- Topic
I must say FTOS put a thought into my head. He asked if I had “proof” that mother made a claim about Chicago’s coldest winter. So I’m guessing that must be the latest method of wmscog…to ask if you have proof of something. Thinking like a lawyer, if there is no proof then it doesn’t exist or didn’t happen. They try to call us liars when we discuss our personal experiences while we were members of THAT group. I must say they are extremely stupid, naive or arrogant if they think we have no proof. How can we all have similar experiences and most of us may not have known each other until we met on this forum?
I have so much more to say but I must keep my poker face and not tip my hand. Many “successful” businessmen/women have been brought down because of their arrogance and their sloppiness. WMSCOG and its leadership is no different. This business will fall like the house of cards it is. Unfortunately for them all “good” things must come to an end.
And that, my folks, is my thought for the day!
fromtheotherside wrote:
Teachings can always be debated , and many things you believe can be proved wrong, If as you say that if there are parts of teachings and doctrines that can be proved wrong then it is not a truth then there is no truth in the world. Some of you say that sunday and saturday are irrelevant and small but just as you can debate and prove (to yourself) that sabbath is wrong we too can prove sunday is wrong. There are many subjects and beliefs that you believe in Genny that I can debate and prove wrong. Everything is debatable. Some one will always come up with some sort of logic to prove themselves right or even scripture and then the debate starts again.
Some things are debateable. Even Romans 14:1 says that. But not everything is debateable. The President of the United States is Barak Obama. Is that debateable? No, it's just a fact. Likewise, the wmscog has gotten key facts wrong and that impacts entire doctrines.
fromtheotherside wrote:
Also you don't know what actions is directly taught by wmscog and what is not.
Isn't that funny? Why isn't the wmscog more consistent in teaching what behaviors are acceptable and what behaviors are not? Sometimes I read sermons from the wmscog which make it sound clear, but then people like you disagree. Hmm.
MountainMom wrote:
FTOS can't prove Genny wrong, same as he can't know my son better than I do when he is posting all the way from Korea. My son even admitted to his Dad that there are some wackos (his words, not mine) in the church. He probably meant you.
If you are supposed to be a holy man, you sure don't seem to show it in your posts. Wow, some of the things you have posted here lately would seem to most people to show a temper and a vulgar nature. Not the "mind of Mother" your organization likes to talk about, is it? I'm rebuking you, get it?
Nice MM, your paranoia is getting to you I see, you keep bring up the fact I mentioned I knew your son as some threat, when all I said was he was a good person. Lolz no wonder you're how you are. You're the one throwing the gloves off and spending your time chasing make believe stories with your head in the clouds (used more cleaner words ^^) so I guess you are a wacko.
genny wrote:
fromtheotherside wrote:
Teachings can always be debated , and many things you believe can be proved wrong, If as you say that if there are parts of teachings and doctrines that can be proved wrong then it is not a truth then there is no truth in the world. Some of you say that sunday and saturday are irrelevant and small but just as you can debate and prove (to yourself) that sabbath is wrong we too can prove sunday is wrong. There are many subjects and beliefs that you believe in Genny that I can debate and prove wrong. Everything is debatable. Some one will always come up with some sort of logic to prove themselves right or even scripture and then the debate starts again.
Some things are debateable. Even Romans 14:1 says that. But not everything is debateable. The President of the United States is Barak Obama. Is that debateable? No, it's just a fact. Likewise, the wmscog has gotten key facts wrong and that impacts entire doctrines.
You have many Key facts wrong in your belief so what does that make you?
fromtheotherside wrote:
Also you don't know what actions is directly taught by wmscog and what is not.
Isn't that funny? Why isn't the wmscog more consistent in teaching what behaviors are acceptable and what behaviors are not? Sometimes I read sermons from the wmscog which make it sound clear, but then people like you disagree. Hmm.
What have you brought up that I disagreed with, except hearsay. You think by reading a few things you have become an expert when you really don't know much of anything, is what I meant.
FTOS, what key facts are wrong in my belief? Please let me know.
