Distortion of Scripture

[ascund]

Hey bmerr

I know I stedily and faithfully give Bible to demolish your position. However, the reference to "scorn" is found in DHK's posting - not mine.

I don't understand what you are referring to with your reference to first year Greek. I usually only use that in regard to the Gnomic Present in verses like John 3:15-16.

So . . . please clarify your question.
Lloyd

 

[bmerr]

ascund,

bmerr here. My apologies, sir. That was from DHK's post.

Concerning the "first year greek" reference, you've been flailing around with verb tenses and such like you just graduated from seminary or something. You remind me a little of a basic trainee, who goes on leave with just enough hand-to-hand combat training to get himself beat up by the locals.

Either way, feel free to adress the question, if you like. But please, speak English.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[ascund]

Greetings

Originally posted by bmerr:
Concerning the "first year greek" reference, you've been flailing around with verb tenses and such like you just graduated from seminary or something. You remind me a little of a basic trainee, who goes on leave with just enough hand-to-hand combat training to get himself beat up by the locals.

I have undergraduate minors in Greek, linguistics (and Math and Psychology majors with Physics minor. But these are not applicable here) from the University of N. Dakota. I had a review sequence in my MS in Bible at Heritage Bible College. (Let's not forget MS in Math from UND - but again it is not applicable here). I am getting ready to graduate from Trinity with 18 semester hours of Greek beyond the theology requirements. I need those post-graduate hours so that I can teach Greek at any accredited university in the USA.

Bring on the locals!
Lloyd

 

[bmerr]

ascund,

bmerr here. My, you have been busy! Hats off to anyone who has put that kind of time into their education. I'm sure it was not just time, but a lot of hard work, too. Just try not to talk too far above the rest of us! Most of us only graduated the sixth grade!

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by ascund:
Hey bmerr

I know I stedily and faithfully give Bible to demolish your position. However, the reference to "scorn" is found in DHK's posting - not mine.

My answer comes mostly from historical sources as well as from others.
A.T. Robertson, a Greek scholar, has this to say on Acts 11:26, where the word "Christian" is first used.

It is made thus like a Latin adjective, though it is a Greek word, and it refers to the Hebrew belief in a Messiah (Page). The name was evidently given to the followers of Christ by the Gentiles to distinguish them from the Jews since they were Greeks, not Grecian Jews. The Jews would not call them Christians because of their own use of Cristoß the Messiah. The Jews termed them Galileans or Nazarenes. The followers of Christ called themselves disciples (learners), believers, brethren, saints, those of the Way. The three uses of Christian in the N.T. are from the heathen standpoint (here), Acts 26:28 (a term of contempt in the mouth of Agrippa), and 1 Peter 4:16 (persecution from the Roman government). It is a clear distinction from both Jews and Gentiles and it is not strange that it came into use first here in Antioch when the large Greek church gave occasion for it. Later Ignatius was bishop in Antioch and was given to the lions in Rome, and John Chrysostom preached here his wonderful sermons.

A.T. Robertson
DHK

 

[Briguy]

Hi bmer,
You asked about the chief rulers. I read the passage and I don't think it applies to our conversation which is geared for Gentiles in the post pentecost church. The chief ruler were Jewish before Jesus died and rose again and sent the comforter. The standard of faith they were held to and the paying for sin and that kind of thing may or may not be the way things are now. Either way, as I read the passages surronding the one you asked me to read it seemed it likey that one of two things were true. Either they rulers believed in the same sense that the demons believe, thus they would not have a saving belief or they were saved but just babes in the faith and not ready to handle persecution. I don't know that the text is clear but I don't think it helps your point either way because of the time frame and who the chief rulers were. Remember that the house of Isreal was God's chosen people and operated as such for thousands of years.

In Christ,
Brian

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Referreing back to the beginning of this thread, "The following is EXCEEDINGLY IMPORTANT!!!: Its wise to consult wiser ones as long as they understand justification through faith alone, and the principle known as "sola scriptura". Meaning, those wiser ones hold to those same priciples themselves, and they NEVER expect you to take anything they say to be the truth simply because of who they are, but rather they encourage you to go to the scriptures yourself, TRUSTING only the Holy Spirit to teach you truth.
And...in the same vein...we are to never, under any circustances allow any religious organisation to take the place of the Holy Spirit as your teacher of truth. Rather, the believer should flee any organisation as that like the plague."

