For NathanielS: Let's Thrash "Jesusfamilies.org"

[NathanielS]

One thing I have noticed about Spiess, Jones and even McKay is that they seem to take a very dim view of the early Church (from the original disciples in Post-incarnaiton of Jesus days to Paul to the early Church Fathers). They seem to assume that the early Church continually messed up interpretations (after all, even though the disciples were commanded to preach the Kingdom of God and Peter was commanded to "feed the sheep", they certainly couldn't faithfully discern between a true Apostle and a false one).

It seems really prideful for modern people to basically claim they understand the words of Jesus better than those who were direct witnesses (like the original disciples) and those who were regularly involved with direct witnesses (Paul, Barnabas, those 'converted' by the disciples, and the Church Fathers, etc.). They would have had access to more first-hand (direct witnesses) and second-hand (those preached to directly by the direct witnesses) than we do.

[jpholding]

It seems really prideful for modern people to basically claim they understand the words of Jesus better than those who were direct witnesses (like the original disciples) and those who were regularly involved with direct witnesses (Paul, Barnabas, those 'converted' by the disciples, and the Church Fathers, etc.). They would have had access to more first-hand (direct witnesses) and second-hand (those preached to directly by the direct witnesses) than we do.

That's a good point, though there are also those who make the opposite error of assuming that the Church Fathers in particular (not the others like Paul you named) were roughly infallible and that they can't be wrong because they were so close to the time. David Bercot in particular is guilty of this.

It runs down to that one can't just take easy routes to arrive at truth.

[OldManZangetsu]

I am in a new round of correspondences with Mr. Tim Spiess:

tims wrote:
> www.tektonics.org
>
> You asked why what you were doing was like a pharisee. Pharisee's hang together. Here is what jimmy pat holding (one of the main authors of the content of tektonics.org), has to say about a friend of mine...a gentle, elderly man (who at the present is very ill) who is sincerely trying to follow Jesus as best as he knows how:
>
> "One of the hallmarks of the uneducated and incompetent is that they are seldom aware of when they are making fools of themselves."
>
> Mr. holding has an entire page that mock's edgar and edgar's work to try and make Jesus known to others. The hatred for edgar's master (taken out on edgar) is very obvious for those with eyes to see.

>

That can easily be turned against him. What'd you say back?

[OldManZangetsu]

Jim Jone's followers drunk poisoned Kool Aid when Jim Jones was found out to be what he was by a senator on a fact finding mission who he had killed by some of his more fanatic followers. A false preacher whose teachings were not only spiritual poison but literal also.

Wow. I guess I'm out of it as far as cults are concerned. Any place I can go to to get a quick run-down of various cults that have come and gone over the years? And by quick run-down I mean a one page (webpage) summary of them.

[OldManZangetsu]

I'd like to hear an explanation of this from McKay: http://www.rickross.com/reference/je...ristians7.html

Bobby's grandmother said: "They took his TV and video and wanted to take other things belonging to Bobby from my flat but I banned them. They wanted his bank book - not that there is anything in it - and they were trying to get him a passport to take him abroad. They would not let him speak to me on his own. I tried. But he said he had to have one of the group with him all the time."

and

"This group has a veneer of respectability but there is something very disturbing about them. When I saw Bobby a week ago he was with three of them and he seemed very scared, which was unlike him."

...

Mother Bernadette Sheridan reported her son Kyri, 19, missing. When she tried to snatch him back during a meeting in Guildford the police were called and she was arrested. Bernadette told how when she finally made contact with her son he was like a zombie with staring eyes. A member of the cult who was with him told her: "He's not your son any more. Your job is finished, he's ours now." She has not seen him since that meeting a year ago.

...

"He has telephoned her on several occasions and she describes him as sounding very strange and most unlike the Bobby she knows."

[NathanielS]

That can easily be turned against him. What'd you say back?

I don't have a copy of the sent e-mail. If/when he responds, I'll post a copy.

[NathanielS]

That's a good point, though there are also those who make the opposite error of assuming that the Church Fathers in particular (not the others like Paul you named) were roughly infallible and that they can't be wrong because they were so close to the time. David Bercot in particular is guilty of this.

It runs down to that one can't just take easy routes to arrive at truth.

Obviously, you are correct. Yes, the Church Fathers were fallible and made mistakes, but it seems strange that a lot of these 'modern' reformers seem to imply that it was something like this:

The moment right after Jesus ascended into Heaven to at the right hand of God the Father was when the Church into it's apostasy and not until this person (esp. w/ Spiess or Jones....at least McKay seems to view the Pauline Epistles and stuff as legit to a great degree) came around was the real unadulterated truth found again.

EDIT: Perhaps the biggest issue that might have caused error in the Church Fathers was that many of them would have been raised in Hellenistic/Pagan/Romantic philosophical environment, as opposed to the disciples and Paul who, although probably to a lesser/greater degree familiar with Pagan Roman ideas, were of Jewish background (better understanding of the Old Testament and the One True God it reveals, as well as perhaps better understanding the Jewish background to Jesus' words and mission).

[OldManZangetsu]

Obviously, you are correct. Yes, the Church Fathers were fallible and made mistakes, but it seems strange that a lot of these 'modern' reformers seem to imply that it was something like this:

The moment right after Jesus ascended into Heaven to at the right hand of God the Father was when the Church into it's apostasy and not until this person (esp. w/ Spiess or Jones....at least McKay seems to view the Pauline Epistles and stuff as legit to a great degree) came around was the real unadulterated truth found again.

