You have a point, Oldiesman. But you're also missing one.
True, TWI's writings showed respect for the cross. Thank you for pointing that out. Their practice on the other hand, was another thing entirely. Do you want a list of the number of times the cross is ridiculed in TWI tapes and live teachings? I'm sure there's no shortage.
How about this: how about a list of TWI sites and locations that have a cross on them? Oh, you mean there ARE none? Oh, I see.
It's true that evil people can wear a cross. It's also a distraction from the point.
Jehovah's Witnesses believe Jesus Christ was the first being created by God, and that he abandoned his heavenly position to become the earthly Messiah.
Actually, I'm going through the old blue songbook and the brown one.
"Banner of the Cross" appears in the blue songbook, but not in the brown one.
I don't know when that particular lyric change (from "Banner of the Cross" to "Banner of the Lord") took place.
Song 89 in the brown songbook is "The Old Rugged Cross."
WordWolf: The phenomenon you describe appears to be something we observed after leaving TWI. It might be a Geer phenomenon. The lyric changes may have taken place before we left, and got incorporated into our songbooks. But that's speculating.
The cross like the letter T with the top line lowered to the middle of the vertical line is what people wear or have on their walls or what is on the steeple ...
yes they did teach it was like wearing a gun or an electric chair but it was also about the fact that symbol of the cros was NOT accurate by bible standards ... oh man the details of how it looked was important of how the ACTUAL REAL cruxifiction looked it got a little compulsive obsessive there with the the number of people and the hill and WHAT it looked like..
what the man Jesus CHRIST hung from how it happen all the detail had to be told just so .
did you get that piece of lint of the couch? hmmm did ya ?
the research dept went over the top with details and the cross was mocked because what is commonly known as the cross (not in the spirtual sense OLDS) the symbol was wrong and TWI had the REAL TRUTH !! nananan na na .
the world was wrong and of course TWI had the only real truth on that!!!!! we win they lose.. that is the game they played and that is what was important to twi people look how smart we have the REAL facts and that is wrong wrong wrong..
I ask who the ***** cares and how the hell did all of that research help anyone recognize what Jesus Christ DId for Gods childrn? it didnt at all but that was never the goal . it was to tell the whole freaking world religous market most of all they were wrong. twi knew what it really looked like.
A separate issue I'm not ready to explore is-is it wrong for me to dislike
the other type? They acknowledge the INCREDIBLE price paid for our sins,
which, again, twi was uncomfortable with.
When you are ready, WordWolf, you might be interested in taking a gander at the movie "Stigmata".
If you can get beyond the corny (imo) Hollywood special effects, the obvious conspiracy theory premise against the Catholic Church, and the twi-ish revulsion at the thought of the dead communicating via the living, then it's a good movie to see if you want to grasp just a part of what being crucified meant to Jesus (as described in the bible). ;)-->
Until that movie, I had not been able to grasp the reality of what Jesus was reported to have experienced. After that movie, however, I was so deeply moved in awe and gratitude that I went outside, found a couple of tiny twigs, twined them together in the shape of a cross, and carried that little cross with me in my hands at all times for several weeks. Held it in my hands when I worked, bathed, slept, everything. I still carry it with me in my purse...and I bring it out for inspiration, comfort and worship.
quote:...God says you are free because Christ bore everything contrary to you, nailing it to HIS CROSS. The enemies of the cross of Christ are those who do not believe or accept what Jesus did.
Stand fast, therefore, in the Lord. Jesus bore His cross -- not of wood, but of sin and all its consequences, so that you could live the more abundant life. The wooden cross was borne by Simon of Cyrene, the spiritual cross by Jesus.
What is more important, the identity of the person who carried the cross, or the identity of the person nailed to it?
When you see a cross on a building, what do you think?
When you see a cross removed from a building, what effect does it have?
Sometimes TWI got it right when it comes to preaching the cross. And sometimes they got it dead wrong. There's no sin in symbolism, despite the lies of TWI. There's no sin in seeing a cross and thinking, "Oh yeah, the sacrifice. I remember."
Sometimes TWI got it right. Sometimes TWI got it wrong.
quote:When I see a cross, I'm reminded of Christ's sacrifice. When TWI saw a cross, they were reminded of Christian tradition and their own supposed hermeneutical superiority.
