|
|
Looking at point 4, from the viewpoint of someone who has spent more time reading the Bible than being (obviously) properly indoctrinated and discipled into this worldview, it is clear to me that the summary of points is presented in a grammar (and language) different from the words and Word of God. Grammar counts, at least in English.
Those that can't be faithful to it in English, after all the suffering, and martyrdoms, or men whose life's labor was translating this into English under intense persecutions, have dishonored those men, are disrespectful also of the English-to English itself (i.e., even without a language barrier, these cannot accurately summarize what the Bible says in their own statements of faith!) -- and as such probably shouldn't be trusted with anything.
This paragraph 4 is what led to my going "beyond foolish" to talk about the difference between composite declarations of faith, internet-marketed and corporately underwritten -- as opposed to the record in the Old and New Testaments which these same can't quote or recite because, if these words simply WERE their own confession of faith, they would be doing so --and given verbatim, would directly oppose and contradict that same confession!
|
Romans 10: talks about zeal, absent submitting onesself to "the righteousness of God." Rather than point after point of belief, how about a single chapter of the Bible, in context, with its flow and with its statements?
Then another single chapter (not phrase-fragment) from the same Bible, in context, with its flow and with its statements? Why, exactly, cannot these various evangelical groups get it together, drop the "what WE believe" and replace it with preaching the gospel? Rather than functioning to censor other beliefs (as in, A.D. 381 the Dawn of the Monotheistic Age and the End of Paganism), and make fools of themselves in front of others - -- simply preach it, (read it aloud and stick it up on all the websites AS It OCCURS at least in English -- and see whether the real God might not just show up and help them out?
And, if there is no such real God, then drop the whole thing, and save the world a lot of grief -- and religious wars....
Then another single chapter (not phrase-fragment) from the same Bible, in context, with its flow and with its statements? Why, exactly, cannot these various evangelical groups get it together, drop the "what WE believe" and replace it with preaching the gospel? Rather than functioning to censor other beliefs (as in, A.D. 381 the Dawn of the Monotheistic Age and the End of Paganism), and make fools of themselves in front of others - -- simply preach it, (read it aloud and stick it up on all the websites AS It OCCURS at least in English -- and see whether the real God might not just show up and help them out?
And, if there is no such real God, then drop the whole thing, and save the world a lot of grief -- and religious wars....
In short, who cares what "we believe"? I don't, other than when it spreads ignorance at too many levels, and that's a LOT of voters we are talking about, in the US..
The message is, "if THOU shalt believe!" "THE JUST SHALL LIVE BY FAITH." (IN WHAT?)
The message is, "if THOU shalt believe!" "THE JUST SHALL LIVE BY FAITH." (IN WHAT?)
Romans 10 (from Bible.cc, which is easier to get consecutive verses from than BlueletterBible, the link above):
1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. 2For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. 3For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
- I think it's a safe guess to say that this chapter is going to deal with "the righteousness of God, and that in this matter, zealous ignorance isn't helpful; submitting to "the righteousness of God" (which obviously will be explained ahead), IS. A look at the whole chapter on faith shows that it begins and ends with rejection of this same faith by Israel. (Romans 11 then goes on to say, this enabled the Gentiles to get a shot at it). . . . . .
4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. 5For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.
6But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise,** Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:) 7Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
8But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; 9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
- Mouth and Heart are involved. Mouth has ONE thing to confess; HEART has one thing to believe. Lord help most of us if it gets more complex!!
- the righteousness which is "of faith" is extremely complex. It appears to have a whopping TWO parts: Confess with thy mouth, "the Lord Jesus," and believe in thine heart "that God (subject) hath raised (past tense verb) him (=Jesus/direct object) from (ek=out from among) the dead
versus, the version that completely omits God except as Jesus' father, and completely omits Jesus' work, doesn't mention "crucifixion" etc. Despite all it "doesn't," it has no lack of words and definitions preceding the resurrection, which is attributed to Jesus as the agent, omits "sitteth at the right hand of God," and when referencing intercession, omits, before whom (as in, "God.")
rose bodily from the dead and ascended to heaven where He intercedes for His people.- In particular regard to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, we believe that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, born of the virgin Mary, is fully God and fully human; He . . . .
Apparently it's not necessary to believe that Jesus was "born of the Virgin Mary" to submit onesself to the righteousness of God and be saved. Nor was this mentioned in the Acts 2 sermon, etc. etc. the specification "bodily" isn't referenced as opposed to "spiritually" either.
"10For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
- heart and mouth again.
11For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. 12For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. 13For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 14How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
- believe = in heart; call upon = with mouth. If they call, the Lord is rich to those that call on him -- but to call upon someone, one must BELIEVE. (HEART belief precedes MOUTH calling upon, apparently. Not necessarily by years of indoctrination of taking class upon class, or discipleship, etc.)
- Belief requires hearing, and hearing requires preaching.
15And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
16But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
17So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
[[**I'm sure this level of detail is beyond the casual interest -- but even looking at the KJV here: Verse 6 reads "the righteousness of faith speaketh on this wise: Say Not. . . . (examples, a,b,c) ...(verse 8) BUT what saith it?
