Get a Grip on the History of this Book:

"The finest emotion of which we are capable is the mystic emotion. Herein lies the germ of all art and all true science.
Anyone to whom this feeling is alien, who is no longer capable of wonderment and lives in a state of fear is a dead man.
To know that what is impenetrable for us really exists and manifests itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, whose gross forms alone are intelligible to our poor faculties – this knowledge, this feeling … that is the core of the true religious sentiment.
In this sense, and in this sense alone, I rank myself among profoundly religious men."
On Science, Awe, and Humility
(read more @ Alfred Einstein Thoughts of a FreeThinker)
Spirituality =/= Religion. One breathes life. Religion is tradition, to "tie it back," literally.

Welcome to my blog. This is how I talk...
It is not a dissertation or outlined. It is an exhortation, and may at times sound foolish, so be it.
Is life eternal? Who knows for sure. But -- I see people who understood their own times (Jesus clearly was such a person) and I exhort us to understand ours, now.
While this blog reeks of my personality and writing style -- the Bible (and Christ) have at least the scent of God, of something more abiding and eternal than a mystic emotion of awe and reverence.
This book deals with and as a language talks about spiritual matters.
To understand (versus just appreciate the impact of) this book is, literally Jesus, Lord and Christ. The central premise of the book defies imagination and human experience; it demands faith, and as such deals with the impossible.
Its depth has many layers, which is sometimes hard to hear when politico-religion is around, sounding the call to submit, attend, participate and donate. And, in the United States, to also "incorporate" for tax (avoidance) purposes.
[[A Psalm] of David.]] I will praise thee with my whole heart: before the gods will I sing praise unto thee.
I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.
In the day when I cried thou answeredst me, [and] strengthenedst me [with] strength in my soul.
All the kings of the earth shall praise thee, O LORD, when they hear the words of thy mouth."
Though the LORD [be] high, yet hath he respect unto the lowly: but the proud he knoweth afar off
The history of the preservation, translations, and censorships of the language and concepts of this "book" [starting apparently with papyri] is itself in part a history of the world -- politics -- nations. Obviously, it also speaks to the control of wealth and confronts it.
and now here we are on the internet, where words and creeds are cheap. (far too cheap and too easy to propagate).
It is a history of sweat, tears, drama and fire (book-burnings, people-burnings) and bloodshed. It was spread, with changes of technology and languages; and
For some reason, the understanding and action on this book was a threat to power, and to accumulated wealth-- which tells us something about this type of power, and wealth.
Religious people exist - -and can be seriously disruptive. I suggest -- getting a grip on the language (and history) of this book, if nothing else, for survival reasons.

Could you describe nature, its origins, its behaviors, like this? [Or, do you want to lament to God, "Why me??"] Check out Job 38, when the LORD, after hearing (37 chapters of theological debate, who's to blame for Job's suffering..) the LORD finally quizzes not his miserable (self-righteous) psychoanalysts -- only back then it was religious -- but Job himself.
. . .Actually, less a quiz than a challenge -- like standing (alone of course) to defend one's beloved thesis, in hopes of that blessed Ph.D. -- and realizing one is empty-handed: Job 38
"Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? [smile...] Gird up your loins now and answer me like a man! Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth...who laid the cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together and the sons of God shouted for joy?" ... Where is light and darkness?[v.19]; "Who hath put wisdom in the heart, and understanding in the inward parts?" [v.36]
Where is light and darkness, indeed! Men still wish to know! NASA, MIT, FermiLab and various universities are still working on it . . . . . must be powerful information to invest such fortunes into exploring...
Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 (Dated: June 15, 2001)

The existence of light (a massless U(1) gauge boson) is one of unresolved mysteries in nature.

In this paper, we would like to propose that light is originated from certain quantum orders in our vacuum. We will construct quantum spin models on lattice to demonstrate that some quantum orders can give rise to light without breaking any symmetries and without any fine tuning.
Through our models, we show that the existence of light can simply be a phenomenon of quantum coherence in a system with many degrees of freedom. Massless gauge fluctuations appears commonly and naturally in strongly correlated quantum systems which originally contain no gauge fields.

PACS numbers: 11.15.-q"

(MIT Xiao-Gang Wen: The Origins of Light)

Who puts wisdom in the heart?
Do we normally think in those terms--of wisdom, as a quality, which can be planted, engrained, or even poored into a heart? We don't yet know where light comes from -- so with all our institutions, anyone have a definition, way to implant, and who can tell what is the origin of "wisdom"??
...after a while of this interrogation (still presumably being destitute and completely covered with disease) Job replies -- I will lay my hand upon my mouth....
Generally speaking, most people won't come to God (or, this word) until life has got them speechless. But "speechless" is appropriate before this text. Reading it, one is in the presence of something older, very probably wiser (even if "collected wisdom") and more perceptive than onesself. It, and its language, just may have some serious insight & wisdom you just do not have! . .
What would persuade men to risk their lives, and end up burned at the stake, rather than recant on their translation of this book, and instead of saying "FORGET you -- this is MY survival, here!" to future generations, literally say things like (Jesus, allegedly) "Lord forgive them, for they know not what they do?" -- or (Stephen, on being stoned, Acts 7, allegedly) "Lord, lay not this sin to their charge!" -- or Wm. Tyndale, 1536 A.D., Lord, Open thou the King of England's eyes!" . Why? -- or for that matter, why were these men murdered to start with? Does the world really NEED a continual provision of scapegoats and bloodshed over who rules this place? If so, then perhaps they need the central message of Christ! -- or at a minimum of the books which similarly foretell of the need for redemption and prophesy of a Redeemer to come! Why did they value it so highly -- and why do religions today clearly (which this blog will illustrate) value almost anything higher than this Bible, while quoting it?
And what IS it about those psalms? . . . how can you not admire this plain speech and sentiment?....
"But know that the LORD hath set apart him that is godly for himself: the LORD will hear when I call unto him.
Stand in awe, and sin not: commune with your own heart upon your bed, and be still.Selah
Thou hast put gladness in my heart, more than in the time [that] their corn and their wine increased." (from Psalm 4)

Who can really summarize this topic? But I WILL speak to it -- and while the experience is shared by many (women and mothers), not enough are speaking out about it.
Now is the time to understand its concepts, and how that church-state hybrid never (ever) had any blending with the gospel in purpose and intent, and by about 300 (possibly 200) A.D. also had little in common with its language.
Which of course, can still change....
Let the games begin...

Monday, September 3, 2012

How Trinitarian is your Muslim Outreach? says WEA...(1)

Proof I may not be the only one who's lost it around here...

UNbelievable, but INteresting. . .

In looking up the topic of Tyndale on the Trinity, one runs constantly into sites labeled "Trinity" discussing Tyndale, which is ironic.

I tried "Wycliffe Trinity" and what came up shows it's still a live issue --  shall Bible translators not offend the most?-- God? or mammon?  or potential Muslim converts?  Or an organization training others how to reach them?

