beliefs of the church of christ

Noble Frank says: “Furthermore, all English versions of the Bible are translations. Every single one of them. You will not find the original language in any translation. This is why they are called translations or versions. I have a Greek Linear Bible. ”

[ LOL The heaven you say. Then are you not in violation of the noble CoC creeds that state;

1) “chapter & verse”
2) “we speak where the bible speaks and are …” ??

Are you not doing exactly what the Catholic priests, JW’s, etc do, when cornered scripturally from their bibles?

Isn‘t it true they, like the CoC, insist on going to the “originals”, “the church fathers” or whatever in order to prove some pet dogma when cornered scripturally?

Isn’t that the modus operandi of every cult operation & or potentate wannabee? ]

Frank says: “However, if I asked you to tell me what it meant, you could not do it, as you cannot speak or read the Greek language God inspired men to use. You still have not figured out how English works. (I.E declarative statement, approved example or implication). You should stop this incessant drivel about what Bible one uses. It makes you look inane.

[ Sniff, sniff, honk, wipe.
I’m not “inane“, noble Frank, but speak forth the words of truth and soberness. For Frank knoweth of these things, before whom I also speak freely: for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for these things are of the CoC religion & he BLESSED well knows it! ]

Noble Frank says: “I believe the committee you are speaking of consisted of seventy men.”

[ LOL Where did I cite or imply such a number? ]

Frank says: “However, You did say,[ I know of NO translation committee from 1609 to present time that agrees with such opinion. Again, how is it that the AV, RV, ASV, NASV, NKJ, NIV, etc committees ALL overlooked that??

[ LOL Frank, go get those eight English teachers, for you definitely need help, & try thinking for once. The AV had, initially, 54 translators, but only 47 survived to see the translation completed. The RV, ASV, NASV, NKJ, NIV each had a committee separated by time & personal. Since there are more than two, doesn’t my reference make such plural? Every committee that has translated a bible since the AV supports my position as to the misuse of the name “Christian” by the CoC. If you don’t believe that then please read them for yourself.

And such was also answered in post 1-20-05, 02:16 PM

Again, Frank, I do NOT have a committee! What part of that statement don’t you understand? The AV, RV, ASV, NASV, NKJ, NIV etc had translation committees. Not one of those committees agrees with the CoC dogma you are so desperately trying to make God, Luke, Paul & Peter say.

Go to http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/

then search for “THE LEARNED MEN”, article # A115. Buy it, then read it slowly, & try thinking for a change. There were two main opposing religious factions represented by those 47 men on the AV translation committee. Isn’t it ironic that neither group saw Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Pet 4:16 the way you think(?) they should? Isn’t it even more ironic that every translation committee for every Bible since 1609 AD has agreed with the AV committee & not you? E-mail me your address & I’ll send you a copy for free. Fair enough?

AGAIN , my question you refuse to answer. Are you telling this board that all those translation committees are wrong & that the various men you cite are right? That being true, which it isn’t, as you well know, why didn’t they give us the benefit of their intellects by translating a Bible for the uneducated believers? Try thinking for a change, Frank. I know it will be hard, but please try, you just might learn something.

and this also

Not some, Frank, ALL translation committees in respect to your perverted, look the word up, attempt to make The Lord God Almighty, Luke, Paul & Peter agree with the CoC’s claim that “Christian” was the “everlasting”, the “new name” God meant in Isa 62:2, when the answer is clearly in Isa 62:4. How many times have you been told that, Frank? Sir, you are a classic example of religious indoctrination!

Now Frank says: “I posted many names of individuals who dcided for themselves based on scholarship what the words of the original text mean.”

[ LOL To which, basically , this question was asked, but never answered by noble Frank, or those who post under his alias, in post 1-20-05, 02:16 PM

[ Are you saying they’re infallible? That they couldn’t make a mistake? Why didn’t they print a Bible, Frank? Could it be that they afraid their bias would be exposed by their peers & they were not about to be ridiculed for such? It is my experience that the greater the degree in education, the more inflated the ego. ]

Remember Frank, it's "chapter & verse", & not thus saith the originals.

