So what's the point about John Mark being made, Whitedove? They disagreed with each other, that we know. A cut and paste of Vine's seems to imply that Barnabas fell off the planet, as did John Mark. We know that's not the case.
That's completely imposing a viewpoint that doesn't hold up under examination, in my mind. It assumes the negative outcome, due - apparently - to the split between Paul and Barnabas and John Mark's actiions.
"Never to be heard from in scripture again" is incorrect. Barnabas is mentioned elsewhere, in the N.T. by Paul. It's just as safe to assume from all the records that Paul and Barnabas didn't start wearing "That Other Guy Sucks" t-shirts and ended up on different sides of the spiritual fence but continued on with their personal ministries.
The entire mentality of "never heard from again" comes and goes in relation to these kinds of records. It's like a form of "greasespot by midnight". It seems mildly idiotic for historians to take that stance when most of the disciples and followers of Jesus Christ during His life and immediately following are hardly mentioned at all.
There's a huge tendency to focus on a few well known names, when we know from Acts itself that many 1,000's of people came into Christianity by the 6th chapter of Acts alone. Ignoring the mass growth of the early church and the impact the individuals must have had on the future of the church is just crayzee. It seems to keep the focus on a few, as if the church only grew because of a few people. That's rediculous.
The lesson to be seen in these three guys in my opinion is resolution and continuance. Nothing stopped because they got ticked off at each other and split up.
The issue in relation to Wayfers and The Way Nash has to do with idea of "quitting". John Mark may not have had any good reason to leave them when he did. The reason isn't given, so if we take the negative view we still don't know why. I don't know why he left their road trip.
Anyone who leaves the Way today in route can speak for themselves. It can be known. Take it or leave it, but it's not a secret once stated.
So what's the point about John Mark being made, Whitedove? They disagreed with each other, that we know. A cut and paste of Vine's seems to imply that Barnabas fell off the planet, as did John Mark. We know that's not the case.
I think Peters Wade's message was pretty clear, at times in life we may quit things along the way. I offered the example of a runner in a race , mid race he quits..... whatever the reason he quits for, does not alter the fact, he might have quit because he just decided to ,he may have been physically able to continue but just choose not to, then again he may have had a better reason for quitting maybe a medical one where he could not continue, either way the outcome is the same he quit. At that point he has two choices he can go home and remain a quitter end his running career as a quitter or go home and start over training for next year where he may finish the course. In the case of John Mark, John Mark failed but he was not a failure.
Peters message was..... People, you may quit for a time but the Bible says that "if we are faithless, he remains faithful—for he cannot deny himself" (II Timothy 2:13). That's good isn't it? You may fail but you're not a failure. You may quit and say I've had enough for awhile but God says He remains faithful. He loves you just the same as he loved you before. So can you learn something from John Mark? Yes, you certainly can. There are times when we quit but what we have to do is to pick up the pieces and get going again. I think that is the point as well.
That's completely imposing a viewpoint that doesn't hold up under examination, in my mind. It assumes the negative outcome, due - apparently - to the split between Paul and Barnabas and John Mark's actions.
Well then there is this record Galatians 2:13 - And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. (to join in acting the hypocrite ) "sunupokrinomai"
That sounds pretty negative, it looks like a negative outcome from where I sit, it sure doesn't sound good.
"Never to be heard from in scripture again" is incorrect. Barnabas is mentioned elsewhere, in the N.T. by Paul. It's just as safe to assume from all the records that Paul and Barnabas didn't start wearing "That Other Guy Sucks" t-shirts and ended up on different sides of the spiritual fence but continued on with their personal ministries.
Barnabas is not mentioned in Acts again, the few records where he is is in reference to the events in Acts and give us more background on the record. And as we see above in Galatians not particularly good at that.
The entire mentality of "never heard from again" comes and goes in relation to these kinds of records. It's like a form of "greasespot by midnight". It seems mildly idiotic for historians to take that stance when most of the disciples and followers of Jesus Christ during His life and immediately following are hardly mentioned at all.
Looking at the words used in scripture like revolt, withdrew, to stand off, aloof, together with the record in Galatians and the lack of further mention in Acts. I cant see much support for a positive rendering, I'd say if they did their case would not have much to hold up on. It appears that Barnabas went home to Cyprus what he did there is not known, he may have continued with his own ministry, Clearly there is no mention of it. There is however of Paul's, I think that is telling. Barnabas may have continued with his ministry, but Paul I believe continued with Gods.