Grammar -- the word "but" contrasts. NOT this, BUT that.... Most people brush right by it for lack of attention (this includes me; I didn't notice it til looking at the interlinear. The word of God seems to be like this -- the closer you look, the more you see, and it's always fascinating).
The answer to this grammar mistake in the KJV is that the translators moved the "NOT" from the "NOT this BUT that" part into the examples part, changed the verb tense of "you might say" to "Say Not" and in general seems to have screwed it up, at least "seems to have" unless other greek texts (this one from 1894) read differently:
{{actually -- I just saw from the interlinear -- verse six says," the righteous of faith does NOT say thus: you might say in your heart, who shall . . . . "}}{{Even here the translation moved the "not" from one part of a sentence to the other, changed the conditional "you might say" into an order "Say not." The statement is presented as what the righteousness of faith does NOT say (examples, a, b, c). It is translated as a dogma, "don't YOU say this....")}}
@@@@@
Essential elements (specifically the use of God and Jesus as having a subject/direct object relationship -- i.e., God sent Jesus, God anointed Jesus, God will send Jesus again, God chose and approved Jesus, God raised Jesus from the dead; and (for example), Jesus "is seated" at the right hand of God, indicating that God is on a certain throne and, while all AUTHORITY may have been translated to Jesus (because God gave it to Him, as declared in the end of at least one gospel), there are matters of the throne in which God is superior.
Jesus is a prophet -- which the Muslims even acknowledge. If the evangelizers would get their heads on the same page, get filled with the holy spirit and go about healing and delivering people in the name of Jesus, perhaps this might help convince the skeptical? Admittedly this is dangerous - -however, assuming the bible they declare is inerrant (etc.) actually is also TRUE -- it would seem that God is able to open doors that men close. He managed to get personally to the apostle Paul at the time Paul (Saul, etc.) was persecuting Christians, in fact en route to doing so, and later involving a "certain disciple" called Barnabas.
Were these accounts actually shared, moreover they are interesting, informative, and in many ways are relevant to current events.
The statement of faith, basically, is not and is simply being used here as any "articles of incorporation" for -- a corporation (a business enterprise) might be. what does that tell us?
The relationship of a prophet to the related God is that of spokesperson (and Jesus is also called, appropriately, "the Word of God.") . . . . Jesus is also called a priest (see Hebrews). The relationship of a priest to God is not being the God, but interceding and ministering to the God. Jesus is called an intercessor and mediator -- again showing there is a difference.
All of that grammar.
Paul, addressing a Gentile audience in I & II Corinthians, again (laboriously) explains this matter of the resurrection, and who is subject to whom, in I Corinthians 15. (http://bible.cc, it can be looked up, I suggest choose KJV and then take a peek at the Greek (Interlinear gives grammar if that helps).
PARTICULARLY children, as it turns out. . . .
(after men translating from the Greek centuries ago lived as fugitives, followed the fate of Jesus Christ (John Huss in particular comes to mind -- he was betrayed, condemned outside the law (having no advocate), formally dressed in priestly garb and formally degraded (in front of an assembly), and then led to his execution, which was by fire, not crucifixion. He was an advocate of Wycliffe whose work, while banned by the church before his death, died rather from ill health. Following both of them was Tyndale, who translated as a fugitive from King Henry VIII of England, was betrayed by a friend, and strangled, THEN burned at the stake. It's said that Huss's fire had fodder from Wycliffe translations as well.
|
THEY LU -u u u u VE that ONE bastardized verse Matthew 28:19 which tells them to go make all nations submit to this doctrine, whereas the scripture says rather, to preach the gospel (first, getting it straight in all its simplicity), the Lord will confirm that word as it's spoken (i.e., with faith in the name of Jesus Christ, as the disciples did).
Instead of defining "the Church" how about talking about what God did? Here's Paul's eloquent statement, this is the entire chapter of Ephesians 3, which I'm putting in here because of the reference to the body of Christ. Ephesians 4 then talks about walking worthy of the calling -- One Lord, One Faith passage -- and then declares that gifts were given unto men for the perfecting of the body. If these gifts were GIVEN unto men by Christ (i.e., after he "ascended up on high,"), then they are not bought by participation in training materials and distributing toolkits. Moreover, the purpose of those gifts apparently may differ according to the need for an apostle (i.e. Paul was an apostle (SENT) to the Gentiles), a prophet, an evangelist, a pastor or a teacher (although I sometimes believe "pastors and teachers" are inseparable).
apostles and prophets, and by revelation -- and this is about the Gentiles:
3 different words in English: "fellow" "of the same" and "par(takers") are in Greek ONE prefix: "sun" (meaning, together -- as in synthesis, synonym, etc.). Too bad they couldn't get this in the translation to show the strong triple-whammy point being maken: God's chosen people were being informed that the Gentiles got in -- and on an equal basis when it comes to "his promise in Christ."!!!
