This post is not neatly folded laundry, and wouldn't have been published except I wish to raise the issue (sound an alarm) before November (election day, USA) AND before the end of September, 2012 ,by which "welfare" must be reauthorized by the US Congress. I happen to understand, uncomfortably so, just about how deeply welfare reform = theocentric government in actions. As such, if you know the basic history of Christianity -- you have a headsup in what it's doing (basically, the feudal system restored, along with dishonesty, stealing, and in the name of "God" (or, public welfare).
There is significant hazard to the general public in actually segmenting the religious elements -- because the same elements don't believe they should be so segmented, and will exploit every avenue to become centralized and dominant.
In this matter -- sorry to point this out to agnostics and atheists -- literacy in the Scriptures (and at least SOME basic outline of the history of the texts, or access to SOME tools which enable one to look at certain places those texts were messed with or twisted) -- is indispensable, as well is caring about the matter. People need to come to a decision where they stand, and what they will do constructively to stem the mass indoctrination into systems of abuse, while being aware that it is not possible to stem the religious impulse, which is (as it were) the impulse to bow to authorities and let them think through the difficult issues of life for onesself, while exiling and marginalizing those who tackle them and hence -- are different.
This is entirely different from the spiritual impulse, closer related to awe and appreciation of things beyond one's comprehension, without the necessity of outlining and naming them conveniently, with borrowed labels of ignoble history.
The other tool, once "Manuscripts and History of Christianity 101" has been digested -- it need not take years to grasp the basics -- is simply the habit of looking up tax returns where possible.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_einstein.html
“Mere unbelief in a personal God is no philosophy at all.”
Albert Einstein, letter to V. T Aaltonen, May 7, 1952, Einstein Archive 59-059; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 216.
“I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.”
Albert Einstein, to Guy H. Raner Jr., September 28, 1949; from Michael R. Gilmore, "Einstein's God: Just What Did Einstein Believe About God?," Skeptic, 1997, 5(2):64.
How can people who claim to respect a book that people were burned at the stake for translating, risked their lives for, and being intelligent, committed, and courageous to provide for posterity -- show such utter disrespect for the same book, while seeking power and influence in their own decade and generation?
Take a quick trip through this timeline ("Greatsite.com") of the history of getting this book into English -- and how it was "locked up in Latin" for almost 1,000 years. Learn something you probably didn't know about that history -- and then ask -- WHERE did the current illiteracy about this history -- and this book -- come from? Who or what would actually want such illiteracy, given that the distribution of this Bible itself was significant in developing a) the English language itself and b) literacy in general across England. Wars were fought about this matter, people died.
And now, people can walk to a corner store and buy one, check into a hotel and steal a Gideon's Bible, and have on-line access to compare versions (interlinears, etc.) -- but are still picking up their belief system from the one that was established, essentially, ca. 300 (or, 381) A.D. by council and enforced through state and ecclesiastical terrorism.
And the same crowd fears Islam (not their own) and wishes to dominate the landscape with the same essential creed, and obtaining federal support (either by tax-exempt status as a church or religious corporation) and/or even faith-based funding for the poor and needy (which I covered more on the LetsGetHonest blog).
Unbelievable.
Just a sample, here. Recall that by edict of 381 A.D. (one thousand years earlier) heresy was more properly defined by a Roman Emperor (Theodosius), with punishment usually being exile. However in 385 A.D., there was actually a beheading, based on bishop versus bishop, by a Roman emperor (i.e., civilian rule) of an ecclesiastical offence.
The first hand-written English language Bible manuscripts were produced in the 1380's AD by John Wycliffe, an Oxford professor, scholar, and theologian. Wycliffe, (also spelled “Wycliff” & “Wyclif”), was well-known throughout Europe for his opposition to the teaching of the organized Church, which he believed to be contrary to the Bible. With the help of his followers, called the Lollards, and his assistant Purvey, and many other faithful scribes, Wycliffe produced dozens of English language manuscript copies of the scriptures. They were translated out of the Latin Vulgate, which was the only source text available to Wycliffe. The Pope was so infuriated by his teachings and his translation of the Bible into English, that 44 years after Wycliffe had died, he ordered the bones to be dug-up, crushed, and scattered in the river!
John Hus
One of Wycliffe’s followers, John Hus, actively promoted Wycliffe’s ideas: that people should be permitted to read the Bible in their own language, and they should oppose the tyranny of the Roman church that threatened anyone possessing a non-Latin Bible with execution. Hus was burned at the stake in1415, with Wycliffe’s manuscript Bibles used as kindling for the fire. The last words of John Hus were that, “in 100 years, God will raise up a man whose calls for reform cannot be suppressed.” Almost exactly 100 years later, in 1517, Martin Luther nailed his famous 95 Theses of Contention (a list of 95 issues of heretical theology and crimes of the Roman Catholic Church) into the church door at Wittenberg. The prophecy of Hus had come true! Martin Luther went on to be the first person to translate and publish the Bible in the commonly-spoken dialect of the German people; a translation more appealing than previous German Biblical translations. Foxe’s Book of Martyrs records that in that same year, 1517, seven people were burned at the stake by the Roman Catholic Church for the crime of teaching their children to say the Lord’s Prayer in English rather than Latin.
Johann Gutenberg
Johann Gutenberg invented the printing press in the 1450's, and the first book to ever be printed was a Latin language Bible, printed in Mainz, Germany. Gutenberg’s Bibles were surprisingly beautiful, as each leaf Gutenberg printed was later colorfully hand-illuminated. Born as “Johann Gensfleisch” (John Gooseflesh), he preferred to be known as “Johann Gutenberg” (John Beautiful Mountain). Ironically, though he had created what many believe to be the most important invention in history, Gutenberg was a victim of unscrupulous business associates who took control of his business and left him in poverty. Nevertheless, the invention of the movable-type printing press meant that Bibles and books could finally be effectively produced in large quantities in a short period of time. This was essential to the success of the Reformation.
Thomas Linacre
In the 1490’s another Oxford professor, and the personal physician to King Henry the 7th and 8th, Thomas Linacre, decided to learn Greek. After reading the Gospels in Greek, and comparing it to the Latin Vulgate, he wrote in his diary, “Either this (the original Greek) is not the Gospel… or we are not Christians.” The Latin had become so corrupt that it no longer even preserved the message of the Gospel… yet the Church still threatened to kill anyone who read the scripture in any language other than Latin… though Latin was not an original language of the scriptures.