(Or, essentially which is more important:  the integrity of the scripture, or at least the various manuscripts, or the World Evangelical Association (which by definition is going to be Trinitarian) or Muslims who, by definition would not be; or a nonprofit corporation formed ca. 1990? in Colorado which trains others how to reach Islam with the Trinitarian message:

Horizons International
My Muslim friend, we do not believe that all those who claim to know the truth are right. There are many who are deceived. No human being likes to be deceived. . . .If a merchant charges you more than the fair price, wouldn’t you feel cheated and get angry? I would. God does not deceive us. He gave us the Tawrat and the Injeel* to guide us to the truth. Please do not believe those who deceive you and tell you that the Tawrat and the Injeel are corrupted. If you believe this lie, you are accusing God of being too weak to protect his precious and holy word. God would never allow his eternal word to be corrupted.
[*Revelation by Allah to Moses and Jesus, respectively] Interesting....

So, who one serves must all depend on what kind of business one is in -- and business is business, especially the business of selling Bible translations around the world.

This one even made it into the Huffington Post.  Recently, by Biblical standards:

Wycliffe Bible Translation Criticized Over Trinity Word Substitution In Muslim Countries (April, 26, 2012, Tom Green, from AP)

{{I started to look up who's who, but guarantee I won't finish the process}}

Wycliffe Bible Translators
One of the largest Bible translators in the world is undergoing an independent review after critics claimed language in some of their translations intended for Muslim countries misses the essential Christian idea of Trinity: the father, son and the holy spirit or ghost.
Critics argue that using words like "Messiah" instead of "Son" and "Lord" instead of "Father" badly distorts the doctrine, in which God is said to be one being in three persons.
"If you remove `son,' you have to remove `father,' and if you remove those, the whole thread of the scriptures from Genesis to Revelation is unraveled," said the Rev. Georges Houssney, the president of Horizons International, a Christian organization that works extensively with Muslims and himself a translator of the Bible into Arabic.
(Below, FN1)
Orlando, Fla.-based Wycliffe Bible Translators argues the translations have never been about avoiding controversy, but choosing words that most accurately reflect the Gospels: Some concepts relating God to family members don't make sense in some cultures, so the language needs to reflect that.
"People are saying we're trying to do translation work that's not offensive to Muslims, and that's just not true," Wycliffe CEO Bob Creson said. "We are committed to the accurate translation of God's word. That is our highest value."
[FN2, if I get that far..][Wycliffe is since 1942; Creson involved since 1983, Pres.@ 2003]

Translating the collection of ancient documents assembled together as the Bible has never been easy. Disputes over biblical language date from the early centuries of Christianity when the original Hebrew and Greek texts were brought to new countries, to making the Shakespearean language of the King James Version more understandable to modern readers.  {{'disputes' indeed!  Nations were changed over it..Kings and Queens banned books, and sometimes burned the translators at the stake.  Emperors convened councils, and pronounced edicts -- Yes, there were disputes.  The "King James language" at some levels was established by the work of Tyndale in translating from the Greek the previous century...Timing this to the settlement of the "U.S. colonies" gets very interesting. as some people's reasons for crossing the Atlantic was religious freedom, was it not?}}
Last month, Wycliffe agreed to an independent review of its policies by the World Evangelical Alliance, which plans to appoint a panel of experts to determine whether Wycliffe and affiliated groups are improperly replacing the terms "Son of God" and "God the Father."
The decision comes after a growing number of critics decried the materials as attempts to avoid controversy that fundamentally altered Christian theology

[[that controversy dates back to 2nd, 3rd centuries and revolves around not The Trinity itself, but its nature, which also was related to very earthly power structures...]]

The dispute moved from Internet forums and online petitions to concern from large Christian bodies. The Assemblies of God – one of the largest Pentecostal fellowships, with more than 60 million members in affiliated churches worldwide – announced it would review its longstanding relationship with Wycliffe.
[by what spokesperson did the Assemblies of God speak?]
Wycliffe, an interdenominational group that works with a wide variety of churches and missionaries, says it won't publish any disputed materials until after the WEA panel issues its findings.

Creson said that in some cases, what are known to scholars as the "divine familial terms" – God the Father and the Son of God – don't make sense in translation in some cultures. Islamic teaching, for example, rejects the notion that God could be involved in a relationship similar to a human family, and Creson argues that people in such cultures might be immediately put off by those terms.
. . . .{{not to be too flippant -- that's interesting.  People in Jesus' own culture were put off also -- possibly relates to why he ended up on a cross.  He also in the gospels ("Beatitudes") that his disciples would be persecuted (a status that generally comes from offending someone). . . . . The book of Acts is itself "offensive," and contains basically a narrative of persecution, including at least two martyrs.   Moses, in his turn, offended and was offended by those he was to lead out of slavery, in fact he got so offended apparently it cost him his entrance into the promised land.    The whole concept of "not offending" people is rather an interesting concept overall.....}}

Romans 9:33, from a letter of Paul, leading into the great passage on salvation by faith which (i believe) also influenced Martin Luther, helping jumpstart the "Reformation," and quoting Isaiah?  
33As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
Quoting from the prophet Isaiah (8:)

11For the LORD spake thus to me with a strong hand, and instructed me that I should not walk in the way of this people, saying,
12Say ye not, A confederacy, to all them to whom this people shall say, A confederacy; neither fear ye their fear, nor be afraid.
13Sanctify the LORD of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread.
14And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
15And many among them shall stumble, and fall, and be broken, and be snared, and be taken.
16Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples. 17And I will wait upon the LORD, that hideth his face from the house of Jacob, and I will look for him. 18Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion.

The Most Rev. John Harrower, Anglican bishop of Tasmania, was an early signatory of the petition. He argues the inaccurate translations make missionary work more difficult in the very communities where they're used.
[FN4.  See FN2; FN4 may not happen..]
"Changing fundamental words of Scripture such as `father' and `son' will also fuel the Muslim claim that the Bible is corrupted, full of errors and has been abrogated by the Quran and example of Muhammad," he wrote in an email.
For critics like Houssney, the changes aren't simply a matter of word choice, but theological choice.
"God says, `This is my Son,' and we can't put other words in his mouth," he said.**

(**hasn't that already been done, for centuries?)




Rev. Georges Houssney
Horizons International, (evid. a colorado corporation)

D Number:19901042542

Registered Agent:HOUSSNEY Michael GEORGES
Registered Agent Street Address:777 BROADWAY, BOULDER, CO 80302,** United States
Registered Agent Mailing Address:PO BOX 18478, BOULDER, CO 80308, United States

Principal Street Address:777 BROADWAY, BOULDER, CO 80302 , United States
Principal Mailing Address:P.O. Box 18478, Boulder, CO 80308, United States

Status:Good Standing
Form:Nonprofit Corporation
Formation Date:05/07/1990

Other trade names (there are two, both as of 2012.  Like, this month....)