There's a huge tendency to focus on a few well known names, when we know from Acts itself that many 1,000's of people came into Christianity by the 6th chapter of Acts alone. Ignoring the mass growth of the early church and the impact the individuals must have had on the future of the church is just crayzee. It seems to keep the focus on a few, as if the church only grew because of a few people. That's ridiculous.
The lesson to be seen in these three guys in my opinion is resolution and continuance. Nothing stopped because they got ticked off at each other and split up.
I don't believe that the church only grew because of a few people.
The issue in relation to Wayfers and The Way Nash has to do with idea of "quitting". John Mark may not have had any good reason to leave them when he did. The reason isn't given, so if we take the negative view we still don't know why. I don't know why he left their road trip.Anyone who leaves the Way today in route can speak for themselves. It can be known. Take it or leave it, but it's not a secret once stated.
I don't believe that either Peter Wade or myself mentioned the story in relation to The Way, no parallel was made to the Way that I saw. I understood the point to be that sometimes in life we quit things for whatever reason. We may quit even our relationship with God, but he is faithful and loves us as he always did. However if we want a relationship with Him (relationship being two not one sided) then we have to pick up and start again. I think that is exactly what John Mark did ,and as set as Paul was on him not going with him ,he remained open to John and down the road his view toward him changed. I think a case could be made for the reason they left, being grace vs circumcision it is quite possible that John Mark and we know that from Galatians that Barnabas at least at one point sided with Peter, and James and those at Jerusalem. It's certainly speculation but interesting food for thought.
No relation to The Way..????........how about opening this thread in the About the Way forum. <_<
I think what I said was .......
I don't believe that either Peter Wade or myself mentioned the story in relation to The Way, no parallel was made to the Way that I saw.
I did not say it had "no relation to the Way", those are your misquotes I said the story did not, another words the story was about quitting and starting again in life and Gods point of view when we do . I placed it in about the Way because that's where most people know Peter Wade from. However the story is not exclusive to former way people ,in fact it applies to anyone , also noted that neither I nor Peter addressed any examples to the Way. If you imported those from your life into it that would be you doing. CLEAR NOW ? ..........
Thanks Whitedove. I don't have a problem with what Wade's saying. I'd assume it has reason to be on this thread as posted because it's meant to deal with some aspect of the Thread topic which is in relation to the Way, but as a general encouragement, it works fine as is. It's a simple message. I doubt he had the Way in mind when writing it, I thought you did in posting it.
There's a few points to ponder in the JM/P/B relationship and what you posted, I doubt we're going to come to complete agreement. Although minor a couple of the points I'm seeing really speak to the Thread topic -
When the quote from Vines (am I misreading?) says something like - never heard from in scripture again - that has an ominous sound to it - of complete silence. And that's not true, chronologically Barnabas and John Mark are mentioned "again" in letters written, after these events. So it's not factually true. We're not splitting hairs here or squeezing tomatoes - there's few mentions comparitively in the bible's epistles about anyone specific. So the fact they figure into - Paul's - letters and activities is significant as far as air time in what we call "the bible".
There's some things we can derive from the records that yes, their doctrinal stances may have been an issue. But to paint them as gone and goner, is inaccurate - unless -
Their goneness is based on the fact that they're not mentioned anymore in Pauls' journeys. The significance of that is a topic in itself I think.
I think it does completely speak to the topic of the thread though - that quote is characteristic of the generalized statements that are made about people, that give an impression of they're being something wrong but not exactly whyyyyyy....when doing that we should have the facts straight, no?
I think it does completely speak to the topic of the thread though - that quote is characteristic of the generalized statements that are made about people, that give an impression of they're being something wrong but not exactly whyyyyyy....when doing that we should have the facts straight, no?
socks.......it's that *impression* (with NO real specific facts about John Mark) that I alluded to in my first post.
To me......here's the irony:
1) Many times on GS......some wierwille-defenders make comparisons of wierwille "being like the Apostle Paul".....in that, supposedly, he got this revelation like it hadn't been known since the first century.
2) Wierwille mentions Peter Wade in pfal......that little booklet on righteousness that Wade did. And, ironically.....I do not recall wierwille mentioning anyone else in pfal as his "right-hand man" sorta speak.
3) Wade "quit" following wierwille's ministry and started his own ministry.
4) Whitedove posts this little article about "quitting" on the About the Way forum........not the Open forum. Seems that he thought more would read it there.
5) To a degree, I understand the point of the article and what whitedove is saying.........but it seems to have a negative slant. And, for scripture to not specify why JM left........leaves more questions, than answers.
