GCM Forum: Today Mere Nick and Norton

Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:32 pm

September 25th, 2012, 12:54 am #31

The Apocrypha was in the LXX version from which Jesus Quotes. He does not quote from the Apocrypha but He would be aware that this was the only writings between the testaments where there were no writing prophets. These books describe the history of the Jews with as much authority as the Scribes who wrote for that period after observing the Law of Moses when the nation had been abandoned to worship the starry host.

The Spirit of Christ breathed on the writing prophets: not on the kings, priests, Levites or commanders of the army under whom the Levite Soothsayers had their authority:

Jer. 8:8 How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is WITH US? LO, CERTAINLY IN VAIN MADE HE IT; THE PEN OF THE SCRIBES IS in vain.

The Lying Pen of the Scribes SAID that God made the Temple when Stephen and Jesus were murdered for denying that and labeling the Scribes as hypocrites where Christ in Ezekiel 33 naming slick speakers, singers and instrument players along with the AUDIENCE (elders) MARKED by telling God to shut His face.

8267. sheqer, sheh´-ker; from 8266; an untruth; by implication, a sham (often adverbial):without a cause, deceit(-ful), false(-hood, -ly), feignedly, liar, + lie, lying, vain (thing), wrongfully.

Jer. 8:9 The wise MEN ARE ASHAMED, THEY ARE DISMAYED AND TAKEN: LO, THEY HAVE REJECTED THE WORD OF THE LORD; and what wisdom is in them?

Jer. 8:10 Therefore will I give their wives unto others, and their fields to them that shall inherit them: for every one from the least even unto the greatest is given to covetousness, from the prophet even unto the priest every one dealeth falsely.


Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John,

http://www.piney.com/Cyril.Alexandria.Gospel.John.html

That the Pharisees puffed up unto strange boasting,
were wont to pretend that the Divine Word was with them and in them,
and therefore foolishly affirmed that they had advanced to marvellous wisdom,
<font color="#FFFFFF">.....
the Spirit Itself will testify, since Christ says by the Prophet Jeremiah unto them,
.....How do ye say, WE are wise, and the word of the Lord is with us?
.....For nought to the scribes became their lying pen;
.....the wise men were ashamed, were dismayed and taken;
.....what wisdom is in them? because they rejected the word of the Lord.

For how are they not taken rejecting the Living and Hypostatic Word of God,
.....receiving not the faith to Him-ward,
.....but dishonouring the Impress of God the Father,
..... and refusing to behold His most true Form (so to say)
.....through His God-befitting Authority and Power?


So what shall we say of ELDERS who let parasites dominate them by building the foundation of instrumental "worship" on the backs of soothsaying or divining Levites cursed from their beginning by Jacob.

At least Enoch will never make you pay for rebuking lying and blasphemous false pretenders--parasites.





</font>
Quote
Like
Share

Scripture
Scripture

September 25th, 2012, 3:09 am #32

Walter Scott Restoration Movement Leader

http://www.piney.com/HsBsAcWs.html

Again--Some will say, What does the expression Holy Spirit mean?

1. Well, in scripture it stands first for God the Holy Spirit,
2. and secondly for the holy mind or spirit of a believer-

-for illustration, take Peter's words to Ananias, "Why has Satan tempted you to lie to the Holy Spirit; you have not lied to men, but to God," (the Holy Spirit.) And the Saviour says, How much more will your heavenly Father give A holy spirit (as it should be translated) to those that ask him.

Again--Praying in A holy spirit. Again--Paul says he approved himself God's servant "by knowledge, by long sufferings, by kindness, by A holy spirit'" by a mind innocent of the love of gain, or commerce, or sensuality.
Barton W Stone was similar to an "Arian" believing that Jesus was subordinate to the Father, since he thought this view explained the scriptures accurately. All Stone's group did not go with him to Campbell, but formed what eventually became the "United Church of Christ," who are much softer on almost every doctrine.