Well let's compare us keeping the feasts to you keeping Christmas. You present the reasoning that we kept it on the wrong date, well you keeping christmas is wrong also. But you can say that it doesn't matter if it isn't biblical or a pagan origin because you celebrate Christmas for God, then what would be the difference between us keeping a feast on as wrong day as you claim, for God and you keeping a pagan day for God? I'm not saying we have the wrong date, but I'm changing the way you view it.
fromtheotherside wrote:
Well let's compare us keeping the feasts to you keeping Christmas. You present the reasoning that we kept it on the wrong date, well you keeping christmas is wrong also. But you can say that it doesn't matter if it isn't biblical or a pagan origin because you celebrate Christmas for God, then what would be the difference between us keeping a feast on as wrong day as you claim, for God and you keeping a pagan day for God? I'm not saying we have the wrong date, but I'm changing the way you view it.
Now you are talking about interpretations. You disagree with the Christian interpretation of celebrating Christmas. However, my actions follow my beliefs and interpretations regarding that. If my belief was that Christmas was evil, yet I celebrated it, or if my belief was that Christmas must be celebrated for salvation, yet I did not celebrate it, then you could say I have a problem despite whether or not you agreed with my belief.
Without disagreeing about your interpretation of feasts, acknowledging that you interpret the feasts to be very important to keep correctly for salvation, there is a fact that you do not follow your interpretation. The wmscog kept the 7th month feasts in the 8th month, more than once, which goes against their own, all-important doctrine. If you'd like to talk specifically about this feast problem, here's the link: https://www.examiningthewmscog.com/forum/topic.php?id=4646
Now, do you have any "key fact" examples for me, other than disagreements about interpretations?
fromtheotherside wrote:
Well let's compare us keeping the feasts to you keeping Christmas. You present the reasoning that we kept it on the wrong date, well you keeping christmas is wrong also. But you can say that it doesn't matter if it is biblical or a pagan origin because I do it for God, then what would be the difference between us keeping a feast for God and you keeping a pagan day for God? I'm not saying we have the wrong date, but I'm changing the way you view it.
I hope this doesn't derail everything, but Christmas is not celebrated on the wrong day. The idea that the early Church "forgot" Our Lord's birthday and made one up is perposterous. There are generally two accusations against the December 25th date. One that it is a Christianization of the pagan winter solstice. This is silly because the winter solstice was celebrated December 17-23. The second is that it was an attempt to Christianize the pagan feast of the Unconquered Sun. This is false, because that pagan feast was instituted by the formerly Christian Emperor Julian the Apostate in AD 354 in an attempt to replace the Christian feast! The earliest mention of a celebration of a "Midnight Mass" on Christmas was in the reign of Pope Theophilus in 115-138!
From scripture we know that Our Lord's birth very well may have fallen in late December, because we know that John the Baptist was conceived about sixth months before Christ, just after Zacharias served the "Course of Abias." (Luke 1:5, 1:36) There were two courses of Abias, placing John's birth either in late fall or late June. If we go with late June, which is when the early Church celebrated the birth of John the Baptist, (June 24) that places the birth of Christ sixth months later in late December.
The other possible date would place the birth of John in late fall and the birth of Christ in late spring, but this goes against the ancient Christian tradition, which we have no strong reason to reject. During the Donatist schism around AD 311, the Donatists rejected many new Christian feasts because they were "too modern," but they kept the celebration of Christmas as coming from the Apostles. (Don't you think they would've been curious to know when Christ was born/conceived? It would have been easy enough to ask Our Lord or Mary)
So, yeah. Hope that doesn't derail everything.
genny wrote:
fromtheotherside wrote:
Well let's compare us keeping the feasts to you keeping Christmas. You present the reasoning that we kept it on the wrong date, well you keeping christmas is wrong also. But you can say that it doesn't matter if it isn't biblical or a pagan origin because you celebrate Christmas for God, then what would be the difference between us keeping a feast on as wrong day as you claim, for God and you keeping a pagan day for God? I'm not saying we have the wrong date, but I'm changing the way you view it.
Now you are talking about interpretations. You disagree with the Christian interpretation of celebrating Christmas. However, my actions follow my beliefs and interpretations regarding that. If my belief was that Christmas was evil, yet I celebrated it, or if my belief was that Christmas must be celebrated for salvation, yet I did not celebrate it, then you could say I have a problem despite whether or not you agreed with my belief.
