Ted and the Archbishop

From Dennis:"1. Mary acts as if she is the host an...

2007-12-29T08:27:00.000+13:00

From Dennis:

"1. Mary acts as if she is the host and Jesus is the groom and the one she would check with when wine ran low etc...Thus the suspicion that it was actually Jesus wedding.

2. It's a take off on the story of the God Dionysius who also turned water into wine to prove he was a god. This miracle, in John, shows that in the same way, Jesus is God. These were familiar tales to the locals.

What Jesus did was no different than what Dionysus/Baccus, the Greek God of wine did."

Hi Dennis,

This really is interesting that the Dionysas/Baccus account also records a similar miracle. Thank you for your comments here as well as the many other informative points you often make.

There is another possible side to the story though - that is if the account is historically true.

Jesus had brothers and at least one sister (I think). In another place where Jesus' mother is present and his brothers were also present, it sounds as though his father, Joseph, was not around.

It seems possible that this could be the wedding of one of Jesus' brothers or maybe that of a sister, and if Joseph were deceased at the time, then Jesus would likely act in place of the father figure and that might explain why Mary (his mother) seems to take an active part as well.

Just a thought.

By the way, the tail end of the URL should be:0707...

2007-12-28T12:29:00.000+13:00

By the way, the tail end of the URL should be:

0707356.htm

not:

070735

Okay, never mind . . . Apparently that planned Na...

2007-12-28T12:28:00.000+13:00

Okay, never mind . . . Apparently that planned Nazareth creche was nixed -- they ended up making a creche depicting residence in Bethlehem instead:

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0707356.htm

Judging from this story, the Nazareth creche was probably the brainchild of some lamebrained Vatican official who'd had a little too much eggnog while reading St. Matthew's Gospel, because the creche was being billed as placing Jesus' birth as taking place in Nazareth, in accordance with the erroneous claims of many Bible critics and exegetes, not merely depicting the Holy Family in Nazareth after Jesus' birth.

The day will come when only the most naive and Sun...

2007-12-28T07:47:00.000+13:00

The day will come when only the most naive and Sunday School (Or is it YES) educated will believe the Birth narratives are coherent, inerrant and literally true.

Dream on, Dennis.

Well at least the Archbishop of Canterbury has a better story to tell than the Vatican seems to have this year in changing Jesus being born in Joseph's home in Nazareth as they seem to think the Gospel of Matthew says, which it doesn't.

Sorry, when did the Vatican say Jesus was born in Joseph's home in Nazareth, and when did the Vatican say or imply that the Gospel of St. Matthew says Jesus was born in Joseph's home? If you bothered to tune in to Christmas Midnight Mass at the Vatican, you may have noticed a reading from the Gospel of St. Luke relating the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem.

The underlying problem here is that non-liturgical, non-sacramental Protestant and post-Protestant thinking has pretty much killed a lot of people's religious imagination. If Christians can place the Magi at the stable in Bethlehem even though we've always known the Scriptures say otherwise, or if we can put oxen and asses in the stable (cf. Isa. 11), why couldn't Christians create a scene of an infant Jesus at home in Nazareth with Joseph and Mary? Most Christian religious art and iconography has not been in the Realist style -- it has never been intended to be merely photographic. Art is too important to be restricted and stifled like that. Christian art is intended to convey a religious message through signs and symbols, and if you approach Christmas creches in a literalist frame of mind, you're going to completely miss the point of the creche.

DennisDiehl:>The point is that either Mary and Jes...

2007-12-27T13:58:00.000+13:00

DennisDiehl:>The point is that either Mary and Jesus were the caterer's and thus her concern when the wine ran out, or something is going on. Mary would not to have been concerned with those issues as a guest either.

Nor does the scripture paint her as a guest.

Joh 2:1 And on the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there.

It simply states Mary was there. I do believe Mary was involved in the wedding. Like at most weddings it is customary to have family or close friends help out.

DennisDiehl:>These words would seem to be addressed to Jesus, such that Jesus and the bridegroom are one and the same.

Not really. You are jumping at conclusions to paint him in the role of bridegroom. We are told he was invited to the wedding. You do not invite yourself to your own wedding.

Joh 2:2 Now both Jesus and His disciples were invited to the wedding.

Of course Mary had a choice – there is no question...

2007-12-27T08:15:00.000+13:00

Of course Mary had a choice – there is no question about it.