Confession: This post is my unwillingness NOT to post what I went through the last day or so, after comparing a creed or two to the scriptures, and (after the shock subsided at the contrast), looking up the organization behind it. It is a dialogue and makes no pretense at internal consistency or coherence. If I were conversing with someone on the same topic, it might be similar. I tend to "converse" with subject matter on certain topics.
It could've been any organization and may have had a similar result.
I think it significant that one of the earliest Christian Martyrs -- by other Christians -- was in 385 A.D. (Priscillian of Avilla). And they say that Constantine's acceptance of Christianity (so-called) made it acceptable.
To people who are more familiar with the Bible (by habit) than correct doctrine (by weekly attendance and social participation), actually looking at the statements of belief - and tracking who gets them from where -- can be quite disturbing. Mass indoctrination into passive belief systems that don't stand scrutiny -- at all -- is more than a joke; it's socially dangerous. This dumbness is not likely to be restricted to the area of religion, even when some of the proponents may be accomplished in other areas of life.
OK, what's the difference between the articles of incorporation of some business enterprise -- and the literature of the ages, representing the oral history of many generations, in written form collected over the ages and translated into language after language -- and called by many their sacred writings?
For one, a little internal coherence, for another, it represented some effort. That's why I have -- any more -- zero respect for the boilerplate creeds showing up all over the internet as part of some church plant group, marketing scheme (of a nonprofit, no less!) any more than I respect a Worldwide Evangelical Association deeply affected by the spread of Islam and trying to indoctrinate it into the Triune God (but in a culturally sensitive way) -- while ignoring the question of social ethics, and humanity, i.e., the treatment of women and children in the same religion.
I came to a point of severe distress on viewing a website called "Reasons to Believe" in which a few men had banded together -- one being an astronomist, but the other apparently simply a conservative theologian (the word almost seems a euphemism in this case) with a social science degree, and I haven't looked at the others yet -- put together a rather nice-looking website to promote (and take donations to support) their exploration of "INTELLIGENT DESIGN."
Having (I'm deducing from the materials for sale, including training certificates) determined that there IS intelligent design in the universe, which means a creator, they then (as is the habit in those who subscribe to this belief) flip over to the language extracted (and reassembled) from the Bible and claim that Jesus the God was the Creator. Let's look at the logic here: Intelligent design has been identified, allegedly through the process of observation and deductively.
Then, this design needs a name, a label. "Well, here's a handy one -- Jesus did it. After all, He's the Creator, isn't he?" Hello, which train just jumped the track here?
I hope people involved in dangerous pursuits, such as nuclear reactors, or surgery, or driving high-speed vehicles with dangerous payloads, have a little better attention span in their work.
Then I find that the particular creed (and place where courses are being run from, at least some of them) was based on A.W. Tozer, who is a man living ca. 1897 - 1960s, born in Western PA, not well educated, but charismatic, and who was heavily involved for many years in a church on Chicago's Southside, and "Christian Missionary Alliance" -- and a seminary named after him reads like a cult, based on a college based on the same alliance.
It should be possible to respect a dedicated man without building shrines to him and then attributing his work to something it doesn't have much to do with -- the scriptures.
SURE, some of the better and most significant scientists in human history have had a sense of wonder, awe, and creativity in their work; they are now well-known names, and most of them didn't do too well with this religion -- in particular -- now known as Christianity. Among them I continually think of Joseph Priestley, Galileo, etc.
How about Albert Einstein? Consider some of his sayings from "Thoughts of a Freethinker" (please read more of them....)
“The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. He who knows it not and can no longer wonder, no longer feel amazement, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle. It was the experience of mystery — even if mixed with fear — that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms-it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvellous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavour to comprehend a portion, be it never so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature.”
Albert Einstein, The World as I See It, Secaucus, New Jersy: The Citadel Press, 1999, p. 5.
“For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts.”
Albert Einstein, Out of My Later Years, Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1970, p. 25.
Whether or not there was intelligent design in the universe -- this was overlaid (not up front, a few html layers down) with an absolutely traditional, which is to say, incoherent and illogical, and entirely predictable patchwork of assertions about the aspects of the Bible, Holy Spirit, Jesus (God, of course) and so forth It had far less elegance than the Nicean Creed, which at least can be recited with some dignity -- and being itself a statement of belief (i.e., opinion) is per se subjective -- but was essentially the same data, only messier, numbered, and longer.
At first I tangled with their statement of faith, and compared it with scripture -- they read entirely differently, as to both content and form. And quite honestly, when dealing with language, particularly "the word of God" -- form counts.
Then looking at, "what's your product," I saw they are selling (promoting) affiliates to take classes on critical reasoning -- and soliciting people to get their seminars (etc.) into other colleges. They claimed to be a 501(c)3 and were soliciting donations of stock -- not just money -- so I looked 'em up and found a $4 million set of assets, a CEO (or President, whatever) with a $131K salary -- from this nonprofit alone -- and that they were not, apparently, filing properly with the State of California here, their annual returns.
In California they want to be a religious organization (and associated Foundation -- same basic guys) -- but there are IRS tax returns, and as a result, they should be paying California for the privilege of doing business here and raising support for a lifestyle of research and marketing in support of a personally-styled God (however ancient the belief in this God is) and call it "public benefit."
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
There is a connection between art, science, wonder and awe at the universe, etc. -- and then there are social relationships between people, and ethics, which are matters of choice and will. An attempt to turn one into the other on the basis of science should at a minimum require the same standard of honesty in the subject matter of the Bible as would be required to hold a position as professor of any science and be somewhere on-target -- or be replaced.
However, one science these have become adept at -- and for which religious organization should be watched -- is raising money and propagating themselves through the internet before one realizes where that money went.
2. **the usage of the word "Christ" was understood long ago, and understandably is now another confused topic, thanks to creeds like this (quick google search, that's all):
A quick look at the structure of the Apostles’ Creed reveals one of the bedrock truths of the Christian faith: the Trinity. The creed is divided into three parts: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. All Christians believe that the Bible reveals one God in three “persons.” In other words, God is a perfect community of love.God
I believe in God,The creed begins with a simple affirmation of belief in God. The following three sections describe the three persons of this one God.God the Father
the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.The first person of the Trinity is the one Jesus revealed to us as “the Father.” God is not some remote, unknowable spiritual entity. Rather God is our loving, powerful heavenly Father.Against all other ideologies about the beginning of the world, we profess that God created heaven and earth and all that is in them. This profession affirms the goodness of creation and endows it with meaning and purpose.Further, all that is good and beautiful points to a Creator God. Thus all humans can know something about God through what creation reveals.God the Son
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit
and born of the virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to hell.