Without disagreeing about your interpretation of feasts, acknowledging that you interpret the feasts to be very important to keep correctly for salvation, there is a fact that you do not follow your interpretation. The wmscog kept the 7th month feasts in the 8th month, more than once, which goes against their own, all-important doctrine. If you'd like to talk specifically about this feast problem, here's the link: https://www.examiningthewmscog.com/forum/topic.php?id=4646
Now, do you have any "key fact" examples for me, other than disagreements about interpretations?
Well your belief is that you are celebrating the birth of Christ, which is wrong, which I will debate with Iraeneus. So therefore it does fit.
Actually, we ARE celebrating the birth of Christ. There is no debating that. If its the right day or not is another issue.
IrenaeusFTW wrote:
fromtheotherside wrote:
Well let's compare us keeping the feasts to you keeping Christmas. You present the reasoning that we kept it on the wrong date, well you keeping christmas is wrong also. But you can say that it doesn't matter if it is biblical or a pagan origin because I do it for God, then what would be the difference between us keeping a feast for God and you keeping a pagan day for God? I'm not saying we have the wrong date, but I'm changing the way you view it.
I hope this doesn't derail everything, but Christmas is not celebrated on the wrong day. The idea that the early Church "forgot" Our Lord's birthday and made one up is perposterous. There are generally two accusations against the December 25th date. One that it is a Christianization of the pagan winter solstice. This is silly because the winter solstice was celebrated December 17-23. The second is that it was an attempt to Christianize the pagan feast of the Unconquered Sun. This is false, because that pagan feast was instituted by the formerly Christian Emperor Julian the Apostate in AD 354 in an attempt to replace the Christian feast! The earliest mention of a celebration of a "Midnight Mass" on Christmas was in the reign of Pope Theophilus in 115-138!
From scripture we know that Our Lord's birth very well may have fallen in late December, because we know that John the Baptist was conceived about sixth months before Christ, just after Zacharias served the "Course of Abias." (Luke 1:5, 1:36) There were two courses of Abias, placing John's birth either in late fall or late June. If we go with late June, which is when the early Church celebrated the birth of John the Baptist, (June 24) that places the birth of Christ sixth months later in late December.
The other possible date would place the birth of John in late fall and the birth of Christ in late spring, but this goes against the ancient Christian tradition, which we have no strong reason to reject. During the Donatist schism around AD 311, the Donatists rejected many new Christian feasts because they were "too modern," but they kept the celebration of Christmas as coming from the Apostles. (Don't you think they would've been curious to know when Christ was born/conceived? It would have been easy enough to ask Our Lord or Mary)
So, yeah. Hope that doesn't derail everything.
John was conceived after the "Course of Abijah" which is the 8th Course, was completed. Zacharias was serving in the temple when the angel came and said his wife was going to have a baby. And that was around May or June. 40 weeks after that is when John was born. That places John birth around March or April. So if like you said they are 6 months apart that means Jesus was conceived in Nov or Dec. That places Jesus' birth in Sept or Oct.
Luke 1:23:24 WHEN HIS TIME OF SERVICE WAS COMPLETED (Zechriah serving in the temple May or June) he returned home AFTER THIS his wife Elizebeth became pregnant and remained in seclusion for 5 months.
2Chronicles 24:10 The "course of Abijah" – for those who do not understand what we are talking about.
There are 24 courses for when the priest took turns serving in the temple, except during the feast when they all served together. Zecherias was part of the 8th course which is the "course of Abijah" or as it says it says in the NT "course of Abia" which falls in the month of May or June after the feast of Pentecost.
IrenaeusFTW wrote:
Actually, we ARE celebrating the birth of Christ. There is no debating that. If its the right day or not is another issue.
We can use the same argument, we ARE celebrating the feasts of God. There is no debating that. If it's the right day or not is another issue.
Besides this, I want a reply about the Christmas and the birth of Jesus, and what you think Genny. Jesus' birth is not Christmas which you believe it to be and therefore celebrated. Then as you do according to your belief, your belief is wrong so what do you think?
I have reason to say that Christmas the 25th is not correct. I know most will disagree but this doesn’t mean I agree with Wmscog because I don’t. Just like I said before, some truths mixed with false teaching isn’t right.
Oh my goodness! I was just in the middle of a huge post when my crappy laptop came unplugged and cut off. I'll just make a couple quick points, because in hindsight its not really a major issue for me, and i don't want to make it into one.
