http://biblehub.com/numbers/11-29.htm
And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake?
would God that all the LORD'S people were prophets, and that the LORD would put his spirit upon them!
And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake?
would God that all the LORD'S people were prophets, and that the LORD would put his spirit upon them!
hi Bill ..Bill Rushby wrote:I don't think the first Friends had any demonstrated contact with "Anabaptists", as we would think of them, in the British Isles. They did have contact with other sectarians with Anabaptist ideas.Temporal wrote: "at that time (most?) were coming from Puritan roots? with Anabaptist influences? .. Puritans, Anabaptists, Protestants..."
The first Friends came mostly from Puritan (low church ex-Anglicans) and General Baptist groups, as well as from various more exotic British sectarian groups. Their contact with Mennonites came later as Friends missionized in the Netherlands and German areas. Some early Friends also came from the Church of England and Catholic churches.
this happened in my family; from what i've read, many Quakers moved to be north of the Mason-Dixon Line at or near the time of the U.S. Civil War for this reason.Bill wrote:
By the way, my mother-in-law's family left northern Virginia before the Civil War; they did not want to live in a slave state.
great reading.Bill Rushby wrote:The first protest by a colonial church body against the keeping of slaves took place at Germantown (Philadelphia) in 1688. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1688_Germ ... st_Slavery
Note that this Quaker group consisted of ex-Krefeld Mennonites who had joined the Quaker church in colonial Pennsylvania. I believed that they returned to the Mennonite fold when that denomination became sufficiently numerous in colonial Pennsylvania.
Page 7by temporal1 » Mon Jun 05, 2017 9:39 amo.no. now i'm getting confused! lolBill Rushby wrote:
Probably neither of these narratives is wholly accurate, but I thought this thread was about *The Benedict Option*!? I apologize if I got us onto a bunny trail!
i need a break.
i was hoping for your thoughts on my Quaker questions.
sure, and my understanding comes from reading Quaker Meeting records that clearly indicate those marrying outside the group were formally "disowned" .. a word that Bill described to be "naughty" today (this thread, Page 4.) the records i've read are from earlier times.Josh asks:
Bill, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Quakerism really ever depended on "marrying inside the faith" and wasn't an isolated ethnic sect. My own family history has more mixed Quaker-non Quaker marriages than it does Quaker-Quaker marriages (in fact, I'm not aware of any that fit the latter category)