Door-To-Door Missionaries

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by madeinrussia89

Hell is experiencing the presence of God as torment, instead of joy as in Heaven, it is experienced as an unquenchable fire, etc etc. Not fun.

Our consciousness does not stop after death.

For some it seems to be void, before death...

Maybe hell is a wake up call...but then one would already be late for work, and be fired.

[bible_reader]

Originally Posted by madeinrussia89

And I believe in the trinity, obviously, and I'm not going to be too thrilled about having someone come to my door and tell me heresy.

I dont really understand why people regard the rejection of the Trinity as "Heresy".

In my opinion, phallic worship seems heretic enough!

[noctuary]

I don't deal with them anymore.
I have this handy dandy peep hole in the door.
I look out.
See the bible.
And go back to watching Judge Judy.
of course I work full time so usually I think they knock when I am not home.

[mee]

Originally Posted by noctuary

I don't deal with them anymore.
I have this handy dandy peep hole in the door.
I look out.
See the bible.
And go back to watching Judge Judy.
of course I work full time so usually I think they knock when I am not home.

its good to know that JEHOVAH always makes sure that people come in contact with the true bible message about Gods heavenly kingdom and his son Jesus christ , matthew 24;14


the Jehovahs witnesses also have Jobs and they talk to work mates ,

i can relate to you not opening the door ,because i used to be like that but now that i am enlightened to the truth of the bible message , i am on the other side of the door LOL


even if certain people do not open the door , if they are of the right heart condition Jehovah will make sure that they come in contact with the truth in one way or the other .

Jehovahs witnesses are everywhere

and the GREAT CROWD REVELATION 7;9-10 is getting larger and bigger all the time , so that means people will come into contact with the ones giving out the GOODNEWS . MATTHEW 24;14


but how do we respond to that message of GOODNEWS ,?



those with the right heart will respond , I DID

[mee]

Originally Posted by bible_reader

I dont really understand why people regard the rejection of the Trinity as "Heresy".

especially when the trinity is not even a true bible teaching .


it is a manmade doctrine

[noctuary]

Originally Posted by mee

its good to know that JEHOVAH always makes sure that people come in contact with the true bible message about Gods heavenly kingdom and his son Jesus christ , matthew 24;14


the Jehovahs witnesses also have Jobs and they talk to work mates ,

i can relate to you not opening the door ,because i used to be like that but now that i am enlightened to the truth of the bible message , i am on the other side of the door LOL


even if certain people do not open the door , if they are of the right heart condition Jehovah will make sure that they come in contact with the truth in one way or the other .

Jehovahs witnesses are everywhere

and the GREAT CROWD REVELATION 7;9-10 is getting larger and bigger all the time , so that means people will come into contact with the ones giving out the GOODNEWS . MATTHEW 24;14


but how do we respond to that message of GOODNEWS ,?



those with the right heart will respond , I DID

God took a day off. Surely on my Sunday at 8am his people could give me a day off too.

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by bible_reader

I dont really understand why people regard the rejection of the Trinity as "Heresy".

In my opinion, phallic worship seems heretic enough!

It's all about dogma, ideology, semantics and conformity. People who insist on conformity to the doctrine are usually not that interested that you worship God, but that you validate their beliefs. They want to feel important. If you chant the same slogans as they do, you show that their beliefs are important, and therefore that they (not God) are important. You validate the beliefs of that group of people and the movement they represent, and the ideology and doctrine to which those people align themselves. You are telling them that they are doing something right. When you contradict them, it's an insult to their beliefs, and they feel you are the enemy.

I'm not so much in favour of the idea as, it sounds like a kind of idolatry. The doctrine is made to be more important than your actual devotion to God, which I think is wrong. People worship the doctrine more than God Himself. Of course, the doctrine itself doesn't state that they are worshipping the doctrine, but it's what they do with the doctrine that I don't like. It was said that we are not supposed to create graven images, but this seems to be one of them!!!

I can understand that many people believe that this is how we were meant to see God because of what they've been taught, and because it's been done for so many centuries (since the 4th century). People seem to have accepted it as the gospel.

But a reading of the New Testament seems to suggest that its authors, the first-century Christians, didn't care about the nature, structure and properties of God. Were these people heretics because there was no Trinity doctrine to serve as a guiding principle for how they were to form their concept of God? No. They didn't need a Trinity doctrine. The Trinity doctrine formulated in the 4th century was just a tool of apologetics. We became dependent on a concept that was never essential in Christianity, but was merely how a particular group of Christians wanted to see things.

The first-century Christians didn't need doctrine. They had an experience. We have to try to be more like the first-century Christians and relive the experience!!! It really doesn't matter how you think of God. What matters is that you can relive the experience. Most importantly, we need to have a personal relationship with God!!!

One of the reasons why the Trinity sprang to existence, I believe, was because of the politics of the time. The first-century Christians knew their purpose, but the Christians of later centuries were less sure of their purpose. They didn't have the first-century experience, and had to rely on a written tradition about the first-century experience (ie. the New Testament). I think a lot of people got confused when they read the Gospel of John and John and Paul's epistles. The author of the Gospel of John knew what he was doing, but we don't know exactly what he was doing.