Also (see above) the word "promise" is simply the word goodnews/gospel. So it reads partakers of the "gospel in Christ through the gospel." How they partake is by believing the gospel and calling on the name of the Lord, I gather (Romans 10). this also fits with Acts 2 statement by Peter" For the promise is unto you, and the children, and as many as the Lord our God shall call." (the same word, "euangelias" is used there as well; it is also used in Luke 4:18 where Jesus formally announced the start of his ministry by declaring (after reading from Isaiah), "this day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears." ....
From what I can tell, that "promise" is directly related to the outpouring (literally) of this holy spirit on those who believe, and there is no question that is it in the realm of the miraculous from start to finish....
*(the word parallel, "par" (golf?) and paraGRAPH,paraplegic, paranormal, etc. -- should communicate the concept of beside and equal.
Ephesians 3, after simply (in one statement -- half a sentence, really -- declaring this "mystery"), Paul continues:
the eternal purpose which he purposed is another emphasis. The HE in this verse -- which rarely shows up in the trinitarian formula -- is God. Not "God the Father" -- but just "God" purpose in CJ our Lord."
By simple grammar and usage -- prayer is to the Father of "our Lord Jesus Christ." Jesus Christ is "our Lord" to those who have confessed him Lord and believed that God raised him (Subject/verb/object) from the dead (descriptive phrased).
Now here is this "spirit in the inner man." whoever puts that in a statement of beliefs? Of being strengthened by that spirit, and of being "filled with all the fulness of God" -- ??? They cannot say this, because in the other framework, Christ is up in heaven -- as God -- and "raised" (miraculously, given he was dead, I guess like a zombie. In this version, there was no agent, even though according to the record, it took angels to roll away the stone from the tomb. . . . Jesus just "rose bodily."
. . .Apparently the audience long ago (acts 2) didn't need this descriptor: David was dead and buried and his sepulchre is "with us today" -- but not so Jesus, it was proclaimed. There was no, "well what part of David is dead, and what part of Jesus rose." When people started asking that question (Gentiles, I guess?), the answer (I Corinthians 15) was explained, along with the words, "thou fool!"
Regarding "partakers of his promise in Christ through the gospel" (just above), the "promise" is the word 'EUANGELIAS" from which the word Evangelize, and which is also translated "gospel." I.e., Good news.
~@~@~@~@~@~
Since I have already more than made myself a fool in this post by engaging with some -- I'm going to post one more section which shows greek/English of the word "promise" as in "his promise"in Christ -- was described, from Acts 2 and from what I can tell -- refers to the outpouring of holy spirit (no caps intentional) on the day of Pentecost. This is from Acts 2:
the italicized phrase is describing JESUS and please notice it's in passive: exalted by the right hand of God, and having received of the Father the "promise of the Holy Ghost." -- who is the actor? (God) who is the recipient (Jesus) and what did Jesus receive ("the promise of the Holy Ghost.")(Interlinear in a minute, here...)
shed forth is the word "poured out." Same word used of Jesus' shed blood, I think.
Tell me -- where is the personality, equal relationship (grammatically) and the agency and action of the "holy ghost." If it's equal in personality and activity to father and son, or God and Lord JC -- how come it doesn't show up here, of all primary accounts in the so-called Christian church? [[well, for one -- this is NOT a primary account in many or most Christian churches. If it were, more followers probably would pick up on the lingo...]]
What is poured out clearly has power and can be "seen and heard." But I don't see it as an equal agent.
Lord means Lord, and Christ refers to the anointing. Here's verse 33, and that's for this ridiculous, three-day project (on my part) called a post. Also, disclaimer -- I do not claim to be and am not a Greek scholar. I just have some basics and choose to use some of the tools available; and made diligent use of the hard-copy (paper) books [Lexicon and Concordance mostly] before it all went on-line (and actually prefer them). After many experiences in life which showed me that people's goodness, or "evil-ness" could not be identified by the state of their doctrine, I lost interest in being technically correct as to doctrine. However, we are in an election year -- this is now part of our culture and increasingly part of our government -- and how would you like people running the US Government, i.e., lawyers -- who cannot even remotely summarize plain English into plain English and do not accept that there's a two-thousand year history behind the bastardization of the Bible, and resistance into MOST people even having access to its truth -- from a religion currently represented by the Vatican?
This whole deal (topic of post) is far more about power, technology, and infrastructure and influence among men by men, than about preaching the gospel.
ACTS 2, Peter speaking to a large audience immediately after the outpouring of the holy spirit on the day of Pentecost and after the new phenomon of speaking in tongues which, moreover, was understood by people of many languages and cultures come up to Jerusalem for this feast.
WHY, then, would not such a group as HORIZONS INTERNATIONAL be supremely interested in this record, which narrates how many of many ethnicities were reached, miraculously, when 12 disciples (minus Judas,+ a chosen successor, as we found) simply obeyed their Lord and tarried in Jerusalem to be endued with power from on high? APPARENTLY they were doing something right!
The scripture itself is orderly, not garbled and fragmented -- and this doesn't happen when diced, sliced, and reconstituted by men speaking (in this case) English, who apparently were NOT "holy men speaking as they were moved by the holy ghost" or in essence, people whose purpose and intent is not in alignment with that of those who originally spoke, wrote, and even later translated into English -- the gospels.
