Mark Clarke

The memory is the first thing to go. I forget what the second thing is....

Yes, the statue of Christ is in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. It wasn't by Gutson Borglum though. Back on topic, I don't quite understand what the statue has to do with TWI or why it was used in the slide show.

Yes, I was referring to the RC Church. Historically that is where the idea of ordained priests which are set apart from other believers came from. Outside of the RC, it is seen in cults like TWI, and some fundamentalist circles, but many other Protestant denominations recognize this as unbiblical. Diotrephes (and people like him) loved to be first, but that was not a Godly idea. Also, it was not sanctioned by the Church at the time, but reproved, as in this epistle. Later the idea of a special priest class became the official policy of what would become the RC Church.

COURAGE What makes a King out of a slave? Courage! What makes the flag on the mast to wave? Courage! What makes the elephant charge his tusk, in the misty mist or the dusky dusk? What makes the muskrat guard his musk? Courage! What makes the sphinx the seventh wonder? Courage! What makes the dawn come up like thunder? Courage! What makes the Hottentot so hot? What puts the "ape" in apricot? What have they got that I ain't got? ...Courage! (you can say that again!)

When it comes to "ministering" which means serving, we are all supposed to serve in whatever way we are best suited. There was never any "hierarchy" in the first century church. The idea of a class of believers that was somehow above or separate from the "ordinary" believers came about much later. The Old Testament Law spoke of ordaining priests who were of the priestly class, who were the ones authorized to offer sacrifices. But under the New Covenant we are all priests, who offer spiritual sacrifices. The New Testament contains descriptions of people overseeing churches or groups of churches, and there are descriptions of individuals being "ordained" to a particular office or function, such as the seven men in Acts 6. But there is no record of anyone being ordained for life, the way OT priests were. The failure to understand the difference led to the so-called priesthood in the Roman Catholic Church, which in turn led to the concept of "ordained clergy" in many Protestant denominations. There is certainly nothing wrong with having a degree in theology, and an honest Bible scholar recognizes that others may have just as valuable insight as he does. And our society recognizes certain individuals with the legal authority to perform weddings and such. But this is an office or function, not a lifelong change in "rank." Some denominations only use titles like "minister" or "pastor" in relation to their position in a local church, as long as the person remains in that position. There is no Biblical basis for a person being given a lifetime title like "Reverend" that sets him or her apart. Such class or rank designations are not only un-Biblical, but they also make it possible for some individuals to abuse their power. They also can give unsuspecting church members the wrong impression of the leader's power and authority. There is only one Head of the Church, and that is Jesus, who works in each of us in varying ways.

Actually God is called Israel's father in a few OT passages. Not in the same sense as the New Birth, though. But more importantly, the image of a "big bad evil dude waiting to bonk me on the head and turn His back on me if I do something wrong" is not only absent from the Church Epistles, it is not in the Bible at all. When He pronounced judgment in the OT He was not "waiting for them to screw up." He warned them and called them back many times before punishing them, and even then the punishment was to get them to see the error of their ways and call them back. It was a misconception based on dispensationalism in TWI that presented God as harsh in the OT but kind and forgiving in the NT. God's mercy abounded even in the OT - if it hadn't we wouldn't be here. That said, I like your description of God meeting us where we are. His patience and forbearance are AMAZING. The sacrifice of Jesus was so costly, and yet it made it possible for ANYONE, Jew or Gentile, to receive God's promise of life in the age to come, which none of us deserves. So it's all grace, but on the condition that we accept His offer, by way of His Son. Sadly, some do not accept it, and so they will not be saved. But that doesn't mean salvation is based on works, as some say. It's all grace.

Was that before he was a wrestler? :)

Reminds me of a quote I heard years ago: "Children should be seen and not had."

OK, so MOST religions believe they are right and others wrong. Or you could even narrow it down to MANY. My point was that it was not limited to the Pharisees, so having that attitude does not make you a Pharisee. Besides, the only reason I even mentioned the Pharisees in the first place was to point out that if Jesus had meant to say that the Kingdom of God is "within you" he would not be saying it to the Pharisees whom he called "of your father the devil." The better translation is "the Kingdom of God is among you" and he went on to describe how the Kingdom would eventually come to earth visibly.

By that logic, then everyone who is committed to their belief is a Pharisee. Practically every religion says their way is the right way and others are wrong. This attitude was not unique to the Pharisees. As for what I believe, I don't consider it "my brand of believing" - I just believe what Jesus said.