The cross symbol is not necessarily a godly symbol to everyone, especially us in TWI who were taught its origins. But even so, the idea that TWI should have had respect for and not ridicule the cross symbol is a good debatable point seeing as many Christians respect it and on that point alone I would tend to agree. One must remember when we in TWI saw the wooden/silver/gold cross, no question it was a negative symbol because of what we were taught and believed from Babylon Mystery Religion. The evil history of the Roman Catholic Church also didn't help us view the cross symbol as a godly one. With that said, it doesn't mean the twi position was disrespect for, ridicule for, or ignorance of the cross of Christ, the cross Christ bore, as I've noted from VPW's writings; what it meant was we chose to distinguish the two, something like the Jehovahs Witnesses having disdain for the Christmas holiday yet at the same time believing in the birth of Christ.
If you feel that TWI's position was not to disrespect the cross, would you at least agree that TWI's practice was often just that? That TWI's position and its practice were, every now and then, in a wee bit of conflict?
It looks like we're still not quite on the same page.
The cross symbol and the cross of Christ were two separate things in TWI. There was a complete disconnect.
We all know that TWI's position on the wooden/silver/gold cross symbol was one of disdain. We were even taught it wasn't a Christian symbol, from Babylon Mystery Religion. We believed that. Later on in his second book, Woodrow wrote that the cross symbol was godly:
quote:There is strong evidence, and that right within the bible, that the cross was not a recognized symbol of Tammuz! In Ezekiel 9, we read about a mark -- apparently a cross -- that was placed on the foreheads of the righteous: "...set a mark [tau] upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abomination that be done" (Ezek. 9:4,6). "According to the best interpretation of the text," says The Pulpit Commentary, "the mark seems to have been a cross." The letter tau in Near Eastern languages could be written as + or T, and so it was not unnatural for early Christian writers, such as Origen and Tertullian, to see in this a type of the cross of Christ.
The Babylon Connection?
Ralph Woodrow
page 59.
Where I disagree with some posters is the reference that twi's position was one of disrespect and ridicule for the cross of Christ simply because we viewed the cross symbol with disdain. The cross of Christ, in TWI, was separate and distinct from the wooden/silver/gold cross in everyone's mind. The cross symbol was an unchristian pagan symbol not connected with the true meaning of Christ's sacrifice. Do you really think that if the cross symbol, in TWI, meant or equalled or fully symbolized Christ's sacrifice, that we would have looked upon it with disdain and disrespect? No way.
Looking back, I agree we shouldn't have made that distinction. But you seem to be saying there is no distinction between the two and in the average Christian's mind, you're right. But you know that we were different and viewed things differently, much like the Jehovah's Witnesses do on certain things.
I think in order to really get the "bigger picture," one has to step back and look at the body of VPW's teachings as a whole.
I think it's really odd that in the book "Power For Abundang Living" there is virtually no mention of the cross, and its importance as the foundational doctrine of Christianity.
Yeah, the crucifixtion is mentioned, in the chapter on narrative development, to show how the traditional view of events is somehow "not right."
But take a look at VP's views on such things as repentance, righteousness, suffering (that's a biggie) the problem of sin and how to overcome it, renewing the mind, the "mystery," the "absent Christ," true worship, and many others. There is a gaping hole left in virtually all these teachings, in my mind anyway, that could have only been filled by the "preaching of the cross."
I think Danny hit the nail on the head, when he said: "Who needs the cross when you can just Believe."
My opinion. "Your mileage may vary," as my friend Alfakat likes to say. ;)-->
I've been saying all along that TWI made a distinction between the symbol and the "cross of Christ." That distinction was unbliblical and unnecessary. And in disdaining the symbol, they drew from the emotional impact of the symbol. That emotional impact is Biblical. It's fair game. It was unnecessary and WRONG for TWI to do what it did, even if its intentions were good (that is, even if its intentions were to flee idolatry).
I think TWI's attitude towards the symbol of the cross belies a fundamental attitude toward our walk with Christ in general.
In haste to "claim" the "victory" of walking on "resurrection ground" we neglected the other side of the coin. The suffering...the passion...the sacrifice that we are dailyentreated to engage - if need be - in our existential walk with our master.
I was encouraged to regard suffering, persecution, sacrifice, getting in the mud with sinners, being misunderstood, being defrauded, etc. as an evil, foreign, negative intrusion in my "victory walk".
The longer I live, the more I see that these are indeed the places that my master asks me to go. Sometimes I do, sometimes, to my chagrin, I decline.
quote: I've been saying all along that TWI made a distinction between the symbol and the "cross of Christ." That distinction was unbliblical and unnecessary. And in disdaining the symbol, they drew from the emotional impact of the symbol. That emotional impact is Biblical. It's fair game. It was unnecessary and WRONG for TWI to do what it did, even if its intentions were good (that is, even if its intentions were to flee idolatry).
