Paradise Cafe Discussions - A Place For Bible Research And Christian Encouragement

Are our core beliefs peculiar to us or do we have a history behind us?
Are we like the early 1st century Christians?
Are there others like us today, but do not have a JW background?
...from WIKI:
Unitarian--Conservative (Biblical or Evangelical) unitarians strictly adhere to the principle of sola scriptura and their belief that the Bible is both inspired and inerrant and uphold "fundamentals" of belief. This version of unitarianism is more commonly called Nontrinitarianism, rather than Unitarianism.

Liberal Unitarians sum up their faith as "the religion of Jesus, not a religion about Jesus." Historically, they have encouraged unorthodox views of God, Jesus, the world and purpose of life as revealed through reason, scholarship, science, philosophy, scripture and other prophets and religions. They believe that reason and belief are complementary and that religion and science can co-exist and guide them in their understanding of nature and God. They also do not enforce belief in creeds or dogmatic formulas. Although there is flexibility in the nuances of belief or basic truths for the individual Unitarian Christian, general principles of faith have been recognized as a way to bind the group in some commonality. Adherents generally accept religious pluralism and find value in all teachings, but remain committed to their core belief in Christ's teachings. Liberal Unitarians value a secular society in which government stays out of religious affairs.

19th century Unitarians often claimed Isaac Newton, but his Arian ideas predate Unitarianism.[5]

Since the 19th century, several Evangelical or Revivalist movements adopted an elevated subordinationist theology (best described as Nontrinitarianism, rather than Unitarianism). Important figures include Barton W. Stone and Charles Taze Russell. Theologies among Evangelical Unitarians are sometimes classed as Arian,[6] and sometimes Sabellian[7] (Jesus is God in the flesh, the manifestation of God, who exists as a single person) and the Chinese based sabbatarian True Jesus Church. Other modern non-trinitarian churches, such as the Filipino-based Iglesia ni Cristo, may also be included, although they reject the "unitarian" name to avoid confusion. Jehovah's Witnesses also have a nontrinitarian theology with specific traits. The Christian Churches of God (CCG) is another Unitarian Church with a World Conference. It has extensive material on Unitarian theology and history and holds the doctrine of the Pre-existence of Jesus Christ (see http://www.ccg.org). CCG like other Sabbatarian Churches of God trace their ancestry back to the early church and follow biblical law. The CCG and Sabbatarians are sometimes erroneously called Arians due to the pejorative Trinitarian use of that term and also that of Subordinationists (see Bibliography).

:detective:

I think that our core beliefs here have a typical history behind them and that we are like the first century Christians. There are many areas of common ground within the various historical Christian faiths, and the variations in most cases are small enough for me to not worry about. When the variations are big enough for me to take issue with, I think I can take issue but still show love for persons that I think are in error. That doesn’t mean I have to endorse or ignore beliefs I think are flat wrong (such as the trinity doctrine or hellfire) - that only means that I am not required to burn anyone at the stake for what I see as erroneous beliefs. In my mind that is sticking up for the faith (as I see it) - without going over the line and starting another Inquisition.

I’ve read what has been written about Arius' teachings (most of Arius’ actual writings were burned by the budding Trinitarian camp so history has persevered only what others wrote about him). From what I’ve read, I consider myself broadly Arian in my thinking - such as that there was a time that the Word did not exist. But on the other hand I can conceptually agree with the Athanasian camp that the Word’s divinity is (in a sense) co-eternal with the Father, since the Word (as I see it) was cloned by the Father from the same divine substance (homoisious) as himself. So I can say that - in a sense - the Word did not have a beginning as far as his substance, yet had a beginning as far as his actual existence as an individual conscious person. Either way I see the Word (who I believe later came to the earth as the Son), as Divine and above the created angels in his nature.

Not created yet had a beginning? Many will find disagreement but is the disagreement enough for us to excommunicate each other over? Do we “see” things in a way that is due to our individual perceptions? Are we all mostly saying the same things yet get ourselves wrapped up in human words that are not able to fully communicate spirit world concepts? I think this is a big part of the problem, that human language tries to communicate spirit world concepts that we do not completely understand because of our innate humanness.