That, and the twisting of Scriptures to fit their rationalization. They somehow couldn't see that several passages referred to both fornication AND idolatry, so there must be more to fornication than just their "figurative" interpretation. Maybe idolatry is compared with literal fornication because literal fornication is bad? Naaaahh!

I assume you're referring to when he said, "The Kingdom of God is within you," which is often quoted but usually misunderstood. A better translation (which is in many other English versions) is "the Kingdom of God is AMONG you." He was talking to the Pharisees, so if he meant "within you" he wouldn't have said it to them. Signs of the Kingdom were there for all to see, but he wasn't redefining the Kingdom as a spiritual kingdom in the heart, as many interpret that passage. He goes on in that context (Luke 17) to speak of the Son coming visibly in judgment. He is here now through the holy spirit in believers, but he is not physically present on earth. He is going to be though, when he returns from heaven.

Tzaia, Don't forget, they rationalize all the sex by saying that "fornication" in all those verses you quoted means "spiritual fornication" which is idolatry. According to them, as long as they aren't worshiping other gods, they can do anything 'cause they're above the law. They have all the answers ready.

What gets me is that they based in on a Bible verse that they completely misread! Rom. 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. Notice it doesn't say, "Mark them which disagree with you" or "Mark them which don't bow to your leadership." It's talking about "them which cause divisions." Who in these cases is causing the division - the people who ask questions, or the organization that kicks them out for doing so, badmouths them afterward, and forbids any other followers from contacting them? I like to say we marked and avoided THEM!

Is that K. C. Pillai? I didn't know he made cookies. Must be oriental chips! :D Anyway, happy birthday! After all, it's a MAJOR AWARD!

The good news is that so far on Amazon, Rita and McKeon were the only two negative reviews out of ten. The others were all supportive and in agreement. Plus those two negative reviews received rebuttals in the comments section.

You'd have to look carefully into the legal aspects of it. If you mention TWI by name they may be able to sue. Personally, if I were going to put that much effort into publishing something, I'd rather tell people about the real Jesus and the good news he brings.

That's because LCM was no better at acting than he was at dancing.

Indeed, the biggest cause of the "look-down-on-the-sick" attitude was the false teaching of "the law of believing." If you had health problems, or financial difficulties, it was your lack of believing, and so it was "your own fault." This wasn't limited to TWI, though. There are many other Christians who hold such ideas. It largely started with E. W. Kenyon, and is continued by such preachers as Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copeland, and Charles Capps. They all focus on the "power of words" and the "power of confession" and many of the same type of ideas we learned in TWI. I have even heard it said that if you are sick or poor, it is a sin! It is largely based on misinterpretations of Bible passages such as Isaiah 53:5, John 10:10, and III John 2. These and others were taken out of context and used as "proof texts." God wants "above all things" for you to prosper and be in health, so if you aren't prospering and in health, you are contrary to God's will, and therefore sinning. But a closer examination of those verses reveals what they actually mean, and taken together with other verses we are told that we are in a fallen world and can expect suffering until the Lord returns. God can and does deliver many times, but it is nowhere guaranteed, and nowhere are we told we have the right to demand it. And there are, in fact, Biblical references to God turning our sickness and suffering into a learning experience. I have written in detail about this on my website, for anyone who's interested.

For the record, the class came first, back in the early '80s. The book was published in '93. I remember enjoying the class, because the idea of seeing the power of the first century church revived in our day was exciting. Needless to say, it never happened. One of the reviews on Amazon said the following: "The outreach of the first century may have more to do with the miraculous results, the great deliverance, and the change by way of an inner working, the great new birth, than any formula the author may have stumbled on." I would also add that part of the reason we don't see the results they saw in the first century is that since then the church has lost sight of the true message that Jesus had commissioned them/us to preach: the Gospel of the Kingdom.

It doesn't make me think religion is for nuts; it just makes me think that too many nuts IN religion give it (and God) a bad name.

Didn't see that one coming!

What do you get when you cross a Jehovah's Witness with a Unitarian Universalist? ...Someone who goes door to door for no particular reason! What do you get when you cross a KKK member with an agnostic? ...Someone who burns question marks on your lawn! Then there's the one about the dyslexic, agnostic, insomniac... ...He lay awake at night wondering if there really was a dog. (old, I know, but still good!)

You don't need an end time prophet to know that what we were taught about the rapture and the tribulation was wrong. There are a number of writings about it.

Interesting. I'd heard speculation about his reasons, but I didn't know he actually came out and said it.