 

Noble Frank says:

You said, [ Paul said he held nothing back that was profitable to the Ephesian elders (Acts 20:20). About 5 years later Paul wrote to the strongest church doctrinally in Gentile territory. Therefore, since according to your CoC religion the name “Christian” is important, doesn’t that make Paul a liar for he never mentions the word? ]

NO. If Paul were a liar in his writings, he would not have been inspired. [ You are correct to here, the rest is wrong, as you well know. ] Furthermore, my religion does NOT teach as you claim. [ YES it does, as you BLESSED well know, for you cannot give me “chapter & verse” that supports your, CoC, religion that the “everlasting name”, the “new name” is “Christian” (sic). Every time you leave the divine record or presume, which is proven from your posts. ]

Frank says: “You should audition for the Wizard of Oz. You would make a perfect Strawman.”

[ LOL ]

Frank says: “Paul must have used the term as Agrippa understood the conversation they had at his hearing, and he said, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian. Paul did not correct Agrippa after he used the name. He endorsed it. Note the following: In Acts 28: 29, And Paul said, I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except these bonds. If Chrisitan was the wrong name to be used, why did not Paul correct him?”

[ PLEASE , tell us what bible you are using in which Paul makes such a statement in “Acts 28:29”. LOL

If you meant Acts 26:29, would you have me violate that noble CoC motto: “We speak where the Bible speaks & are silent …”, especially in the light of Deut 12:32; Prov 30:6?

Nay, noble Frank, I shall not speak for the mouth of God. Obviously you, & the potentates you follow, think nothing about doing such, which will be required of you if you make this judgment (1 Cor 3:8-21). If not, that will be the least of your concerns !

In obedience to Deut 29:29, & what was repeatedly given you, which you have proven you are unable or unwilling to grasp what is your point?

1) Agrippa was a Gentile & as such would not been offended by that name as, I stated earlier it would be a nickname to Gentiles, like "Yankee" is to northerners, because:

2) It is apparent from Acts 11:26, @ 12 years after Acts 2, that the name was from lost Gentiles as; it is given in Gentile territory & NOT initially in the land of Israel; Luke never implies the name is from God or that believers initially called themselves by such. There is no evidence in the divine record that the name was considered derogatory, until you get to Hebrew believers.

3) Peter wrote the “afar off” (Dan 9:7) Hebrew believers (1 Pet 1:1), @ 23 years later. who were obviously offended (1 Pet 3:16). Peter does not even imply that “Christian” is a fulfillment of Isa 62:2-4 & that they should rejoice because of that name.

Since Christ means “anointed”, the Greek form of the Hebrew word Messiah, there would have been no believing Hebrew “ashamed” of being associated with Messiah (1 Pet 4:16), UNLESS the name “Christian" was given them by lost Gentiles , who Hebrews considered aliens, strangers etc because such had not submitted themselves to the Hebrew religion.

In contemporary life Christian is equivalent to calling a southerner a "Yankee", who still hates having been "whupped" by such @ 150 years later, as you blessed well know!

Frank, now what part of the above don’t you understand?

Looking forward to our debate on this subject.

Cordially, Dave

 

Noble Frank says: " Are you saying the church at Ephesus never read the book of Acts or Peter? Paul may have used the term and it not been recorded ."

[ Up to your old tricks yet AGAIN , noble Frank (Ps 19:13)? That being the case, maybe the RCC is right about the Apocrypha. Maybe there was some guy named Mac who got a bad case of bees, i.e. Maccabees . Maybe there is a “Gospel of Thomas“, “Gospel of Barnabas“, etc, etc. Get serious! ]

Frank says: " If God said it one time, it is enough for me. If you do not like the way Paul preached or wrote to Ephesus, take it up with God. He inspired Paul, Luke and Peter to write his words of choice in the Greek language. He who proves too little; proves too much ."

[ Friend, you’re the one that is definitely going to take this up with God. You are the one abandoning His word for “the originals” in order to, falsely, substantiate the perverted CoC dogma that the “everlasting name”, the “new name” is “Christian” (sic).