This is what life is all about. Everyone has a free choice in everything that they do. God ultimately wants each individual to come to Him – but only if THEY want to, and taking into account their genuine understanding. God isn’t forcing the issue with anyone.

Do you really think that God is going to force someone into being the mother of Jesus Christ? This is an event that was to be absolutely unique in human history. God isn’t going to force someone into this without their willing participation. What sort of impact would that have on normal family life for that family?

Obviously as free choice is involved, Mary could have declined. God’s plan never hangs on the decision of an individual human being. If she had declined, there would have been other potential mothers who would have fulfilled the prophetic requirements.

Speculation obviously, but who knows, maybe Mary wasn’t God’s first choice. Maybe someone living in Bethlehem had already declined God’s offer. This would not cause a problem to God, but he then would have to arrange events so the baby could be born in Bethlehem.

Wouldn't it have been easier for God to do the rig...

2007-12-27T05:34:00.000+13:00

Wouldn't it have been easier for God to do the right thing and become married to Mary and have his son Jesus in a legitimate mannar?? Why did God feel the need to intrude on an engaged couples life with his morally questionable demands? There was no choice given to Mary, just an announcement that it would happen. Joseph seemed to be away at the time and was not consulted.

Just because Mary said in essence that she was powerless to stop God, does not mean by any stretch of the imagination that she consented to being raped by God and impregnated with his son.

She was a virgin saving herself for Joseph on their wedding night after all!!!

The story line of god the father impregnating an e...

2007-12-27T05:09:00.000+13:00

The story line of god the father impregnating an engaged to be married virgin with Jesus his son, sure seems against all standards of decency and wholesome family life.

Even some christians would have to agree that impregnating an unmarried yet engaged to be married virgin with a child is a somewhat morally questionable act for a God to be doing.

Bob said:>>>Do you have the guts to read the court...

2007-12-27T03:13:00.000+13:00

Bob said:

>>>Do you have the guts to read the court records?<<<

I do. If you are able to access them, please send a copy to me.

>>>This would be in exchange for her not bringing up, during the divorce proceedings, her knowledge of Herb's incestuous relationship with daughter Dorothy.<<<

This sounds more like blackmail to me. However, if you can produce the court transcripts, I will read them and post my comments.

VonHowitzer said...Quoting Tom: >>Also, I have ...

2007-12-27T02:56:00.000+13:00

VonHowitzer said...

Quoting Tom:

>>Also, I have never said that I am perfect or beyond criticism. My righteousness is a gift of God to me, and this life I live in the flesh, is lived by his grace and mercy.<<

Von>>>Perhaps you expressed yourself poorly, but when people say "my righteousness" my stinking fish meter goes off the scale.<<<

I was referring to, "For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the GIFT OF RIGHTEOUSNESS shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ(Roms.6:17). Whether we use the term impute or gift it means the same thing. The Christian righteousness is a gift of God.

Von>>>Or, you may want to review those scriptures that talk about the righteousness of Christ being imputed to the saved.<<<

Thanks for the suggestion, but I am very familiar with the Scriptures that explain the grace of God in all its forms. But I would be very interested in your comments.

Bamboo_bends said... >>>>.. God dealing with manki...

2007-12-26T23:30:00.000+13:00

Bamboo_bends said...

>>>>.. God dealing with mankind either through celestial rape/divine impregnation (Mary wasn't given a choice in the gospel accounts - its fait accompli and blessed thou art! ) Where was Mary's free moral choice in the issue of that birth according to Matthew?<<<<

This is a completely unbiblical claim.

The gospel of Matthew doesn’t comment on choice one way or the other – he just sets the scene that Mary ‘was found with child of the Holy Ghost.’ He is setting the scene for Joseph’s reaction, not referring to ‘did Mary have a choice’.

Luke gives more detail, the angel tells Mary what God’s plans are, and this is BEFORE she is pregnant. She replies ‘Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word’. In other words she is agreeing to this plan. If she had not agreed are you suggesting that God would in effect have ‘raped’ her?

DennisDiehl said... If Jesus was understood to ...

2007-12-26T22:45:00.000+13:00

DennisDiehl said...

If Jesus was understood to be the illegitimate son of Mary — an accusation not unknown in the gospels — then was this genealogy responding with, So what?