A. Campbell, more of a "sacramentalist," didn't go as far, in that he rejected the use of "trinity" because it was not found in the scripture as such, and he said, "if the word is not in the scripture, how can we be sure that its meaning is"--I am just paraphrasing him.

Could we just consign this to one of the "mysteries" of God without having a shoot-out about it?

Certainly something that was not solidly creedalized until the Council of Chalcedon in the late 4th century, we should not endorse as of New Testament origin, at least not certainly.

Some thought that Stone surrendered too much to Campbell.

Would you go so far as to say that if one were baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (Spirit) that they should be rebaptized in name of Jesus Christ? I hardly think so.

Any ideas?

Quote
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

September 25th, 2012, 12:26 pm #33

[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]It is unfortunate that the expression in Matt. 28:19, "in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost," is used to prove the Nicene/Catholic Trinity Doctrine.

I find it "strange" that those who believe that the "Holy Spirit" being the third person in the Trinity are not that comfortable in asserting that the "Holy Ghost" is that same "third person" of the Trinity. Are they afraid of "ghosts"? Or, are they confused by stating that a "ghost" is a person? Why is the "Holy Spirit" not the first person? Or the second person?

I do not think that the Trinity Doctrine should be a mystery because it is man-made.

What should seem to be a mystery is when the Word in the beginning became flesh (John 1:1,14) only some 2,000 years ago, and was the [another] Comforter, the Spirit of truth, after his resurrection (John 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:7).

It appears to me that the book of John explains the embodiment of the "Godhead" in Jesus Christ.

On that basis, the expression "in the NAME of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost" is the same NAME as "in the name of Jesus Christ." And, no, I do not see any difference and the need for re-baptism.

I'm aware of Matt. 28:19 as the only passage that uses "in the name of..." in that manner. Again, it's the same NAME to me. It is SINGULAR -- ONE NAME. It does not say: (1) in the name of the Father; (2) in the name of the Son; and (3) in the name of the Holy Ghost.

Please note all the other expressions (the majority) in these passages [I've done my search in this order]:[/color]
  • Matt.21 [9] in the name of the Lord
    </li>
  • Matt. 23 [39] in the name of the Lord
    </li>
  • Mark 11 [9],[10] in the name of the Lord
    </li>
  • Luke 13 [35] in the name of the Lord
    </li>
  • Luke 19 [38] in the name of the Lord
    </li>
  • John 12 [13] in the name of the Lord
    </li>
  • John 3 [18] in the name of the only begotten Son of God
    </li>
  • Acts 2 [38] be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ
    </li>
  • Acts 3 [6] In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth
    </li>
  • Acts 4 [18] in the name of Jesus
    </li>
  • Acts 5 [40] in the name of Jesus
    </li>
  • Acts 8 [16] in the name of the Lord Jesus
    </li>
  • Acts 9 [27] in the name of Jesus
    </li>
  • Acts 9 [29] in the name of the Lord Jesus
    </li>
  • Acts 10 [48] to be baptized in the name of the Lord
    </li>
  • Acts 16 [18] in the name of Jesus Christ
    </li>
  • Acts 19 [5] they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus
    </li>
  • 1Cor 5 [4] in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ
    </li>
  • 1Cor 6 [11] in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God
    </li>
  • Eph. 5 [20] in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ
    </li>
  • Col. 3 [17] in the name of the Lord Jesus
    </li>
  • 2 Thess. 3 [6] in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ
    </li>
  • Jas. 5 [10] in the name of the Lord
    </li>
  • Jas. 5 [14] in the name of the Lord</li>
Quote
Like
Share

Racnor (gone)
Racnor (gone)

September 25th, 2012, 12:48 pm #34

As far as I know: the Bible does not quote from the Book of Mormon; the Book of Enoch is not a part of the Jewish Apocrypha or New Testament Apocrypha.