You are the one of the mind set that fractured “Christianity”, yet again, in order to have a Burger King, “have it your way”, religion. Since your, CoC, dogma cannot stand the test of Isa 28:10; 2 Tim 2:15 why accuse me of not believing what God said? You are rather strange, noble Frank, rather strange indeed.

Now what part of the above don’t you understand?

Psst. Looking forward to our debate, noble Frank.

Cordially, Dave

 

Noble frank says: " What Campbell did or did not do has no bearing on my salvation ."

[ Not so, noble Frank! Ever read Mt 23:3? Did you notice those were religious potentates that “.. say, and do not“?

You ever read what The Lord had to say about those religious potentates Mt:23:13-33? Did you slow down long enough to fully understand V15? Did you ever read Jn 8:32-44; Mk 7:6-9 & then engage brain? What spirit were those Pharisees following, noble Frank?

Did Campbell not institute the dogma practiced by the DoC? Did not the DoC split in 1906 over what name to call themselves? Did not the new group, CoC, observe that DoC dogma? Is not Acts 2:38 cited as the baptism “for the remission of sins”, called by Scott “the ancient gospel” (tag)? Did not Campbell & other potentates demand their proselytes submit to tag after Nov 1827?

Is there any record of the “Restoration GIantS” submitting to such a baptism, from those that graciously honored them with titles of “father, “founders“, “pioneers“? Is it not a fact that, in the CoC religion, if one doesn‘t fully understand the correct reason for their immersion the immersion is of none effect? Would Frank accept them fully into the CoC & state they are "Christians" in the true sense of the word as taught by the CoC?

And yet noble Frank says: “What Campbell did or did not do has no bearing on my salvation.”

How is it you cannot connect the dots, noble Frank?

 

Frank quotes II Kings 22:1 then says: " There is no declarative statement, example or implication that teaches God named Manasseh's mother, not one ..."

[ Post date & time where I stated that; “.. God named Manasseh's mother, ..”

Such is typical of every CoC potentate I’ve encountered, once they realize they cannot give “chapter & verse”, in context, & that their religious dogma is destroyed by Isa 28:10; 2 Tim 2:15. Were not the Pharisees notorious for like behavior, Frank? ]

Frank says: "Jewish families named their children. In rare circumstances, God changed or named someone. However, in every case, God was credited with providing the name. You cannot find this in the case of Hephzibah.”

[ Not until AFTER Isaiah pronounced the name Hephzibah (Isa 62:4) does such appear, for it is not a popular Hebrew name as the O.T. proves. Frank also, conveniently, forgets that he asked & was answered the following:

Quote " A man was dedicated to God by calling God’s name over him. The act indicated that he belonged to God ..."

[ Were that true, wouldn’t such logic(?) apply equally as well to a girl (2 Ki 21:1; Isa 62:2-4) ?]

Frank stated & was answered.

quote: " The new name could not be Hephizibah. This name was of human origin, and one that was under the old covenant ..."

[ Hephzibah was given by God, thru Isaiah who was God’s mouth back then (Isa 6:7; 1:20), & not until after (Isa 62:2-4) does that name appear in scripture (2 Ki 21:1). Consequently those two points alone completely destroy your, CoC, dogma regarding “Christian“. Were that all, & there is a lot more as I’ve previously presented, that should be enough to convince any unbiased honest believer. ]

Frank says: " Furthermore, names have meaning. However, this does not mean they are of divine designation. Joshua means Jehovah is salvation. Who gave him this name? How do you know? Mary Magdalelene went to the tomb of Christ. Who named her? My name if Frank. It means honest. However, just as in the cases of Joshua and Mary their parents of grandparents named them. It was not divinely ordained of God. Therefore, your argument in this case is not substantiated by the expressed word of God ."

[ This is Frank’s 2nd attempt at such a ploy. The following was posted 1-18-05, 2:01 PM in response to his 1st try, which he never answered, & is applicable here.

