TrustAndObey

so they don't teach them practical management nowadays. Or ethics. Or greek, hebrew, or aramaic. Or church history. What about figures of speech?

They still have flossing 101 I understand..

Well, they have made a few changes in the last few years.. While they don't teach practical management (only how to Lord over people with their pride), and they don't teach hebrew, or Greek (They have a class but it isn't accurate), they have added the history of the church and old testament history, and even a comparative religions "class".. But let's get real.. None of those additions actually are accurate either, much like the Greek and the rest of their doctrine. The "teachers" haven't a clue while the "students" are led astray into thinking they actually were being trained.. Accurate classes wouldn't be taught by someone trying to brainwash the students, while putting their "spin" on history..

Meanwhile, the whole purpose lies in bringing up prideful little Roslie arse ki$$ wannabees ready to put down anyone who has a real brain willing to speak up. But, you guys knew that.

There were a couple hundered when I went in group 5. Then around 80 or so when I went in Group 7.

It ain't getting any better, is it?! lol..

I'm trying to picture now what that auditorium would look like with them 20.. Gee.. Only the first row and a couple in the next.. Or will they space em out a seat in between like they've done in the past?!

PR has gotta be a pretty hard job these days.

wait.....now the list is 20!

I repeat, Way Disciples group XVII has 20 kids......

That's still a pretty dismal turnout..

Especially when we consider that a fraction of those are only going to meet their Way Corps training qualifications..

Lol.. And How many classes will they run actually run with more than 2 new folks that they bring in?? ZERO!

It will be nice watching the playoffs without an emotional stake in it--Im a fan if underdogs --I'll take the

Reds and Rangers here---although the Giants haven't won anything in my lifetime either..

I'm going for the underdogs in the AL... Ranger's! It looks like they have game 1 wrapped up..

And the playoffs start tomorrow..

Whose rootin' for whom?!

So.. does anyone know- did jl ever end up with the donation of the motorcoach of his dreams?

No, instead he's been reduced to bumming plane tickets until that motorcoach with red drapes falls from the sky.

... it's okay to do it over and over again in order to remember the covenant. In fact, Jesus tells us to do it EVERY TIME WE EAT! So doing it over and over again is not like trying to get born again over and over again.

It's like you got married, took the vows, and now are re-taking and re-affirming those vows you took.. That's all.. Nothing to do with being "born again" again.. Everything to do with our covenant with the God of all gods..

And what is the New Covenant? An exclusively Christian thing?

Anyone may partake of this vow.. The question is do they want to? Why would take part in a covenant/vow with God if you do not know the terms of this covenant. Best not to take part in the covenant. Enjoy the fellowship and food. And leave the vow to a later time when you're ready to make that commitment. But IMHO, it is a vow not to be taken lightly as if some "love feast" for feasting sakes, but rather a feast that binds you with God and His love. An everlasting bond, and therefore tread lightly lest you wish to divorce later.

"God's generous gifts are for everyone.

All who desire to participate in a meal

to celebrate God's generous goodness to all of creation

are welcome to join us in sharing this bread and this cup."

After reading, I thought I'd add my two cents. And well, it is a differing view, so I wanted to say that in case you weren't interested in hearing one! lol.. Not to say my view is the "right" view but a view, so I'm not dissing anyone here.

But to me, communion. What Christ did, was nothing new in the ritual sense. This wasn't something he just made up on his own. Oh yeah, here, this bread, is my body, eat it.. I like cannibals! lol.. Or, I like to start a new meal ritual. lol.. But rather this was the ushering of the new covenant. Take drink, this is the new covenant given to you.. (Mat 26:28)..

Covenants were entered into in this way. This was not new and is attested to throughout the Old Covenant (known to many as the Old "Testament"[terrible translation]).

This was done by Israel when they gathered on the mount to hear God's will and commit to this covenant (the old covenant). A covenant is not just any commitment or promise. It is one made for life. Just as the covenant of marriage (The covenant with Israel was considered a marriage). Something many today take lightly. But it was taken extremely seriously in those days.

Without going into too much detail since this is just a post to give an opinion not a teaching, the two parts, breaking of the flesh and the taking of the blood were vital. In the old, God promised to protect them, guide them, care for them, as they promised to obey his will. The people were to cleanse themselves first(yes, baptism in the OT) before accepting this covenant and come with a clean body and fresh mind. The law was read and the people agree "All that you say, we will do". Upon that, the animals were sacrificed. Cut in two. The sacrifice signified the covenant was a vow until death and worthy of death if broken(just as the flesh was broken). And the eating of that flesh(bread for us) was an acceptance of those terms. The blood then was sprinkled upon the people and the altar(representing God) uniting the two in this agreement by blood(Just as we drink of the cup).

This was not just some feast. It was an ushering of the new covenant. And everytime it was done was a remembrance of our covenant with God. The new covenant. It is not to be taken just because you are hungry or without understanding. (This is what Corinthians corrects). It is a vow you are making to God and an extremely serious vow at that.

