Join the discussion below, or Read more at Waco Tribune-Herald.
#7474 Apr 18, 2015
Scholars like to historize online, so I understand your lack of desire on Carm, not mentioning their own status quo, which ends up getting me suspended most often. Or maybe it's my blunt demeanor, who knows.
Just as an oddball verse do not a theology make, as Mt 28:19 will attest NOT to a Trinity God...textual variants frequently cling to a new revision of what you would call "pure Bible."
This revisionism is seen actually in the Mt 28:19 verse itself, an add-on in my view to the original Hebrew gospel of Matthew. This revisionism follows the deity of Christ heresy and later the Trinity heresy. The main problem with Mt 28:19 is the FACT that they did not baptize in a SINGULAR "name" of "Father, Son and Holy Spirit," or even THE NAME of God, Jesus...IN PLACE of the three entities.
They baptized in the singular name of the Shaliach Messiah, a MAN to them, not God. 4x in Acts as you know. The short form of Mathew is even shorter in Syriac Sinaiticus, which has no Great Commission at all. The short form is longer in Shem Tov Matthew, without the trin formulation.
Paul said he was glad he only baptized a few, SINCE baptizing in a MAN'S name was in fact open to the hoi polloi in concept. That they would even THINK they were being baptized in his name, Paul Silas.
But no matter if I am correct or not, it would be in general agreement among OnePents this lone verse along with the common interpretation of the Johannine Comma do not a theology of Trinity make. And so to your fav "pure Bible" verse would not make Jesus God.
What you have not ever done in my view is bridge the gap of understanding from the God of Abraham, Elohim among all elohim in the world, imaginary or not...to the binitarian God of the OnePent faith. This bridge would be more important than Paul's several CHAPTERS in Romans regarding the so-called Faith/Grace dichotomy. This bridge would SETTLE the first and second red flags for the Jew from the git-go, when the Lukan Great Commission started, in Jerusalem.
First red flag: YHWH Elohim, YHWH one. This means NO OTHER ONE could be God. Just as the scribe says in Mk 12. Just as Isa 45 says 8 times in order to beat down in our noggins what the truth is. This is the first part of the Shema. The second part: Thou shalt love YHWH Elohim with all of your heart soul and the entire all of you." THIS GOD is what a Jew child learns to fear and love.
Second red flag: "I am the One who brought you out of Egypt. Thou shalt have NO OTHER ONE to my face." First Command of the Ten.
I have challenged you to do the impossible, and of course you would not respond on Carm, since this Bridge of Understanding is entirely VACANT among the first disciples who were all trained to KNOW their own bulwarks of faith. The FIRST TWO although the first command of the Ten could be seen as expounded later by Shema. Making these two the most fundamental foundations of all, concerning God himself, the second command in Mk 12 a social (men to men) command.
An Argument from Silence, and yet every Apache alive knew a lack of smittering among the birds could signify a mountain lion lurking...this argument is pure exegetical consideration of where the Jew stood and what he believed in the day of Jesus.
This is the framework or outline from my end, of the issue. It does not take a genius to understand. In fact the scripture was not FOR geniuses like the Steven Averys of the world. I know God pentecostally, as Joel Hemphill did and does. You can demean his scholarship, but for him it was a do-or-die revelation on his own deathbed which afforded him his new mission amongst the brethren of God.
I will link or send for your reference. "God manifested in the flesh," would and could still be God's Spirit indwelling the man, Christ Jesus. Just as "having the fullness of theotetos indwelling bodily"
is a pentecostal concept, the man anointed by the FULL tabernacling of the Shekinah Spirit of God.
#7476 Apr 18, 2015
Grace/Works so-called dichotomy, Paul in Romans. Correction.
Since: Jan 15
#7477 Apr 18, 2015
If you consider the wording of:
Matthew 28:19 (AV)
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father,
and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost:
to have an add-on, then there is not one scripture safe in your hands. This is as well-attested a verse as exists in the 8,000 NT verses in the Bible. 1000s of mss in Greek, Latin and Syriac and versions in every language. Dozens of ECW from every region. The mini-factoid that Eusebius sometimes wrote it in short-hand mode (as we often speak) is a nothing in the evidence picture. And the medieval Shemtob is about as corrupt a ms as you can get.
Like many (including Buzzard and Hemphill) you try to mangle the scripture to match your doctrinal preferences, instead of receiving God's pure word.
Thy word is very pure:
therefore thy servant loveth it.