1. Dates are a make or break issue for the WMS and similar groups because they profess that proper dates are essential. Other Churches who make no such claim aren't faced with a "make or break"issue over dates, because they don't profess its essential. So while I believe the traditional date of Christmas is correct, many in my Church would disagree with me. For us, its not essential. We tolerate a variation of opinions.
2. There are a whole host of factors to consider when calculating these dates. There is the old Hebrew calendar, the Julian Calendar, the Gregorain calendar, and in ancient history there is always legitimate debate about how they correspond, even in secular history.
3. In calculating the birth of John (and Christ) I assume the dates adopted by Dionysius Exiguss regarding the life of Christ were correct, and that the dates of Josephus were incorrect. (they were frequently inconsistent. I think this assumption, and not placing the birth of Christ in 6BC, may be the source of our months being out of whack, but I'm not sure.
4. Remember there were two courses of Abijah, week 8 & 32. I was assuming the latter, but I think you would calculate that differently.
I may have been too forceful in stating my belief about the dating of Christmas, its not a matter of faith for my Church, so people can have different opinons. I would just say that there is strong evidence for the traditional date of December 25.
My main source:
http://www.taylormarshall.com/2012/12/yes-christ-was-really-born-on-december.html
http://www.taylormarshall.com/2011/12/pope-benedict-xvi-december-25-as.html
Was Jesus born to redeem me? Yes. That is all that matters. I am sure nobody really knows the exact date. In any case, since there are so many calendars going around, specifying one single date would be odious. My faith in Jesus is hardly connected with the date on which I celebrate Christmas.
We know several people who did not know their exact date of birth. It happens a lot of times with adopted children in India and also in some remote villages. People who adopt children and don't know the actual date of birth, take a suitable approximate date and establish that date for celebrations in future years. Does that make the celebration any less eventful for the person and the family? Is that celebration invalid? A birthday celebration is a celebration of life.
As was said by Irenaeus before, faith in mainstream Christianity does not hinge on the date when Christmas is celebrated. It is just a day chosen to celebrate the birth of our Saviour. For your WMSCOG on the other hand, the dates are touted as very important. That makes it perfectly valid for Genny to question your dates while your questioning of Christmas day is without value.
If you would like to debate Christmas (sounds like there is a lot to say about it!), let's start a new thread. I think that would be interesting.
fromtheotherside wrote:
Well let's compare us keeping the feasts to you keeping Christmas. You present the reasoning that we kept it on the wrong date, well you keeping christmas is wrong also. But you can say that it doesn't matter if it isn't biblical or a pagan origin because you celebrate Christmas for God, then what would be the difference between us keeping a feast on as wrong day as you claim, for God and you keeping a pagan day for God? I'm not saying we have the wrong date, but I'm changing the way you view it.
I'm going to focus on methods of proof and logic for a moment. Going back to your statement here…
You are committing an ad hominem of tu quoque here. You are avoiding the accusation against the wmscog, and have responded with, "well, you are keeping a wrong date too." You say that if I can take any day and make it a celebration for God, then you can too. Two things for this…
First, I don't claim that Dec. 25 is the perfectly accurate date for Jesus' birth. My children also know that we don't know the exact date. Also, my salvation does not depend on whether I celebrate on the exact date, or even whether I celebrate at all. That Dec. 25 may not be Jesus' actual birthday doesn't matter to me one bit. Nor does it matter to me whether I celebrate once on Dec. 25, or four or five or more times (as usually happens) on various dates. Therefore, the parallel situation you are presenting is not really parallel.
Second, it does matter to you whether or not you celebrate a feast on the correct day. I'm surprised you are not wondering what went wrong with your dates, rather than trying to deflect the accusation back to me. It's not important to me, it's important to you, so why are you avoiding it?
Back to "key facts." As Irenaeus has shown, Christmas is more debateable that one might think. What other facts do you have to show me that I have gotten wrong?
That's just what I was trying to say, Emil. Thanks. 🙂
emil wrote:
Was Jesus born to redeem me? Yes. That is all that matters. I am sure nobody really knows the exact date. In any case, since there are so many calendars going around, specifying one single date would be odious. My faith in Jesus is hardly connected with the date on which I celebrate Christmas.
We know several people who did not know their exact date of birth. It happens a lot of times with adopted children in India and also in some remote villages. People who adopt children and don't know the actual date of birth, take a suitable approximate date and establish that date for celebrations in future years. Does that make the celebration any less eventful for the person and the family? Is that celebration invalid? A birthday celebration is a celebration of life.