The third day he rose again from the dead.
He ascended to heaven
and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty.
From there he will come to judge the living and the dead.We affirm that Jesus of Nazareth, though born of a woman, was more than a human being; he was actually God’s Son and thus also God himself.
Here's a website that is priding itself on reason and science and designed to appeal to "rational" people. Notice the "diversity" of "our team."
I was smart enough to click on "more about our beliefs" and hardly surprised to find, after the prerequisite
 |
(I just learned yesterday, actually, that the Apocrypha was in most Protestant Bibles until the 1880s. Click here and search "Apocrypha")**
|
**Re: another myth (about the Apocrypha) bites the dust:(from a site that deals in rare and antique bibles, they have a wonderful timeline of translations, right here):
It was not really until the 1880’sthat England’s own planned replacement for their King James Bible, theEnglish Revised Version(E.R.V.) would become the first English language Bible to gain popular acceptance as a post-King James Version modern-English Bible. The widespread popularity of this modern-English translation brought with it another curious characteristic: the absence of the 14 Apocryphal books.
Up until the 1880’s every Protestant Bible (not just Catholic Bibles) had 80 books, not 66! The inter-testamental books written hundreds of years before Christ called “The Apocrypha” were part of virtually every printing of the Tyndale-Matthews Bible, the Great Bible, the Bishops Bible, the Protestant Geneva Bible, and the King James Bible until their removal in the 1880’s! The original1611 King James contained the Apocrypha, and King James threatened anyone who dared to print the Bible without the Apocrypha with heavy fines and a year in jail. Only for the last 120years has the Protestant Church rejected these books, and removed them from their Bibles. This has left most modern-day Christians believing the popular myth that there is something “Roman Catholic” about the Apocrypha. There is, however, no truth in that myth, and no widely-accepted reason for the removal of the Apocrypha in the 1880’s has ever been officially issued by a mainline Protestant denomination.
Now that you have the timeline of the Apocrypha being as Protestant as Catholic til, say, the 1880s, get a look at the rest of 'REASONS TO BELIEVE: ABOUT OUR BELIEFS" -- obviously they are trying to patch on scientific observation of nature onto the Trinitarian doctrine, and forget who had a major argument with, say, Galileo -- not forgiven til long after his death!
UNbelievable -- this is probably why? No wonder, even in the new testament, people are called "Sheep"!
We believe the Bible (the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments) is the Word of God, written. As a "God-breathed" revelation, it is thus verbally inspired and completely without error (historically, scientifically, morally, and spiritually) in its original writings. While God the Holy Spirit supernaturally superintended the writing of the Bible, that writing nevertheless reflects the words and literary styles of its individual human authors. Scripture reveals the being, nature, and character of God, the nature of God's creation, and especially His will for the salvation of human beings through Jesus Christ. The Bible is therefore our supreme and final authority in all matters that it addresses.
We believe that the physical universe, the realm of nature, is the visible creation of God. It declares God's existence and gives a trustworthy revelation of God's character and purpose. In Scripture, God declares that through His creation all humanity recognizes His existence, power, glory, and wisdom. An honest study of nature - its physical, biological, and social aspects - can prove useful in a person's search for truth. Properly understood, God's Word (Scripture) and God's world (nature), as two revelations (one verbal, one physical) from the same God, will never contradict each other.
We believe in one infinitely perfect, eternal and personal God, the transcendent Creator and sovereign Sustainer of the universe. This one God is Triune, existing eternally and simultaneously as three distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. All three persons in the Godhead share equally and completely the one divine nature, and are therefore the same God, coequal in power, nature, and glory.
We believe that Jesus Christ is both true God (the second Person of the Trinity) and true man (the Incarnate Son of God). We also believe in the great events surrounding Jesus Christ's life and ministry, including: His eternal preexistence, His virgin birth, His attesting miracles, His sinless life, His sacrificial death on the cross, His glorious bodily resurrection from the dead, His ascension into heaven, and His present work in heaven as High Priest and Advocate. He will return in glory to resurrect and judge all mankind.***
(**see below. The scripture does not testify that it is Jesus who will RAISE the dead, although it does that he shall judge them...)
We believe that the Holy Spirit, the third Person of the Trinity, is indeed a Divine Person, coequal with the Father and the Son. We also believe in the ministry of the Holy Spirit in salvation, a ministry which includes anointing and glorifying Christ, convicting men of their sin, bringing about the regeneration of lost sinners, and indwelling believers and empowering them for godly living and spiritual service.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
There's more. Perhaps this would be a good time to point out that the word "Trinity" doesn't occur in the Bible, which it took less than no time for a young woman (me) to discover many years ago by searching the concordances, and reviewing (laboriously -- all gospels, plus probably Acts & Romans at the time) and making a chart of what Jesus called himself, his disciples called him, his enemies called him, angels called him, and devil spirits called him, not to mention what God called him. It's fairly straightforward when you add up the score! Add in the record of history and it's fairly obvious -- the idea came in later, and was perpetuated by force and fear. . . . . . And it had to do with control of ecclesiastical authority & position, etc.)....
So here's some more "REASONS TO BELIEVE" which give me a reason to believe these men do not read the Bible, very much....
We believe Jesus Christ rose bodily from the dead, conquering sin, death, and all the powers of Satan. The resurrection is God's historical affirmation and vindication of Jesus Christ's unique identity, mission, and message. Historical evidence of the resurrection is manifest in Christ's empty tomb, His many resurrection appearances, and in the emergence of the Christian church. {{exCUUUse me??}} Jesus Christ now resides at the right hand of the Father, and lives to indwell all who recognize their sinfulness, who repent, and who turn their lives over to His authority.
{{As I keep saying, this whole doctrine is about submission to authority.... Control...}}}
Regarding the witness of the resurrection being the emergence of the Christian church -- that's Bu11sh*t. This is (some of) what the Bible says about that witness:
- Mark 16: they went everywhere preaching the word, "the Lord working with them and confirming the word with signs following."
- Acts 5 (the chapter is filled with works of power and healing, and when hauled in for interrogation on preaching this doctrine, they said):
26 Then went the captain with the officers, and brought them without violence: for they feared the people, lest they should have been stoned.27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them,28 Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us.29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. 30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.32 And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.
Apparently the "witness" is related to this gift of the holy ghost (spirit) which those that obey him, have received.... PERHAPS there's a connection between that gift and the works of power and deliverance???
Perhaps if more people obeyed (the ONE God in question here) they might also receive the gift of holy spirit, which would witness to their gospel -- assuming they got the gospel straight...)