#7478 Apr 18, 2015
No...all scripture must be reconciled. Because the pure Word of God is not contradictory. Mt 28:19 is a suspected corruption because it contains an apparent contradiction, CONTRADICTING the actual baptisms which are mentioned into Jesus only.
Strictly speaking, we can scholastically only speak of probabilities, and this is not exactly faith. I agree that I do not know all interpretation, and I SUSPECT Mt 28:19 to be a corruption. Shem Tov Matthew was considered by George Howard to be an EARLY rendition of the original Hebrew gospel, written in Jerusalem. Not translated from the later Latin or necessarily the Greek.
Eusebius wrote of a short version SINCE he mentions the very name of Jesus as all powerful INSTEAD of Mt 28:19's trin formulation. At least two of the 18+ times mentioned AS a short form.
AFTER Nicaea he mentions the long form twice...but he ALSO changes his own theology under duress in my view.
My view of gospel is not exactly mangling. It considers gospel itself to be liquid and changeable according to 1) oral traditions from other areas 2) testimonies from other believers who were with Jesus 3) possibly additions from other gospels. The gospel of Matthew for instance contains not only what he wrote, but other information as it came in, some well after his own martydom.
And only as a last resort is a corruption considered. I am not alone even among OnePents about Matthew. Although most would consider all NT canon pristine as you liken to do, the very thing which turned Bart Ehrman from his faith is what I call general truth and not holistic harmony in all specific subjects and events.
You would agree, theoretically that the name of God is not a nuevo one, Father Son and Holy Spirit.
You would not agree theoretically that the name of God was never "Jesus." Jesus CAME IN the name of his God and never claimed his name WAS GOD'S OWN NAME.
43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?
I would like to hear your terp for Mt 28:19 just in case I was assuming. I assume God's name is the same for all generations. Exodus 3 proclaimed it:
15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, the Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.
And this name is YHWH. Tell me plain text is not my forte. Tell me I know less than the HH elders of the names of God. Yahshua, means YAH is salvation, so what.
Makes every ELI on the planet God too. GENIUS amonst us, yeah baby.
#7479 Apr 18, 2015
Since you mentioned Buzzard, I would like to present to you the most famous concept he ever expounded upon. Almost 11,000 verbs and pronouns attributed God is in the singular, when a binitarian God or a trinitarian God would require plural number. Just as the most often quoted Gen 1:26 says "let US make man into OUR own image." No Jew ever thought God was sprechen to God, as you MUST know. But and yet Buzzard's MOUNTAIN of words attributing God as a singular Person and Being tells the true story. NO MAN, whether scholar or wannabee as I am can refute the plain truth, sir.
Since: Jan 15
#7480 Apr 18, 2015
"And only as a last resort is a corruption considered. I am not alone even among OnePents about Matthew"
This is correct. Randall Duane Hughes, with some support from William Arnold III, has been similarly caught up in this textual absurdity.
"gospel itself to be liquid and changeable"
You are like many who will mangle the Bible for what you perceive as an "apparent contradiction". Then you recreate a version of your own liking, a probability text "probabilities" ... where, essentially no verse is sure. The position is hopeless.
And really, people without faith in God's pure word are unable to have sensible scriptural discussion, since each one is making up their own version. Watch the doctrinal discussions on CARM.
William L. Petersen (1950-2006) was one of many who worked with the George Howard pretensions. Yet even he did not go into the depth of the Shem Tov corruption, making it a hopeless source for your redaction element. If you like we can go over Eusebius timing (offhand I think your data is off) however it is really irrelevant since there are many ECW before him with the full expression. And there is no difficulty in short-hand usage, just as you hear in churches today.
"Yahshua" is not a Hebrew name. Ask Randall Buth or anybody who knows Hebrew. Please, check rudimentary scholarship and language.
#7481 Apr 18, 2015
Sorry I read this again, realizing this was Steven Avery Spencer. Could not discern WHAT you were getting at. You can capitalize Lord for Jesus, but what does this mean? The Samaritan woman calls him KURIOS, not even knowing yet if his intentions were good or not. Translated SIR in the KJV.
They were calling him KURIOS before anyone could know he was God. His own disciples, in all three synoptics, "What sort of MAN is this, who calms the wind and the seas?"
#7482 Apr 18, 2015
Above, I was simply showing you that the pure word of God makes the distinction, where the full caps LORD represents the Tetragrammaton, distinct from adoni. The material on this topic from Buzzard and Allon Maxwell can be a reasonable starting point. Elsewhere, I have some material on the adonai / adoni distinction. The ants (Jewish anti-missionaries, including Tovia) would score a point by emphasizing the mistranslation that is common in the modern versions, even directly on Psalm 110.