What would you have been called if you were not named “Frank”? Is your mail addressed to you as: “Christian” or as “Christian Frank”? Please, get serious!

Frank knows what the “argument” is, he is seeing CoC dogma destroyed just like God told believers to do. Since he cannot establish the CoC precept in any of the three bibles he claims to have answered me scripturally with, the only things he has left are lie, pretend or deny, all of which he’s repeatedly done. ]

Frank says: "Furthermore, the language of Isaiah 62 is one of prophetic futuristic sense. This would preclude Hephizibah from being the new name ."

[ Ever read Isa 62:2-4 without your CoC eyeglasses? It is guaranteed to solve your CoC dilemma. ]

Frank says: " Here are the passages that you claim teach God named Hephzibah.”

[ Frank, post date & time I cited such in that context. Have those English teachers help you on the word “context”, for that’s a word you CoC potentates certainly have GREAT difficulty with. ]

Frank says: " Isaiah 6:7 says, And he laid it upon my mouth, and said, Lo, this hath touched thy lips; and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin purged. The context is God looking for someone to preach on his behalf. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the name Hephzibah ."

Frank, conveniently, forgets this was answered.

[Hephzibah was given by God, thru Isaiah who was God’s mouth back then (Isa 6:7; 1:20), & not until after (Isa 62:2-4) does that name appear in scripture (2 Ki 21:1). Consequently those two points alone completely destroy your, CoC, dogma regarding “Christian“. Were that all, & there is a lot more as I’ve previously presented, that should be enough to convince any unbiased honest believer. ]

So only the indoctrinated fail to see what is clearly meant.

Frank says: " If so, where? Isaiah 1:20 says, But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it. The context of the verse is about being forgiven of ones sins by being willing and obedient and the consequences if one does not. Again, absolutely NOTHING to do with the name Hephzibah.”

[ The reference is to Isaiah being God’s mouth, so don’t waste any more money on a hermeneutics since it's clear you need English 101 courses asap, if you got any $$$ left. ]

Frank says: " Your claim is not declared, implied or approved by example in the passages you post as proof. Isaiah 62:2 has already been addressed. Your claim is false ."

[ Ever read Jer 23:28? You don’t dictate to God what you want Him to say, you relay exactly what He said. Consequently you are suffering the consequences for your disobedience (2 Pet 3:15-16) now & will later for sure !! ]

Have you made arrangements for our debate yet?

Cordially, Dave

 

If Churches of Christ do not believe in baptismal regeneration, do they believe that a person who professes Christ as Savior but is never baptized still goes to heaven?

When a Church of Christ baptizes a person, are they baptizing a lost person or a saved person? If the answer is "a saved person" then baptism had nothing to do with saving him. If they say baptism saves a person, then they have to say that the person was not saved until he was immersed. It may sound silly, but I wonder...if baptism saves him, at what point in the baptismal act is salvation imparted? When he stepped into the water? When he went into the water? When he came up out of the water?

 

Dave:
No, I have no creed, It is hard to violate that which one does not possess.

The claim about a translation comittee(s) disagreeing with the meaning of the original language has not been substantiated. Please provide their understanding of the word cheratizmo which according to the most reliable Greek scholars mean a divine calling. I have provided all source material necesssary to prove my position.

Frank

 

Frank says:

" No, I have no creed, It is hard to violate that which one does not possess ."

[B[]LOL[/B] Noble Frank, you ever consulted a dictionary about the word “creed”?

Webster New Collegiate Dictionary, 2nd ed., 1951

“2. a. Any formula or confession of religious faith. b. A summary of principles or opinions professed or adhered to, …”

Every CoC potentate I’ve encountered always stress these rules of interpretation

1) “Chapter & verse”
2) “We speak where the Bible speaks …”.
3) “We take the Bible alone in matters of faith & practice”

which obviously meets Webster’s definition of “creed”.

Are you telling this board that you do not follow those three points?

Frank, you ever read Col 3:9 & then thought about what you just stated? Why hasn’t God slain you, like He did Ananias, for lying since He is no respecter of persons”? Have you not lied?