I John 2 (the book is best read straight through) speaks of an anointing on the believers have received:
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
and later, same book:
This is he that came by water and blood, [even] Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. . .
(ironically, this section, I John 5, is well known for a trinitarian insert):
If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son
OTHER issues with "REASONS TO BELIEVE"
- What does it mean to "rise bodily" from the dead, as opposed to in some ethereal spiritual manner? I Cor 15 Paul (trained as a Pharisee) explains, after first saying he'd not have (his Gentile converts) IGNORANT and a few 'THOU FOOLs," along the way....
- I Cor 151Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 2By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
{{interesting concept, that "IF" in verse 2..}}3For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 8And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. 9For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.- - - ...12Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: 14And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. 15Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not . . .{{now look -- this crowd doesn't claim Christ wasn't "raised from the dead" but they have a problem uttering the phrase "GOD raised Christ" (or "Jesus"). Moreover, their preaching and teaching is much more along the lines of "let's dominate the globe, for the kingdom of God" than simply reading, and saying, what the Bible says -- Acts 17 provides a fine example of Paul's CONSISTENT focus on the resurrection when preaching the gospel, whether to Jews (from the scriptures) or Gentiles:.." Paul was KNOWN because of his focus on this:16 Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry.17 Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him.
(the resurrection and the preaching of it is definitely an attention getter, and may get one called a "babbler" as it did Paul. It also may get one tarred & feathered, so to speak....)18 Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection. . . .30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:31 Because he (GOD) hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.32 And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter.33 So Paul departed from among themACT 13, here's Paul AGAIN in a synagogue preaching Jesus, of the seed of David, the crucifixion, death, and the resurrection, using this wording: "30 But God raised him from the dead:"..."And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers,33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." . . ."as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption" . . .But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption.38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins..."
ACT 10, again, (Peter preaching this time) Jesus is a man anointed by God, and raised from the dead by God, and ordained by God to judge the living and the dead.
WHERE is the "BODILY" ??? I don't see it.
I Cor 15:22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. 24Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 27For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
Contrast the wording above, again with the "resurrection" section of the group:
**interesting -- where's the mention of the cross of his blood shed for atonement, of repentance of faith in his name for the remission of sins, etc.?
ANYHOW, from "A REASON TO BELIEVE: Beliefs"
We believe Jesus Christ rose bodily from the dead, conquering sin, death, and all the powers of Satan. The resurrection is God's historical affirmation and vindication of Jesus Christ's unique identity, mission, and message.** Historical evidence of the resurrection is manifest in Christ's empty tomb, His many resurrection appearances, and in the emergence of the Christian church. {{exCUUUse me??}} Jesus Christ now resides at the right hand of the Father, and lives to indwell all who recognize their sinfulness, who repent, and who turn their lives over to His authority.
**interesting -- where's the mention of the cross of his blood shed for atonement, of repentance of faith in his name for the remission of sins, etc.?
ANYHOW, from "A REASON TO BELIEVE: Beliefs"
We believe the church is the spiritual body of Jesus Christ (its Founder, Head, and Shepherd) and that it encompasses all true believers at all times and places. The function of the church is to carry out the Lord's expressed will through the power of the Holy Spirit. One of the central purposes of the church is to preach the Gospel (in both word and life), the good news that humankind can find salvation from sin through faith in Jesus Christ. All people who have placed their faith (confident trust) in Jesus Christ for salvation belong to the church and are, thus, the people of God. This community of believers is made up of people who are neither perfect nor sinless, but by grace their lives are coming more and more under the control of the Holy Spirit, expressing His love, joy, peace, and other Christ-like qualities.
- What does the Bible say about the function of "the church"? In what context does the Bible mention the church as the body of Jesus Christ? (it reads quite differently); Here is the book of Ephesians. Read it all, esp. Chapters 1 through 3.
Here's a running start, and it begins by first Blessing God (not jesus).God is the agent here, and who is being "blessed". It begins with a beautiful figure of speech -- three uses in one verse of forms of the word "Bless," to emphasize it.
- AS I keep saying, this other gospel is about Control by the Holy Spirit (which is to say, the church leadership, and social groupings) and not the liberty in Christ that Paul, by contrast, told people to stand fast in. . . . . .
- Here's how the Bible describes where the "love joy peace" and other such qualities come from (too bad someone was too busy to reference or list it in this "about us"). It contains the words "WALK" which is something involving individual choice -- to walk by the spirit, or walk by the flesh:
Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage...." (referring to circumcision)....Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. . .For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith....For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love. . . .Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth? Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth? A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump . . .
(then he has to go back and explain flesh vs. spirit -- again):
"For all the law is fulfilled in one word, [even] in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another. [This] I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh."Paul does not talk about joining a group and coming under the "control" of the Holy Ghost. He encouraged people to WALK, in their WALK, and etc. . . . After explaining that flesh wants one thing and spirit the other (and listing a virtual catalogue of the works of the flesh, nasty stuff..starting with adultery, but including such things as idolatry.....Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told [you] in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God...) then:
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another
Verse 25 ("if we live in the Spirit") : Ei could be "if," -- or "as" (forasmuch, i.e., SINCE)
|
εἰ ζῶμεν πνεύματι πνεύματι καὶ στοιχῶμεν
As we live by the spirit, also? by the spirit we should walk (I'm not the verb grammar expert -- but notice the structure: Live by spirit, by spirit walk.
The Galatians needed to understand that, as they had been drawn back in to legalism as if that was their source of life. It wasn't the source was spiritual. They were to remember this, and walk by it -- that is where the freedom was, and so where they should be standing.
We believe the Lord Jesus Christ will return to this earth, personally, bodily, and visibly to establish his glorious reign in a kingdom that will never end. As the sovereign Lord, He will resurrect and judge all humanity.** Those who have received His offer of life through the Gospel will go to eternal blessings in heaven; those who have rejected it, to eternal conscious torment in hell. We look forward to the blessed hope, Christ's Second Coming in glory.
How the Bible says this: It mentions God! (See Acts 1). What's with the continual elimination of the nouns referring to God in all these creeds, when referring to parts of the Bible in which God does something regarding Jesus Christ?
**Is that what the Bible says? God raised Jesus from the dead (which I have established and it's clear in the scripture) but now Christ -- and not God -- raises the dead? Let's see the wording in I Thess 4, commonly known to describe this event, when the dead in Christ (and not yet dead in Christ at his return) will indeed be "raised."
Who is doing the bringing? Sounds to me like God is bringing BOTH Jesus and them "that sleep in Jesus" . . . .