The issue of Jesus parentage only poses an issue if (1) you claim a special divinity for him apart from any other human being (2) your religion has certain views about sexual "purity" that would conflict with that religions ideas of who God would use based on lineage or means of conception. That's the line of thinking you get into when you make sex a sacrament. But religion makes everything a sacrament, from washing hands, to circumcision, to the butchering of meat in a temple. But these things were the daily life in a hunter gatherer society. Humans sacaralize the familiar. It seems to be how humans celebrate life to God.

If God is not a respecter of persons or rank, does not visit the sins of the parents upon the children, nor discriminates based race or circumstance of birth, what difference does it make?

The 12 disciples in Judea seem woefully ignorant of Jesus "virgin" birth, and if Jesus makes a point of anything by what authority he does things, he says I am the son of man. Or more literally, I do these things things by the right of being a human being. And what message can be more empowering than that? Paul quotes his education. Jesus has more balls than that, he says I do this because I am a human being! That's language we don't hear again until the US Declaration of Independence, where men have God given rights.

Some accounts speculate Jesus/Yeshua was collateral damage of the Roman conquest. Some accounts even refer to him by the moniker Ben Panterra, (Panterra was a Roman general) Was Mary raped by Roman soldiers? We don't know. Its possible. Jesus sure takes enough crap about his origins from his enemies. Did Jesus incredible insight into the tender "Abba" nature of God come from his experience with Joseph and the unconditional acceptance and love Joseph gave him despite the circumstances of his birth? Its food for thought. I've sure met a lot of people with awful fathers who have a hard time dealing with God as a "father figure". The reverse must also hold true.

Many times in the Bible of God lifts the lowly and oppressed making something out of them. He uses what others reject. Jesus himself is called the rejected pillar stone. Do we owe the brilliant insights by Jesus about God to the kindness of Joseph?

Its a shame we don't know the circumstances. Its been stolen from history from us, or hidden, because lesser men thought we couldn't handle the truth. A lot of orphans and single mothers could find solace and comfort in knowing the true circumstances.

Instead we have been given ridiculous myths that defy biology, and there is no scriptural precedent for God dealing with mankind either through celestial rape/divine impregnation (Mary wasn't given a choice in the gospel accounts - its fait accompli and blessed thou art! ) Where was Mary's free moral choice in the issue of that birth according to Matthew? Only in the "pagan" cultures do we find virgin births and god's dying and resurrecting. Such was said about Caesar. It was the basic super hero boiler plate of the time. So you have super powers? Check. Virgin Birth? Check. Any tendency to float on water? Check. Right this way your divinity!

There's no history of men from extra-human biology, God seems to prefer working through men and through their culture and biology.

Unless of course you believe the story Balaam's smart ass and the talking serpent in the Garden of Eden to be literally true.

Quoting Tom:>>Also, I have never said that I am pe...

2007-12-26T19:42:00.000+13:00

Quoting Tom:

>>Also, I have never said that I am perfect or beyond criticism. My righteousness is a gift of God to me, and this life I live in the flesh, is lived by his grace and mercy.<<

Perhaps you expressed yourself poorly, but when people say "my righteousness" my stinking fish meter goes off the scale.

Or, you may want to review those scriptures that talk about the righteousness of Christ being imputed to the saved. The difference in perspective is very important.

KMS

The Virgin Conception and Yeshua as the Davidic Me...

2007-12-26T18:38:00.000+13:00

The Virgin Conception and Yeshua as the Davidic Messiah

by Tim Hegg of Torah Resource

from the article, The Virgin Birth, An inquiry into the Biblical doctrine.

One of the arguments often raised against the Gospels’ record of the virgin conception is the question of Yeshua’s legitimate claim to Davidic lineage. Since the Messiah is clearly prophesied to be from the house of David,26 anyone making a claim to be the Messiah would therefore need to be from that line. The virgin conception, some have maintained, makes it impossible for Yeshua to claim Davidic lineage since such lineage came through one’s father. There are, however, a number of important answers to this line of reasoning.

First, it is clear that in some cases, one’s tribal connection could be through the mother. The daughters of Zelophechad are an example. Having no son, the inheritance of the father is given to his daughters and the tribal inheritance passed through them to their sons. But was Mary from the tribe of Judah?

Even from the early centuries of the Christian Church, some have maintained that Luke 1:27 assigns Mary to the “descendants of David,”understanding the phrase to describe Mary rather than Joseph:

Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city in Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the descendants of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. (Luke 1:26–27)

It is possible that all of the descriptions apply to Mary in this text:
(1) virgin,
(2) engaged to Joseph,
(3) of the descendants of David,
(4) named Mary.