As was said by Irenaeus before, faith in mainstream Christianity does not hinge on the date when Christmas is celebrated. It is just a day chosen to celebrate the birth of our Saviour. For your WMSCOG on the other hand, the dates are touted as very important. That makes it perfectly valid for Genny to question your dates while your questioning of Christmas day is without value.
That is not all that matters! There is a Gospel, there is a new Testament, and there are the teachings of Christ and exactly how Apostle Paul put it there are the Laws of Christ. There is more to it then I believe in Jesus. Clearly Timothy put it as "even the demons believe" What makes your belief any different from the demons. Timothy said there are believers who put trust in their Faith and there is him, who proves his faith through his works. So there's faith and there is Timothy's faith with works, the former is DEAD Faith. So which one are you? If you want to Qoute Paul and try to use it against Timothy's arguments then you are making the bible contradicting. I believe that Paul is supporting Timothy and vice versa. I have faith and my faith gives me salvation, I also have deeds so my faith is not dead. So my faith is supported by Paul and Timothy. I really don't think Christmas is part of the Gospel Paul preached (which he would then condemn) and it is not part of the New Covenant nor is it part of the Law of Christ, please tell where it fits in the bible. Also why it is not something Paul would condemn.
I want to ask you two things
1. Where did you read what Timothy has written? Which bible do you use? When you use the word "Clearly", you must first be clear yourself or how else can your readers see it clearly?
2. Can you list me the "Laws of Christ" and the relevant verses in scripture? Every time I ask a wmscog member this question, they want to avoid it.
Christmas is the celebration of the birth of Jesus, my saviour. The Gospels mention this several times indirectly but here are a couple of direct mentions – Mt 1:25, Lk 2:7. Why would Paul condemn it?
fromtheotherside wrote:
emil wrote:
Was Jesus born to redeem me? Yes. That is all that matters. I am sure nobody really knows the exact date. In any case, since there are so many calendars going around, specifying one single date would be odious. My faith in Jesus is hardly connected with the date on which I celebrate Christmas.
We know several people who did not know their exact date of birth. It happens a lot of times with adopted children in India and also in some remote villages. People who adopt children and don't know the actual date of birth, take a suitable approximate date and establish that date for celebrations in future years. Does that make the celebration any less eventful for the person and the family? Is that celebration invalid? A birthday celebration is a celebration of life.
As was said by Irenaeus before, faith in mainstream Christianity does not hinge on the date when Christmas is celebrated. It is just a day chosen to celebrate the birth of our Saviour. For your WMSCOG on the other hand, the dates are touted as very important. That makes it perfectly valid for Genny to question your dates while your questioning of Christmas day is without value.
That is not all that matters! There is a Gospel, there is a new Testament, and there are the teachings of Christ and exactly how Apostle Paul put it there are the Laws of Christ. There is more to it then I believe in Jesus. Clearly Timothy put it as "even the demons believe" What makes your belief any different from the demons. Timothy said there are believers who put trust in their Faith and there is him, who proves his faith through his works. So there's faith and there is Timothy's faith with works, the former is DEAD Faith. So which one are you? If you want to Qoute Paul and try to use it against Timothy's arguments then you are making the bible contradicting. I believe that Paul is supporting Timothy and vice versa. I have faith and my faith gives me salvation, I also have deeds so my faith is not dead. So my faith is supported by Paul and Timothy. I really don't think Christmas is part of the Gospel Paul preached (which he would then condemn) and it is not part of the New Covenant nor is it part of the Law of Christ, please tell where it fits in the bible. Also why it is not something Paul would condemn.
I think you meant to refer to James 2:19, not Timothy… And He was talking about "good works" being necessary for salvation. We can't just go around claiming to have faith, but without interior conversion and bearing good works in ones life because of that. But I fail to see how that is related to observing Christmas or any other date, even the Sabbath…
The only verse I can see in the scripture post-Ressurection dealing with calendars and sabbaths is Colossians 2:16, saying don't let anyone judge you when it comes to sabbaths or new moons!
I was hoping FTOS would enlighten us about the book written by Timothy.
And also the laws of Christ which they keep repeating ad nauseam but cannot actually quote.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.