Is this taught much these days.. No. Lost.. But it doesn't change the fact of its purpose. And there are many many other things tying the two together. Christ didn't die ONLY so that we might just be free. But further in that freedom so that we are free to bind ourselves in covenant with God. It broke the bonds of the adversary, that pact we made with sin. Christ broke it with his death as we died with him, when we accept this covenant and become united with God, and agree to trust and obey Him.

Anyways.. I won't continue now, or it will become too long..

Communion. Was originally the acceptance of the new covenant (Or as bad translations put it, new testament. It turned from a vow to just a testimony. Just as marriage now days has become for many. They were both till death do you part. But now, it's just a temporary agreement for many.).

ALARMING side effects, I face that day in and day out because of my research.

I have been alienated from a lot of people because of research...

Researching gets one a bad reputation, like with me...

Is it really the research that alienates you? And who would it alienate you from? If "they" honestly love you, then it would only be yourself who is causing the alienation, IMHO.

One of the most liberating things I realized after leaving the TWI mentality was that repentance works! I can't go back to change the awful things I did and taught in TWI, but I can repent (change what I'm doing now) and receive God's forgiveness.

And isn't that the most loving thing to do anyways! To actually be honest about your mistakes, especially if you are leading others in those same damn mistakes. How is TWI considered more loving today if they don't admit their freakin mistakes! They don't! Love can't begin to shine from that place until they turn from their evil and at least try and help those they've hurt. I'm not holding my breath! They definitely have chosen to ignore the ALARMING side effects by not changing!

He had followers before he went to Jerusalem and got arrested. :-)

Curious where you get that bit of information?

Maybe it all comes to how you define a "follower" since last I read Paul was against "following" any man outside of Christ.

I think this is another great example of how twi blames the victim when someone is hurt. Everything bad that happens is because of unbelief... (or an attack of the adversary if you are in good graces with twi's agenda and leadership of the day.)

Thinking about this again today, only because I was re-reading this post (I try and not think about my TWI days and thoughts much).

But we always talk here about how if you are not "in" fellowship with TWI, all negative things were/are because of you and your believing. Hence the victim is at fault.

And if you ARE "in" fellowship, partying with the upper echelon of TWI, everything is due to the adversary's attack, and so cleared of any negative action/thought on their part..

But honestly, aren't they both really just two ways of looking at the same thing. Half full, half empty sort of thing. I mean, The adversary is attacking 'because' of their negative believing/action.. (Granted, I don't believe in this idiotic "principle" of believing). Why is it the two never came together? That the attack of the adversary was BECAUSE of their whatever.. Were we really trying to cover for them that much that our mind wasn't willing to jump to the reason the adversary attacked them? (And I'm talking about while we in, not whether we even think there is an adversary today).

Maybe I'm not making any sense. I'm just trying to understand how we really took the "attack of the adversary" saying as meaning it's not the leader's fault. Or was it not the saying itself, but rather some of us weren't ready to go there with our thinking? That we'd rather believe VP and LCM's devouring of the flock was because of OUR inaction instead of THEIR (the top dawgs like RosaLIE Fox's) inaction.. (While I didn't believe LCM's devouring was our fault, but what about the rain at the Rock or a million other things we were willing to blame our unbelief instead of the leaders when they were just as "involved" as us [if not MORE]).

Were little ol' us greater than them?! Are the leaders that minuscule in their believing that little peons can override them? Then who needs their sorry arses! Be gone with them and live your own life, cause you're gonna cause it anyways and they admittedly can't help! They admittedly said it is your fault not theirs because they were believing which wasn't enough. That their believing was too weak and stupid.

Isn't that the outcome of that belief? It's the adversary's fault because YOU didn't believe and your leader's believing wasn't enough to save you. So they do you no good except criticize and put you down and take your life away.. Yeah, who needs those idiots..

Why didn't our brains take it to that full conclusion?

I'm just thinking..

I told her - that I didn't particularily like her God, but that I loved the Children's God - being as to how they were so completely different.

Waysider,... You want the purple or the green crayon? We'll leave the "gr'ups to fight over who gets the best punishment. I hear they're forming lines.

Kids ask questions, because they don't know it all. Grown Ups know it all, so they sometimes forget to ask for forgiveness and blame one another or argue.

Lol... I just got through watching a good movie this afternoon called "Stolen Summer". It's about this very same thing..

Definitely 2 thumbs up for me.. (For both the movie and your comments!)

I used the word wisdom as wisdom, I don't remember the greek word for wisdom, I think it starts with a S?

That would be a noun of the second declension like logos, sophos.

The first five verses would fit, but from Verse 6-14, is trying to show more to the story, but that more of the story, contradicts the story that was told before the gospel of John comes into the picture?

I believe that is all up to interpretation. Just as the qualitative interpretation of John 1:1 and John 1:14. It can fit, although I wouldn't go so far as to say that every sentence in the 4 typical gospels can be harmonized, but these verses.. Easily..