#7483 Apr 18, 2015
Okaydokay then. I thought Steven Spencer was not nec. disagreeing, and still think Steven Spencer is not disagreeing. What implication I consider though is that Jesus is ALWAYS "adoni" in NT thought and NEVER Adonai. Would you disagree here too? Either one of you? Sorry I still think of you as Steven AVERY. Thought you was being transparent through and through, silly me.
This is in fact the position of Buzzard, far as I know.
#7485 Apr 19, 2015
2 Timothy 3:
7 always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. 8 Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these teachers oppose the truth. They are men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected. 9 But they will not get very far because, as in the case of those men, their folly will be clear to everyone.
Are you bringing anyone to the required salvation by the blood of Jesus through these posts?
Did not think so.
The fact that you cannot defend/justify the HH elder's actions against so many saints speaks volumes. There was silence when I posted the HH doctrines. You were unable to speak a word.
7 always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.
You are here for the sole purpose of changing the topic-far away from HH.
You need to make JESUS CHRIST LORD over your life.
THAT IS WHAT IT IS ALL ABOUT.
Since: Jan 15
#7486 Apr 19, 2015
Bay, I thought I was clear. The fellership people all know me as Steven Spencer, so in the interest of transparency, I bring that to this forum, even though my nom de net for many years uses my middle name. So, I would appreciate your trying to understand rather than take wild swipes. Thanks. If you have a problem, send me a private message.
As to the Buzzard understandings .. no, no, no, no. In my experience, such people are unable to even lift up the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, despite the many clear scriptures. Nor are they able to declare Jesus "God manifest in the flesh". They are so busy fighting late creedalism that they miss the basics of Christian faith in Jesus, with the acknowledgment of the faith of Jesus Christ. The last time I wrote to Anthony, I had to point out that he was lauding the ebionite disaster, Joseph Priestley. The last time I went to such a fellowship was in Israel, the M'aale Adumin group, a picnic, and it was a similar disaster. So again .. nope.
Today, there is a speaker at a church that harkens back to an interesting 1977 meeting in Paramus.(hint.. Martin Buber...). So see'ya. Be well, my friend. I do hope you will move more directly back to accepting the scriptures are the pure word of God. It will do you a world of good. Once you get into the redaction, corruption mentality, faith dissipates and is replaced with other devises.
Please note the simple and clear verse I posted earlier:
Psalm 119:140 (AV)
Thy word is very pure:
therefore thy servant loveth it.
#7487 Apr 19, 2015
Your truth is to vilify HH to the bitter end of you. And this end is the wrong end of you.
I make Jesus adoni, over my life, and Shema says to even hate this life, even suffer and bear Jesus' cross to the end of it. What Stephen exemplifies is the nit-picky, obsessive poring over details, not considering the whole, waxing critical even over my own use of HH's own name for Jesus in Hebrew, YAHSHUA. What you cannot consider is Jesus UNDER his God at His Right Hand, and OVER the other elohim in heaven, just as normative Bible proclaims. By common sense, the Right Hand locative position in Heaven of JESUS is not God, so how can the Right Hand locative position for the elohim Jesus be God?
Scripture makes sense, once we start with the Fundamentals of our Faith. ALL ECF's were subordinationalist in some way before Nicaea, with the exception of Athanasius himself, not even a bishop at the time.
HH also obsesses over the miny minor things, and thus misses Shema altogether. In theology, in life and in teaching their children. Months on Sunday over the wedding ring. Praying and crying out to God over brands of jeans and sleeves and hats in the sun by the leaders oh my. Even the BLACK members, who need less skin protection have to have these, not for any reason, BUT cohesiveness with the others, which do not apply to the elders in short sleeves, european caps and slacks, since they work with their BEANS and not their hands...LORDS over all in all teeny...tiny...NONSENSICAL
and ODDBALL customs.
Little House on the Prairie, Stephen asks me what do I have against Mennonites and Amish? He who spends as much time as I on the internet, poring over the minutest details and what this guy or that guy ever said, why they are consistent and faithful and scholars or not? He knows not this is considered SIN by both denoms and HH too? What do I have against them? Put them in the day of Jesus. NO HORSE, BUGGY or SHIP for transportation, these are too modern for a faithful man. NO GREEK spoken, for this is the language of commerce. Hooray for the stubborn and the recessive and the inflexible. The catatonic, and the manic-obsessive and the humbug. Paul used whatever mode of transportation available. Did he stop and think he might be sinning so?