6) And.......with John Mark committed to the work.....and penning the gospel of Mark......could it have been "the right thing to do" in his walk with God at the time to *disassociate* with Paul....????
7) IMO.......it seems like Barnabus was a dynamic man "to hang with" ....... so maybe, the Paul & John Mark "two-by-two system" just wasn't working out. Is that supposed to be a big deal? Is that "quitting" on God?
8) And, finally........were Way Corps supposed to walk step-for-step with wierwille/twi a lifetime? I find it interesting that when the 20th anniversary of the FIRST CORPS REUNION took place in Ohio......Bo and the gang didn't label it an "Ex-corps Reunion."
Is that the reunion where H. Allen got wind of it and wrote them not to show up at the Way? I think the new motto he was citing was "I never met a friend I wouldn't refuse at the Way", or something to that effect. No - it was "You're never welcome at the Way - anymore". Yeah.
I understand your point and think it's well taken....were Way Corps supposed to walk step-for-step with wierwille/twi a lifetime?
I think anyone who saw the Wayski's in the late 60's could tell by the early 70's - within a few years - we weren't going to hang with VPW forever. Even if we thought we should, we weren't going to and actually, IMO, shouldn't have. And didn't, although for different reasons I envisioned at that time.
Loose affiliations over time - fine. But not the kissy-hugsy seeya at the Rock, forever, no. Wade probably went the best of all routes, excusing himself quietly and acquitting himself as a gentleman on the way out. He has nothing to be ashamed of or apologize for. Why would he? He saw his life's work and got to it.
Common slant as you probably know is, that both Barnabas and Johm Mark specifically had problems over the corporate structure of the early church - Jerusalem in charge as opposed to local church rule. Add to that the incorporation of "grace" in Christ with a Jewish lifestyle and view of God, there were disagreements, we know. That's a generalization of that viewpoint but more or less how it's put - they didn't "stand" with Paul and so were off in the back forty somewhere, regardless of what they were doing. Not a lot of detail though, not a lot of facts.
Paul himself was characterized variously as a kind of intellectual, spiritual esoteric, a dillattante, difficult. I'm not knocking him or taking away from what he did or wrote - I'm just saying - I doubt he was a picnic either.
This whole idea of having the freedom to pick and choose assignments in The Way without being labeled a quitter, or worse, is laughable at best. Not only would you be labeled a failure, but God's protection would(supposedly) be lifted from you if you chose to do otherwise. If you really never saw that, I would have to say "good for you".
Does that answer your question?
BTW -----Sometimes "quiting" is just another way of saying "I changed my course", as in "I can see this road is a dead end so I am going to "quit" following it."
i understood this post
--
i know i'm obnoxious but this is more like a doctrinal thingy..... there are so many verses quoted i'm lost
socks.......it's that *impression* (with NO real specific facts about John Mark) that I alluded to in my first post.
To me......here's the irony:
1) Many times on GS......some wierwille-defenders make comparisons of wierwille "being like the Apostle Paul".....in that, supposedly, he got this revelation like it hadn't been known since the first century.
2) Wierwille mentions Peter Wade in pfal......that little booklet on righteousness that Wade did. And, ironically.....I do not recall wierwille mentioning anyone else in pfal as his "right-hand man" sorta speak.
3) Wade "quit" following wierwille's ministry and started his own ministry.
4) Whitedove posts this little article about "quitting" on the About the Way forum........not the Open forum. Seems that he thought more would read it there.
Not what I said , what I said was that most here know Peter Wade from the way so it seemed that was the logical place to post it. Again the author had a connection to the way the story does not specifically.
5) To a degree, I understand the point of the article and what whitedove is saying.........but it seems to have a negative slant. And, for scripture to not specify why JM left........leaves more questions, than answers.
6) And.......with John Mark committed to the work.....and penning the gospel of Mark......could it have been "the right thing to do" in his walk with God at the time to *disassociate* with Paul....????
I can't see where one would come to that conclusion . Paul went to the work scripture says John Mark did not, he went the other way he withdrew. Scripture records what Paul did how the work went presuming that Paul was doing Gods work which I think scripture concludes for the most part, Then it is illogical to conclude that if Paul was doing His work and John Mark went in the other direction from Paul (who was doing the work) , and as scripture records went not unto the work then I wonder what possible reason someone would have to assume he somehow was doing the right thing.
7) IMO.......it seems like Barnabus was a dynamic man "to hang with" ....... so maybe, the Paul & John Mark "two-by-two system" just wasn't working out. Is that supposed to be a big deal? Is that "quitting" on God?