OK, here's something to throw into the mix. I think the disdain for the cross that permeated VPW's theology, was born out of a sort of cognitive dissonance VP experienced. I don't think it was about "fleeing from idolatry" at all. But more about not being confronted with the price of sin.
I think the "preaching of the cross" was ignored, or conspicuously absent, because of VP's own failure to deal with sin in his own life. He tried to take a shortcut to the "more abundant life." And found bible teachings from other teachers that backed up his, "let's not deal with the problem of sin" philosophy. And enabled him to feel better about his hypocrisy. He wove them into a "body of teaching" with some glaring inconsistancies.
Hey, this is only my opinion, and my 20/20 hindsight. If somebody wants to call it "evil surmisings," so be it. I'm just trying to make sense out of something that hasn't made sense to me for decades.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
18
6
22
23
Popular Days
Dec 1
24
Nov 27
16
Nov 22
14
Nov 28
11
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 18 posts
TheInvisibleDan 6 posts
oldiesman 22 posts
ex10 23 posts
Popular Days
Dec 1 2003
24 posts
Nov 27 2003
16 posts
Nov 22 2003
14 posts
Nov 28 2003
11 posts
Danny
Who needs the cross when you can just Believe.
I think the cross was replaces with that idol.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Hi Danny,
Happy Thanksgiving to you and hope you and family are ok.
Love,
oldies
P.S. Happy Thanksgiving to all! Food for Thought: if you don't have a Turkey, it doesn't mean you don't respect Thanksgiving...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
You have a point, Oldiesman. But you're also missing one.
True, TWI's writings showed respect for the cross. Thank you for pointing that out. Their practice on the other hand, was another thing entirely. Do you want a list of the number of times the cross is ridiculed in TWI tapes and live teachings? I'm sure there's no shortage.
How about this: how about a list of TWI sites and locations that have a cross on them? Oh, you mean there ARE none? Oh, I see.
It's true that evil people can wear a cross. It's also a distraction from the point.
I'll just agree to disagree with you on this one.
But more than anything else,
Happy Thanksgiving.
Raf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
vickles
Oldiesman, I thought that the jehovah witness's don't even believe that jesus was born? Or am I mistaking it with another religion?
Ok!! I will not try to be a nice person...ok? I will not!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Vickles,
You're very much mistaken.
Jehovah's Witnesses believe Jesus Christ was the first being created by God, and that he abandoned his heavenly position to become the earthly Messiah.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Happy Thanksgiving, everyone.
===============================
Hm.
The cross.
That's that thing twi was fond of casually editing out of their songs.
The splinter groups often do it too.
Here's an easy way to check.
Look through your songbook.
Find something that rhymes with "cross" ending a line.
Compare it against its matching line. No rhyme, right?
But the other lines all rhymed.....
One of the first things twi was fond of doing was REMOVING the crosses
and steeples at locations they took over.
"If they'd have shot Jesus Christ with a machinegun, we'd all be wearing
machineguns."- lcm.
This was one other place where "Babylon Mystery Religion's" contents
were lauded to the sky.
Those are the same contents repudiated by the author in his followup
book "the Babylon Connection." Woodrow basically said "here's where my
last book was wrong, and why." He pretty much trashed his preceding book,
and in the process, gave intelligent reasons why the cross is not a
pagan symbol at present.
Those of you who still respect Bullinger's work might want to reread
"the Witness of the Stars". Bullinger believed that "crux" aka the
Southern Cross, was a symbol of the redemption. (Crux was visible from
Palestine at the time of the cruxifixion, per Bullinger and confirmed
by Zixar.) At the time I was attempting to stay awake thru Bullinger's
book, that concept pretty much invalidated the "bad cross" teaching I'd
heard. "Well, if GOD ALMIGHTY used it for the redemption, who am I to
gainsay Him?}"
Those of you who don't care about Bullinger, I refer you to Woodrow's
plain speaking in his newer book. He's aware that crosses have been used
for many things, but now, they are NOT.
Personally, I'm still not crazy of crucifixes-crosses with a beaten-down
figure on them. I HAVE seen a church with a crucifix-type symbol I
liked, though. It's a cross, there's Jesus in front, but it looks like
he's ascending. He's not shown as a defeated-looking man afflicted for
our transgressions, he's shown as the conqueror who paid the redemption
no one else could.
A separate issue I'm not ready to explore is-is it wrong for me to dislike
the other type? They acknowledge the INCREDIBLE price paid for our sins,
which, again, twi was uncomfortable with.