Does Stephen stop and think or do you stop and think EVERY scripture with God and Jesus as subject is CONFUSED by the believer when they consider their Jesus the SAME GOD that God is in the verse? How many THOUSANDS of verses are MISinterpreted when this is done?
Are you trinitarian, ma'am? Then the pre-RCC Church has taken holt of you too. UNleaven the lump.
REFORM your awry view of Christianity. BE faithful and true to God and His beloved but not biological Son, the MAN who was elevated over the angels.
#7488 Apr 19, 2015
It were your nom de net which I've known you by for years, and thought was your nom de real, sir.
I understand why, since I am nom de baybeh. I just thought, ah you know you can see I am a little slow. You hinted but did not say right away you ARE Steven Avery. Funny thing is, I asked several exes about you and they seemed to know who you was, even though I don't recall a different last name.
This tendency to be vague about your own personal thoughts of HH is clear here too. You never answered if you had taken the Covenant vows of HH, in whatever form it was when you were involved. This is as private as they are...the elders. Need to know...and beavis and butthead don't need to know. I understand you see scripture this very same way...that the divinity of Jesus was never outright proclaimed red letter, but then again...need to know, and the slow and hardened of heart...don't need to know.
Just consider Shema pristine and what YOU need to know will become clear. It is after all the FIRST and GREATEST command of all, RED LETTER, Mk 12. Now your whole world will change, as mine own did, and shown right here on this forum.
Good luck to you, brother. Rather, via con dios. I saw you on forums where not one person supported you, and all were
giving you the business. This is brave, and true blue. God will always bless the sincere of heart and the courageous one, even if they be em, awry.
Since: Jan 15
#7489 Apr 19, 2015
"vague .... You never answered if you had taken the Covenant vows of HH, in whatever form it was when you were involved."
Excuse me, could you point me to where I was asked this question?
#7490 Apr 19, 2015
Luke 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
This example of Eusebius:
Thus in his Demonstratio Evangelica he writes thus (col. 240, p. 136):
"For he did not enjoin them 'to make disciples of all nations' simply and without qualification, but with the essential addition 'in his name.' For so great was the virtue attached to his appellation that the Apostle says, God bestowed on him the name above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee shall bow of things in heaven and on earth and under the earth. It was right therefore that he should emphasize the virtue of the power residing in his name but hidden from the many, and therefore say to his Apostles, Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name."
...you can see the cohesiveness of this short version of Mt 28 ending of the gospel to the Lukan Version. Did Eusebius use shorthand here, DELETING the trin formulation or what? It most likely was not the Lukan Commission he spoke of, since this is in third person, not a second person address. The singular NAME is common to both Lukan and Matthew short version. This name is Jesus.
I cannot believe this is SHORTHAND, neither that it is CONGLOMERATE smudging. He was awfully mixed up, if he borrows the NAME of the Lukan version and applies this to an ABBREVIATED FORM of the Matthean Commission. For neither Lukan form, or short Matthean form mentions baptism at all. He is mixed up two ways. He leaves out BAPTISM, an important variable, he SAYS God bestowed upon "the name above every name," which OnePents consider even above "YHWH," here seen as
implicitly all names under God's name, and even the concept of BESTOWING Jesus a "name above every name," IMPLIES Jesus is not the God bestowing him at all.
And the singular NAME for the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit is JESUS according to OnePents, yet they are ASSUMING baptism is into A name of God, not the Shaliach adoni, Jesus.
#7491 Apr 19, 2015
#7472 at the berry bottom. My berry bottom or your berry bottom, whomsoever is getting spanked by God, hermano.
Since: Jan 15
#7492 Apr 19, 2015
Your posts can be a bit hard to read, I'm trying to help you to avoid rambling and write clearly :). On that post I stopped because there were earlier points I was trying to address in a group of four posts, and did not even see the question.
"Did you make covenant with them or leave before they ESTABLISHED it? Curious, sir."
When I was in the fellership, we were "all in", fully committed, dedicated, in covenant community. There were formalizations that came later, in Texas, which is probably what you mean by established. e.g. In the many years that I was involved there was not a question of signatures on anything. Baptism testimony had been instituted, and it seemed to be consistent with scripture.
For you, the number one thing that I would share is that you really should ask the Lord Jesus (which is hard for you, given the combo of resistances) about the authority and integrity and perfection of the scriptures.
Without pure scriptures, all doctrine and teaching is negotiable, and nothing is sure.