Again see above when scripture records for all time that John Mark did not go unto the work I'd say that is telling If Paul was doing Gods work and he did not go ,in fact left mid way when he was on a course to do His work. Yes I'd say he quit. That in itself is not a big deal, it happens all the time what was of importance was that he at some point changed his course. And notable when that happened Paul also noted his change of course and again appears to be happy to work with him.
8) And, finally........were Way Corps supposed to walk step-for-step with wierwille/twi a lifetime? I find it interesting that when the 20th anniversary of the FIRST CORPS REUNION took place in Ohio......Bo and the gang didn't label it an "Ex-corps Reunion."
I don't, they completed the in residence training together, It looks to me like they understood that it was a lifetime service commitment even though the way did not honor their part, they understood theirs. They, I assume they are trying to continue with the program commitment as best as possible considering that the program itself has failed to keep up with theirs.
Thanks Whitedove. I don't have a problem with what Wade's saying. I'd assume it has reason to be on this thread as posted because it's meant to deal with some aspect of the Thread topic which is in relation to the Way, but as a general encouragement, it works fine as is. It's a simple message. I doubt he had the Way in mind when writing it, I thought you did in posting it.
There's a few points to ponder in the JM/P/B relationship and what you posted, I doubt we're going to come to complete agreement. Although minor a couple of the points I'm seeing really speak to the Thread topic -
When the quote from Vines (am I misreading?) says something like - never heard from in scripture again - that has an ominous sound to it - of complete silence. And that's not true, chronologically Barnabas and John Mark are mentioned "again" in letters written, after these events. So it's not factually true. We're not splitting hairs here or squeezing tomatoes - there's few mentions comparitively in the bible's epistles about anyone specific. So the fact they figure into - Paul's - letters and activities is significant as far as air time in what we call "the bible".
The section you refered to was not Vines the quote above it was Vines this section was my post.
Quote:
Remembering that at the start of the chapter Paul and Barnabas had had gone to Jerusalem because of "a no small dissention "with those who had come and were teaching circumcision. Barnabas and Paul stood together , later in the chapter it says they continued teaching and preaching together. For them to have such contention that they withdrew from one another is telling. these are two individuals that had traveled and fought side by side for the gospel. Remember also that it was Barnabas in chapter 9 (who after Paul was taken by night out of Damascus) who stood up for Paul at Jerusalem. It was Barnabas who spent a year in Antioch with Paul. Not likely Paul would have thrown that away on a whim, he clearly felt very strongly about John Mark not coming along. not only does the scripture note than John Mark departed but also that he went not unto the work. It was clear to Paul that it was John Mark who had "aphistemi " "to cause to depart, to cause revolt' intransitively "to stand off, or aloof, or to depart from anyone. Also notable in scripture is the fact that Barnabas sailed off to Cyprus never to be heard from in scripture again. While quit and deserted are not King James ,Bibles like the Amplified who translates it as quit and deserted and the NIV attempt to make the King James English more understandable in a modern sense. When someone sets out on a task or course and fails to complete that task or course that's what we call it. If you prefer to cause revolt, "to stand off, or aloof, that's fine as well , While it is true that no specific reason was outlined in scripture it is clear that the reason was not passive in action, It certainly was of such note that Paul clearly remembered it. In any case it was not that he simply left and went home for some good reason to imply that is misleading
It is true that there was no work after that Acts 15 period where any record of Barnabas's work was noted in scripture once he went back home to Cyprus. The mentions in Galatians are all not new work but further details of the pre Acts 15 records. John Mark as I noted is mentioned later on as being again useful to Paul Barnabas was never mentioned in that manner again. Given the relationship they had I think Paul would have noted it had they reconciled and Barnabas was again useful in the work, he did so for John Mark and his relationship was far more closely intertwined with Barnabas.
He was born of Jewish parents of the tribe of Levi. His aunt was the mother of John, surnamed Mark (Colossians 4:10), widely assumed to be the same Mark as the person traditionally believed to be the author of the Gospel of Mark. He was a native of Cyprus, where he possessed land (Acts 4:36, 37), which he sold, and gave the proceeds to the church in Jerusalem. When Paul returned to Jerusalem after his conversion, Barnabas took him and introduced him to the apostles (9:27); some believe that it is possible that they had been fellow students in the school of Gamaliel. Given all this I can't imagine that Paul would note John Marks change who he had less interaction with, and fail to note Barnabas if in fact his relationship to the work changed.