And, in obedience to God’s command for correctly handling His word (Isa 28:10; 2 Tim 2:15), the CoC’s creed thoroughly destroys their claim that the “everlasting name”, the “new name” is “Christian” (sic), as I have repeatedly shown.

Frank says: "The claim about a translation comittee(s) disagreeing with the meaning of the original language has not been substantiated ."

Sure has, that’s why you can’t prove your, CoC, dogma about the name “Christian” from those three Bibles !!!


Frank says: " Please provide their understanding of the word cheratizmo which according to the most reliable Greek scholars mean a divine calling ."

Clearly Frank is not up to speed on what his fearless leader said about Bible reading.

http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/acampbell/tcs2/TCS202.HTM

Alexander Campbell The Christian System 2d ed 1839, Chapter 2

“IV. The words of the Bible contain all the ideas in it;--these words, then, rightly understood, & the ideas are clearly perceived. The words & sentences of the Bible are to be translated, interpreted, & understood according to [15] the same code of laws & principles of interpretation by which other ancient writings are translated & understood; for when God spoke to man in his own language, he spoke as one person converses with another, in fair, stipulated, & well established meaning of the terms. This is essential to its character as a revelation from God; otherwise it would be no revelation, but would always require a class of inspired men to unfold & reveal its true sense to mankind.”

“Rule 2. In examining the contents of any book, as respects precepts, promises, exhortations, etc., observe who it is that speaks, & under what dispensation he officiates. Is he a Patriarch, a Jew, or a Christian? Consider also the persons addressed; their prejudices, characters, & religious relations. Are they Jews or Christians--believers or unbelievers--approved or disapproved? This rule is essential to the proper application of every command, promise, threatening, admonition, or exhortation, in O.T. or New.”

“Rule 3. To understand the meaning of what is commanded, promised, taught, etc., the same philological principles, deduced from the nature of language; or the same laws of [16] interpretation which are applied to the language of other books, are to be applied to the language of the Bible.”

“Rule 4. Common usage, which can only be ascertained by testimony, must always decide the meaning of any word which has but one signification; --but when words have according to testimony (i. e. the dictionary,) more meanings than one, whether literal or figurative, the scope, the context, or parallel passages must decide the meaning: for if common usage, the design of the writer, the context, & parallel passage fail, there can be no certainty in the interpretation of language.”

Frank says: " I have provided all source material necesssary to prove my position."

Excellent! Then obviously you will debate me on this subject using only those 3 Bibles you claim prove your, CoC, opinion that the “everlasting name”, the “new name” is “Christian” (sic). Please, give me a date, sir.

Cordially, Dave

 

Dave:

I have no man made creed. I submit to the new testament of Christ. Jesus was against the creed's of men. Therefore, I do not proclaim any profession that is not based on the new testament of Christ. I do not use the term creed, as it has the connotation of being man made. If you wish to proclaim a creed, you certainly can do so.

I follow a number of principles in matters faith. However, I do not proclaim any one as a creed.

One principle used is that of contextual interpretation. This includes immediate and remote context of scripture. Secondly, I consider the meaning of words as they appear by inspiration. I am not bound to any one version of the Bible. I compare the various translations to get the best interpretation available. For example, the K.J.V. states in Romans 8:16,  The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: However, the N.A.S.V. uses the word himself in the place of itself. According to John 16:13, the Spirit is a he, a personal pronoun, not an it. Therefore, the most reliable word in contest of the Spirit would be himself. The Greek word in his passage is Pneuma. It has several meanings. However, the context clearly teaches us the meaning of Pneuma is a person. Any interpretation must harmonize with the totality of the evidence. However, be that as it may, I do not proclaim these principles as a creed, no more than when I quote book, chapter, and verse from any of the various translations.

My loyalty is to Christ and the new testament he bought with his own blood.

Dave, as for your revisionist history on Campbell, the claims about his conversion or the lack thereof, as you are asserting, are unsubstantiated. Furthermore, Campbell made enemies during his time. He was disfellowshipped or, he withdrew from several denominational fellowships because they refused to set aside their " man made creeds" and accept the new testament as the only authority for matters of faith. He had many detractors of this ilk.