ID NumberDocument NumberNameStatusFormEffective DateComment
120121442495 20121442495 Biblical MissiologyEffective DNC 08/15/2012 10:12 AM 
220121446527 20121446527 International CrossroadsEffective DNC 08/17/2012 03:44 PM 

Lost In Translation: Keep "Father" & "Son" in the Bible

Before getting into details, FYI, in looking up corporations, it's often wise also to just look up the street address where they are registered.  In this case, it was 'THE GATHERING INTERNATIONAL CHURCH."  
777 Broadway Boulder, CO 80302

(From the TGI website, About Us  & Beliefs, basically similar to Horizons International & with same accepted doctrine & leader):

Beliefs: Come, Let Us Rejoice Together...As a church, we subscribe to the Lausanne Covenant. We are evangelical Christians who encourage one another to walk with God. We do not believe that we must therefore conform to one another in every matter of conscience and practice. We believe that the church of Jesus Christ exists primarily for those who are not yet part of his flock.**
We believe lots of things. Come, check us out, join us, and let's talk!

The articles of incorporation of this nonprofit show the Houssneys (in Boulder) and a couple? from Ithaca NY, Marilou & Christopher Brown.  Purpose, 

"1.  To play a vital role in the advancement of God's kingdom worldwide by concentrating strategically on displaced peoples and multiethnic communities around the globe in compliance with the Lord's mandate to be his witnesses to the ends of the earth and to make disciples of all nations."  
2.  "to share the gospel with other cultures who otherwise have no opportunity to know about Christ." 
3.  To disciple and train people who respond favorably to the gospel** and equip for leadership in the church and in missions" 

**I find it interesting that this specifically religious purpose qualifies for exempt nonprofit tax status.  Literally, as the organization pays less of the US tax burden, others must pay more, or do without.  How is this for the welfare and benefit of the residents of this country?

Moreover -- and I am going to pick this apart -- "the gospel" they are sharing is one that dates back to 300 A.D. and is associated with a fallen civilization and empire called ROME -- and also associated with a very much alive world power and foreign country (to the USA) called the Vatican.  It is essentially the same -- and this, essentially -- is what most people mean when they say "Christian."  Those who so NOT subscribe to one variety or another of this Nicene Creed (see "Lost in Translation" post for some links) are considered by mainstream protestants and Catholics alike as Christian cults, or not really Christians -- for example, Jehovah's witnesses or dare I say, this season, Mormons, or Unitarian Universalists.    And however crazy these others may be, I can point to some of their social services; in particular the Jehovah's witnesses were known for objections to war -- whereas this crowd tends to utilize the language of war in reference to evangelism, and is quite at peace with, for example, then-President George Bush's war on iraq, and many other aggressive policies.

And what's even more offensive to me, I can just about guarantee that in the urge to reach new audiences (and Muslim audiences) the desire not to offend will also be translated into not offending some very offensive practices towards women as well, up to and including murder (honor killings), or collaborating to kill young daughters, sisters, or cousins who are too Westernized, or who by virtue of having been raped, have brought dishonor on the country.    As evangelical Christian men are known also to kill their families during or post-separation, this appears to be something they have in common.   

I probably wouldn't have said this had I not, being familiar (if not an "expert") with scripture, read the points of faith associated with the group protesting wycliffe, above, diluting their translations.  The points of faith are themselves a serious dilution of scripture, and the total lack of historical awareness on this part makes no sense to me.

It is a lesson in why are churches and parachurch groups incorporating to agree upon their universal charters and get a name and corporate status (and funding) to "disciple" the world - rather than, by at least keeping the message reasonably straight, doing things as laid out by the God of this Bible (Abraham, Isaac & Jacob, and thereafter, "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ") rather than preaching another God, another Jesus, deleting the deliverance part -- and then specializing in the institutional strategies part.

The two approaches have little in common, and to understand why one approach is taken, it helps perhaps to keep in mind the long and mostly IGnoble role of the Christian religion as blended with the Roman empire into a Hellenized and Institutionalized version of something not known, probably, by Jesus and or his disciples, taught by them, or taught or practiced by Paul (Saul) either.


Then there's "SIMS"  Strategic Institute of Muslim Studies:  shucks, I just missed it (see also prices):

Key Speakers and topics for SIMS 2012:

Week 1, July 9-13:

Don McCurry – Stepping Stones to Eternity: Jesus from the Quran to the Bible

Week 2, July 16-20:

John Gilchrist – Apologetics
1. The Authenticity and Authority of the Bible
2. The Collection and Sources of the Qur’an
3. The Qur’an and the Historical Jesus
4. Allah or the Triune God?
5. Biblical Prophecies: To Jesus or Muhammad?

Week 3, July 23-27:

Tat Stewart – Evangelism and Discipleship among Muslims

Week 4 July 30-Aug 3:

Georges Houssney and Lee Bridges – Church Planting

"Over the years we have developed a unique set of values that represent our attempt to do ministry along the lines of the New Testament model. Our goal is to take the missions movement of the 20th century with it’s 18th century model and transform it into the missions of the 21st century with a 1st century model."

Like the blogger says, both political parties religions start with a charter of beliefs

An unindoctrinated reading of the Bible (old testament, new testament) does not lead to a belief in the Trinity.  But as most people don't come upon reading the Bible except through church, most that call themselves Christians are going to be breathing this in.

I have gone through periods in my life where it was vital, and it was irrelevant.  I was in a religious marriage, non-Trinitarian -- and was still abused in front of my children for years, with no protests.  When people's heads are too much into their "correct doctrine" they simply do not -- as it seems Jesus did -- notice what's going on around them, and address it.

As I no longer attend church this would seem to be a moot point -- but I live in the USA.  We have federal policies and we have a Presidential Election coming up which is very likely to be driven by religion.  It's not a moot point -- it matters.  

While I myself need to get back (as the blog starts out here) to "Jesus Christ Lord," from political activism against faith-based economic money-laundering (which does exist, and is significant) --  it's also important to women (who are a slight majority in my country, but still not safe in too much of it) -- to understand from at least one insider, that a mainstream religious person -- apart from are they ethical, or do they or do they not beat their wives, etc. -- some do, some don't -- but the entire worldview has been conditioned to "SUBMIT" (like Islam) and to 'TRUST THEIR LEADERS" AND JOIN THE LOCAL CELL OF A WORLDWIDE OPPRESSIVE SYSTEM.   

A person can be highly educated and articulate -- but spiritually dumb, and this WILL spill over into deaf, dumb, and blind when it comes to certain political and social matters also.  there is a bad mental habit of turning the thinking off in situations where thinking and common sense are required.  (very poorly said, but I'll be saying it again).  