8) And, finally........were Way Corps supposed to walk step-for-step with wierwille/twi a lifetime? I find it interesting that when the 20th anniversary of the FIRST CORPS REUNION took place in Ohio......Bo and the gang didn't label it an "Ex-corps Reunion."
I don't, they completed the in residence training together, It looks to me like they understood that it was a lifetime service commitment even though the way did not honor their part, they understood theirs. They, I assume they are trying to continue with the program commitment as best as possible considering that the program itself has failed to keep up with theirs.
Huh?
whitedove......usually, you take the stance that "the corps commitment was to stand with twi a lifetime." You know.....the signing on the line thingy.
Now.....you seem to be saying that the program (twi) has failed and corps are to honor their part by making individual choices to serve God a lifetime with their desires and abilities. THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING.
Howard's response to these First Corps..........threatened them with legal action (trespassing) if they set foot on twi property......in other words, twi considers them "dropped corps." Now, do you see why this "labeling" is a bully-club that twi always uses on corps?
Welllll, yeah, John Mark is mentioned again, in the bible, later. Barnabas is not. Assumptions being what they will be...to each their own. Acts 15 occurs approximately 50 AD, 49-50 AD. Later, Paul wrote 2 Timothy and in 4:10 and 11 makes the following note -
For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia.Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry.
This was written about early to mid-60 AD.
Demas is noted point blank as having forsaken Paul. Titus is in Dalmatia. Only Luke is with Paul at that time. Only Demas is noted as having gone south. Mark is asked to accompany Timothy, and since his overall profile seemed to be one of help, "service" to the church and guys like Paul, Paul must have seen a place for Mark. Paul was inbetween (probably) his first and second imprisonment.
Since Paul took issue with Barnabas over John Mark's leaving earlier in Acts, sure - something was up in Paul's mind. Barnabas saw John Mark in a different light. But later, who's Paul ask for? John Mark.
Barnabas's contribution was huge, in the early church. Paul was brought along by him, I doubt - and it's only my opinion - that Barnabas faded out of God's Polaroid, in my view. A lot gets read into what these guys did and didn't do. A lot.
IMO< the shallowest part of the "Corps Committment" was to hang around New Knoxville Ohio's leadership regardless of what they did or didn't do. A person has to decide what they want to do and who they want to do it with. The worst part of having to get away from some of those mean bas-tards was getting cut off from so many others of good heart and spirit. But for my own part, my trust level went into the minus category, so low I wouldn't have trusted a one of the "leadership" at that time with having any kind of an effect, even indirect, on me or my family.
Quit? Dam right. But the personal committment I fed over the years in the Way is fat and happy and living large even today. Certainly not by their standard. Which provides me with a good compass - as long as I'm on their sh-it list, I'm probably doing something right. Staying away. Which is exactly what they need to do with me - stay away.
T-bone said: Religious passion is a powerful force. TWI took advantage of that - yeah, ol' vp figured out how to harness that power...he got people to hitch their wagons onto his grand delusion - We're the only ones working for the one true God! Dat's riiiiiiight! He told me so...audibly!!!! The psychological entanglement wrought ever so subtly on followers will ratchet-up as one "ascends" the hierarchy of TWI. Sure, there was peer pressure. But that only reinforced the mindset drummed into "the truly committed ones" – on Corps Night, in Corps meetings, in the atmosphere of household public opinion…I bet just about any "significant" teaching to fall on the ears of those "dedicated to a lifetime of Christian service" were peppered with those "lovely ties that bind" – ideas that drive the barbed hooks deeper into the heart:
Where else are you going to go?
To walk out on God's ministry is to plunge into oblivion.
Who else is rightly dividing the Word?
Remember who taught you the Word.
You're to be especially good to the household.
Penworks says: Ditto. Anyone with an interest in how techniques are used to inculcate these ideas might want to check out some reading on cults, like Combatting Cult Mind Control by Steven Hassan. It is very thorough and easy to read. When I left twi in 1987 I sure wish a book like this had been around then...there were a few like Mind Benders and Snapping, but they're not as good, IMO.
I may sound like a broken record (and a book nerd) because I recommend this book on many different posts here at GSC, but hey - if you want to really understand something, it helps to do some in-depth reading that you can't get in short posts like these...