But maybe that's the problem. People think it's all about precision and exactitude. As more and more Gentiles accumulated in churches, the Church became more and more influenced by ideas of "precision and exactitude" with regards to interpreting the Texts. They were influenced by Greek philosophy and gnosticism, where you had to present logical arguments that had no loopholes, and find ways to structure an argument so it couldn't be refuted. The doctrine of the Trinity presented in the 4th century was intended to be one that could not be refuted, based on what the New Testament said. Adherence to the doctrine has been justified by the statement, "The Texts don't declare there is a Trinity, but there is one in the Texts." But Christianity was not meant to be a philosophy that could be proven and refuted, therefore thinking in terms of "precision and exactitude" was pointless. This is where those who saw it as heresy to not believe in a Trinity got it wrong. They took it "too literally," or as I would put it, they mistook it as a prescription, rather than a description of what Christianity represented. But Christians from the 2nd century onwards didn't understand that. For the next 1800 years, we've been operating under this misunderstanding. The story of the Trinity is one where people took a prescriptive, rather than a descriptive approach to Christianity.

We must free ourselves from the idea that belief in the Trinity is the only way to relive the experience, as this could be akin to idol-worship. The 4th century Christians needed the Trinity for political reasons, but we don't need it, because the politics that conceived of the Trinity was in the 4th century, not the 21st century. It is completely acceptable to churches and congregations to form local doctrine to formulate concepts that pertain to the needs of a local population, but it cannot speak for all times, places and generations. Such local doctrine is "sound doctrine" for that local population, but not "sound doctrine" for the whole population. We have to leave the past behind and move on.

Is the Trinity a heresy? No, but then nor is it essential. It is only useful for apologetics, ie. against Arianism. Every community, country, nation and group of people has its struggles. This is what makes a religion, a community, country or nation. It is working through our problems. It becomes a part of our individual and collective identity. It is what makes us who we are, and the New Testament is what tells us who we are . . . but, the Trinity is not an essential part of our identity. It only identifies the Christians of the 4th century because they are the ones who conceived it, just as the New Testament identifies the Christians of the first century. For the 21st century, one must perform an exegesis of the first-century Texts.

[pattimax]

Originally Posted by noctuary

God took a day off. Surely on my Sunday at 8am his people could give me a day off too.

8am Sunday? Call the police, they should be going to church.

[pattimax]

Originally Posted by madeinrussia89

I don't know for sure if I am going to Heaven, but I sure hope I do.

Let me set your mind at ease. You ARE going to heaven.

But if people love Jesus, then they will naturally do everything that comes along with it in time.


In my church, it is forbidden to read from Revelation during Liturgy

Do you ever feel likr a mushroom? (kept in the dark and fed manure)

If a church forbids anything to be read from the bible, antennae should go up!

[mee]

Originally Posted by noctuary

God took a day off. Surely on my Sunday at 8am his people could give me a day off too.

thats a bit early for me, i am normally getting ready for the kingdom hall meeting at 10 am .

[bob x]

"In my church, it is forbidden to read from Revelation during Liturgy
Do you ever feel likr a mushroom? (kept in the dark and fed manure)

If a church forbids anything to be read from the bible, antennae should go up!"

It is only "forbidden" in the liturgy in the same sense that it is "forbidden" to read from the novels of Stephen King, or from any essays by C.S. Lewis no matter how orthodox the sentiments. Of course a preacher might use any book in a sermon that contains something useful, but the liturgical readings are restricted to THE CANON, and Revelation is not part of their "canon" in that sense (they have various semi-canonical books, like 3rd and 4th Maccabees, which are typically printed together with the other books in their Bibles, and treated as ancient and worthy books, but just not liturgical).

[pattimax]

Originally Posted by bob x

It is only "forbidden" in the liturgy in the same sense that it is "forbidden" to read from the novels of Stephen King, or from any essays by C.S. Lewis no matter how orthodox the sentiments. Of course a preacher might use any book in a sermon that contains something useful, but the liturgical readings are restricted to THE CANON, and Revelation is not part of their "canon" in that sense (they have various semi-canonical books, like 3rd and 4th Maccabees, which are typically printed together with the other books in their Bibles, and treated as ancient and worthy books, but just not liturgical).

Give me your definition of liturgy.

[pattimax]

You know Bob...
If a church forbids anything to be read from the bible, antennae should go up!"

We are not talking novels or great writing; you cannot make everything equal.

Maybe that is why he doesn't know where he's going...

[bob x]

"You know Bob...
If a church forbids anything to be read from the bible, antennae should go up!"
They don't forbid people to READ it: they print it together with the Bibles, just like 3rd and 4th Maccabees and other worthy books which they encourage people to read, but do NOT consider on the same level as the other books, and therefore do not read *in the liturgy*. That is all we are talking about here, is whether to read it in the liturgy. That is restricted to "canon": your church thinks Revelation is "canon", theirs doesn't; the Ethiopian church thinks 1st Enoch is "canon", yours and theirs don't; the Catholics consider Sirach "canon", yours probably doesn't; you and the Catholics and the Orthodox all think 2nd Peter is "canon", but the Ethiopians and the Syrians don't.

[Quahom1]

Good point.