#7493 Apr 20, 2015
The inflexibility of your KJV onlyism reflects overall inflexibility which LED you to be involved in the first place. It is fundamental inerrancy, but it has to consider in some way God allows manuscripts incomplete and majority individual opinions, to Sovereignly end up with pristine and concrete text which is pure.
So then plug in "proper channels of authority" in your last sentence, and this is the original issue of HH eldership way back when...when they faced a new exodus from the east coast and had to deal with the sheep.
Without pure authority in the body, all individual and wayward views are negotiable, and nothing is sure.
This was what galled Adams from the start, being not so long from military service, and seeing a Heepy Deepy bunch of ragtag muffins of all persuasions, opinions, eastern influences, and whatever.
And so a fundamental inerrancy of authority was born, although publically denied of from the start.
We don't want to turn the sheep away until we feed them pure inerrancy, do we?
Oddball shenanigans like "Jesus in the flesh" were manifest. "Blair hears the audible voice of God."
Rebukes unto the wayward for anything and anywhichwhat at any time or place, ESPECIALLY when they might not be suspecting SO their lanterns are lit, their oil is in the tank, for the end may come at any time or place.
The eldership is not perfect in HH, and the Bible is not perfect in text. You THINK I lost it, whatever perfection you see in the spiritual world, why? Since I consider two corruptions in all of Bible? Since ONCE they saw Blair say something not true, their whole world fall apart? The sons and daughters of HH?
If the CLAIM of perfection was not set forth, the EXPECTATION of perfection will never be the norm.
NO the eldership is not perfect, or any close thing.
And YOUR perception of scripture is so far AWAY from perfection, son of baybeh...you can't get even tthe simplest creedal premise of faith correct. Take "God raised Jesus from the dead." You SEE Jesus as the same God which raises his dead self up. ONE verse in Jn 2 says Jesus will raise himself, 1st person. At least 22 VERSES say God raised a dead man up. So then you got confusion rampant from the BEGINNING of that olde spiritual walk, up that olde spiritual hill. Jesus raised himself only as Lazareth raises himself after God breathes life into him, not by his own DEAD power.
And this is the problem with pride and manifest perceptions of perfection. Some day a BAYBEH gonna put you down. Like the emperor with no clothes, his nekked fat is the only form of God seen.
#7494 Apr 20, 2015
So then what is the problem with this statement, my MODIFIED statement of your statement?
Without pure authority in the body, all individual and wayward views are negotiable, and nothing is sure.
The problem of course is, is that this EXODUS of elders and laymen EXODUSED AWAY FROM their previous eldership, the Apostolic Church, wherever the future Promiseland was going and Phillips was leading...
HE did the same thing too, but the PERFECTION of HIS eldership was never espoused unto the sheep, sir.
And in fact you would still BE HH if it was true. Would have made a pretty good elder yourself, eh?
Pretty is as pretty does, Steven.
Since: Jan 15
#7495 Apr 20, 2015
Bay, you want "flexibility" with the word of God. That is the false method of many, which becomes "I will remake the word of God to be what I want it to be." The person might be sincere, in a sense, but they are sincere in rebellion against God's word. "I want it to be what I think it should be". Many qodesh or sacred namers have fallen into this trap, which is why you posted a mangle-Hebrew-name as if it were real.
As for my history, when I became a believer in the Lord Jesus, I most happily used deficient and mangled versions. And they fed me, up to a point, since they do in fact reflect some of the glory of God's pure word. It was much later that I put away childish things and corruptions. So you are rewriting my history. If your point is that I seek for truth, I stand convicted.
As to the analogy, it is an interesting question. One major distinction, the plumbline of scripture must come first, and will itself examine and discern the plumbline of asserted authority.
Look at all the claims to authority that are made by those in rebellion to scripture. A simple example is the mormon priesthood. They even give lip service to the Bible, with fundamental caveats .
Thus, your first need is to seek the word of God. Remember the title of the book "The Search for the Word of God". May this be your search today, in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Add your comments below
|Ex-gang members try to stop violence (Aug '07)||Oct 8||klw16||27|
|Annabelles on Patterson ave||Oct 7||dayd8r||2|
|What's wrong with Lol?||Oct 5||Haha||4|
|Low flying, window-less aircraft (Jan '12)||Oct 1||Matt||31|
|Who is hiring in High Point?||Oct 1||GUEST||1|
|Angie Cavender||Sep 30||KLk||2|
|Burger King||Jul '15||PERRY SMITH||1|
Find what you want!
Search Kernersville Area Forum Now
Copyright © 2015 Topix LLC