The First Century model was not trinitarian, but was spirit-filled, from what I can tell.  Statement of Faith is clearly Trinitarian -- (see "lost in translation or Loss of Courage?" post for link to the Nicene Creed, the timing of 381 A.D. for this dogma becoming mainlined (and others "hereticized" by a Roman Emperor, etc.).  Moreover, their "statement of faith" link also endorses a 1980 "Lausanne Covenant," referring to a meeting in Lausanne Switzerland related to "WeA" mentioned in the article on HuffPost, i.e., 

I have often wondered how people who may have come from some faiths ("people of the book") which have a least one thing right -- ONE GOD -- on converting to Christianity, go Tri-une, as Rev. Georges Houssney did, here.  Probably, because of who "discipled" or evangelized him.  I've seen it also in Jews for Jesus.  

This post has obviously got my attention.  It will likely be published, ignored, and possibly split into two or three parts thereafter, until I can learn how to write a short post.

From their site are 13 points of a "statement of Faith" adopted from the Lausanne Statement of Faith.  As Rev. Houssney came to America in 1982, and the convention in Switzerland was held in 1980, I take it these are related.  the corporate history of Horizons International (originally a different name) is seen at the Secretary of State site.  Articles of Incorporation are important and should be compared to statements on website -- as the former are a legal statement of purpose, and the latter is for public consumption.

Horizons International has adopted the Lausanne Covenant as our Statement of Faith. This statement is detailed, carefully drafted, and endorsed by mainline evangelical denominations. It expresses the position of all evangelical Christians worldwide. It was written during the 1980 International Congress on World Evangelization by a committee representing 150 nations. This is a shortened version from the original. The full version can be found here

The first thing I notice is that the word "Jesus Christ" or even "Jesus" does not receive a title.  The 13 points ("13" incidentally, I"m told, represents rebellion in the scripture. There were 12 disciples; I wonder how the decision to have a bakers' dozen statements of faith came to pass.  Jesus didn't call 13 disciples to work with, but 12.  There are 12 tribes of Israel, and the number 12 is all over the book of Revelation.  So what's with "13" I wonder..  Anyhow, the points are organized:

  1. Bible
  2. God
  3. Christ
  4. Holy Spirit
  5. Salvation
  6. Church
  7. Baptism
  8. Kingdom of God
  9. Missions
  10. Evangelism
  11. World Concern
  12. Social responsibility
  13. Spiritual warfare
(2,3,4 will establish a trinitarian belief, most likely)
In form -- this is not how it was done from the start, or described in the Bible.  Jesus did not "outline" his ministry at his first described statement.  Nor did Peter, nor (on walking into any particular city, country, or neighborhood), did Paul.  Now, when Jesus as it's recorded in the gospels sent forth his disciples (pre-crucifixion, or post-ascension, outline a 12-point or 13-point plan which, like a formula, would then be applied (with the help of materials from Josh McDowell ministries, etc.) as a form onto "new believers."

Rather, all of these -- and for that matter God -- pretty well was able to boil it down to either a single statement, pretty much -- or at least in the case of God via Moses, ten commandments.  And as far as Israel was concerned, there were only three major feast days as well, when all males had to assemble.  

EXAMPLE #1.  Jesus, having come out of the wilderness (being already baptized by John, anointed [received the holy ghost as a dove descending immediately after baptism] and having resisted temptation), kept it simple:

And when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from him for a season.
14And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee: and there went out a fame of him through all the region round about. 15And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified of all.
16And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read
Maybe it was even his normal turn to read, by custom.  I don't know.  But this is what he read, and said, tying prophecy to the current situation:
17And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
18The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me <>to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me <>to heal the brokenhearted, <>to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, <>to set at liberty them that are bruised,
19<>To preach the acceptable year of the Lord20And he closed the book, and he gave itagain to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. 21And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

the word "anointed" is the word from which we get "Christ" and that is the root meaning of the word "Christ."  It refers to the anointing, to OIL, and not just any oil.  Check Wikipedia, "Chrism." Or, go to any decent on-line Bible source (I use for consecutive text, or and they will have at least some link to looking at the Greek.  Copy the word for anointed (there's as good a place as any) onto a page, or into an email -- then go fetch the word for Christ, which obviously won't be too hard to find -- and copy it right next door.  The similarity is clear enough.  Or, click around and use some of the tools). CHRIST refers to the ANOINtING.

The oil is not a person of God, but represents a special authority or blessing on the person anointed.  The Lausanne statement for "Christ" mentions none of this and teaches people less than what they could pick up on by reading of the significance of the word.  Instead, it gives a "statement" that a world congress of "evangelicals" from 150 nations agreed upon --which starts out like this:

3. Christ

We affirm that Jesus Christ, being himself the only God-man, 
If they were going to talk about "Jesus Christ" they should've called point 3 here, "Jesus Christ."  Since they called it "Christ," then why not explain at least what "Christ" stands for?  But instead, it launches into "God-man."  I guess words have no meaning or purpose within the Bible.  Just patch a few together.

And this is from the website of corporation founded by a man whose specialty is translation?  How can one translate what one doesn't understand clear enough to state clearly to start with?

But I've noticed that some of this crowd has a trouble speaking the name of Jesus when summarizing the creeds; it is noticeably absent (though talk of "God" is laced throughout) particularly if one is used to reading the Bible, where it is noticeably present.  it's as though someone is literally choking over uttering this name -- although it's supposedly the only name given among men under heaven "whereby we must be saved" (in Acts 4 or so).  In the "Statement of Faith" the word "Jesus" occurs only 4 times, and the phrase "Jesus Christ" are three of those, and they are not primary.  In the time where "Jesus" is used alone, it calls him our Savior -- but he is called the author of salvation;  GOD is called our Savior.  Of course if Jesus is God, who cares, what's the diff?  mix and match.... but then scratch point 1 which says that the scriptures are "without error."

In the same statement, the word "Christ" alone occurs 13 times. That means that NINE times the word "Jesus" is omitted.  Hardly the pattern in the New Testament, any part of it.   Offhand the only sections I can recall where it's a lot of "Christ" without the "Jesus" attached, Paul is specifically trying to explain matters of spirit, per se.  For example, I Cor 12, or in Ephesians 3:20ff.

More on that, below.....

The colors and highlighting above are simply grammar.  The Lord's spirit comes with a purpose -- and as to Jesus, he was ANOINTED to preach, and SENT to heal, preach (deliverance to captives, recovering of sight to the blind), to set at liberty the bruised, and to preach the "acceptable year of the Lord."   The word "acceptable" is also translated "Favorable."  THIS year, Jesus announced is the year of the Lord's acceptance. (also used of accepting prophets, or sacrifices, etc.)