As lcm saw it, the cross was a disgusting symbol of idolatry similar to
the obelisks he hated. As he spewed, so spewed the moglets.
As vpw saw it, the cross was a symbol of traditional Christianity, that
thing he despised and lampooned as backward, man-based, and Bible-ignorant.
Traditional Christians, in all of his illustrations, were always contrasted
with us Christians who REALLY understood stuff, the few, the L337.
As a traditional symbol, it made a perennial target for him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Marching on! Marching on!
For Christ count everything but loss!
And to crown him King, we'll shout and sing
Beneath the banner of the...
lord.
?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Actually, I'm going through the old blue songbook and the brown one.
"Banner of the Cross" appears in the blue songbook, but not in the brown one.
I don't know when that particular lyric change (from "Banner of the Cross" to "Banner of the Lord") took place.
Song 89 in the brown songbook is "The Old Rugged Cross."
WordWolf: The phenomenon you describe appears to be something we observed after leaving TWI. It might be a Geer phenomenon. The lyric changes may have taken place before we left, and got incorporated into our songbooks. But that's speculating.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
The cross like the letter T with the top line lowered to the middle of the vertical line is what people wear or have on their walls or what is on the steeple ...
yes they did teach it was like wearing a gun or an electric chair but it was also about the fact that symbol of the cros was NOT accurate by bible standards ... oh man the details of how it looked was important of how the ACTUAL REAL cruxifiction looked it got a little compulsive obsessive there with the the number of people and the hill and WHAT it looked like..
what the man Jesus CHRIST hung from how it happen all the detail had to be told just so .
did you get that piece of lint of the couch? hmmm did ya ?
the research dept went over the top with details and the cross was mocked because what is commonly known as the cross (not in the spirtual sense OLDS) the symbol was wrong and TWI had the REAL TRUTH !! nananan na na .
the world was wrong and of course TWI had the only real truth on that!!!!! we win they lose.. that is the game they played and that is what was important to twi people look how smart we have the REAL facts and that is wrong wrong wrong..
I ask who the ***** cares and how the hell did all of that research help anyone recognize what Jesus Christ DId for Gods childrn? it didnt at all but that was never the goal . it was to tell the whole freaking world religous market most of all they were wrong. twi knew what it really looked like.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoolWaters
When you are ready, WordWolf, you might be interested in taking a gander at the movie "Stigmata".
If you can get beyond the corny (imo) Hollywood special effects, the obvious conspiracy theory premise against the Catholic Church, and the twi-ish revulsion at the thought of the dead communicating via the living, then it's a good movie to see if you want to grasp just a part of what being crucified meant to Jesus (as described in the bible).
;)-->
Until that movie, I had not been able to grasp the reality of what Jesus was reported to have experienced. After that movie, however, I was so deeply moved in awe and gratitude that I went outside, found a couple of tiny twigs, twined them together in the shape of a cross, and carried that little cross with me in my hands at all times for several weeks. Held it in my hands when I worked, bathed, slept, everything. I still carry it with me in my purse...and I bring it out for inspiration, comfort and worship.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I can't wait to see the upcoming Mel Gibson movie "The Passion of Christ".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sadie
Oldie, there is more than one subject twi has taught that is not in "writing"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I think TWI sent mixed signals on this.
Wierwille's chapter doesn't denigrate the cross. Nor does the inclusion of "The Old Rugged Cross" in the songbook.
But in practice, they removed crosses from buildings (which makes one wonder why they left it in the songbook) and boy o boy did they mock the symbol.
I think Mel Gibson's movie will be interesting. I'm looking forward to it too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Simon of Cyrene and The Cross Christ Bore
Another Study in Abundant Living
by Victor Paul Wierwille
Page 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
blank
[This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on November 28, 2003 at 18:32.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
What is more important, the identity of the person who carried the cross, or the identity of the person nailed to it?
When you see a cross on a building, what do you think?
When you see a cross removed from a building, what effect does it have?
Sometimes TWI got it right when it comes to preaching the cross. And sometimes they got it dead wrong. There's no sin in symbolism, despite the lies of TWI. There's no sin in seeing a cross and thinking, "Oh yeah, the sacrifice. I remember."