But the fact that the term “virgin” is repeated in the final clause would strongly suggest that “of the descendants of David” describes Joseph, not Mary.

For if the phrase were descriptive of Mary, then it would be more nature for the final clause to read “and her name was Mary.” The addition of “virgin” is necessary since the former clause related to Joseph. Thus, the argument that tribal lineage could be traced through the woman, true as it may be, most likely does not apply in the case of Yeshua.

Indeed, it is clearly the purpose of Matthew to trace the lineage of Yeshua through Joseph, for he begins with Yeshua as the “son of David” and ends with Joseph the husband of Mary.

The fact that Matthew emphasizes three periods of 14 generations (1:17) may also signal his intent to show that Yeshua was in the line of David, since 14 is the numerical equivalent of David’s name. But could Yeshua claim Joseph’s lineage if he were not, in fact, his natural father? The answer is “yes,” and this through adoption. The fact that Joseph rather than Mary names Yeshua (Matthew 1:25) signals his legal position as father to Yeshua. Adoption in the Ancient Near East was well known and gave the adopted person clear legal rights, including inheritance.

Further, that adoption of orphans was known in ancient times is clear from historical as well as archaeological records. Leon lists four inscriptions from Jewish tombs in ancient Rome to this effect. R. Shimon ben Pazi (3rd Century Amora), in his midrash on 1Chronicles 1:14 is recorded as stating: “… anyone who raises an orphan boy or girl in his house, Scripture considers it as if he bore him.” Likewise, in the midrash, the statement is made (pertaining to Israel viewed as a orphan), “he that brings up a child is called a ather, and not he that gives birth.”

This accords with the words of Luke 3:23, “When He began His ministry, Yeshua Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph….” The English word “supposed” gives the sense of something perceived but not true, and the Greek word nomizo which it translates can have this meaning. But the word can also describe what is generally held to be true or customary. We could just as well translate the phrase “he was, as commonly held, the son of Joseph,” meaning that Joseph was recognized by his community as the legal father of Yeshua. Thus, from a legal status, Yeshua was the rightful heir of Joseph. And it is therefore in no way contrary to the message of the virgin conception that Mary and Joseph are called His parents. Such a legal arrangement is by no means foreign to the Torah.

In the laws of the Levirite, the children fathered by a deceased husband’s brother are reckoned as bona fide heirs of the deceased even though they did come from him through procreation. Likewise, the adoption of Ephraim and Menassah by Jacob, through which they were granted the status of sons rather than grandsons and given their share in Jacob’s inheritance, illustrates the point that through legal declaration, a person may be granted all the rights and privileges of sonship even without direct physical generation from the father.

But there is an additional aspect of Yeshua’s relationship to Joseph that we must mention. For though Yeshua was legally the adoptive son of Joseph, He was so in a unique way. In normal adoptions, the child is actually the offspring of a human father and thus the “birth father” is distinguished from the “adoptive father.” Not so in the case of Yeshua. The only human father that could lay legal claim to Him
as a father was Joseph. And it would therefore be equally true that from an historical viewpoint, it could have only been through Joseph that Yeshua could be reckoned as in the line of David. Like King David himself, who was granted the promise of an eternal dynasty not through lineage but by God’s sovereign choosing and appointment, so Yeshua was chosen and sent to be the fulfillment of that promise.

In fact, though the Gospels record that Yeshua was often called the “son of David,” they offer not one instance in which His detractors contest His Davidic lineage. Surely those who wanted to disprove the claims of His messiahship could have easily done so if His Davidic lineage was openly suspect. That they did not, even at His final trial, fits the general tenor of the Gospels, namely, that Yeshua’s Davidic connection was accepted within the Jewish community of His day, even by those who were opposed to Him.37

If Jesus was understood to be the illegitimate son...

2007-12-26T14:56:00.001+13:00

If Jesus was understood to be the illegitimate son of Mary — an accusation not unknown in the gospels — then was this genealogy responding with, So what? She was nevertheless married into a line which was sustained by Bathsheba who adulterously conceived Solomon; by Ruth who was a gentile and who teamed up with Boaz through a the euphemistically labelled custom of “uncovering his feet” when he was asleep; by a Rahab, a gentile prostitute; and by Tamar, a daughter of Judah when she turned to prostitution.

These women were included to send a message to reader about the less than believable circumstances of Jesus birth and being the "Messiah" related to David no matter what.