This is not to say they haven't been working hard, or do not understand the cultures they are seeking to disciple...
"This Jesus hath God raised up." Jesus, the dead man in the grave, God, the living God, made two things: "both Lord and Christ." Then LORD is one thing, and Christ is another, obviously!
Having received (labon) of the Father the promise (EPangelia, not EUangelia, my mistake, above) of THE holy THE spirit, he has Shed forth (poured out) TOUTO (the same), which (not "who") you now see and hear.
Uses of "Epangelian" are 52: (in various forms also). this is another easy way to find parallel uses of certain words in the scripture, thanks to the power of hyperlink:
For what it's worth (if it's worth anything) 52 = 13 X 4. 13 represents rebellion, 4 represents the world. this is definitely, in its power of deliverance and message about Christ, I would have to say, a rebellion against the present "ruler of this world" who, Biblically speaking, is God's enemy. I may be right or entirely off base in noticing that, however, I just did notice it. (in our calendar there are 52 weeks in a year, right? Maybe look at one usage per week and see what comes up!!!) :). Sometimes they may cluster together.
Then go look at 52 statements of faith (I gather most by now will resemble the Lausanne Confession or whatever it calls itself -- and see if any of them mention this "promise of the Father," and put the story of its deliverance in a timeline like the Bible does.
If there is next to no resemblance, then you know who you are dealing with -- i.e., a widely-networked group which simply doesn't belief the gospel, although it's certainly preaching and influencing nations....
Regarding "angels" -- they are messengers; they don't make the message, they just deliver it. (cf. Gabriel to Mary, etc.) (angels to shepherds, and so on). . . . If they get the message wrong, they don't get too many repeat assignments. they also are clearly powerful and do things. But they are MESSENGERS. Anyone who wants to "evangelize" should first actually be an evangelist, and if they are not and still with to evangelize, getting the basic message straight is primary, and is a sign of submission to the one who sent it which still, by my understanding, is, God.
|
If anyone wishes clarification, or to further ask me about this (I am better in an interactive than presentational mode, specifically when I know what a person's questions are, or concerns) submit a comment; maybe I will talk off-line, if there appears to be a willingness to hear and not simply wish to argue. I don't mind "argument" in the true sense of the word, which includes, show me the stuff and stay in the conversation when a "to the contrary" is presented.
That said, it really can be a waste of time. Better yet, seek validation or invalidation oneself. Most people are too invested in their institutions as moral and social support groups (if not financial) to honestly admit that, if they'd been seriously deceived or lied to -- they'd quit supporting it.
Above, a 777 Broadway, Colorado, are two organizations Horizons International and "tgichurch.org" "The Gathering International Church (same primary leadership), both of which subscribe to the Lausanne Covenant.
Businesswise, there are two more trade names for these two organizations that meet at the same place: Biblical Missology and
"International Crossroads"
A quick look at the website of Biblical Missology (after noticing that it POSSIBLE self-created as a trade-name around the issue of responding to the Wycliffe challenge?) is that it is primarily a mixture Georges Houssney & (son or relative?) of Muslim Converts and leadership with some backgrounds from: Biola, Fuller, Talbot, Southern Baptist, etc. Themesong (or at least website) reads:
Restoring the Gospel to Missions and Missions to the Church, under the Authority of Scripture, for the Glory of the Triune God.
“…for building up the body of Christ” –v.12 ( Eph 4:11-16 )
- It takes some real "chutzpah" to cite that famous "One God" section in Ephesians (or what follows it). the word "Triune God" occurs nowhere in scripture, nor does the word "trinity" for that matter.
The "biblical missology" page is fascinating and shows serious scholarship and putting various languages the Bible has been translated into - or from -- into a historic concept.
http://biblicalmissiology.org/2012/09/03/meaning-discrepancy-in-terminology-between-christians-and-muslims-pt-i/ (notice date -- this past weekend):
by on SEPTEMBER 3, 2012 · LEAVE A COMMENT · in BIBLICAL MISSIOLOGY,CONTEXTUALIZATION, CULTURAL ISSUES, ISLAMIC STUDIES, MISSIOLOGICAL CRITICISM,TRANSLATION ISSUES
his paper is based on almost forty years of involvement in Bible translation in various Middle Eastern languages.[1] My career as a Bible translator began in 1973 when I embarked on a tour of the Arab countries trying to understand the distinct dialects and how they relate to each other and to the classical/formal Arabic taught in schools. I was searching for an answer to this puzzling question: “How can I produce an Arabic Bible that communicates the Christian message to the majority of Arabs, namely Muslims?”
As possibly some other posts, or links (and history) should show, what we (and most of the world) associates with "the Christian message" is the Trinitarian message, which by at least 300AD was being argued --vigorously -- and 381 A.D. a second Roman emperor had seen fit to issue an edict on. However this doesn't appear to closely match the scriptures of the Old Testament (at all), or in context, the majority of what's now "the New Testament." It is essentially a church-state synthesis, and not essentially Jewish, nor is it Pauline -- and much of this NT is "Pauline" as it were.