Just because most scholars say the phrase in John 1:1(& 14) is qualitative does not precipitate the meaning to any specific understanding of who is God. It can easily be interpreted to speak of the Trinitarian, Unitarian, or Oneness view(s) since it just means that the logos (Which is the subject irregardless of Colwell's rule) has the qualities of God and is not making any definitive statement about the logos actually being a person much less anyone specific[definite](Which would happen if trying to apply the converse of Colwell's rule).

Wisdom was in the beginning, and that very wisdom was with Yahweh,

and Yahweh was that wisdom. Wisdom was in the beginning with Yahweh.

Everything came to be by Yahweh's hand; and without Yahweh not even one

thing that was created came to be. The life is in Yahweh, that life is the light

of men; and this light shines in the darkness; and the darkness apprehended it not.

starting at verse 15, John testified of Yeshua, and cried, and said, "This is he, of whom I said

I'm sure "logos" could be translated as wisdom, even though it does comprise much more than just wisdom itself, including plans, thoughts, and intents of the heart. But if you take the the third phrase of John 1 as "and Yahweh was that wisdom", then you would be in pretty thin company since most do not believe Colwell's rule to apply, which the way you have translated Yahweh, as a definitive noun rather than as a qualitative(or indefinite) noun, is the result. Most believe the predicate nominative of that phrase to be qualitative.

After over 20 years of trying to fit John 1:1-1:14 into the context of harmonizing the four gospels, it just does not fit?

...

The history on this section is trinity in origin, it is their way of saying Yeshua was in the beginning with

Yahweh, this is something I stubbled across, no theological or historical source other than it is trinity in origin.

While the "usual" translation of John 1:1 may be in question due to whether Colwell's rule could apply or not (Personally, I don't believe it can..), the section between v1 and v14 can be (AND HAS BEEN) translated a number of ways to support many a views. So to say it is Trinitarian in origin or a forgery is really stretching the facts.

I only posted what he said hoping someone who knows for sure might let us know the truth...

Which is why I posted.. Being one who actually "handled" the install of "surveillance" equipment, cable TV runs, phone monitoring, etc etc etc...

Okay, complaints on this thread about bugging EOb and/or BRC and who knows where else. What's the evidence for this? Who knows that it actually took place? Anybody here see or listen to the "bugs"?

Or is it just suspicion (of the genuine spiritual kind, no doubt) that this took place?

Ok, but honestly, like most things, there is "some" truth to it..

Did they have the ability to "camp" on the phone line and eavesdrop on people's conversations? Yup..

Did the Prez and others have sound/voice activated recorders in their offices and with them? Sure.

Did they keep track of who you called or called you and that list given to people that scrutinized it at times? Without a doubt.

Do they actively monitor the current internet activities of those using HQ's internet service? Yup. (Best to use your mobile service if you're there)

But video lines ran all over the place for spying. lol.. Not a chance.

They did have video lines ran many places for their "in-house" TV channels. You know, so you could watch the noon meal or the Sunday service elsewhere.

Too put it mildly.. They really weren't all that technically advanced to be able to keep track of lots of bugs everywhere.. If there were any, it was very isolated and not kept up for any extended period.

That's the official story.. And I'm sticking with it.

[edited to add that in the past 10yrs they have added more exterior video cameras for monitoring purposes.]

Anybody here see or listen to the "bugs"?

There were lots of those, I saw them all over the place! And you could hear them all through the night too... When I got a chance I would stomp on em! One less bug for you guys to worry about!

Thanks for sharing...

For me, I was just an idiot.. Raised to believe my "elders" or superiors.. Teachers.. Parents.. Pastors.. Sure.. They were older than me, what do I know! Thankfully I came to my senses before my entire life was gone..

Imitate Him

We were made in His image for His purpose, to be as He is. Not to BE Him, but to be like Him. He is Love.

Don't ruin their believing now..

If you make them say the truth, then their believing will be screwed up and it will be all your fault.. We can't have that!

I am curious just how much "growth" they received from this use of $29 grand from their $54 million of ill gotten gain?

I mean, when you watch the stupid infomercial, they give you only one way to contact them.. You know, if you actually were interested.. And that was by their website. Well, you go to their frickin website, and now how do you contact them? Ohhh.. By snail mail!! Writing a freakin letter.. You know, how many people really are going to go through all that work just to finally contact them? My guess is that clip would be seen mainly by people who are sitting on their butts watching TV, so how many of those couch potatoes really are willing to do a bunch of work just to contact them..

What a waste of all that abundance!

Correction: I and II Peter.

That clears up half of it.. lol.. Just ignore me..

(So it takes a scholar to realize the books of Peter weren't written by Paul!) lol..

(Yes, I knew what you meant too.. Just looked kinda funny..)

Ok, ignore me again!

Most scholars say II and II Peter were not written by Paul.

:blink:

I was given the example that "Uncle Horndog" Howard slept in a one room house with his aunt and uncle, who would have sex there in the same room as the kids.

Well, definitely explains why he treats the woman the way he does..

All along I thought it was ol' Vic that taught him his low life womanizing ways..