Sounds exciting -- and then the Lord himself will raise the dead? Does it say that??
No it doesn't, despite the drama -- it says, "the dead in Christ shall rise first." And those still alive at this time shall (passive voice here) "be caught up together with them in the clouds."
Here's a similar passage in I Corinthians. Does it say Jesus Christ is going to raise the dead, or simply that they shall be raised? If He (Jesus) were going to do this, to destroy death in this manner, why wouldn't it say it here, in this entire chapter on the resurrection?
All "shall be made alive" -- Christ first (Christ was "made alive" -- by God, logically and per the other many accounts, God raised Jesus from the dead all over the place....)
Does it specify here that Jesus is going to do that destroying? next verses, right there:
| ||
{{GOD is who put (or at this time, will have put) all things under Jesus.
See also Philippians on this....Jesus humbled himself unto death, wherefore GOD highly exalted him and gave him a name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus "every knee shall bow." It's self-evident that this doesn't include God bowing to Jesus!!! That's what this I Cor 15 section is saying.... The power proceeds from God and is delivered, apparently, by way of holy spirit (I am thinking again of Acts 1 & 2) to Jesus. In certain realms (like everything but the throne, apparently) Jesus is supreme. However, God is higher... There is no Trinity -- and a little democratic family meeting in what shall we do about Sandy and Suzie and John, and Pastor Baloney, etc.... There is a living God, who is Spirit. The jews do not have a problem with this; the Muslims, centuries later, do not either. It's the so-called Christians (Gentile in origin) that just can't seem to keep it straight. They couldn't in the first century, and it's even worse nowawadays.
See also Philippians on this....Jesus humbled himself unto death, wherefore GOD highly exalted him and gave him a name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus "every knee shall bow." It's self-evident that this doesn't include God bowing to Jesus!!! That's what this I Cor 15 section is saying.... The power proceeds from God and is delivered, apparently, by way of holy spirit (I am thinking again of Acts 1 & 2) to Jesus. In certain realms (like everything but the throne, apparently) Jesus is supreme. However, God is higher... There is no Trinity -- and a little democratic family meeting in what shall we do about Sandy and Suzie and John, and Pastor Baloney, etc.... There is a living God, who is Spirit. The jews do not have a problem with this; the Muslims, centuries later, do not either. It's the so-called Christians (Gentile in origin) that just can't seem to keep it straight. They couldn't in the first century, and it's even worse nowawadays.
We believe Jesus Christ is the only way of salvation. And since Christ has commissioned His people, the church, to go into all the world to disciple, to baptize, and to teach everyone everywhere to obey His Word, we desire, by His grace, to play our part in reaching the world with the Gospel of Christ.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
(THAT WOULD BE NICE IF THEY WERE NOT CLUELESS ABOUT WHAT IT IS. AS THE PHRASE "THE GREAT COMMISSION" -- WHY IS MATTHEW 28:19 NOT REFERENCED? IN FACT, GIVEN HOW MUCH THEY BELIEVE THE (66) BOOKS OF THE BIBLE - WHY AREN'T THEY QUOTING IT? (OR EVEN REFERENCE IT?) THE APOSTLES, PROPHETS, ETC. -- QUOTED IT PLENTY. SO DID JESUS WHILE IN EARTH -- CONSTANTLY.. . . . .
Paul et al in Corinthians (I Cor, probably) "we believe, therefore we speak" So I guess not speaking may be paralleled with simply not believing (despite the labels) the word of God?
After a while it gets ridiculous (and exasperating) reading the doctrines and then actually remembering what the scriptures say on the same topics they raise, which is rarely a 75% or greater match....
_ _ _ _
Of the Four Men of "Reasons to Believe" several have scientific backgrounds and what they are primarily after is to prove that observation of nature (etc.) leads to intelligent design, i.e., a creator. I do not have a problem with this -- except there they show evidence of less than full attention on what (per itself) God says he magnified above ALL his name -- which is his word.
They are not the first scientists to think so, but the Bible (or at least gospels, Acts, & Paul) seem clear that it's the preaching of the cross, and the demonstration of spirit and of power (which goes with it)-- and not reason, or wisdom of men -- which is the means by which God chose. (I Corinthians 1 and 2 speaks directly to this, as does Romans 1). There are different kinds of wisdom. Here it is, and here I go again, with a quote from I Corinthians 1:
If, being saved, people want to research intelligent design, more power to them. However to then go and (suppose "intelligent design" is found, which shouldn't be to hard to look (Psalm 19: The heavens declare the glory of God...)) -- still, to save men requires -- per God -- this preaching of the cross, which includes with it, the resurrection. It is just so 'foolish' to believe that only the humble would -- and apparently that's who God appears to be calling and looking for.
What about God's purpose -- does that count?
_ _ _ _ _ _
One (kenneth samples) has a religious background, however (no demonstrable hard sciences -- social science and philosophy):
As an RTB scholar I have a great passion to help people understand and see the truth and relevance of Christianity's truth-claims. My writings and lectures at RTB focus on showing how the great doctrinal truths of the faith (the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Atonement, creation ex nihilo, salvation by grace, etc.) are uniquely compatible with reason
Sure it's because of reason. One of the first executed for failure to believe it? was Priscillian Avilla -- who is new to me, so I'll just leave the Wikipedia. he was an ascetic, and apparently the first Christian to be martyred by Christians, ca. 385:
Priscillian appealed to the Emperor, with the unexpected result that, with six of his companions, he was beheaded at Trier in 385, the first Christian heretics to be put to death by Christians. :
A thoughtful piece (2006) about use of the tool of exile by Constantine to discipline bishops -- and what it then represented, for bishops to survive: Priscillian's case -- he appealed the emperor, and for political reasons, was executed -- not exiled.
"By contrast, the new status and privileges enjoyed by bishops as a result of Constantine’s conversion has been long recognized. 2 However, the vulnerability of bishops, as they continued to depend on the support of imperial authorities for their prominent position, has not been sufficiently emphasized by historians. An investigation of exile as a sanction used against bishops by Christian rulers will certainly help to redress the balance concerning the status of this new elite.
The nature of ecclesiastical disciplinary measures and Constantine’s adoption of exile as the best way to enforce these ecclesiastical measures made success in ecclesiastical politics, for a bishop, depend upon the network of support he was able to construct. In order to support this claim, I will first look at the cases of two bishops who suffered imperial punishment, Priscillian of Avilla in the West and John Chrysostom in the East, and then at three bishops, Ambrose of Milan in theWest, and Theophilus and Cyril of Alexandria in the East, who arguably behavedin a punishable manner but were able to avoid sanctions. In each of these casessuccess or failure was directly related to two important variables. The first was the individual bishop’s ability to cultivate imperial support, while the second, and most important, was his ability to cultivate the support of fellow bishops.