The "sents" (I marked by <>) are four (not 12, not 13, not 8, not 9, not 7 ,not 5).  "four" I'm told represents the number for the world.  (Numbers are significant in the Bible, see at least E.W. Bullinger on this). . . in English the word "preach" is first, last, and in the middle.   However "preach the gospel" is the word for "evangelize, and the next two times of  "preach" are better translated "proclaim."
Preach the good news, Proclaim, Proclaim

However, in Greek, it's the word for "evangelize" (EU -- good // Angelizo -- deliver a message, which is also what "angels" do), and then "Kerussai" (to proclaim, herald, announce).  Literally, it'd better read

Perhaps it's important.  And no one preaches or heals without first being anointed and sent -- and that's a spiritual matter, not a "corporation" matter. moreover, it appears to be "the Lord" that does the choosing and sending...

(matthew 10, KJV):
1And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.
It doesn't tell how, but it does tell THAT. He gave them power.  Historically this was understood to be through spirit -- see Elisha when Elijah was departing.  Elisha asked for a double portion of the spirit on Elijah.  Elisha got it, and did twice as many miracles as others.

Keeping in mind that with these 12 (not everyone, but Jesus' 12 disciples) this time they were not sent to the Gentiles.  Israel got the chance to hear and repent etc. first.  He tells them where NOT to go and where to go.  And, "as ye go, PREACH, saying, the kingdom of heaven is at hand."  (simple enough message?  It's ONE point!)

And then they had things to do, along with this preaching -- and that too, was simple enough -- and not in the 13-point "what we believe," either:

5These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: 6But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. 8Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give. 
Only FOUR tasks were named;  Heal the Sick, Cleanse the Lepers, RAISE THE DEAD, Cast out Devils.

The lepers were outcasts and contagious in society, they were considered unclean.  They were also sick.  In this what to do -- Jesus having given them authority, as he also had been anointed -- he sent them to the toughest problems of Israel -- they were sick, unclean through leprosy (NO one messed with lepers; their disease was disgusting; they could not approach a priest or serve as one, they were marginalized and quarantined....), some were DEAD (definitely a "problem," would you say?) and not to forget, some had devils.

Who's doing this today?  These 12 (and Jesus) didn't even have the complete "Bible" as we know it. Like Jesus, their work was later incorporated into the Bible and its canon, which atheists know (why don't Christians) didn't come together place overnight.

Just one or two more for comparison, maybe three on this "anoint and preach (evangelize) thing."

MARK 16, the end of the gospel -- after the resurrection, Jesus reproves them for unbelief, tells them to get going and preach (don't stress over it):  Who believes and is baptized shall be saved, and who believes not shall be damned.  MOREOVER, signs are going to follow those who believe, too (context -- he was scolding them for failing to believe in the resurrection):
MARK 16 (KJV, what else?)
14Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. 15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 17And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
19So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. 20And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.
This obviously differs from being sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel -- and it includes a new sign:  "they shall speak with new tongues."  It also clarifies that their job was ONE -- to preach, not their program, but "the Lord working with (them)" -- and that the signs were there not just for deliverance, but to confirm the word.  WHAT WERE tHEY PREACHING? and HOW DID THE LORD WORK WITH THEM?  It doesn't specifically say, but in context, it would include the resurrection, and as it says, "in my name" shall they cast out devils and speak with new tongues" (interesting this comes first.).  There is definite power involved.

PETER, summarizing the ministry of Jesus (and after declaring him Lord and Christ) also is recorded in Acts referring to the signs as marks of God's approval -- on Jesus.  In context, on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) this is primary.  Notice there is a timeframe (the day of the Lord, future judgment) a need to be saved, and the resurrection is central.  Notice also it's put in the context of prophesy from David.   ALSO NOTICE:  in preaching, Peter quotes -- aloud -- scripture.  NOTICE -- the Statement of Faith here, does NOT!):

<< Acts 2 >>
King James Version

1And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. 2And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. 3And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. 4And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. . . . 
{{the multitude wonders what's going on, perhaps they are all drunk, they are perplexed -- clearly someone had their attention! So then Peter opens his mouth and -- preaches.   He IMMEDIATELY ties it to prophesy, as did Jesus in Luke 4:18 to Isaiah:}}
. . . 14But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words: 15For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. 
The first thing he does is address their primary question -- are they drunk?? Then, back to the matter at hand -- and he is not talking about God the Father, God the Son, the God-man, the personality of the Holy Spirit, or the Trinity.  Instead -- inexplicably to most of Christianity today, or more like, ignored by it -- Peter speaks of the outpouring of holy spirit as prophesied in Joel.   This was not a Gentile audience, and this concept was not new.  But the reality of it was a shocker!   they needed to connect what they saw and heard with the scripture, and as validating it...
16But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
there were no chapters and verses back then and I sincerely doubt that Peter was holding a scroll, or reading from it.  He was speaking by inspiration, having just himself been filled with the holy ghost (spirit) as the chapter is very clear, had just happened:
17And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, {{WHO???  GOD!}} I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
18And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:
19And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:
20The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come:
21And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
I didn't notice it before, but he just set a timeframe: in the last days, the spirit will be poured out (notice he mentions male AND female) and prophesying -- but before the (great and notable day of the Lord, i.e., judgment, wrath, etc.) signs in heaven and on earth.  MAIN POINT?  Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord (not "GOD") shall be saved. (See subtitle to this blog, The Lord vs. My Lord. psalms).

He just said, "call upon the name of the Lord" (to be saved).  Now, about that Lord -- he goes right to "Jesus."  As described and I STILL don't see "God-man."  I do see the resurrection, though.
22Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know23Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:24Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
25For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:
26Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope:
27Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
Resurrection is mentioned only ONCE (point 7) in the "Statement of Faith" and it's definitely not the main point even there.  Following through with this section, Peter (as did earlier, Jesus, as did originally David in the psalm) connects known scripture to an immediate, disturbing -- surely attention-grabbing situation just witnessed, makes sense of it, and demands a response.  The number one item aloing with preaching (and it's fair to say the Lord was working with him in this situation) was to ask for a response -- and have people be filled with holy spirit also.  Given the recent demonstration that God was real, confrontation with the sin (crucifixion of the savior) that it's the last days -- now -- who wouldn't want it?

No marketer or salesperson could've done it better.  THIS is the problem, THIS is the solution:
 32This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.33Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.  (again, validates by quoting scripture -- verbatim):
34For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
35Until I make thy foes thy footstool. 
36Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
37Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? 38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 
"both Lord and Christ" indicates two designations.  Does the Statement of Faith have the word "Lord"?  Does it sound even remotely like the first recorded sermon of "the church" (which they are going to "plant") -- or is that just not significant.  We already know that "Jesus Christ" only showed up 3 times in 13 points (and lots of words), and that "resurrection" only once (in point 7) and that incidentally in explaining who can be water baptized...   Was there water in Acts 2 (I don't know.  It's not mentioned...).... what about "Lord."  If God made Jesus Lord, and people need to call on that name to be saved, is it not important?  Is being saved even important or central to the Statement of Faith?  There's the link:

The word "Lord" occurs only twice.  it is not first -- it is nearly last.  Points 10 & 13.  here's point 10:

10. Evangelism

To evangelize is to spread the good news that Jesus Christ died for our sins and was raised from the dead.
{{who raised him?  What happened to "Lord"?}}

He is now alive with God, the Father, to offer forgiveness of sins to all who repent and believe.  Evangelism is the proclamation of the historical, biblical Christ as Savior and Lord, with a view to persuading people to come to him personally and so be reconciled to God.
That's not how Jesus characterized it in Luke 4:18. His "evangelism" started with "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to ...." and it came with demonstrated power.   In saying "jesus died" they also omitted how -- the cross (crucifixion), which omits the shed blood.  it omits who raised him from the dead (this is typical if God and Jesus are the same -- what does it matter?).  The bible declares he is not just "alive with God" but "seated at the right hand of God" which represents power, and blessing.  And I can't help again noting that whereas Peter preached JESUS -- this point #10, does not.