In addition to my experience and research that I have personally conducted in a number of these countries, I collected a number of books written by Christians and Muslims on a particular topic. By comparing the terms and idioms used to express the same thoughts, I was able to arrive at the meanings as perceived by the two cultural groups, Christians and Muslims.My goal was to produce a translation that serves the Church and at the same time communicates clearly and accurately to Muslims
That's the context. the timeframe here is post-300AD:
There is no conclusive evidence that Arabic was among the languages to which the Bible was translated before Islam. However, Anton Baumstark (1872-1948) was convinced that the gospel had existed in Arabic in pre-Islamic times. He argues that a certain Armenian monk, Euthymius (377-473) evangelized the Arabs. Naturally then he must have used at least one gospel or selections from the New Testament in his work. Irfan Shahid argued that the Najran tribes in Southern Arabia had been Christianized and that their primary language was Arabic. Therefore their Church liturgy could not have been Syriac since Najran is far removed from Syria and Palestine. He writes: “…there was a Gospel in South Arabia around 520 AD. . . .
Even if no portion of the Bible was ever translated to Arabic, the fact that there were many Christians among the Arabs allows us to speculate that they may have orally translated portions of the Bible from Aramaic, the ‘lingua franca’ of the time
(makes sense enough . . . . .)
Early Arabic Bible Translations:
Beginning with the eighth century, Muslim-Christian encounters sparked a flurry of debates that led to a rich body of literature by Christian apologists defending the faith against Islamic polemics. As a result, and particularly in the ninth century, many embarked on translating the gospels and other portions of the Bible to Arabic.
Sidney Griffith embarked on a serious inquiry into the appearance of the Arabic Bible in the early Islamic period. In 1985 he wrote a well-researched article detailing the development of the early Arabic manuscripts. Griffith found out that the first known Arabic manuscripts of portions of the New Testament date back to 867 A.D
That's still not pre-300 A.D.
One noteworthy common feature of all these translations [into Arabic] from Greek, Coptic and Syriac is that they all utilize Christian, not Muslim terminology. This is a significant observation because Christians were living as subjects to Islam and would have been tempted to compromise or reduce the pressure on them. Yet they were consistent in faithfully retaining the language of the Church in the Bible.
The Arabic Bible in the Protestant Era:Until the twentieth century, Bible translations in Arabic and other Middle Eastern languages were based on the original languages and some cases on Coptic and Syriac manuscripts. The protestant reformation of the sixteenth century turned the tide. The focus in Biblical scholarship shifted from the East to the West. Most prominent among all the English language translations was the King James Bible first published in 1611 which became the favorite Bible for the English-speaking world until recently.
Rev. Houssney's emphasis, obviously and naturally, is his field of work -- which is reaching Muslim countries with the Christian (=trinitarian) message by means of a Bible which spoke in the appropriate language without compromising the message. This does not deal at all with the politics behind the King James translation, or what Wycliffe had available to translate from, as opposed to Tyndale.
He also translated from the Vulgate (Latin), hardly the earliest manuscripts:
How Wycliffe came to be active in the interest of Urban is seen in passages in his latest writings, in which he expressed himself in regard to the papacy in a favorable sense. On the other hand he states that “it is not necessary to go either to Rome or to Avignon in order to seek a decision from the pope, since the triune God is everywhere. Our pope is Christ.” It seems clear that Wycliffe was an opponent of that papacy which had developed since Constantine. He taught that the Church can continue to exist even though it have no visible leader; but there can be no damage when the Church possesses a leader of the right kind.
He dealt with matters such as the wealth of the church and sought to "do away with the present hierarchy" (from same site):
Wycliffe’s Activity as a Preacher
Wycliffe aimed to do away with the existing hierarchy and replace it with the "poor priests" who lived in poverty, were bound by no vows, had received no formal consecration, and preached the Gospel to the people. These itinerant preachers spread the teachings of Wycliffe. Two by two they went, barefoot, wearing long dark-red robes and carrying a staff in the hand, the latter having symbolic reference to their pastoral calling, and passed from place to place preaching the sovereignty of God. The bull of Gregory XI. impressed upon them the name of Lollards, intended as an opprobrious [shameful/negative] epithet, but it became a name of honour. Even in Wycliffe's time the "Lollards" had reached wide circles in England and preached "God's law, without which no one could be justified."
When John Huss (Jan Hus) of Bohemia later was executed, they were actually upset with his propagation of Wycliffe. Matters of property, wealth, etc. were involved --one can see why it would antagonize certain authorities, not to oversimplify.
This Biblical Missology statement (above) again mentions Wycliffe's translation into English from Latin (dismissively), but omits the later Tyndale from the Greek & Hebrew, which is common knowledge, one would think. Near the top of the article, it's building a case for the Arabic translations as opposed to Wycliffe/English.
The Arabic translations of the Bible have an older history than that of the English Bible. Scores of Arabic versions had been in existence when the first English Bible known as the Wycliffe Bible was completed in England shortly after John Wycliffe’s death in 1384.