Now I, being a believer that confesses: "I believe the Church ..." WITH the catholic Church, reject everything here asserted, because there is no such thing as either "the Bible and the Bible only", or, "the Holy Spirit as your teacher of truth" outside and without this Church of the Congregation of Christ's. For it never is 'the Bible only' but I, and, the Bible - second! And it never is the Spirit, if a spirit "witnessing of himself", but a false spirit not of God!
We are TAUGHT "Gehorsamkeit" - 'obedience' or "to listen to one another" (as Karl Barth has said), IN THE CHURCH. No true Christian forms his own ideas of what the Word of God is because he will always form and base his understanding through the 'PROCLAMATION' of Jesus Christ that goes on in and through THE CHURCH.
So, for me, away with anything boasting uniqueness in the Faith especially when bolstered by some 'spiritual gift'!

 

[ascund]

Greetings

Originally posted by Gerhard Ebersoehn:
No true Christian forms his own ideas of what the Word of God is because he will always form and base his understanding through the 'PROCLAMATION' of Jesus Christ that goes on in and through THE CHURCH.
So, for me, away with anything boasting uniqueness in the Faith especially when bolstered by some 'spiritual gift'!

The Church? Yes!
The organized corrupted Catholic Church? No!

Even Paul greeted the Church at the house of Aquilla and Priscilla (Rom 16:3-5). Not an organization.

Where is the word "Pope" in the Bible? It is a human invention.

Where does it say anyone is born perfect? But in 1951, the Roman Catholic church decided Mary was perfect. Human foolishness. God's Word says all have sinned (Rom 3:23).

Roman Catholics say that priests can't marry. Yet Peter had a wife (Matt 8:14). More human foolishness.

This list could be quite lengthy.
Roman Catholics say salvation is a process (Councils of Trent).

Bible says justification is an EVENT. Even sanctification has an aspect that can be described as an EVENT; namely, God's separation of believers unto Himself. This is the biggest Catholic error showing that it is a human centered religion and not a Christ centered religion. Therefore, it is a monolithic monstrosity.

All the other features are foolish wrappings. The false view of justification reveals the evil and corruption within that human organization.
__Pray to Mary - a venemous lie!
__Light a candle - a dark deception.
__Purgatory - not in the Bible

But one thing the Catholic Church did really well was to incorporate the pagan religious of Egypt and Babylon and then dress them up with Christian terminology. Jesus Christ is the only WAY to heaven (Acts 4:12).

Repent!
Judgment comes quickly
Lloyd

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I'm not talking of the Roman falsely so called "Catholic Church" - I'm talking of the universal, everlasting Church of Believers - "The Communion of the Saints" as the Articles of Faith in the Apostolic Confession say. I believe this Church of God is the Protestant Churches - or is found within their fold. I am a "Reformer" or "Reformed" -"Gereformeerd" Calvinist. Have I listened to Calvin; have I read Luther; have I consulted Karl Barth, John Owen, - aal the MAMY men of God 9Like Spurgeon, Robertson - MANY MANY) - the Church, in other words? If not, then I have not yet heard the Word of God "rightly broken" by Paul, by Matthew, by John, or by whomever "according to the Scriptures". The Scriptures are the Test of every one of them. Only thus, am I able to form MY own conclusions and convictions!
You should have realised this is what I meant.

 

[ascund]

Greetings

I am a "Reformer" or "Reformed" -"Gereformeerd" Calvinist. Have I listened to Calvin; have I read Luther; have I consulted Karl Barth, John Owen, - aal the MAMY men of God 9Like Spurgeon, Robertson - MANY MANY) - the Church, in other words? ... Scriptures". The Scriptures are the Test of every one of them. Only thus, am I able to form MY own conclusions and convictions!
You should have realised this is what I meant.

Good to hear that we don't have to go down the errant RC menu. Your references to Karl Barth aren't exactly evangelical. Catholics like Barth since a lot of his stuff can be easily used to support humanism.

Part of theology is learning to say what you mean and mean what you say. I liked your posts in the GRACE and OSAS threads.