Again, I posted references as to what he taught as a Gospel preacher as witnessed by those who heard and were converted by him.

I do not know of all Campbell taught. However, I would agree with him when he is true to the new testament of Christ, and would stand opposed to him when he did not. Therefore, you assertion from Mat. 23 is absurd and unsubstantiated. You have no clue as to the agreements or disagreements I would have with Campbell as a preacher.

This incessant attempt to discredit Campbell and link me with him is called "poisoning the waters." It is common among those who espouse a position that is untenable.

Furthermore, for your info. there were only three of his sermons preserved. He prefered to speak unencumbered by notes. Again, you could hardly know what he preached unless you heard him. You have claimed many things. I hope you are not going to claim you actually heard him speak!!


The passages you posted do not say God named the mother of Manasseh. I posted them all. I have yet to read a verse that says God named the mother of Manasseh, Hephizibeh.

Dave, the popularity of the name is irrelevant. Furthermore, you have not proven God named her. Your claim this name does not appear until after Isaiah named her is unsubstantiated by the expressed word of God. (II Kings 21: 1). You assert this based on what scripture? Isaiah 62: 1-4 says,"Isaiah 62:1  ¶For Zion's sake will I not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest, until the righteousness thereof go forth as brightness, and the salvation thereof as a lamp that burneth.
2  And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the LORD shall name.
3  Thou shalt also be a crown of glory in the hand of the LORD, and a royal diadem in the hand of thy God.
4  Thou shalt no more be termed Forsaken; neither shall thy land any more be termed Desolate: but thou shalt be called Hephzibah, and thy land Beulah: for the LORD delighteth in thee, and thy land shall be married." There is not mention of God naming the mother of Manasseh. Furthermore, the contest of the chapter is about the salvation of sinners. Verse 12 declares them the redeemed. The redeemed, which means, bought back, are all of mankind who have been purchased by the blood of Christ. The hebrew writer states in chapter 9 and 15-22, Hebrews 9:15  ¶And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
16  For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17  For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
18  Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
19  For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
20  Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
21  Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.
22  And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
All men are redeemed by the blood of Christ. Isaiah 62 looks to the future when this will take place. This is noted by the word shall in vere 2,3,4,5,6,8,9,12.

Dave, the only person you going to convince with the " Frank knows" line is yourself. If you repeat it enough times, you might succeed.

Dave, I have read Jeremiah a few times. You should follow your own advice.

As for my proposed debate, I affirm that the bible teaches that water baptism is essential to the salvation of the sinner.

Frank

 

Dh:
It would be helpful to me for you to define what you mean by baptismal regeneration. I do not want to misunderstand you.

The bible says one is to baptized for the remission of sins. ( Acts 2:38). Therefore, new testament baptism is for the sinner.

Baptism for the sinner is to be done in like fashion as the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. ( Romans 6::3-6).

This is the way God operates in baptism. ( Col. 2:12). I hope this helps. If you wish to discuss it further, just ask.

Have a good evening,
Frank

 

Frank says: " I have no man made creed. I submit to the new testament of Christ. Jesus was against the creed's of men. Therefore, I do not proclaim any profession that is not based on the new testament of Christ. I do not use the term creed, as it has the connotation of being man made. If you wish to proclaim a creed, you certainly can do so ."

This is a typical example of how CoC potentates attempt to avoid reality when cornered.

Frank said earlier: " No, I have no creed, It is hard to violate that which one does not possess ."

So I asked him: [ Noble Frank, you ever consulted a dictionary about the word “ creed ”?

Webster New Collegiate Dictionary, 2nd ed., 1951

“2. a. Any formula or confession of religious faith. b. A summary of principles or opinions professed or adhered to, …”

Every CoC potentate I’ve encountered always stress these rules of interpretation

1) “Chapter & verse”
2) “We speak where the Bible speaks …”.
3) “We take the Bible alone in matters of faith & practice”

which obviously meets Webster’s definition of “ creed ”.