It's fairly common knowledge that the Vulgate (Latin) version is not the oldest. Here's even a Wikipedia statement regarding Tyndale's later (1500s) version, and the danger he was into for translating from the Greek and Hebrew as opposed to from the official, Latin, version:
The chain of events that led to the creation of Tyndale’s New Testament possibly began in 1522, the year Tyndale acquired a copy of Martin Luther’s German New Testament. Inspired by Luther’s work, Tyndale began a translation into English using a Greek text "compiled by Erasmus from several manuscripts older and more authoritative than the Latin Vulgate" of St. Jerome (A.D. c.340-420), the only translation authorized by the Roman Cathlic Church. [3][4] Tyndale made his purpose known to the Bishop of London at the time, Cuthbert Tunstall, but was refused permission to produce this "heretical" text. Thwarted in England, Tyndale moved to the continent.[5] A partial edition was put into print in 1525 in Cologne. But before the work could be completed, Tyndale was betrayed to the authorities [6]and forced to flee to Worms, where the first complete edition of his New Testament was published in 1526.[7]
So overall in the context of "Biblical Missology" and "for the glory of the Triune God," here's the scholar's and translator's conclusion:
Conclusion:It is not not absolutely certain that the Bible existed in Arabic before Islam. If it did, it was either translated orally or in written form from the Syriac. Over 137 manuscripts in Arabic existed however before the dawn of the 20th Century. The Arabic translations were free from Western influence until the missionary era beginning with the 19th century. More recently, in the last 50 years, several attempts were made to Islamize the Arabic Bible by utilizing Qur’anic terminology. History teaches us that this is not a wise idea as it confuses both Christians and Muslims and hinders the communication of a clear message among them.
From what he's saying about the timeline, while Arabic translations may have been free from "Western"influence they were not early enough to be free from Constantine's, Council of Nice, or in essence, Trinitarian influence. As such, it seems to me that on the one thing Muslims get right (and mainstream Christians get wrong, IF the Bible is meaningful at all) is this matter of the Trinity, which is as significant as what is the gospel, who is God, who is Jesus Christ, and in what relationship to both of them is the "promise of the Father," i.e., the holy spirit. I do not capitalize because when I read "for truly John baptized with water, ye shall be baptized with the holy ghost not many days hence," I believe a parallel is intended. I do not capitalize oil, water, wind, or fire for the most part -- all of which this "Holy Ghost" has been compared to, in the scriptures.
While Biblical Missology has a web page called "Who Are We?" -- the most accurate answer would be, a trade name of Horizons International registered -- this past month (August 2012) for the purposes of addressing certain questions.
Once there, the reader is not told who they are, but what B.M. "has":
Biblical Missiology has unofficial members representing dozens of organizations. Each member is able to contribute and partake in discussions concerning the application of biblical missiology.Biblical Missiology has a leadership team that leads the general direction of the organization and helps with the public workings of the organization.The following is a non-exhaustive list of the leadership team. (includes one of the people quoted in Huffington Post, above --Scott Seaton):
It appears also that they are trying to create a field of study, "missology" -- probably in relationship to studying MISSIONS. Good thing the word "biblical" was included, as the word "missology" links to beauty pageants, i.e., Miss Universe, etc.! Probably an unfortunate choice; I wonder if this is why (two days later) the trade name "International Crossroads" was also filed by Horizons International...
Basically, I see it as a media blitz -- through multiple usernames, trade names, and (with each one, a website, and a product or message) if one traces enough of them back, the terminology, doctrine, often personnel, and world views are practically clones of each others)
Here's another (related?) one: not "THE GATHERING INTERNATIONAL CHURCH" but 'THE GATHERING INTERNATIONAL."
which turns out to be (Caucasian Jesus here, and all) an "outreach" (probably, trade name) of "the Great Commission, Inc." which is another gol-danged 501(c)3 inc. The "by word" is II Thessalonians 2:1, well known among Christians...
The Gathering International, an outreach of the Great Commission Inc., is a fellowship of believers charged with bringing the revelation of Jesus Christ to our 21st century world. We are committed to bring the Church, His body, into the full revelation knowledge of Him and the liberty of the Holy Spirit, for the purpose of fulfilling the Great Commission to the glory of Christ, our Lord and Savior. We accomplish our mission as an expression of the love of Christ through all of the means left to the church by our Lord. We acknowledge the gifting of the Holy Spirit and the ministries set in His church, where by we carry out our mission.
Hopefully by this far in the post, someone will recognize up front that the name of Jesus (at which "every knee shall bow") didn't make front-page mention, nor did for that matter, the name of God. Same diff, right? However there is a loose patchwork of Bible-sounding terminology into an incoherent whole with a clear reference ("great commission") to Matthew 28:19.
Our Statement of Belief
1) The bible is the complete divine revelation of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit. (II Timothy 3:16, 17)
2) God is both one and triune. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (II Corinthians 13:14)
Note: sticking a cite as a post-it next to a claim doesn't prove anything. As with attorneys, check the cites, and their context. In context, it's allocated grace, love, and communion as coming from three different entities (and of course the word "triune" is no where, nor "one God,"
| ||
| |||||
I Corinthians talked about unity, and explained many spiritual matters, and was very strong reproof. II Corinthians begins by talking about comfort during tribulation, including the comfort of fellowship with one another: II Cor 1:
In I Cor 1, he stated that it was God who had called them into the fellowship of Jesus Christ, and after reproof for divisions and schisms, then began systematically laying out spiritual versus natural wisdom....and what this spirit was given for.... It's beautiful writing and beautifully laid out, unlike most creeds.