Ditto on Hassan's books, Penworks…and let me throw in a couple more: Scripture Twisting: 20 Ways the Cults Misread the Bible by James Sire and The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuseby David Johnson & Jeff VanVonderen.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
46
28
47
24
Popular Days
Mar 21
55
Mar 19
50
Mar 25
39
Mar 27
31
Top Posters In This Topic
skyrider 46 posts
oldiesman 28 posts
WhiteDove 47 posts
waysider 24 posts
Popular Days
Mar 21 2008
55 posts
Mar 19 2008
50 posts
Mar 25 2008
39 posts
Mar 27 2008
31 posts
Posted Images
socks
So what's the point about John Mark being made, Whitedove? They disagreed with each other, that we know. A cut and paste of Vine's seems to imply that Barnabas fell off the planet, as did John Mark. We know that's not the case.
That's completely imposing a viewpoint that doesn't hold up under examination, in my mind. It assumes the negative outcome, due - apparently - to the split between Paul and Barnabas and John Mark's actiions.
"Never to be heard from in scripture again" is incorrect. Barnabas is mentioned elsewhere, in the N.T. by Paul. It's just as safe to assume from all the records that Paul and Barnabas didn't start wearing "That Other Guy Sucks" t-shirts and ended up on different sides of the spiritual fence but continued on with their personal ministries.
The entire mentality of "never heard from again" comes and goes in relation to these kinds of records. It's like a form of "greasespot by midnight". It seems mildly idiotic for historians to take that stance when most of the disciples and followers of Jesus Christ during His life and immediately following are hardly mentioned at all.
There's a huge tendency to focus on a few well known names, when we know from Acts itself that many 1,000's of people came into Christianity by the 6th chapter of Acts alone. Ignoring the mass growth of the early church and the impact the individuals must have had on the future of the church is just crayzee. It seems to keep the focus on a few, as if the church only grew because of a few people. That's rediculous.
The lesson to be seen in these three guys in my opinion is resolution and continuance. Nothing stopped because they got ticked off at each other and split up.
The issue in relation to Wayfers and The Way Nash has to do with idea of "quitting". John Mark may not have had any good reason to leave them when he did. The reason isn't given, so if we take the negative view we still don't know why. I don't know why he left their road trip.
Anyone who leaves the Way today in route can speak for themselves. It can be known. Take it or leave it, but it's not a secret once stated.
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Peters message was..... People, you may quit for a time but the Bible says that "if we are faithless, he remains faithful—for he cannot deny himself" (II Timothy 2:13). That's good isn't it? You may fail but you're not a failure. You may quit and say I've had enough for awhile but God says He remains faithful. He loves you just the same as he loved you before. So can you learn something from John Mark? Yes, you certainly can. There are times when we quit but what we have to do is to pick up the pieces and get going again. I think that is the point as well.
Well then there is this record Galatians 2:13 - And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. (to join in acting the hypocrite ) "sunupokrinomai"
That sounds pretty negative, it looks like a negative outcome from where I sit, it sure doesn't sound good.
Barnabas is not mentioned in Acts again, the few records where he is is in reference to the events in Acts and give us more background on the record. And as we see above in Galatians not particularly good at that.Looking at the words used in scripture like revolt, withdrew, to stand off, aloof, together with the record in Galatians and the lack of further mention in Acts. I cant see much support for a positive rendering, I'd say if they did their case would not have much to hold up on. It appears that Barnabas went home to Cyprus what he did there is not known, he may have continued with his own ministry, Clearly there is no mention of it. There is however of Paul's, I think that is telling. Barnabas may have continued with his ministry, but Paul I believe continued with Gods.
The lesson to be seen in these three guys in my opinion is resolution and continuance. Nothing stopped because they got ticked off at each other and split up.I don't believe that the church only grew because of a few people.
I don't believe that either Peter Wade or myself mentioned the story in relation to The Way, no parallel was made to the Way that I saw. I understood the point to be that sometimes in life we quit things for whatever reason. We may quit even our relationship with God, but he is faithful and loves us as he always did. However if we want a relationship with Him (relationship being two not one sided) then we have to pick up and start again. I think that is exactly what John Mark did ,and as set as Paul was on him not going with him ,he remained open to John and down the road his view toward him changed. I think a case could be made for the reason they left, being grace vs circumcision it is quite possible that John Mark and we know that from Galatians that Barnabas at least at one point sided with Peter, and James and those at Jerusalem. It's certainly speculation but interesting food for thought.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
No relation to The Way..????........how about opening this thread in the About the Way forum. <_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
I think what I said was .......
I don't believe that either Peter Wade or myself mentioned the story in relation to The Way, no parallel was made to the Way that I saw.