LLoyd

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

You know, I love Barth, although I differ with him on his salvation of all kind of views. No doubt with me he is the greatest theologian of all time and 'evangelical' in the true sense of the word! Criticisms of Karl Barth I have encountered come from people who have no clue of what he stood for and have never read or mastered one sentence of what he wrote.
Take for example his statement on the Sabbath - great; absolutely unsurpassed except perhaps by Schilder. Despite, I differ with him on his final conclusions as pertains Sunday-worship!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

This exactly illustrates what I mean with the Bible truly speaking to the believer IN THE CHURCH. Karl Barth - as an example- has thoroughly "listened" ("Gehorsamkeit") to the Confessions of the Church through history. This is how the Holy Spirit has operated throughout history - that it 'inspired' and guarded God's Word even though the men through whom He so dispensed, were sinners and just ordinary men.
I still though believe the Church harbours some false doctrine. The Word through the Holy Spirit is still speaking in the Church, and will keep on speaking untill the end of time and sin. It will always be a return - a Reformation- until Christ has come.

 

[bmerr]

DHK,

bmerr here. Getting back to the origin of the name "Christian"...

The comments by A.T. Robertson do lend support for the idea that the name "Christian" was given by men. I had not read that before, and I would agree that the circumstances he brought to light may have played a part in the name being given.

My thinking against the idea of "Christian" being of (solely) human origin is based on the word translated "called" in Acts 11:26. It is defined by Strong's as,

"...to utter an oracle...divinely intimate...(gen.) bear as a title:-be called, be admonished (warned) of God, reveal, speak."

Other places this word is used, but translated differently are:

Matt 2:12, 22 - "being warned of God"

Luke 2:26 - "revealed" (by the Holy Ghost)

Acts 10:22 - "was warned of God"

Rom 7:3 - "she shall be called" (an adulteress)

Heb 11:7 - "being warned of God"

Heb 12:25 - "him that spake"

In each of these instances, I think it is reasonable to conclude that it is God who is speaking, and with the same word being used in Acts 11:26, it seems reasonable to believe that it was God who gave the disciples the name "Christian".

His doing so would be a fulfillment of Isaiah 62:1, 2, which reads,

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.

You know, sitting here thinking about it, I suppose it wouldn't be the first time God had brought about His will, or fulfilled prophecy by means of wicked men. I guess there may be some truth to both views.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[DHK]

Like I mentioned, it is not the Greek that I go by here (though I did quote Robertson), it is more history than anything else. Historical sources point to the calling of Christians in a dergoatory manner as Robertson pointed out in the case of King Agrippa.

In another example, the Baptists often claim their heritage from the Anabaptists. This also was a derogatory name. The word "ana" simply means "again." Most converts were either Catholic or Anglican and had already been baptized as infants. True believers didn't consider that baptism, as a baptism at all. Thus they Scripturally baptized the believer after they had been born again. For this act they were persecuted, and even killed. They were called, mockingly so, "Anabaptists," those who baptized again, or re-baptizers.

Many names throughout history are given out of derision and in scorn. I believe that "Christian" was also one of those names.
We consider it an honorable name today, just as I consider the name "Baptist" as an honorable name today. But from the beginning it was not so.
DHK

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Maybe like the word "sect" was used - "the sect of the Nazarene"?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Coming to think about it, DHK, your idea - I've never thought of it that way - is most meaningful!
The Christians derided "the Christians"! Ah! Just maybe, those worldy-wise Gentiles added a little refrain to this scornful reference to the believers in and followers of Christ? I wonder if you can read my mind?

 

[bmerr]

Originally posted by Gerhard Ebersoehn:
Maybe like the word "sect" was used - "the sect of the Nazarene"?

Gerhard,

bmerr here. That word translated "sect" is also found in Acts 24:14 translated as "heresy". The Scripture shows how quick those in error are to label the way of truth as "heresy".

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

You know bmerr, I lately have come strongly under the impression Christ's words, "Where two or three come together in my Name", was prophetic of His Church, as saw he our own day and people of certain conviction being excluded by their very faith in and about Him!
I am becoming more and more isolated through some simple points I hold in faith, and am really feeling the brunt of it through loneliness mostly. But Jesus Christ is my hope as He is my longing.

 

[D28guy]

Gerhard,

You quoted me...