ANYHOW, for "REASONS to believe...." I believe they are more reasons to incorporate and sustain things they find fun, interesting, and profitable....
Kenneth Richard Samples began voraciously studying Christian philosophy and theology when his thirst for purpose found relief in the Bible. He earned his undergraduate degree in philosophy and social science from Concordia University** and his MA in theological studies from Talbot School of Theology. For seven years, Kenneth worked as Senior Research Consultant and Correspondence Editor at the Christian Research Institute (CRI) and regularly cohosted the popular
**Portland, Oregon a "Concordia is a private, Christian, liberal arts university open to students of any faith." "Concordia is a Christian University preparing leaders for the transformation of society." (See "SOCIAL SCIENCE") Concordia is one of 10 universities founded by the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, and the only LCMS university in Oregon..."
Teaches at Biola, another "private Christian University" in Southern Cal.
Dr. Hugh Ross:
(I see from the financial statement that his salary 2011 shows as $131K -- that's for this nonprofit; not including teaching, etc.)
Reasons To Believe emerged from my passion to research, develop, and proclaim the most powerful new reasons to believe in Christ as Creator, Lord, and Savior and to use those new reasons to reach people for Christ. I also am eager to equip Christians to engage, rather than withdraw from or attack, educated non-Christians. One of the approaches I’ve developed, with the help of my RTB colleagues, is a biblical creation model that is testable, falsifiable, and predictive.
(My attention is flagging here, and anyone interested can look up this marketing phenomenon whose purpose is Trinitarian evangelism through a franchised, marketable product and labeling. They have a very nice website and a network. Remind me to check whether it's a nonprofit -- or very much for-profit:
MissionReasons To Believe (RTB) Chapters exist to connect the ministry of RTB with communities around the world, uplifting and equipping fellow believers for productive dialogue that invites doubters and skeptics to follow Jesus Christ.VisionAs part of our vision for increasing the ministry’s evangelistic impact, Chapters play a vital role in introducing RTB and its resources to local communities. They provide a forum in which these resources can enhance the spiritual growth and personal outreach of every member.
they say (RTB) is a 501(c)3 -- and I don't find it registered in California,** although am not willing to go through every single one labled "RTB" something else and compare addresses. They are definitely taking donations:
EIN# 33-0168048 (glendora, CA)
Income Statement (FYE 06/2011)
Thank you for your desire to support Reasons To Believe through a stock donation.
This is a great blessing to the ministry!
This is a great blessing to the ministry!
Board Leadership
Stan Lennard
Chairman of the Board
Chairman of the Board
| C1527195 | 03/24/1986 | ACTIVE | REASONS TO BELIEVE | PATTY BRADBURY |
| C2179399 | 09/30/1999 | ACTIVE | REASONS TO BELIEVE FOUNDATION, INC. | PATTY BRADBURY |
(there are a few red flags on this one. Its 2011 take was ca. $4 million. Ross earned $131K. His wife (also on board) one year $70K. Another person on the board (I learned later) is the father in law of an employee. The father in law is custodian of funds, and the son-in-law was one of the check-signers.
West Viriginia Charities Search (type in the name):
(Googledoc appears to be simply statement for a WV fundraiser -- but shows which foundations are supporting it, plus the staff relationships).
Says also registered in: CO, GA, HI & IL (Calif. not mentioned)
It's listed as religious organization and the foundation (now listed as a PO Box in Pasadena, CA) claims zero assets/ income and didn't know they had to file as a religious org.)
West Viriginia Charities Search (type in the name):
| Purpose: | To use recent scientific discoveries to engage skeptics and believers with a fact-based foundation for faith in Christianity. | |||
Says also registered in: CO, GA, HI & IL (Calif. not mentioned)
It's listed as religious organization and the foundation (now listed as a PO Box in Pasadena, CA) claims zero assets/ income and didn't know they had to file as a religious org.)
ORGANIZATION NAME | STATE | YEAR | TOTAL ASSETS | FORM | PAGES | EIN |
| Reasons to Believe | CA | 2011 | $4,246,452 | 990 | 28 | |
| Reasons to Believe | CA | 2010 | $3,476,637 | 990 | 24 | |
| Reasons to Believe | CA | 2009 | $3,278,568 | 990 | 24 | |
| Reasons to Believe | CA | 2008 | $3,659,007 | 990 | 44 | |
| Reasons to Believe | CA | 2007 | $3,311,611 | 990 | 45 | |
| Reasons to Believe | CA | 2006 | $2,831,310 | 990 | 44 | |
| Reasons to Believe | CA | 2005 | $2,537,998 | 990 | 45 | |
| Reasons to Believe | CA | 2004 | $1,307,690 | 990 | 40 | |
| Reasons to Believe | CA | 2003 | $1,111,398 | 990 | 40 |
The address is a mobile home park.
| 6. | Park Place Mobile Homes(626) 914-2992731 E Arrow Hwy, #A, Glendora, CAGet Directions |
However this is where the Ross's live
In California (despite these 990s here) it has not been filing its tax returns with the state. I just checked . . ..Welcome to the crowd...
In California (despite these 990s here) it has not been filing its tax returns with the state. I just checked . . ..Welcome to the crowd...
**under "REASONS tO BELIEVE" (not 'RTB') it is registered as a California Charitable Organization, with an associated trust.
Here's the searchable link (as search results aren't maintained):
(click on words, type in "reasons to believe" (only)
Here's the searchable link (as search results aren't maintained):
(click on words, type in "reasons to believe" (only)
| ||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(The related foundation, a PO Box in Pasadena, CA, is EIN 95-4781644, for what it's worth. "no assets received to date..." per a letter available on the above site. The foundation was incorporated (in CA) in October 1999, and letter OK'ing it as a 501(c)3 4-18-2000. It is signed D.H. Rogstad who was listed elsewhere (the WV filing) as custodian of funds for (the main corp, I believe) and acknowledged as a father in law of one of its employees, who was a check-signer. This letter being ca. 2005 lists board members of this zero- assets organization, incl. VP Hugh Ross.
(John V. Giardinelli incorporator) (Mick Ukleja, Ph.D. also on board).