I did not say it had "no relation to the Way", those are your misquotes I said the story did not, another words the story was about quitting and starting again in life and Gods point of view when we do . I placed it in about the Way because that's where most people know Peter Wade from. However the story is not exclusive to former way people ,in fact it applies to anyone , also noted that neither I nor Peter addressed any examples to the Way. If you imported those from your life into it that would be you doing. CLEAR NOW ? ..........
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Thanks Whitedove. I don't have a problem with what Wade's saying. I'd assume it has reason to be on this thread as posted because it's meant to deal with some aspect of the Thread topic which is in relation to the Way, but as a general encouragement, it works fine as is. It's a simple message. I doubt he had the Way in mind when writing it, I thought you did in posting it.
There's a few points to ponder in the JM/P/B relationship and what you posted, I doubt we're going to come to complete agreement. Although minor a couple of the points I'm seeing really speak to the Thread topic -
When the quote from Vines (am I misreading?) says something like - never heard from in scripture again - that has an ominous sound to it - of complete silence. And that's not true, chronologically Barnabas and John Mark are mentioned "again" in letters written, after these events. So it's not factually true. We're not splitting hairs here or squeezing tomatoes - there's few mentions comparitively in the bible's epistles about anyone specific. So the fact they figure into - Paul's - letters and activities is significant as far as air time in what we call "the bible".
There's some things we can derive from the records that yes, their doctrinal stances may have been an issue. But to paint them as gone and goner, is inaccurate - unless -
Their goneness is based on the fact that they're not mentioned anymore in Pauls' journeys. The significance of that is a topic in itself I think.
I think it does completely speak to the topic of the thread though - that quote is characteristic of the generalized statements that are made about people, that give an impression of they're being something wrong but not exactly whyyyyyy....when doing that we should have the facts straight, no?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
socks.......it's that *impression* (with NO real specific facts about John Mark) that I alluded to in my first post.
To me......here's the irony:
1) Many times on GS......some wierwille-defenders make comparisons of wierwille "being like the Apostle Paul".....in that, supposedly, he got this revelation like it hadn't been known since the first century.
2) Wierwille mentions Peter Wade in pfal......that little booklet on righteousness that Wade did. And, ironically.....I do not recall wierwille mentioning anyone else in pfal as his "right-hand man" sorta speak.
3) Wade "quit" following wierwille's ministry and started his own ministry.
4) Whitedove posts this little article about "quitting" on the About the Way forum........not the Open forum. Seems that he thought more would read it there.
5) To a degree, I understand the point of the article and what whitedove is saying.........but it seems to have a negative slant. And, for scripture to not specify why JM left........leaves more questions, than answers.
6) And.......with John Mark committed to the work.....and penning the gospel of Mark......could it have been "the right thing to do" in his walk with God at the time to *disassociate* with Paul....????
7) IMO.......it seems like Barnabus was a dynamic man "to hang with" ....... so maybe, the Paul & John Mark "two-by-two system" just wasn't working out. Is that supposed to be a big deal? Is that "quitting" on God?
8) And, finally........were Way Corps supposed to walk step-for-step with wierwille/twi a lifetime? I find it interesting that when the 20th anniversary of the FIRST CORPS REUNION took place in Ohio......Bo and the gang didn't label it an "Ex-corps Reunion."
:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Is that the reunion where H. Allen got wind of it and wrote them not to show up at the Way? I think the new motto he was citing was "I never met a friend I wouldn't refuse at the Way", or something to that effect. No - it was "You're never welcome at the Way - anymore". Yeah.
I understand your point and think it's well taken....were Way Corps supposed to walk step-for-step with wierwille/twi a lifetime?
I think anyone who saw the Wayski's in the late 60's could tell by the early 70's - within a few years - we weren't going to hang with VPW forever. Even if we thought we should, we weren't going to and actually, IMO, shouldn't have. And didn't, although for different reasons I envisioned at that time.
Loose affiliations over time - fine. But not the kissy-hugsy seeya at the Rock, forever, no. Wade probably went the best of all routes, excusing himself quietly and acquitting himself as a gentleman on the way out. He has nothing to be ashamed of or apologize for. Why would he? He saw his life's work and got to it.
Common slant as you probably know is, that both Barnabas and Johm Mark specifically had problems over the corporate structure of the early church - Jerusalem in charge as opposed to local church rule. Add to that the incorporation of "grace" in Christ with a Jewish lifestyle and view of God, there were disagreements, we know. That's a generalization of that viewpoint but more or less how it's put - they didn't "stand" with Paul and so were off in the back forty somewhere, regardless of what they were doing. Not a lot of detail though, not a lot of facts.