Sometimes TWI got it right. Sometimes TWI got it wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
The cross symbol is not necessarily a godly symbol to everyone, especially us in TWI who were taught its origins. But even so, the idea that TWI should have had respect for and not ridicule the cross symbol is a good debatable point seeing as many Christians respect it and on that point alone I would tend to agree. One must remember when we in TWI saw the wooden/silver/gold cross, no question it was a negative symbol because of what we were taught and believed from Babylon Mystery Religion. The evil history of the Roman Catholic Church also didn't help us view the cross symbol as a godly one. With that said, it doesn't mean the twi position was disrespect for, ridicule for, or ignorance of the cross of Christ, the cross Christ bore, as I've noted from VPW's writings; what it meant was we chose to distinguish the two, something like the Jehovahs Witnesses having disdain for the Christmas holiday yet at the same time believing in the birth of Christ.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Okay... we're making some headway...
If you feel that TWI's position was not to disrespect the cross, would you at least agree that TWI's practice was often just that? That TWI's position and its practice were, every now and then, in a wee bit of conflict?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Rafael,
It looks like we're still not quite on the same page.
The cross symbol and the cross of Christ were two separate things in TWI. There was a complete disconnect.
We all know that TWI's position on the wooden/silver/gold cross symbol was one of disdain. We were even taught it wasn't a Christian symbol, from Babylon Mystery Religion. We believed that. Later on in his second book, Woodrow wrote that the cross symbol was godly:
The Babylon Connection?
Ralph Woodrow
page 59.
Where I disagree with some posters is the reference that twi's position was one of disrespect and ridicule for the cross of Christ simply because we viewed the cross symbol with disdain. The cross of Christ, in TWI, was separate and distinct from the wooden/silver/gold cross in everyone's mind. The cross symbol was an unchristian pagan symbol not connected with the true meaning of Christ's sacrifice. Do you really think that if the cross symbol, in TWI, meant or equalled or fully symbolized Christ's sacrifice, that we would have looked upon it with disdain and disrespect? No way.
Looking back, I agree we shouldn't have made that distinction. But you seem to be saying there is no distinction between the two and in the average Christian's mind, you're right. But you know that we were different and viewed things differently, much like the Jehovah's Witnesses do on certain things.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
I think in order to really get the "bigger picture," one has to step back and look at the body of VPW's teachings as a whole.
I think it's really odd that in the book "Power For Abundang Living" there is virtually no mention of the cross, and its importance as the foundational doctrine of Christianity.
Yeah, the crucifixtion is mentioned, in the chapter on narrative development, to show how the traditional view of events is somehow "not right."
But take a look at VP's views on such things as repentance, righteousness, suffering (that's a biggie) the problem of sin and how to overcome it, renewing the mind, the "mystery," the "absent Christ," true worship, and many others. There is a gaping hole left in virtually all these teachings, in my mind anyway, that could have only been filled by the "preaching of the cross."
I think Danny hit the nail on the head, when he said: "Who needs the cross when you can just Believe."
My opinion. "Your mileage may vary," as my friend Alfakat likes to say.
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Oldiesman,
I've been saying all along that TWI made a distinction between the symbol and the "cross of Christ." That distinction was unbliblical and unnecessary. And in disdaining the symbol, they drew from the emotional impact of the symbol. That emotional impact is Biblical. It's fair game. It was unnecessary and WRONG for TWI to do what it did, even if its intentions were good (that is, even if its intentions were to flee idolatry).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Yanagisawa
I think TWI's attitude towards the symbol of the cross belies a fundamental attitude toward our walk with Christ in general.
In haste to "claim" the "victory" of walking on "resurrection ground" we neglected the other side of the coin. The suffering...the passion...the sacrifice that we are dailyentreated to engage - if need be - in our existential walk with our master.
I was encouraged to regard suffering, persecution, sacrifice, getting in the mud with sinners, being misunderstood, being defrauded, etc. as an evil, foreign, negative intrusion in my "victory walk".
The longer I live, the more I see that these are indeed the places that my master asks me to go. Sometimes I do, sometimes, to my chagrin, I decline.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Incisive comment, Yana.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
OK, here's something to throw into the mix. I think the disdain for the cross that permeated VPW's theology, was born out of a sort of cognitive dissonance VP experienced. I don't think it was about "fleeing from idolatry" at all. But more about not being confronted with the price of sin.
I think the "preaching of the cross" was ignored, or conspicuously absent, because of VP's own failure to deal with sin in his own life. He tried to take a shortcut to the "more abundant life." And found bible teachings from other teachers that backed up his, "let's not deal with the problem of sin" philosophy. And enabled him to feel better about his hypocrisy. He wove them into a "body of teaching" with some glaring inconsistancies.
Hey, this is only my opinion, and my 20/20 hindsight. If somebody wants to call it "evil surmisings," so be it. I'm just trying to make sense out of something that hasn't made sense to me for decades.
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.