"Referreing back to the beginning of this thread, "The following is EXCEEDINGLY IMPORTANT!!!: Its wise to consult wiser ones as long as they understand justification through faith alone, and the principle known as "sola scriptura". Meaning, those wiser ones hold to those same priciples themselves, and they NEVER expect you to take anything they say to be the truth simply because of who they are, but rather they encourage you to go to the scriptures yourself, TRUSTING only the Holy Spirit to teach you truth.
And...in the same vein...we are to never, under any circustances allow any religious organisation to take the place of the Holy Spirit as your teacher of truth. Rather, the believer should flee any organisation as that like the plague."

And then said...

"Now I, being a believer that confesses: "I believe the Church ..." WITH the catholic Church, reject everything here asserted, because there is no such thing as either "the Bible and the Bible only",..."

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in rightiousness, that the man of God might be complete, and thoroughly equipped for every good work."

(just one among hundreds of course)

"...or, "the Holy Spirit as your teacher of truth"..."

"However, when He, the Spirit of truth has come, he will guide you into all truth"

(just one among hundreds of course)

"...outside and without this Church of the Congregation of Christ's."

Then you believe there was no Holy Spirit led teaching during the 1st 300 years of the church?

The joining or *some* christian truth with a monumental amount of paganism, false teaching, superstition, and demomic control mechanisms known as the Catholic Church of Rome did not come into being until the middle of the 3rd century.

For over 300 years prior to the invention of the Catholic Church of Rome Gods people found it to be truth that...

"My sheep hear my voice. They know it. And the voice of a stranger they will not follow"

"For it never is 'the Bible only' but I, and, the Bible - second!"

Totally false. It is the Holy Spirit and the scriptures and the born again believer.

"And it never is the Spirit, if a spirit "witnessing of himself", but a false spirit not of God!"

And how can you tell whether its the true Holy Spirit of a false spirit?

The only way is to have an unchanging standard to use as a test.

That unchanging standard is the scriptures, and the scriptures alone...

"And these were more fairminded than those in Thessolanica, in that they searched the scriptures daily, to see if these things be so"

(just one among hundreds of course)

"We are TAUGHT "Gehorsamkeit" - 'obedience' or "to listen to one another" (as Karl Barth has said), IN THE CHURCH. No true Christian forms his own ideas of what the Word of God is because he will always form and base his understanding through the 'PROCLAMATION' of Jesus Christ that goes on in and through THE CHURCH."

Of course you believe "the church" is not what the scriptures teach that it is...

(all born again people, nothing more)

...but rather it is supposedly the Catholic Church of Rome. You erroniously belief that the all knowing and all seeing "Hieararchy" of the Catholic Church, through the cultic "Teaching Majesterium" doctrine is "The Church", and they are supposedly commissioned by God to spoon feed the compliant and ever helpless and dependant "lay people" what they must believe. And of course, one of the things they must believe is...

((("You must never leave the Church of Rome!")))

And that is precisely the tactic that ALL the major cults teach their people.

Lets take a look at a few, along with a couple of individual cult leaders who used the same lie to decieve their victims...

* The Jehovahs Witnesses

* The Mormons

* David Koresh

* Christian Science(Mary Baker Eddy)

* Jim Jones

* Tha Roman Catholic Church

Not a good crowd to run with.

"So, for me, away with anything boasting uniqueness in the Faith especially when bolstered by some 'spiritual gift'!"

Sadly, thats your choice. However, until the day you pass into eternity the door will always be open for you to turn to the truth.

God Bless,

Mike

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Maybe I haven't made myself clear enough. I sahll try again, and agin with the help of old Karl Barth who in his Dogmatik im Grundriss said tha we - the Church - confess God - the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit; but CANNOT stop there, but must GN and also confess: I believe the the Communion of the saints etc. - the Church! Why? Because the Church is the work of the Holy Spirit! God works that way; it is His will to so give the Holy Spirit and through the Holy Spirit to lead into all truth - in and through the the Church. I'm not Roman Catholic who places tradition and the Church above the Scriptures; but I am also not a lone ranger who thinks he can rule the West by himself and his gun only. What is the good - if I may speak like that - of the Holy Spirit if He had not created this Body that is Christ's Own? If He is not the Spirit who does that, then He (I speak like a mortal) is the creator of division and confusion.
I personally (For what it is worth or not worth) am finding myself excluded by this Church I so firmly believe in; that is my own predicament. It is not easy!