Are you telling this board that you do not follow those three points? ]

Frank, as you blessed well know those three points are the mantra of the CoC & if you deny they are you have lied to God (Col 3:9)!!

Frank says: "I follow a number of principles in matters faith. However, I do not proclaim any one as a creed. "

That excuse won’t pass the test of Webster or any other dictionary, much less God!

Do you or do you not follow those three points? That requires a yes or a no, Frank!

Frank says: " One principle used is that of contextual interpretation. This includes immediate and remote context of scripture. Secondly, I consider the meaning of words as they appear by inspiration ."

That’s a lie! You cannot prove from the three bibles you claim to use that the CoC dogma that “Christian” is the “new name“, the “everlasting name” (sic), & you know it!

Frank says: "I am not bound to any one version of the Bible. I compare the various translations to get the best interpretation available. For example, the K.J.V. states in Romans 8:16, The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: However, the N.A.S.V. uses the word himself in the place of itself. According to John 16:13, the Spirit is a he, a personal pronoun, not an it. Therefore, the most reliable word in contest of the Spirit would be himself. The Greek word in his passage is Pneuma. It has several meanings. However, the context clearly teaches us the meaning of Pneuma is a person. Any interpretation must harmonize with the totality of the evidence. However, be that as it may, I do not proclaim these principles as a creed, no more than when I quote book, chapter, and verse from any of the various translations.

So when are we going to debate the “Christian” name, Frank? I will let you use all three Bibles you claim that, supposedly, prove your assertion that “Christian” etc, etc.

Frank says: " Dave, as for your revisionist history on Campbell, the claims about his conversion or the lack thereof, as you are asserting, are unsubstantiated."

Frank, you BLESSED well know that had the ffps been baptized “for the remission of sins” the DoC would have been recorded it! Since there is no record of the Campbells, their families, Scott or Stone submitting to such baptism you, like every CoC potentate I have asked to date, must shovel it with vigor least your, CoC, proselytes learn the truth & flee Campbell’s dogma.

Frank says: "Furthermore, Campbell made enemies during his time. He was disfellowshipped or, he withdrew from several denominational fellowships because they refused to set aside their " man made creeds" and accept the new testament as the only authority for matters of faith. He had many detractors of this ilk ."

Another typical CoC ploy in order to avoid the real issue , which is the “restoration GIantS” refusal to submit to a baptism “for the remission of sins”, as has been pointed out repeatedly.

Frank says: "Again, I posted references as to what he taught as a Gospel preacher as witnessed by those who heard and were converted by him."

That is my point! It was impossible for the “restoration giANTs” to have overlooked the fact that they had not obeyed because they, supposedly, examined themselves before taking the Lord’s supper each week (2 Cor 13:5). Swaggert, Copeland, Roberts have nothing on your DoC potentates.

Frank says: "I do not know of all Campbell taught. However, I would agree with him when he is true to the new testament of Christ, and would stand opposed to him when he did not ."

Frank, the Lord you claim to follow made it perfectly clear the Pharisees said & did not (Mt 23:3). And the fact you know the ffps were not baptized for the remission of sins is PROOF that “.. and would stand opposed to him when he did not” is a lie (Col 3:9)!

You would no more accept the ffps into CoC fellowship as saved "Christians" than you would Hagen, Copeland, etc, & you blessed well know it!


Frank continues: " Therefore, you assertion from Mat. 23 is absurd and unsubstantiated. You have no clue as to the agreements or disagreements I would have with Campbell as a preacher.”

LOL In other words when Alex contradicts you, for going outside the Bible to, supposedly, prove a CoC precept, you take exception. Right? LOL

Frank says: " This incessant attempt to discredit Campbell and link me with him is called "poisoning the waters." It is common among those who espouse a position that is untenable ."

LOL Is that what your going to tell God, Frank? You can’t stand up to me much less the creator of the universe who is going to DEMAND the truth from you!