Remember as well the story of the woman taken in adultery is inserted in John 8 right in the middle of a discussion or actually blowout between Jesus and his accusers about who his father was.

Jesus explodes on them with "you are of your father the devil.." Emotional stuff. The story of the woman may have been inserted as it is noted by most bibles, to say, "leave my mom alone. She is forgiven."

The story says 'caught in the very act." However, the man was not the issue and was not included as guilty of anything in this story.

One more thing.Does anyone know what the grounds w...

2007-12-26T14:56:00.000+13:00

One more thing.

Does anyone know what the grounds were for HWA's divorce? Did he file, or did she?

Was adultery involved? If so, there were biblical grounds for the divorce.

If it's a case of believer-unbeliever, then I Cor 7:12-16 makes it the unbeliever's choice as to whether to remain in the marriage.

Seems to me I recall that it was a matter of Ramona not wanting to submit to HWA's authority. And, of course, as we all know, forget about just a divorce, that meant instant Gehenna!

BB

Dennis quotes the suspect Gospel of Phillip as say...

2007-12-26T14:49:00.000+13:00

Dennis quotes the suspect Gospel of Phillip as saying:-

>>>>Jesus "loved her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her often on the mouth....The rest of the disciples offended by it and expressed disapproval. They said to him, 'Why do you love her more than all of us?'..." Jesus reply to them was, “why does she love me more than you?"<<<<

In reality several words of this manuscript are missing, including WHERE he kissed her. The word is physically missing from the manuscript – so it could be the mouth – it could equally be the cheek, or face, or head – or why not the hand! Your guess is as good as, but no better than, anyone else’s.

And of course let’s use a bit of common sense – if Mary was his wife or mistress, why would the disciples say ‘Why do you love her more than all of us?’ Would they seriously want to be kissed by Jesus in the same way a man would kiss his wife or lover?

You're right. I was thinking of them off the top ...

2007-12-26T14:48:00.000+13:00

You're right. I was thinking of them off the top of my head. I meant Tamar.

Ruth was a moabite.

It's not a repentance thing. It's a woman with questionable background thing. Also, women were not really included in geneologies leading to Messiahs, so who was listed had a connotation of God working through questionable women in Israel's history. Like I noted. there were many great women to choose from and the fact that none were chosen and these were was not lost on the reader.

God can bring about even the Messiah through questionable circumstances...ie..Mary's pregnancy and the associated rumours of Jesus being born of fornication.

Of course, this conflicts with Jesus being begotten by God himself thru the HS as literal father making geneolgies moot.

Bob,Those records are in the Tucson courthouse. T...

2007-12-26T14:47:00.000+13:00

Bob,

Those records are in the Tucson courthouse. The transcripts cover many pages, and would be very expensive to purchase.

While I was there, it was suggested by the clerk that I preview the files on the computer work stations, available to the public. Upon locating the pertinent information, he'd be glad to print out select pages. I hate to seem indifferent, but HWA's rotten church already wasted enough of my time, and I really didn't feel like spending hour after hour reviewing a couple thousand pages of transcripts.

Really, if a person wants to know whether HWA was a servant of Christ, one doesn't even need to consider the incest issues. According to Matt 5:40, Jesus told him to settle prior to court, and give Ramona more than she requested. Imagine all the tithes and widow's mites that were squandered on court because "God's Apostle" failed to follow instructions.

BB

Dennis said:->>>>How about the four rather sexuall...

2007-12-26T14:35:00.000+13:00

Dennis said:-

>>>>How about the four rather sexually suspect women in Jesus geneology (Rahab, Jezebel, Ruth, Bathsheba) leading to Mary being Jesus mother?<<<<

Where is Jezebel shown in the geneology of Christ? She is the only one on your list who didn’t repent (not that Ruth had much mentioned to repent of). I don’t see Jezebel (wife of King Ahab) in either of the genealogies.

Southern David:The story is not overtly about Jesu...

2007-12-26T13:12:00.000+13:00

Southern David:

The story is not overtly about Jesus wedding. They tend to get rearranged in the telling etc. The point is that either Mary and Jesus were the caterer's and thus her concern when the wine ran out, or something is going on. Mary would not to have been concerned with those issues as a guest either.

I tend to think the story is more Jesus being introduced as a God like Dionysius. This water to wine tale would resonate with the people and the point would not have been lost on them as a story.