Paul himself was characterized variously as a kind of intellectual, spiritual esoteric, a dillattante, difficult. I'm not knocking him or taking away from what he did or wrote - I'm just saying - I doubt he was a picnic either.
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i understood this post
--
i know i'm obnoxious but this is more like a doctrinal thingy..... there are so many verses quoted i'm lost
what do you want to know i'm a way corps vet
no bible allowed
i'm a proud quitter too
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
Huh?
whitedove......usually, you take the stance that "the corps commitment was to stand with twi a lifetime." You know.....the signing on the line thingy.
Now.....you seem to be saying that the program (twi) has failed and corps are to honor their part by making individual choices to serve God a lifetime with their desires and abilities. THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING.
Howard's response to these First Corps..........threatened them with legal action (trespassing) if they set foot on twi property......in other words, twi considers them "dropped corps." Now, do you see why this "labeling" is a bully-club that twi always uses on corps?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Welllll, yeah, John Mark is mentioned again, in the bible, later. Barnabas is not. Assumptions being what they will be...to each their own. Acts 15 occurs approximately 50 AD, 49-50 AD. Later, Paul wrote 2 Timothy and in 4:10 and 11 makes the following note -
For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia.Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry.
This was written about early to mid-60 AD.
Demas is noted point blank as having forsaken Paul. Titus is in Dalmatia. Only Luke is with Paul at that time. Only Demas is noted as having gone south. Mark is asked to accompany Timothy, and since his overall profile seemed to be one of help, "service" to the church and guys like Paul, Paul must have seen a place for Mark. Paul was inbetween (probably) his first and second imprisonment.
Since Paul took issue with Barnabas over John Mark's leaving earlier in Acts, sure - something was up in Paul's mind. Barnabas saw John Mark in a different light. But later, who's Paul ask for? John Mark.
Barnabas's contribution was huge, in the early church. Paul was brought along by him, I doubt - and it's only my opinion - that Barnabas faded out of God's Polaroid, in my view. A lot gets read into what these guys did and didn't do. A lot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
IMO< the shallowest part of the "Corps Committment" was to hang around New Knoxville Ohio's leadership regardless of what they did or didn't do. A person has to decide what they want to do and who they want to do it with. The worst part of having to get away from some of those mean bas-tards was getting cut off from so many others of good heart and spirit. But for my own part, my trust level went into the minus category, so low I wouldn't have trusted a one of the "leadership" at that time with having any kind of an effect, even indirect, on me or my family.
Quit? Dam right. But the personal committment I fed over the years in the Way is fat and happy and living large even today. Certainly not by their standard. Which provides me with a good compass - as long as I'm on their sh-it list, I'm probably doing something right. Staying away. Which is exactly what they need to do with me - stay away.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
see now there's the thing ! the personal commitment
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
T-bone said: Religious passion is a powerful force. TWI took advantage of that - yeah, ol' vp figured out how to harness that power...he got people to hitch their wagons onto his grand delusion - We're the only ones working for the one true God! Dat's riiiiiiight! He told me so...audibly!!!! The psychological entanglement wrought ever so subtly on followers will ratchet-up as one "ascends" the hierarchy of TWI. Sure, there was peer pressure. But that only reinforced the mindset drummed into "the truly committed ones" – on Corps Night, in Corps meetings, in the atmosphere of household public opinion…I bet just about any "significant" teaching to fall on the ears of those "dedicated to a lifetime of Christian service" were peppered with those "lovely ties that bind" – ideas that drive the barbed hooks deeper into the heart:
Where else are you going to go?
To walk out on God's ministry is to plunge into oblivion.
Who else is rightly dividing the Word?
Remember who taught you the Word.
You're to be especially good to the household.
Penworks says: Ditto. Anyone with an interest in how techniques are used to inculcate these ideas might want to check out some reading on cults, like Combatting Cult Mind Control by Steven Hassan. It is very thorough and easy to read. When I left twi in 1987 I sure wish a book like this had been around then...there were a few like Mind Benders and Snapping, but they're not as good, IMO.
I may sound like a broken record (and a book nerd) because I recommend this book on many different posts here at GSC, but hey - if you want to really understand something, it helps to do some in-depth reading that you can't get in short posts like these...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Ditto on Hassan's books, Penworks…and let me throw in a couple more: Scripture Twisting: 20 Ways the Cults Misread the Bible by James Sire and The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse by David Johnson & Jeff VanVonderen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.