Frank says: "Furthermore, for your info. there were only three of his sermons preserved. He prefered to speak unencumbered by notes. Again, you could hardly know what he preached unless you heard him. You have claimed many things. I hope you are not going to claim you actually heard him speak!!"

LOL Anything but face reality, right, Frank? LOL


Frank says: "The passages you posted do not say God named the mother of Manasseh. I posted them all. I have yet to read a verse that says God named the mother of Manasseh, Hephizibeh."

Never said God named her. Since you claim that I did please post the date & time, sir. This is the 3rd time you have deliberately lied about this, so put up or apologize.

Frank, you are the one who claims to have scripturally proven, from your three bibles, that the “everlasting name”, the “new name” is “Christian” (sic). So when is our debate, sir?

 

Noble Frank said in his post on February 11, 2005 07:28 PM

"One principle used is that of contextual interpretation. This includes immediate and remote context of scripture. Secondly, I consider the meaning of words as they appear by inspiration. I am not bound to any one version of the Bible. I compare the various translations to get the best interpretation available. For example, the K.J.V. states in Romans 8:16, The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: However, the N.A.S.V. uses the word himself in the place of itself. According to John 16:13, the Spirit is a he, a personal pronoun, not an it. Therefore, the most reliable word in contest of the Spirit would be himself. The Greek word in his passage is Pneuma. It has several meanings. However, the context clearly teaches us the meaning of Pneuma is a person ..."

The above is a typical CoC potentate ruse to avoid his repeatedly obvious failure to prove his denomination’s precept, that the “everlasting name”, the “new name” is “Christian” (sic) from any bible since The Geneva Bible in 1599 to present day.

Like the first Bible critic (Gen 3:1), Frank considers himself an authority as to what God really said in “the originals”, thus ignores anything that doesn’t suit his fool-u-osphy learned at Potentater “U”. Does God have a way of correcting such modern day Pharisees, that strain at gnats & swallow camels (Mt 23:3; 15; 24) in the AV?

1) In Gen 1:11; 12 didn’t the translators use "his" & “itself” in reference to the same object? Isn‘t it a rule in hermeneutics that the first mention of a thing or principle becomes important in understanding it? Then haven’t the translators set the standard?

2) Did those translators promote themselves as to their qualifications to translate “the originals” or were they humble? Please see the translators dedication to King James.

3) Has Frank ever read the AV translators qualifications to do such work, as I asked him to in my 1-20-05, 02:16 PM post?

http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/

then search for “THE LEARNED MEN”, article # A115. Buy it, then read it slowly, & try thinking for a change. There were two main opposing religious factions represented by those 47 men on the AV translation committee. Isn’t it ironic that neither group saw Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Pet 4:16 the way you think(?) they should? Isn’t it even more ironic that every translation committee for every Bible since 1609 AD has agreed with the AV committee & not you? E-mail me your address & I’ll send you a copy for free. Fair enough?)

4) In Lu 9:39; 42; Mk 9:18-22 didn‘t the translators call the devil "it" &, like the Holy Spirit, isn’t the devil a spirit? Isn‘t the word “it“ neuter in the English language? Doesn’t the NASB uses the word "it" in those verses?

5) Since Frank knows the Greek word for spirit is pneuma, surely he knows it has 3 genders, masculine, feminine neuter, & that pneuma is a neuter noun. So wouldn’t the correct reflexive pronoun be the word “itself“? Then isn’t the use of “himself”, by the NASV, poor grammar in Rom 8:16; 26? Doesn’t such use contradict part # 2 of THE FOURFOLD AIM” of the Lockman Foundation, page v, of the 1973 edition, which reads: “They shall be grammatically correct.”?

If Frank knows all that can he honestly state that: “I compare the various translations to get the best interperation available”?

Therefore, would it help Frank to read Dr. S. Frank Logsdon’s testimony about the NASV before shoveling any more of his expertise in the Greek?

http://www.biblebelievers.com/logsdon_testimony.html

Frank, I’m looking forward to our debate on the “Christian” name. Have you set a date yet, sir?

Cordially, Dave