In Acts 10, here is a SHORT paragraph which signifies the first major preaching to the Gentiles after the day of Pentecost.  The surrounding chapters clearly indicate that the Lord was helping with this one too; otherwise Peter would not have been at the house of Cornelius, nor would the house of Cornelius (A Roman centurion) have gathered his household to hear it.  It is not a series of outlined points -- it's a single statement of events and situations -- for the people he was standing right in front of, whose attention clearly Peter had. It was culturally unacceptable even for them to be in the same house.  SURELy this would apply to the Horizons International situation in overcoming cultural differences.  It seems to me that in this case, the Lord helped overcome those differences -- not a specific training program which can be bought and sold!

Acts 10 -- again, for the atheist or agnostic (well then again, they're probably not reading) -- this is a well-known chapter, at least so I'd hope, in Christian circles.  However, it's simply not believed, I guess! You hardly hear of people teaching it:
34Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: 35But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. 
This was not news, but it was news for Peter to understand it.  Usually, people need a demonstration to understand anything!
36The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:) 37That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; 
Here it comes -- this is "the word" (the gospel):
38How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
He was not a God-man.  God anointed JESUS (a specific man) with the Holy Ghost (so much for tripartite...) and Power (this anointing comes with power, it's not apparently two installments!!) and this power is for good.   God was with him.
 39And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree: 40Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly41Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead. 
Resurrection -- he gets pretty quickly to the topic. It's central!
42And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead. 43To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
So many elements, beautifully presented, including reference to the prophets (though it's a Gentile audience), future judgment, and by the way, God anointed Jesus with the Holy Ghost, raised him from the dead, and shewed Jesus to chosen witnesses, and ordained him. GOD is the agent.  Jesus went about doing good and healing those that were oppressed-- after he was anointed, etc. and in this case GOD also is "no respecter of persons." In context, Jew or Gentile.

However, through his name, whosoever believes in him shall receive "remission of sins."  So there must be sins that need remission (logically).  Apparently it was a good sermon because:
44While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. 45And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.46For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,47Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? 48And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
the language here is clear.  God raised Jesus from the dead.  In (trinitarian) it is not -- it's typically passive ('was raised') or simply doesn't say who done what.  (i.e. Jesus rose from the dead)... This clouds the events and instead talks about a state:  he's alive with "God the Father."  I also note (above) that the disciples-- and Jesus -- were baptized first (baptism of John, which included water and repentance), but the Gentiles believed first, received (obviously) holy spirit and then water.

How PAUL preached, he said:  I Corinthians 1, 2.  1:17, he confirms he was sent to preach the gospel, also:

 17For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach(E) the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. . . .
. . .it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching (K) to save them that believe. 22For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:23But we preach (K) Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; 24But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
Interesting the "E" represent the word for evangelize and the "K" the word "kerusso," not to evangelize -- but to proclaim.   To "herald."   And with this, I note, comes "the power of God and the wisdom of God."  The very next verse (which happens to be also the next chapter) then addresses this matter of power:
And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. [[The Greek]2For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified3And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. 4And my speech and my preaching (K) was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: [The Greek5That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
Finally, Paul then charged Timothy (realizing that he himself was probably near death), a serious charge -- and it was to Preach the word (K).  that "word" has been named specifically a few times -- by Peter, by Jesus, by Paul (see I Cor 15 for a more detailed breakdown) -- it's not complex.  But it IS to be preached ("the kingdom of heaven is at hand"  "God hath made Jesus Lord and Christ" etc.) and people are going to either believe, or not believe.

While I'm favorable and inclined to "preach" (obviously) I can't also help noticing that anyone can be catechized if they sit through enough trainings -- but the type of "evangelization" spoken of in the Bible, if it truly exists, is the kind that requires (1) an anointing and (2) the Lord working with to confirm the word preached.  It is going to entail at some level spiritual power (the attention getter, among other things) and it sure seems to me that it's going to bring deliverance in its heals -- as Jesus did.  If we follow his example, we do what He did.

But Ephesians 4, unlike the outpouring of the spirit (which is promised to all who believe) does SAY -- after the famous "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" passage -- that when "he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive and gave gifts unto men." -- and those gifts are stated as ministries:  Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers.  And along with this is the word "some" -- he gave (to) some, apostles, (to) others, prophets, (to) others, evangelists. etc.  (to) others, pastors and teachers.  these are different functions probably according to different needs.

I don't think those ministries can be bought -- therefore I also don't believe they can be "sold" through a pastor's toolkit or any other method.  If someone wants a great example of a person trying to buy a ministry, there is one in the book of Acts, and the person (Simon) of Samaria was called a Sorcerer.  this same sorcerer also was a believer! (he switched sources of power, and wanted a ministry....).

Paul understood he was called to preach and said of himself, "woe unto me if I preach Not the gospel."  Now here he is administering a charge to a young(er) man that is going to live longer than him -- in I Timothy 4.   And his FIRST command is to PREACH (proclaim) the Word.
1I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; 2Preach (K) the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine3For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables5But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.
the word "fables" is myths.   I think we're just about in that period, and have been for a very long time; approximately 1900 years.   Which brings up the next point:

Let's Talk:  with all the Straightforward "Go forth and Preach" verses, Why the Obsession with "The Great Commission of Matthew 28:19" and its TRIPARTITE FORMULA as a Commission/Permission to go Disciple All Nations, literally...

Evangelists "LOVE" Matthew 28:19 which is called the "Great Commission."  After the resurrection. This one has a trinitarian formula in it that does not occur in parallel passages in other gospels:
Matthew 28:
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

See the "tripartite phrase" there?   Here's a discussion of various debates on the issue.  While the author seems to believe that it's genuine, in the process he quotes others (including Eusebius, a very early source) which at least lets us know that other versions may have simply read "in my name" (the speaker being, the resurrected Jesus) -- and pointing out that there is no record of anyone in the book of Acts have actually baptized anyone in that (tripartite) name, nor in Paul.  In other words, if it was genuine, they were in disobedience -- or the Bible is simply contradicting itself.  To me, the most logical is that it was later added to accommodate the Trinitarian dogma.