As noted, only John even recounts the tale in the Gospels.

The entire NT is male/female relationship unfriendly. There are no real human relations stories to speak of. Here Jesus even refers to his mom as "woman" Not very nice.

It's the story not spoken underneath this story that seems to leak out at times.

Note also that immediately after the miracle: "The governor of the feast called the bridegroom, And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse; but thou hast kept the good wine until now." (John 2:9-10).

These words would seem to be addressed to Jesus, such that Jesus and the bridegroom are one and the same.

Tom Mahon prattled:"What lecherous behaviour are y...

2007-12-26T13:07:00.000+13:00

Tom Mahon prattled:
"What lecherous behaviour are you referring to? If you are referring to the slanderous rumours that HWA abused his daughter, where is the evidence that will stand up to legal scrutiny? Am I supposed to have a problem with HWA because his enemies make unproven allegations against him?"

Tom why don't you put your money where your mouth is? Do you have the guts to read the court records? I doubt it. They are available to you if you have the courage to obtain them.

Part of the divorce settlement between Herb and his second wife was that she would get possession of a house and certain other things, cash among them if memory serves. This would be in exchange for her not bringing up, during the divorce proceedings, her knowledge of Herb's incestuous relationship with daughter Dorothy. It is all there in black and white. All you have to do is obtain a copy of the transcript from the Phoenix courthouse. Some of that transcript was quoted in the Phoenix Star newspaper at the time, and used to be available on the internet, although it no longer is. But the transcript is still available.

Again Tom, do you have the guts to read it? No, I thought not. You will come back with some lame excuse.

Christmas is obviously a Christian holiday. But wh...

2007-12-26T12:42:00.000+13:00

Christmas is obviously a Christian holiday. But what percentage of Americans today identify with a Christian religion?

About 82% of Americans in 2007 told Gallup interviewers that they identified with a Christian religion. That includes 51% who said they were Protestant, 5% who were "other Christian," 23% Roman Catholic, and 3% who named another Christian faith, including 2% Mormon.

Because 11% said they had no religious identity at all, and another 2% didn't answer, these results suggest that well more than 9 out of 10 Americans who identify with a religion are Christian in one way or the other.

Has this changed over time?

Yes. The percentage of Americans who identify with a Christian religion is down some over the decades. This is not so much because Americans have shifted to other religions, but because a significantly higher percentage of Americans today say they don't have a religious identity. In the late 1940s, when Gallup began summarizing these data, a very small percentage explicitly told interviewers they did not identify with any religion. But of those who did have a religion, Gallup classified -- in 1948, for example -- 69% as Protestant and 22% as Roman Catholic, or about 91% Christian.

It's one thing to identify with a religion, and another to be actively religious. What percentage of Americans are actually members of a church?

Sixty-two percent of Americans in Gallup's latest poll, conducted in December, say they are members of a "church or synagogue," a question Gallup has been asking since 1937.

FYI

>>>You are crazier than I thought!Tom,I guess that...

2007-12-26T12:18:00.000+13:00

>>>You are crazier than I thought!

Tom,

I guess that I am just as much "the heretic" as the others on the forum even if I do hold HWA in high regard and continue in Torah.

The Sabbatarian movement is made up of many branches. Armstrongism is only a small part of it! The great thing is that some of us can look beyond the differences and continue to view each other as fellow believers in Christ Jesus.

I know it may surprise you but some of us in the Sabbatarian movement have moved away from Armstrongism joining another branch of the movement.

Sabbatarians that have left Armstrongism have ended up in Sacred Name groups, the Hebrew Roots movement, the Adventists, Church of God Seventh day to name but a few. They have maintained their Sabbatarian foundation however they have moved to groups which are less tainted with the "emotional" baggage of armstrongism.

Tom said...But when I analyse them against the Lao...

2007-12-26T11:24:00.000+13:00

Tom said...

But when I analyse them against the Laodicean condition of the church, I am able to put them in context.

The really funny thing about the above sentence is outside the context of the +/- 500,000 who trotted through Armstrongism at one point or another over 50+ years, saying there is a "Laodecian context" is absolutely meaningless.

The whole abstract mental construct of there being a Laodecian era to Millerite splinter sects (of which the WCG is but one in a long series)is a theological contruct created out of whole cloth by the very man whose sins you say you place within it.

If Armstrongism is anything, its circular in its logic, and self-referential.

Or for the geeks among us, For the definition of recursion See: Recursion.