This in my view is the main reason for having love for one another. If we can look at each other as true believers while at the same time not agreeing with each and every technical nuance of our ill explained belief sets, then it seems to me that as Paul said love conquers all things. Where the Athanasian and Arian camps went wrong is they took it to the point of burning each other’s buildings down and excommunicating each other. Surely "love’s excelling way" would have been good enough (in my view) and maintained their unity in “the more important things”, and prevent them from getting all wrapped up in the small things to the point it came to blows.

Hopefuly that is what we are accomplishing here.



v r

Thanks vr! What I think I'm trying to ascertain, is that we are not an anomaly but are following a natural flow that started in the 1st century, and then moved away from the love that Christ taught, toward doctrin. The dark ages ensued, but then sometime in the 17th or 18th century (you would probably know) a "spiritual awakening' occurred. Perhaps this was a counter reaction to the scientific awakening, I don't know.
It appears that what is happening among JWs is also happening in all dogma based religions.
You said,
"Not created yet had a beginning? Many will find disagreement but is the disagreement enough for us to excommunicate each other over? Do we “see” things in a way that is due to our individual perceptions? Are we all mostly saying the same things yet get ourselves wrapped up in human words that are not able to fully communicate spirit world concepts? I think this is a big part of the problem, that human language tries to communicate spirit world concepts that we do not completely understand because of our innate humanness."

So there seems to be a shift back towards a love based form of worship that I feel is very exciting, and it's interesting to see how the movement developed. The Bible Students started as an anti-religion, but quickly morphed into a religion itself. But we are the bi-product, I think.
Open question: where is this headed? :detective:

“Where is this all heading?” For individuals who are able to figure out this magnificent puzzle of faith, I think its heading towards what Jesus said: “the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth.” Spirit and truth are qualities that are ethereal and are not – maybe cannot – be linked to anything physical such as creeds or buildings. Finding the Father in spirit and truth is a gift from God – which the Son grants access to.

Our collective desires to worship the Father evidently can’t be done (for long) in any group format, since the mechanics of groups are leveraged by Satan and always wind up corrupted. Look at any group through history. The early Bible Students under Russell had a good thing going, as no one was expected to “conform” to anything other than to accept Jesus as Savior. A cool thing in their meetings was that (I think once a month) time was set for anyone to get up and talk on any topic and present their views, followed by open discussion. This is what we are doing here. But the OrgThink of that time eventually took over and presto, the WT Org in all its single mindedness was born.

Erasmus maintained his separateness from the “in crowd” of his day by not accepting high positions in academia and theology. The reason he gives for doing this is to retain his independence from the mechanics of group think. He did not have anyone to cater to. In my mind this is how Jesus himself was: a spiritual rebel. Jesus was not “part” of the world’s religious and social structure and thus was able to maintain his edge.

That’s what I think we have the chance to do on these dbs: maintain our edge.





v r

All who overcome are going to be beacons is my summation.

Personally I don't think a revival happened in the 17,18th century.


My personal conjecture is "freedom" happened around that time.
And it has allowed for a leap so to speak.
Jesus followers of the way have always been around. The thing is as i get older I see them as being kinda hermit like and always in hiding from Satan in this world. they seemed to have been literaly under ground for a while after Jesus was crusified. Satan was feircely after the rest of the womans children by this time I think. leading to dark ages.


we are in a dark age disguised as enlightened I feel right now.

Hi Totaldismay and welcome back. I think you're right in saying there was no significant revival in those centuries. There was, however, a releasing of the chains of Christendom’s dominance over the scientific community upon Darwin’s publishing Origin of the Species in 1859. By then the strength of the religious community had waned to the level that the churches had so rapidly lost financial support and intolerance had grown over church hierarchies and their dominance over the sciences.

Darwin himself was raised as an icon (although that wasn’t his intention) but there was a lot of Wedgwood money being thrown into the fray (since both Charles and Emily Darwin were of the Wedgwood clan), and that leveraged heavily against religious dogmatism so that churches were quickly losing their grip on most institutions of learning.