Matthew 28:19 . . .

Tim Hegg • TorahResource • 2006
In some recent Christological discussions, the tripartite designation included in the standard texts of Matthew 28:19 has often been suspect. The problem is that it sounds far too trinitarian to have been in- cluded in Matthew’s original words. As a result, a few modern scholars have suggested that the ending of Matthew’s gospel might well have been added by later scribes under the influence of the trinitarian controversies that embroiled the Christian Church in the 3rd and 4th Centuries. The primary evidence upon which such suggestions rest is the quote or allusion to this text in the writings of Eusebius

When our text is considered as a baptismal formula, it stands against the consistently used bap- tismal formula found in Acts and the Epistles, which is that one is baptized “in(to) the name of Yeshua” or “in(to) Yeshua Messiah” or some near equivalent (e.g., Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5; cf. Rom 6:3)

Here's a brief summary of others -- and it states that this formula simply was not found in any manuscript before the fourth century!  One reference to the works of Tyndale is in there.  While the site sounds a little anti-Catholic, fact is mainstream Christians go right along with the crowd in this matter -- or they are not considered mainstream, obviously.  Look at the clout this particular WEA is exercising (See Huffpost article) on Wycliffe translators, case in point! (it's a very long web page!)

It is often affirmed that the words 
'in the name of the Father, and of the Son, 
and of the Holy Ghost' are not the exact words
of Jesus, but...a later liturgical addition."
-The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries
The baptismal formula was changed by the 
Catholic Church from the name of Jesus Christ,
to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, 
in the second century." 
-Encyclopedia Britannica 
(11th Edition, Volume 3, pages 365-366)
and as far back as 1910, this was brought up by a "Conybeare."  Just for the record we are in 2012 -- that is ONE HUNDRED years later, but you couldn't tell from popular media -- and thanks to the Internet, the Statement of Faith (from Lausanne or anywhere else) can go "viral" in days -- if not hours!

"It is clear, therefore, that of the MSS 
which Eusebius inherited from his predecessor, 
Pamphilus, at Caesarea in Palestine...there was 
no mention either of Baptism or of Father, Son, 
and Holy Ghost."
- History of New Testament Criticism, 
Conybeare, 1910, pages, 98-102, 111-112.  I'm going to assume this is Frederick Conybeare, (by dates) described here.
This Conybeare was the son of a barrister (attorney) and grandson of a well-known geologist; the description leads me to think he was not given to magical thinking:
Conybeare was born in Coulsdon, Surrey, the third son of a barrister, John Charles Conybeare, and grandson of thegeologist William Daniel Conybeare.[1] He took an interest in the Order of Corporate Reunion, an Old Catholicorganisation, becoming a Bishop in it in 1894. Also in the 1890s he wrote a book on the Dreyfus case, as a Dreyfusard, and translated the Testament of Solomon and other early Christian texts. As well, he did influential work on Barlaam and Josaphat. He was an authority on the Armenian Church.

He from 1904 to 1915 was a member of the Rationalist Press Association, founded in 1899.  One of his best-known works is Myth, Magic, and Morals from 1909, later reissued under the title The Origins of Christianity. This has been read both as strong criticism of the Jesus myth theory, making Conybeare a supporter of the historical Jesus; but also as an attack on aspects of orthodox Christianity itself. He returned later in 1914 to make a direct assault on leading proponents of the time of the Jesus-myth theory.

1. Bible

We affirm the divine inspiration, truthfulness and authority of both Old and New Testament Scriptures in their entirety as the only written word of God, without error, in the original manuscripts, and the only infallible rule of faith and practice. 1 Timothy 3:16
There are many clear, and without debated interpretations, sections of scripture they could've chosen -- but did not.  The point is clear -- to emphasis the deity of Christ.  This is not immediately clear, but after a few points, it becomes clear.

which reads, along with I Timothy 3:15:   "God's Word Translation" (lord have mercy..catch the tone.):

14I hope to visit you soon. However, I'm writing this to you 15in case I'm delayed. I want you to know how people who are members of God's family must live. God's family is** the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
16The mystery that gives us our reverence for God is acknowledged to be great: He appeared in his human nature, was approved by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was announced throughout the nations, was believed in the world, and was taken to heaven in glory.
**(purple highlight) "household" (below) =/= "Family" and there is no repetition.  The phrase God's family simply isn't in there.  This translation is all over the map and is private interpretation.  Interesting, see II Peter 1: (esp. 20-21)ff, probably another verse causing "how to translate for Muslims" trouble, here... as it mentions "my beloved Son."

OK, that wasn't quite fair, so here's a more moderately traditional version, but it still co. 2001 (ESV), adapted from a version labeled:
 adapted from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. All rights reserved.
The Mystery of Godliness  [[caption added in the version]]
14I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these things to you so that, 15if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth. 16Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness:

Hee was manifested in the flesh,
vindicatedf by the Spirit,g
       seen by angels,
proclaimed among the nations,
believed on in the world,
       taken up in glory.
properly footnoted, "He" was manifested in the flesh, and at least formatted so you can see the parallel structure in manifested, vindicated, seen, proclaimed, believed,taken up (which is also a figure of speech, most likely).
e 16 Greek Who; some manuscripts God; others Which

Or:  KJV -- this verse has an interesting blip in it, not shown in English:

14These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: 15But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
16And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
For one (green highlight) I Timothy was written to one man -- Timothy.  not "people" -- and it was directions on how HE was to behave (conduct) himself...

Here's the 1550 Greek "Textus Receptus" (keeping in mind when Tyndale was burnt at the stake --= earlier...).  Don't lose it here if Greek characters  are unfamiliar (they were to me once...) -- see the highlighting:

14Ταῦτά σοι γράφω [=these things I write/"grapho"] ἐλπίζων [=hoping to come-->] ἐλθεῖν πρὸς σὲ τάχιον·[to you shortly] 15ἐὰν δὲ βραδύνω ἵνα εἰδῇς πῶς δεῖ ἐν οἴκῳ θεοῦ ἀναστρέφεσθαι ἥτις ἐστὶν ἐκκλησία θεοῦ ζῶντος στῦλος καὶ ἑδραίωμα τῆς ἀληθείας

{{a word-by word of v. 15 shows here.. the last phrase (bold) is "pillar and ground of the truth (aletheias).  How you (timothy) should conduct yourself (green highlight) in the OIKO (house) of God, which is the STULOS and EDRAIOMA of the truth.  