Mortal men decided which books would comprise the biblical canon. Therefore, if inspired writers resort to quoting from books written by allegedly "uninspired" writers, then it makes one wonder if the biblical canon is really all that complete.
"B", we should treat the Book of Enoch (and the other books like it) in the same manner we do the other Apocryphal writings. Some of what the "Apocrypha" says is true and correct, but at the same time, much of it is false and historically inaccurate. If you read these books, you have to treat them as interesting but fallible historical documents, not as the inspired, authoritative Word of God.

Jude's quote is not the only quote in the Bible from a non-biblical source. The Apostle Paul quotes Epimenides in Titus 1:12 but that does not mean we should give any additional authority to Epimenides writings. The same is true with Jude, verse 14. Jude quoting from the book of Enoch in Jude verse 9 does not indicate the entire book is inspired, or even true. All it means is that particular verse is true.
Quote
Share

Anonymous
Anonymous

September 25th, 2012, 12:58 pm #35

Grace Centered Magazine Forum is devoted to trying to defeat efforts like Concerned Members and ALL of the tenets which makes The Church of Christ the Only known Apostolic Church: that which is defended by all of church history.

http://www.piney.com/GraceCenteredReview.html

.They are Post-Nicene Trinitarians (LU and tritheism)
.They are hostile to any Scripture quoted defending Baptism.
.They are hostile to any effort to prove that there can be NO instrumental MARKS in a church of Christ.
.They are hostile to what they call "legalism" when "grace" gives them permissive to be LEGALISTIC: seeking to aid God in what they call worship.
.They are hostile to any quotation of passages of Scripture IN CONTEXT.

Now, the discussion of the mansions in the House of God as being the various teachings of the Apostles. We will show that the mansions in a Church of Christ are REST STATIONS to get in out of the LADED BURDEN (music) imposed by the burden-laders known as PARASITES in their pattern from the not-commanded Sacrificial system.








"Mortal men decided which books would comprise the biblical canon."

Mortal men maybe.....but don't think for one minute that God did not direct these mortal men in the compilation of these books. Therein lies the problem. It is complete but so many other people want to add books like Enoch and the book of mormon. God has protected and will continue to protect His Word. The additional books of Enoch and of mormon is not needed to tell about the salvation of Jesus and get the story out about how God has dealt with His people and enemies. Everything in the present 66 books is more than sufficient.

I agree with B in that he or anyone else would be sinful to add to the Word by labeling instruments, that are used to accompany and aid singing, as sinful....where God has not.
Quote
Share

Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:32 pm

September 25th, 2012, 3:29 pm #36

Barton W Stone was similar to an "Arian" believing that Jesus was subordinate to the Father, since he thought this view explained the scriptures accurately. All Stone's group did not go with him to Campbell, but formed what eventually became the "United Church of Christ," who are much softer on almost every doctrine.

A. Campbell, more of a "sacramentalist," didn't go as far, in that he rejected the use of "trinity" because it was not found in the scripture as such, and he said, "if the word is not in the scripture, how can we be sure that its meaning is"--I am just paraphrasing him.

Could we just consign this to one of the "mysteries" of God without having a shoot-out about it?

Certainly something that was not solidly creedalized until the Council of Chalcedon in the late 4th century, we should not endorse as of New Testament origin, at least not certainly.

Some thought that Stone surrendered too much to Campbell.

Would you go so far as to say that if one were baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (Spirit) that they should be rebaptized in name of Jesus Christ? I hardly think so.

Any ideas?
Truth has absolutely no relationship to what we or they do: the only thing a disciple of Christ can discus is what He taught. He claimed ALL authority of "father, spirit (mother) and son" which is the ANTITHESIS of all of the pagan triads.

Name is under the AUTHORITY of NAME (singular) and everyone baptized in the NAME of Jesus Christ. Maybe the "birth" of any trinitarian thought was when people baptized in THREE NAMES and consistently baptized THREE TIMES. I watched Ivan the Terrible baptized head first three times when he was an infant. See what that will do for you.

I think that it is a fact that too many people are baptized to get listed in the preacher's book and it may take decades to be CONFIRMED as a disciple of the one whose NAME you are baptized.

Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:32 pm

September 25th, 2012, 4:13 pm #37

Barton W Stone was similar to an "Arian" believing that Jesus was subordinate to the Father, since he thought this view explained the scriptures accurately. All Stone's group did not go with him to Campbell, but formed what eventually became the "United Church of Christ," who are much softer on almost every doctrine.

A. Campbell, more of a "sacramentalist," didn't go as far, in that he rejected the use of "trinity" because it was not found in the scripture as such, and he said, "if the word is not in the scripture, how can we be sure that its meaning is"--I am just paraphrasing him.

Could we just consign this to one of the "mysteries" of God without having a shoot-out about it?

Certainly something that was not solidly creedalized until the Council of Chalcedon in the late 4th century, we should not endorse as of New Testament origin, at least not certainly.

Some thought that Stone surrendered too much to Campbell.

Would you go so far as to say that if one were baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (Spirit) that they should be rebaptized in name of Jesus Christ? I hardly think so.

Any ideas?
Thomas Campbell Circular Letter

http://www.piney.com/HsAcCircle.html

"Again, it is a query with others, who profess to hold this doctrine, whether the relative terms Father, Son and Spirit, be real or economical. To this we would reply, that if we allow the Holy Scriptures to speak at all intelligibly upon this most profound and sacred subject,
<font color="#FFFFFF">.....
we must understand the above appellation as declarative of real internal essential relations,
.....independent of any external work or economy whatever.

"For if the terms Father, Son and Spirit, be not declarative of real or essential relations, that is, of relations that have their foundation in the divine nature, and essentially or necessarily belong to it as such,
.....the Scriptures do not reveal to us three distinct characters so related;
.....but three distinct independent divinities or Gods, necessarily self-existent, and absolutely independent of each other; each and every one of them possessing the self-same properties, and of course, each of them so exactly the same in all respects, as to be absolutely undistinguishable one from another, by any means, property or attribute whatsoever; and, of course, three eternal self-existent independent coexistent Gods; each of them infinitely complete or perfect in and of himself, as possessing every possible perfection of being.

"A supposition this, not less repugnant to our reason than to the most express and unequivocal declarations of Holy Scripture, for the divine characters are constantly represented as coexisting in the most intimate and inseparable unity of essential relationship..

"And that, therefore, in the mean time,
.....we ought to reject as unscriptural,
.....all invocations or forms of address immediately directed to the Holy Spirit,
.....as innovations in the worship of God, who alone has a right to prescribe both the matter and manner of his own worship, even of that worship which he will be graciously pleased to accept as right and pleasing in his sight. (Memoirs of Alexander Campbell, Vol. 1, pp. 539-555. Thomas Campbell's "Circular Letter")


This is the REPUGNANT view of John Mark Hicks speaking for Lipscomb University.

http://www.piney.com/Trinity.Hicks.Rochester.html



</font>
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:32 pm

September 25th, 2012, 4:59 pm #38

Grace Centered Magazine Forum is devoted to trying to defeat efforts like Concerned Members and ALL of the tenets which makes The Church of Christ the Only known Apostolic Church: that which is defended by all of church history.

http://www.piney.com/GraceCenteredReview.html

.They are Post-Nicene Trinitarians (LU and tritheism)
.They are hostile to any Scripture quoted defending Baptism.
.They are hostile to any effort to prove that there can be NO instrumental MARKS in a church of Christ.
.They are hostile to what they call "legalism" when "grace" gives them permissive to be LEGALISTIC: seeking to aid God in what they call worship.
.They are hostile to any quotation of passages of Scripture IN CONTEXT.

Now, the discussion of the mansions in the House of God as being the various teachings of the Apostles. We will show that the mansions in a Church of Christ are REST STATIONS to get in out of the LADED BURDEN (music) imposed by the burden-laders known as PARASITES in their pattern from the not-commanded Sacrificial system.








I thought I told you that God COMMANDS instruments. Yea, He FORCES people to OUT themselves as a way of ESCAPE.

Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:32 pm

September 25th, 2012, 5:03 pm #39

"B", we should treat the Book of Enoch (and the other books like it) in the same manner we do the other Apocryphal writings. Some of what the "Apocrypha" says is true and correct, but at the same time, much of it is false and historically inaccurate. If you read these books, you have to treat them as interesting but fallible historical documents, not as the inspired, authoritative Word of God.

Jude's quote is not the only quote in the Bible from a non-biblical source. The Apostle Paul quotes Epimenides in Titus 1:12 but that does not mean we should give any additional authority to Epimenides writings. The same is true with Jude, verse 14. Jude quoting from the book of Enoch in Jude verse 9 does not indicate the entire book is inspired, or even true. All it means is that particular verse is true.
BUT, Jude does tell us FOR WHOM God will (is) come in Judgment against the ungodly: ANYONE who uses any of the hypocritic arts and crafts to silence the Living Word.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:32 pm

September 25th, 2012, 5:06 pm #40

[color=#0000FF" size="3" face="times]It is unfortunate that the expression in Matt. 28:19, "in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost," is used to prove the Nicene/Catholic Trinity Doctrine.

I find it "strange" that those who believe that the "Holy Spirit" being the third person in the Trinity are not that comfortable in asserting that the "Holy Ghost" is that same "third person" of the Trinity. Are they afraid of "ghosts"? Or, are they confused by stating that a "ghost" is a person? Why is the "Holy Spirit" not the first person? Or the second person?

I do not think that the Trinity Doctrine should be a mystery because it is man-made.

What should seem to be a mystery is when the Word in the beginning became flesh (John 1:1,14) only some 2,000 years ago, and was the [another] Comforter, the Spirit of truth, after his resurrection (John 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:7).

It appears to me that the book of John explains the embodiment of the "Godhead" in Jesus Christ.

On that basis, the expression "in the NAME of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost" is the same NAME as "in the name of Jesus Christ." And, no, I do not see any difference and the need for re-baptism.

I'm aware of Matt. 28:19 as the only passage that uses "in the name of..." in that manner. Again, it's the same NAME to me. It is SINGULAR -- ONE NAME. It does not say: (1) in the name of the Father; (2) in the name of the Son; and (3) in the name of the Holy Ghost.

Please note all the other expressions (the majority) in these passages [I've done my search in this order]:[/color]
  • Matt.21 [9] in the name of the Lord
    </li>
  • Matt. 23 [39] in the name of the Lord
    </li>
  • Mark 11 [9],[10] in the name of the Lord
    </li>
  • Luke 13 [35] in the name of the Lord
    </li>
  • Luke 19 [38] in the name of the Lord
    </li>
  • John 12 [13] in the name of the Lord
    </li>
  • John 3 [18] in the name of the only begotten Son of God
    </li>
  • Acts 2 [38] be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ
    </li>
  • Acts 3 [6] In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth
    </li>
  • Acts 4 [18] in the name of Jesus
    </li>
  • Acts 5 [40] in the name of Jesus
    </li>
  • Acts 8 [16] in the name of the Lord Jesus
    </li>
  • Acts 9 [27] in the name of Jesus
    </li>
  • Acts 9 [29] in the name of the Lord Jesus
    </li>
  • Acts 10 [48] to be baptized in the name of the Lord
    </li>
  • Acts 16 [18] in the name of Jesus Christ
    </li>
  • Acts 19 [5] they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus
    </li>
  • 1Cor 5 [4] in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ
    </li>
  • 1Cor 6 [11] in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God
    </li>
  • Eph. 5 [20] in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ
    </li>
  • Col. 3 [17] in the name of the Lord Jesus
    </li>
  • 2 Thess. 3 [6] in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ
    </li>
  • Jas. 5 [10] in the name of the Lord
    </li>
  • Jas. 5 [14] in the name of the Lord</li>
Colossians 3:17 And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus,

giving thanks to God and the Father
by him.
Quote
Like
Share