I am also of the opinion of veritas who said: “I consider myself broadly Arian in my thinking - such as that there was a time that the Word did not exist. But on the other hand I can conceptually agree with the Athanasian camp that the Word’s divinity is (in a sense) co-eternal with the Father, since the Word (as I see it) was cloned by the Father from the same divine substance (homoisious) as himself. So I can say that - in a sense - the Word did not have a beginning as far as his substance, yet had a beginning as far as his actual existence as an individual conscious person. Either way I see the Word (who I believe later came to the earth as the Son), as Divine and above the created angels in his nature.”

Many repressed thinkers were not allowed to voice this in the past since it was hugely heretic and politically unsafe. My opinion of the Arian and Athanasius camps goes further since they were both pushing and lobbying for political recognition, which, for the protection of the faithful seemed logical, but for the sake of Christ and remaining Christian was a compromise that disapproved them all. I believe true Christians were always and will always be in the minority in and out of Christendom. Jesus mandate still holds true, to be “cautious as serpents yet innocent as doves.”

Thanks for raising this, e-magine. I believe we are in a holding pattern, waiting for the return of our Lord. First century Christians were inspired to write. We aren't. All we are is a lost group of Christians in the wilderness awaiting revelation. As for being organized, Rutherford had it right when he said “Religion is a snare and a racket!” Had we stuck to that slogan and lived up to it, fewer would’ve needed to leave or be drummed out of the relatively small groups that challenged the mainstream Groupthink of Christendom. But that’s another subject isn’t it?

sw

I dont see any bishops and deacons here. And if you are referring to doctrine, just what are all the doctrines that the 1st century Christians believed? You wont find a comprehensive list in the NT.

Perhaps that is because doctrine took second place to things like practicing love in the 1st century.
Bishop = episkopos ἐπίσκοπος. epi/ἐπί over/on and skopos/σκοπός seeing. Are there any who oversee I don't know.
Deacon = diakonos διάκονος dia through and konos dust. I do think we have people here who will crawl through the dust to help serve others.
So I would say we have some diakonoi around.

Well e-magine is referring specifically to theology here.

Deacons had specific roles and qualifications.

The role was to serve. What were the qualifications that are not common to all men and women who call themselves Christians today?

Trying not to hijack this topic so will start another.

Hi Yannis! Yes, I would like to think that we are like the early Christians and will remain independant for the duration, until the coming of our lord. And X JWs are not unique in this.

That's just it e-magine, the early christians were not independant, they were organized into churches and each church was led by a bishop. They also worshipped together and took communion together.

This common view by x-JW's of being content to be in the "wilderness" is just not scriptural or historically accurate.

I realize that they were organized into congregations. But the congregations were independant of any centralized body that mandated doctrinal compliance or else they were alienated.
Or am I wrong? :detective:

Hi Yannis,


"That's just it e-magine, the early christians were not independant, they were organized into churches and each church was led by a bishop. They also worshipped together and took communion together.
This common view by x-JW's of being content to be in the "wilderness" is just not scriptural or historically accurate. "


I have simple question for you how do people who understand they have a spiritual need but have not the ability "stength" to be around others who "beat them" into submision fair?

The bible clearly states where "two are gathered together"
I have never been without in any manner. from food to clothing to at least one true friend aside from our lord and our father. And yet as a young boy could not stand to be around the "kingdom hall" and cannot go to church due to personality.

I am just not able to be around people who demand of me what I cannot do. Not that I don't want to try. I had to leave home at 15 becuase of the same type of thing. Everything was always an ultimatum Do this or else. even thou some of us try to do what is asked we are not always able to then the beatings begin.

I cannot even have a normal type of job becuase I am i'll frequently.
God had still allowed me to be around those who understand and let me do as I can not as they demand.


My veiw is very simple and plain. Jesus and our Father Do with us what is needed. Sometimes it's isolation sometimes it's crowds.
The scripture not to forsake the gathering was not to become another law for us it was to be healthfull and benificail to us as far as I can tell. Their is strength in numbers whens it people who care we can gain strength, when the numbers are wolves and a sheep is alone the same rule does not apply.

Hard and unbending rules do not make for LOVE. GOD proved that himself with the Law not being able to bring one rightoues man from it.

Maybe this internet thing is a state of transition and something else is coming.

No, that's true. During major issues the leaders or Bishops would convene in councils to iron things out.

They were united by the Eucharist more than any centralized body.