This same guy? Probably: Dallas seminary, major in semitic languages & theology
http://www.csulb.edu/colleges/cba/ucel/
It is indeed exempt from the state (but not other IRS) requirements as a religious organization. Remind me to start a church named after myself (I'm sure I can find at least three people of the same sentiment -- we don't like paying taxes and do like receiving investment income as a charity & to be able to solicit donations legally -- who could agree on a name), spend a few hundred thousand on fundraisers -- and set up a good life for myself based on my personal belief systems, including screw the poor, who are not trained in how to do this, or social services -- what I want to research is more important. (Take a look at some of the tax returns).... (this g
Clicking on one in the California State capital, we see "the Great Commission" language:
(John V. Giardinelli incorporator) (Mick Ukleja, Ph.D. also on board).
This same guy? Probably: Dallas seminary, major in semitic languages & theology
 |
http://www.csulb.edu/colleges/cba/ucel/
Mick Ukleja - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mick_Ukleja (married into the family of GNC founder....)
The center was named in honor of its primary benefactors, Mick and Louise Ukleja, long-time supporters of CSULB whose substantial gift toward an initial $2.5 million endowment was responsible for establishing the center. Mick Ukleja is the founder and president of LeadershipTraQ, a consulting firm focused on training corporate executives in responsible leadership.
|
It is indeed exempt from the state (but not other IRS) requirements as a religious organization. Remind me to start a church named after myself (I'm sure I can find at least three people of the same sentiment -- we don't like paying taxes and do like receiving investment income as a charity & to be able to solicit donations legally -- who could agree on a name), spend a few hundred thousand on fundraisers -- and set up a good life for myself based on my personal belief systems, including screw the poor, who are not trained in how to do this, or social services -- what I want to research is more important. (Take a look at some of the tax returns).... (this g
Clicking on one in the California State capital, we see "the Great Commission" language:
Our Mission
The Sacramento Network of Reasons To Believe exists to fulfill the Great Commission by establishing a dialogue with non-believers, removing the doubts of skeptics and strengthening the faith of believers. Today, science in nearly every field of study, is pointing to finely tuned Intelligent Design creating an open door to introduce people to the confirming truths in the Bible and to the Creator, Jesus Christ. Our goal is to equip believers with new reasons to believe so that individuals that are skeptical can be shown that the Author of creation and the Bible is one and the same.
o carry out our mission we endeavor to:
- Conduct our efforts in the spirit of 1Peter 3:15, "But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.
(this verse is, of course, taken out of context, which is found HERE):
First of all, Peter sets for the gospel (which doesn't match RTB's at all, in that it acknowledges a God/Jesus relationship, and a timeline, and much more that simply doesn't make an appearance in "what we believe." Second, it is written to people enduring persecution, to strengthen them and remind them of their future hope, and (ethics) how to conduct themselves NOW. Here it is. See the contrast in content, approach, and intent?
And how he (peter) discusses spirit? Peter, hear tell, was martyred, like his Lord the Lord Jesus Christ. And this is, beforehand, what he is talking about, and wishes them to remember (after he's gone): I'm underlining a few topics which seem to rarely show up on "What we believe" pages these days.
if Jesus is God, there is no need to praise God, I suppose, or mention what the resurrection signifies -- a hope, and anticipation of future revealing of this salvation.
theHoly Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.
The gospel, as it says, was preached with "the holy ghost sent down from heaven." It is a tremendous privilege the prophets wanted to know about, but didn't -- as prophets, apparently, they were told that it was for a future time. This section can be a little complex, as to word order...verse 11: I think the first "of Christ" (blue) is misplaced, but am not equipped to teach that right now.
When belief in the divinity of Jesus becomes the cornerstone, the doctrine cannot be based on reason and is not. It is based on indoctrination and force. However, should there be a repentance (on behalf of said "Christians") -- and now would be a GREAT time to do so -- on preaching another gospel, and another Jesus (which this actually is) -- then the central truth of the resurrection, and the outpouring of the gift of holy spirit -- might be better known.
In the bottom line, Saul (Paul) also, despite his zeal and desire for his own countrymen (Israel, in other words) to be saved, finally got fed up with them (as did, earlier Moses -- in fact this seems to be the history) -- and insisted on the centrality of the resurrection, accepting that his calling was actually to the Gentiles.
(FYI -- a little more website exploration and it becomes clear Dr. Hugh Ross is on faculty at an on-line-based Tozer Theological Seminary, they are selling classes for a series of (probably very conservative) universities, and seeking to add the "Reason Institute" to other places); and basically -- marketing, for lack of a better word.
http://tozer.simpsonu.edu/ Just look at the website (and of course the confession of faith). Paul says, QUIT saying "I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, I am of Christ." This webpage says "Tozer this, Tozer that, Tozer the other thing")
Aiden Wilson Tozer (1897–1963) is widely regarded as one of the deepest theological thinkers of the 20th century. He is known worldwide for his prayer-bathed way of speaking pithy truth and introducing people to God. Tozer was a man of integrity. He lived simply, committed himself to lifelong learning, and drank deep from God's Word. Tozer's poignant writings typically lead people to worship and weep in conviction.
A "theological thinker" -- Love it!
“Mere acquaintance with correct doctrine is a poor substitute for Christ,and familiarity with New Testament eschatology will never take the place of a love-inflameddesire to look on His face.”— A.W. Tozer
Interesting. Apostle Paul to Timothy, shortly before his approaching death:
1Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. 3Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. 4No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier. 5And if a man also strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned, except he strive lawfully. 6The husbandman that laboureth must be first partaker of the fruits.
7Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things. 8Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel: 9Wherein I suffer trouble, as an evil doer, even unto bonds; but the word of God is not bound. 10Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. 11It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him: 12If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us: 13If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.
14Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers. 15Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 16But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. 17And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; 18Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some. 19Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. 20But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.
21If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work. 22Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart. 23But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. 24And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, 25In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; 26And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.
- There is one God,(1) who is infinitely perfect,(2) existing eternally in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.(3) ([1] Deuteronomy 6:4, [2] Matthew 5:48, [3] Matthew 28:19)
PAUL: I TIMOTHY 3:
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away
6For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 7Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
8Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. 9But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was.
But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience, 11Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me.
12Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
13But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
14But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus
[[Apparently Paul --whose life demonstrated who he loved -- was highly concerned about doctrine, and the scriptures...moreso than shows of emotion...]]
. 16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. [[apparently good works are expected of men of God. ]]
++++ (numbering is off as it's automatic, and I'm interrupting the out-line format with scripture....)
- Jesus Christ is the true God and the true man.(4) He was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary.(5) He died upon the cross, the Just for the unjust,(6) as a substitutionary sacrifice,(7) and all who believe in Him are justified on the ground of His shed blood.(8) He arose from the dead according to the Scriptures.(9) He is now at the right hand of Majesty on high as our great High Priest.