EDIT: Perhaps the biggest issue that might have caused error in the Church Fathers was that many of them would have been raised in Hellenistic/Pagan/Romantic philosophical environment, as opposed to the disciples and Paul who, although probably to a lesser/greater degree familiar with Pagan Roman ideas, were of Jewish background (better understanding of the Old Testament and the One True God it reveals, as well as perhaps better understanding the Jewish background to Jesus' words and mission).

Regarding modern reformers: If you have direct quotes that would clear the issue, but for now I disagree.

Fallible people are not incapable of making perfect (i.e. infallible) statements; I don't think modern reformers would disagree with that. I think the issue is that there is a confusion in what role the church plays in interpreting scripture. People like those you are referring to tend to be the type that say "the Bible and only the Bible, any outside material corrupts your view." I doubt they spent much time studying creeds and councils, or have even read them at all for that matter. I think most of the time they just ignorantly dismiss them, not realizing the weight they have. Either that or they studied, but did so under the impression that only the Bible contains truth in regard to how we approach God.

The trouble in this is that these highly individualistic thinkers switch interpretive authority from being found in the Church to being found in themselves (but they will always claim that "the Bible is the only authority, I'm just stating what it says"). If something doesn't jive with what they think, it's wrong. Then they tell others to do the same, "Don't trust me, find the truth for yourself." After that, there isn't any way to determine what is right and what is wrong, everything is subjective.

[NathanielS]

Regarding modern reformers: If you have direct quotes that would clear the issue, but for now I disagree.

Fallible people are not incapable of making perfect (i.e. infallible) statements; I don't think modern reformers would disagree with that. I think the issue is that there is a confusion in what role the church plays in interpreting scripture. People like those you are referring to tend to be the type that say "the Bible and only the Bible, any outside material corrupts your view." I doubt they spent much time studying creeds and councils, or have even read them at all for that matter. I think most of the time they just ignorantly dismiss them, not realizing the weight they have. Either that or they studied, but did so under the impression that only the Bible contains truth in regard to how we approach God.

The trouble in this is that these highly individualistic thinkers switch interpretive authority from being found in the Church to being found in themselves (but they will always claim that "the Bible is the only authority, I'm just stating what it says"). If something doesn't jive with what they think, it's wrong. Then they tell others to do the same, "Don't trust me, find the truth for yourself." After that, there isn't any way to determine what is right and what is wrong, everything is subjective.

Obviously, for Paul was a fallible person (a.k.a. a sinner) and is willing to admit it, as were all the people in the O.T. and the disciples of Jesus. The only infallible being in the Bible is God. People like Tim Spiess and Edgar Jones (www.voiceofjesus.org) reject virtually all of the Bible except for Jesus's own words in the Gospel and whatever parts they seem to agree with (Spiess admitted that parts of Acts were "historically accurate" and that portions of the O.T. [albeit it very small] point to Jesus).

What Spiess and other JWOs (Jesus Words Only) types forget is that Jesus granted His original Apostles authority to preach the Kingdom of God and, specifically, told Peter to tend/feed His sheep. So it's kind of contradictory to say follow Jesus only and reject the words of anyone else (especially John and Peter and the original disiciples) when Jesus granted them that authority.

Now Paul is a trickier issue because he was not an original disciple, although Acts proclaims that he was given an apostolic commission by the resurrected Jesus and it appears that the original disciples eventually accepted Paul. It is implied that the JWOs believe Paul was lying or crazy (most assume the former), unfortunately there are some major problems with that view.

This article, Observations on the Conversion and Apostleship of Paul addresses the issue of could Paul be lying or simply crazy.

Also, if you reject the Petrine (one of which exonerates Paul) and Johanine Epistles, are you not rejecting teh authority granted by Jesus to His disciple?

[jpholding]

Wow. I guess I'm out of it as far as cults are concerned. Any place I can go to to get a quick run-down of various cults that have come and gone over the years? And by quick run-down I mean a one page (webpage) summary of them.

Not all at once, but apologeticsindex.com has rundowns of a whole mess of them.

[jpholding]

Now Paul is a trickier issue because he was not an original disciple, although Acts proclaims that he was given an apostolic commission by the resurrected Jesus and it appears that the original disciples eventually accepted Paul. It is implied that the JWOs believe Paul was lying or crazy (most assume the former), unfortunately there are some major problems with that view.

I have the idea that the apostolic church was ordained in such a way that there were checks and balances much like our own government.

Peter and others could say they had walked with Jesus -- but they also betrayed him.
James the brother of Jesus could claim the family connection -- but had not become a Christian until after the Resurrection.
Paul was the best trained of the lot -- but he never met Jesus on earth and persecuted the church.

No one of the three could claim more honor than any other.

[NathanielS]

I have the idea that the apostolic church was ordained in such a way that there were checks and balances much like our own government.

Peter and others could say they had walked with Jesus -- but they also betrayed him.
James the brother of Jesus could claim the family connection -- but had not become a Christian until after the Resurrection.
Paul was the best trained of the lot -- but he never met Jesus on earth and persecuted the church.

No one of the three could claim more honor than any other.

Interesting way to put it. I never thought of it like that. But what about the Post-Apostolic/original disciple church?

[TheAnalogman]

Moderator Notice

I just moved 42 posts to the theostudent thread. Theostudent, listen up! Quit jumping into other threads and attempting to derail them. You have your own thread.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[OldManZangetsu]

Not all at once, but apologeticsindex.com has rundowns of a whole mess of them.

Thanks.

[jpholding]

Interesting way to put it. I never thought of it like that. But what about the Post-Apostolic/original disciple church?

The same sort of setup obviously could not persist but the metaphor of the Body of Christ taught us to use and respect each other's gifts. Sadly there aren't many who want to be the hands, or brains, or so on in the Body of Christ....and way too many who want to be the butt.