In I Corinthians 1 (by quick, web-page search) "God" is mentioned 20 times. "Lord Jesus Christ" 4 times, but "Jesus Christ" 8 times. How does this chapter speak about God, Christ, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and what does it say about them?
Like most church epistles, it begins like this: Where's God the Holy Spirit? Where's the "triunity" in the opening passage?
| ||
4) Jesus came as a complete man and He actually lived on this earth for over thirty years to make God the Father known to man. (John 6:30)
5) Jesus died on the cross for our sins and shed His blood for the accomplishment of our redemption. Thus, salvation is based on faith in Jesus Christ alone and not by any good works of our own. Matt 27:27-31,35, John 1:29, I Timothy 2:5, Eph.2:8,9)
6) Jesus, after being buried for three days, resurrected bodily from the dead and ascended to the heavens, and God made Him to be our Lord. (Luke 24:46)
7) After Christ’s Ascension, He poured out the Holy Spirit and baptized His chosen ones into one Body.
That's nice, but just disorderly. Most people don't do well with a hodgepodge of facts to memorize. For example, Point 6 == "Jesus, after being buried [[i.e., DEAD]] for three days, resurrected bodily from the dead and ascended to heavens and God made Him to be our Lord." For one, it's just plain awkward -- for another the word "resurrect" when used as a verb (the Bible typically puts it "raise" as in God raised Jesus from the dead) -- is Transitive, and takes a direct object. There is no "direct object" when it's Jesus resurrecting (himself), so apparently for comfort level, the word "bodily" is thrown in. WHY NOT just say it like the Bible says it? (arggh!!) which is to say, better!
Having just thrown in "God" as an afterthought at the end of point 6, point 7 then goes (see above) -- "He (which one? God, or Christ?) poured out the Holy Spirit and baptized his chosen ones into the one body."
That must be why Peter said "repent and be baptized" -- because no repentance was needed. "He" just did it. (???)
If I'm not too lazy to look these verses up, why not just post the verses themselves on the page as creed?
Here's from I Corinthians 2, which lays out (systematically) this issue of spirit:
the heart of man (in general) was clueless as to the things god hath prepared for them that love him (=/= all, obviously). BUT God HAS revealed (these things) unto us by his Spirit, for the spirit searches all things, the deep things of God. (now he's going to compare this with the spirit of man knowing the things of man).
"even so" are the words indicating comparison. the Spirit of God knows /searches the deep things of God, and the spirit of {a, an individual;it's singular} man knows the things of that man. Next, he talks about RECEIVING the spirit which is of God. Please note, a not point here does it say "holy spirit" "the holy spirit" or "the holy ghost." This section is explaining spirit as how one knows the deep (heart) things -- of a man, or of God. As God reveals things by his spirit, receiving that spirit of God = we may know those things. Here it's the spirit of the world v. the spirit of God which are contrasted.
the only use of "holy ghost" in the entire segment is right there at the end. It say, having received the spirit of God in order to know the things of God, the things freely given to us of God (things that otherwise didn't enter the heart of man, even) -- we now SPEAK those things. This book (I Corinthians) in its title isn't from Paul only, but Paul, Silvanus and Timothy -- and that appears to be the "WE" meant in "which things also we speak." Clearly the Corinthians were not speaking those -- they were boasting of which leader they were following, and had strife....
Here's how the Greek reads, and then I really have to go -- after asking, given all the ministerial and pastoral seminary "firepower" of some of these groups, how come they weren't smart enough to, like Paul, Silvanus and Timotheus, simply preach the word, instead of compiling corporate articles of faith they have a consensus on? Look at the emphasis, as it flows:
| ||
verse 13, Interlinear: I'll highlight the words for "spiritual." Notice the meaning reads a little differently than "comparing spiritual things with spiritual."
| |||||||||||||||||||
| ||
Apparently there is a natural"Psuchikos" (cf. {psychology}}) man -- who would not have received the spirit of God -- and a spiritual man (who would have).
Regarding "The Gathering International" which is an initiative (website, possibly tradename) of the Nonprofit (501(c)3, "the Great Commission" -- there are three directors named, and judging by the mention of Arizona (also see "contact us") page, I gather it's an Arizona Corporation,probably...
The Great Commission Board of Directors
Greg Balluzzo has been in fulltime ministry since 1979, with 8 years service as a foreign missionary. Greg has a bachelor’s degree in missions and pastoral studies. Greg’s desire is to assist in accomplishing the Lord’s will in the earth as described in Ephesians 4:10 -16. To the sincere expression of Christ’s love being evident in His body.
Cal Lorts has been a Pastor in the service of the Lord since 1975 and is dedicated to this end: that Jesus is the Head and Lord of His Church, His Body.