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; 3Who being the brightness of his [GOD's] glory, and the express image ["charakter"] of his [GOD's] person [substance, not "person"], and upholding all things by the word of the power of (auto, the same), when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; 4Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance [SON, get it??] obtained a more excellent name than they.
{{actually the Greek is very interesting -- the word "GOD" is not the first word of the sentence; it begins with the timeframe: "in many parts and many ways of old, GOD, having spoken [[simple past tense, "Aorist"]] to the fathers by ("en") the prophets, in/upon ("epi,") the last of these days He (God) spoke (ἐλάλησεν) to us en his Son...}}{{the word God for the old day, is repeated in the verb for "these last days" making it neatly parallel..}} it's not about what God said -- it's about the simple act of speaking. GOD speaking.
the word spoken is the word related to the word for speaking in tongues: glossolallia. Spoken here (of several words possible to use) is: "λαλήσας" & "ἐλάλησεν"
Am I the only one who does grammar around here? When it's this clearly about someone (like GOD), speaking -- then I can just about guarantee you that any group or individual who looks at WHAT is spoken (i.e., Jesus Christ) and calls it the speaker, isn't hearing straight and did not get the message. The son is the "express image" of the Father -- not the father!
Hebrews 1:3 is beautifully expressed, and does not use the word "person" in it. From what I can see in the interlinear, the Son is Who, "being the radiance of the glory and the character (greek word "Charakter") of the substance and carrying all things by the word (rhema) of the power of him"
A priest is called from among men to minister before God. If one IS the true God, what's the function of priest? I don't think these people have (EVER) read the book of Hebrews, in which Jesus is compared to Moses (a servant faithful in all his house) versus a Son over his own house... Or, say, the opening verses:
Notice that the word "Majesty on high" (not "the Majesty on high" -- which is simply careless) had to be substitute for God -- or the true God would be sitting on the right hand (right now too!) as a priest to -- himself? That's what I mean by, handling the word of God deceitfully (to the extent it's handled AT ALL), and "ADHD" Bible...
Interesting that in the first recorded sermon to the Gentiles, Peter (acts 10) made no mention of Jesus' birth,or of the virgin Mary -- at all -- as prerequisite (or, part of the gospel) in repentance, and to receive the gift (outpouring) of the Holy Spirit. Cornelius was called a devout man, and believed right when he heard -- and immediately was found praising God (and speaking in tongues) with his household.
- (10) He will come again to establish His kingdom, righteousness and peace.(11) ([4] Philippians 2:6–11, [5] Luke 1:34–38, [6] I Peter 3:18, [7] Hebrews 2:9, [8] Romans 5:9, [9] Acts 2:23–24, [10] Hebrews 8:1, [11] Matthew 26:64)
The verses were not added to Bibles til ca. 1557. What's with all the a bit here, a bit there? As the entire thing doesn't flow with the Bible, I'll bet almost none of them prove a single point above.
I would like to (after seeing the above list of cites to prove that Jesus was the true God seated at the hand of "Majesty on high" as our high priest" etc. . . . ) show "Isaiah 28" here -- in which the priest and prophet have erred through strong drink. I don't believe that's referring to alcohol. Judge for yourself. Right about now, I'm getting indignant at this foolishness (which is -- the shape of churches today, at play in the fields of the Lord, I mean, of the internet: The LORD (in this section of a MAJOR old testament prophet) proclaims he is looking for someone to teach knowledge -- but can't find one -- because of (priest & prophet, these people who ruled Jerusalem at the time). The language is strong enough and inspiring. There is in this segment (I believe) a prophecy (foretelling) of speaking in tongues, which is promised as a REST to the people. And a good deal more:
that's exactly what I'm looking at -- and how I feel when I look at these doctrinal statements. There is NO place (paragraph) clean -- these people are drunk; they are completely out of the way, and they err in vision. I called it "ADD" (or ADHD). God -- in Isaiah -- called it simply drunk. It is disturbing to behold.
Reading on, we see the LORD couldn't even find someone to teach knowledge -- they weren't weaned from the breasts (they were babies, in other words...) Paul -- or whoever wrote the book of Hebrews, moreover -- apparently felt the same way.
Spiritually this is true of the (protestant evangelical american, etc.) churches today -- they are essentially Gentiles, and as such, they have been (as I Cor 12 describes) "ignorant" - -and while perhaps already have even received the treasure, the gift of holy spirit, somehow -- they are carried away unto idolatry.
Including the worship of men (A.W. Tozer) which is simply abominable.
They just couldn't put it together, this word of the LORD -- they were scornful.
Guess who this next part is referring to!
This next section is "doctrines of men," it is garbled -- and it's just not true, or justifiable from scripture.
- The Holy Spirit is a divine person,(12) sent to dwell, guide, teach, empower the believer,(13) and convince the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment.(14) ([12] John 14:15–18, [13] John 16:13, Acts 1:8, [14] John 16:7–11)
three references (one verse only, each) from the gospel of John (not even in order -- notice John 16:13, Acts 1:8/14, then John 16:7-11. That's what I mean ADHD!!.
Given that this IS a debated topic, the trinity and that the Holy Spirit is a person -- wouldn't a FEW more substantiating verses be appropriate? And you can scrap the one from Acts 1:8, which was spoken by the (resurrected) jesus RIGHT before his ascension, and goes like this (parsed, read top to bottom in the boxes...):
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
It says nothing in Acts 1:8 about the holy spirit being a divine person. it is clearly equated with a believer receiving POWER. Therefore, in this verse, it appears to relate to power (dunamis)... Moreover this was addressed to the apostles as a group -- and not to "the believer" singular. Keep it straight!
- The Old and New Testaments, inerrant as originally given, were verbally inspired by God and are a complete revelation of His will for the salvation of men. They constitute the divine and only rule of Christian faith and practice.(15) ([15] 2 Peter 1:20–21, 2 Timothy 3:15–16)
This is essentially true -- but these people do not believe it. Please notice, they would rather listen to themselves speak (in a far less powerful, accurate, and eloquent language) than actually even speak Bible -- on a single point in their own statement of faith? Is that crazy or what? . . . . . .
The phrase about the "inerrant Old and New Testaments" is boilerplate statement for many churches and church groups -- whose doctrines make absolute mincemeat of the same. They just like to say it, as window-dressing to lend some credibility to what reads like, as I said above, somebody who has not processed the information, and might as well be drunk -- spiritually at least.
They are hypocrites! (these are some links to the website).
No comments:
Post a Comment