Jim McCardell has been in the Lord's ministry for over 30 years. He holds an undergraduate degree in Business Education from Shippensburg University and a Master's Degree in Educational Leadership from Northern Arizona University. Jim recently completed a manuscript for a new book, soon to be published, titled, A Paradigm of the New Testament Church, A revelation of Christ in the Apostolic, Prophetic, Charismatic, Pentecostal, Evangelical, and Missionary Church. Jim also serves as President of Antioch Christian Ministries, Inc. a non-profit, private foundation founded in 1993.
Greg Balluzzo has been in fulltime ministry since 1979, with 8 years service as a foreign missionary. Greg has a bachelor’s degree in missions and pastoral studies. Greg’s desire is to assist in accomplishing the Lord’s will in the earth as described in Ephesians 4:10 -16. To the sincere expression of Christ’s love being evident in His body.
Cal Lorts has been a Pastor in the service of the Lord since 1975 and is dedicated to this end: that Jesus is the Head and Lord of His Church, His Body.
Jim McCardell has been in the Lord's ministry for over 30 years. He holds an undergraduate degree in Business Education from Shippensburg University and a Master's Degree in Educational Leadership from Northern Arizona University. Jim recently completed a manuscript for a new book, soon to be published, titled, A Paradigm of the New Testament Church, A revelation of Christ in the Apostolic, Prophetic, Charismatic, Pentecostal, Evangelical, and Missionary Church. Jim also serves as President of Antioch Christian Ministries, Inc. a non-profit, private foundation founded in 1993.
From the State of Arizona:
File Number
|
Corporation Name
|
Name Type
|
|---|---|---|
14505468
|
CORPORATION
| |
L13343983
|
L.L.C.
| |
08822579
|
CORPORATION
|
The top was apparently a couple's attempt to establish a church by establishing a nonprofit. It looks like they never filed an annual report and are delinquent, and doesn't appear associated with this crowd:
the second is an LLC (two sisters? Mother/daughter? -- same last name) which Phoenix street address appears to be a home that plummeted in value from ca. 2006 ($287K) to ca. $71K (2011) and was sold; I don't know LLC requirements, but they haven't got anything showing past 2007.
And the third is our friends, above -- the primary incorporator seems to be Greg Baluzzo and (amazingly) this one appears to have been filing regularly. G. Balluzzo also shows up heading a few others things, such as another Arizona Corporation:
File Number
|
Agent Name
|
Title
|
|---|---|---|
08822579
|
GREG BALLUZZO
| |
L15496624
|
GREG BALLUZZO**
|
And "LIFE SKILLS INSTITUTE" addiction-related?
Gregory Balluzzo Out of your network
- --President of LIFE Skills Institute
- Phoenix, Arizona Area · Nonprofit Organization Management
- 39 connections
This institute was formed in Arizona as a nonprofit in 2010, and by 2011 already had a delinquent notice; its two directors are Baluzzo & McCardell
File Number
|
Corporation Name
|
Name Type
|
|---|---|---|
15997379
|
CORPORATION
|
Officers and Directors
|
|---|
File Number:
|
-0250292-8
|
Corporation Name:
| |
Type of Business:
|
RELIGIOUS
|
McCardell also helps others incorporate, serving as statutory agent:
Agent Name: JAMES MCCARDELL
|
Agent Address:
|
DOMINION ASSOCIATES CONSULTING
|
10214 N 66TH LANE
|
GLENDALE, AZ 85302-1039
|
Agent Status: APPOINTED 06/29/2006
|
Agent Last Updated: 07/27/2006
|
which is a trade name for "Government Information Services":
File Number
|
Corporation Name
|
Name Type
|
|---|---|---|
350288
|
TRADE NAME
|
File ID
|
350288
|
|---|---|
Description
|
Trade Name
|
Status
|
Active
|
Name
|
DOMINION ASSOCIATES CONSULTING
|
Address 1
|
10214 N. 66TH LANE
|
City
|
GLENDALE
|
State
|
AZ
|
ZIP
|
85302-
|
Business Type
|
ACCOUNTING, PAYROLL SERVICES AND GENERAL CONSULTING
|
Domestic Begin Date
|
5/18/2005
|
Registered Date
|
8/15/2005
|
Agent ID
|
Type
|
Fullname
|
Address
|
City
|
State
|
ZIP
|
Phone
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Owner
|
GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SERVICES, INC.
|
10214 N. 66TH LANE
|
GLENDALE
|
AZ
|
85302-
|
File Number
|
Corporation Name
|
Name Type
|
|---|---|---|
02423887
|
CORPORATION
|
Apparently this was incorporated shortly before he started the church. One wonders how they can keep them all straight, but this guy is better than most (Christian or faith-based) groups I've seen . . . . . It also has me a little concerned about under how many corporations (as opposed to trade names) can one operate from a single street address . . . . .
Anyhow -- read the Bible more often that creeds, if you want to "compare spiritual things with spiritual." You can see what happens when (I) start mixing the two!
(should be three or four different blog posts, but isn't...)
No comments:
Post a Comment