I & II Timothy are letters to a young leader in the church, who Paul elsewhere called "my own son in the faith."  He was charging him how to handle himself, and the books are a great summary.  They are not general epistles to everyone.
HOUSE (Oiko) could mean physical home, but also "household," referring to people, as in "the house of Israel."}}

16καὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶν τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον· Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ ἀνελήφθη ἐν δόξῃ

{{a word-by-word of v. 16 shows here, showing that the word in pink is an adverb:  "confessedly" -- "homo/logoumenos" which is an major word in any religion based on "faith" and "Confession."  LOGOs / "word" and "homo" obviously,/ "same."  Homologoumenos" (the ending making it into an adverb -- confessedly; without controversy).    See also related words (references to other Bible verses where they are used) if you click on hyperlinks. It's one way to see usage in the Bible based on Greek text, not international multi-cultural interpretations.

While we're at it -- the Paul (Saul) would've been at least tri-lingual, and there are some references to it within the new testament.  He was plenty "multi-cultural" by virtue of birth, upbringing as a Pharisee, and eventually through his calling and travels, he (obviously) dealt closely with a converted Gentile population.

The five underlined words above:
"to tes eusebeias musterion theos" -- "THEOS" would be "God" -- but the interlinear also has "HOS" (similar in look, see characters:
Θεὸς  or, was it 
Ὃς   (for "which")
 (words below relate to "godliness") -- 2 occ are in I & II Timothy?  

εὐσεβείᾳ — 5 Occ.
εὐσεβείαις — 1 Occ.
εὐσέβειαν — 7 Occ.
εὐσεβείας — 2 Occ.
which was "manifest in the flesh"  -- God?  Or "the mystery of godliness.

2. God

We affirm our belief in the one-eternal, creator God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
 Good for you -- but see your #1 above.  I am less interested in anyone's creed than in what the word of God (essentially, the Bible) says.  As most creeds are quoting themselves and things they have agreed to unify around -- and from what I can tell, God is not the author of confusion and strife, then I suggest that those who cannot come to an agreement to speak this word of God -- and let it speak for itself (which it is quite capable of doing in many languages) -- submit their beliefs to scripture -- and not vice versa.

Moreover, Ecclesiastes 12 (the end of the book), written by supposedly the wisest king ever (Solomon) mentions the making of many books, and summarizes "the whole of man."  "Fear God and keep his commandments, for God is going to bring every work into judgment."  How hard is that??
The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd. 12And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.
13Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. 14For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

Another Lord, commonly called Jesus (in this culture anyhow) -- summarized it, Love God with everything you've got (heart, soul, mind and strength) and love your neighbor as yourself.  Jesus also briefly announced the start of his ministry (Luke 4 at least) by reading from Isaiah and simply saying, not "I am God" or "I am the Son of God," but "the spirit of the Lord is upon me, for He hath ent me to preach the gospel to the poor...

Paul also declared in Romans that love works no ill towards its neighbor and is the fulfilling of the law (ca. Romans 12, 13 I think).   I John, "let us not love in word only, but in deed and in truth."

  I affirm my belief in Romans 10.  which, like many other passages from the same author (i.e., Paul) begins addressing the combo of ignorance + zeal =/= obtaining the righteousness of God.  As this was foundational also to the Protestant Reformation, and Martin Luther (and these are allegedly Protestant evangelicals speaking, I think), perhaps we should hear it:

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 God4For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

3. Christ

We affirm that Jesus Christ, being himself the only God-man, who gave himself as a ransom for sinners, is the only mediator between God and people. He died for our sins and was raised from the dead in triumph. He will return in glory to consummate our salvation and judge the world.
Confession #3, "Christ" -- is a very garbled reference to a specific verse which, common enough among Christians -- and as such, it's deceitful to misquote it and fail to include the reference here -- but to include it in other points.

This also (and typically) contradicts the point#1 -- they believe the Bible. Apparently not.

No "cite" for that verse, probably because the obvious one about "mediator between God and people" says it differently -- and it's nearby, in Timothy, too, and in reference to "the truth."  In fact, the previous chapter:  I Timothy 2, begins on what to pray for in having the world saved and coming to the knowledge of the truth:

1I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; 2For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. 3For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth5For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus6Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. 
Parsed, God is "the savior of us"

3778 [e]toutoτοῦτοfor thisDPro-NNS
2570 [e]kalonκαλὸν[is] goodAdj-NNS
2532 [e]kaiκαὶandConj
587 [e]apodektonἀπόδεκτονacceptable,Adj-NNS
1799 [e]enōpionἐνώπιονbeforeAdv
3588 [e]touτοῦtheArt-GMS
4990 [e]sōtērosσωτῆροςSaviorN-GMS
1473 [e]hēmōnἡμῶνof us,PPro-G1P
2316 [e]theouθεοῦGod;N-GMS
who wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge (special word, click on it) of the truth:

3739 [e]hosὃςwhoRelPro-NMS
3956 [e]pantasπάνταςallAdj-AMP
444 [e]anthrōpousἀνθρώπουςmenN-AMP
2309 [e]theleiθέλειwishesV-PIA-3S
4982 [e]sōthēnaiσωθῆναιto be saved,V-ANP
2532 [e]kaiκαὶandConj
1519 [e]eisεἰςtoPrep
1922 [e]epignōsinἐπίγνωσινknowledgeN-AFS
225 [e]alētheiasἀληθείαςof [the] truthN-GFS
2064 [e]eltheinἐλθεῖνto come.V-ANA
 OK, here comes that truth, per this word: Let me print the greek all in a row first, because the form is beautiful -- it starts, "ONE indeed is God" (not "3-in-1"):

5εἷς γὰρ θεός εἷς καὶ μεσίτης θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων ἄνθρωπος Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς 

5For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

or, interlinear (plus some extra grammar stuff in blue hyperlinks below, and transliteration of Greek characters into Roman (phonetic) & reference numbers, probably "Strongs" concordance,  on the top of every word...). Look at the orange and the black.
5   1520 [e]
5   Heis
5   Εἷς
5   one
5   Adj-NMS
1063 [e]
2316 [e]
θεός  ,
God [is]
1520 [e]
2532 [e]
3316 [e]
2316 [e]
between God
2532 [e]
444 [e]
ἀνθρώπων  ,
444 [e]
[the] man
5547 [e]
2424 [e]
Ἰησοῦς  ;
See the word order "one" ("Eis,"Heis") -- EIS gar THEOS, EIS kai MESITES.
"ONE indeed God, and ONE mediator between God and MAN (anthropon), Man (anthropos Christos Jesous) Christ Jesus.  The word "ANTHROPON" is repeated twice in a row to make the point -- how can you miss that?  ONE God -- ONE mediator between God and MAN/MAN CHRIST JESUS.

Referencing (by the word "mediator") and intentionally misquoting (twisting a clear and straightforward reading)to justify instead an equilateral, same substance triune God, and inserting the "ONLY" God-man is deceitful.  And,  if that's not pagan, what is?   "Hear O Israel, the Lord the God is One Lord..."   (Eph 4:1ff):

I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation [[calling]] wherewith ye are called  . . .
 [In I Tim 2, Paul writes of "the knowledge of the truth" God wants every man to come to -- One God, and one Mediator between man and God.  
 In Ephesians, he is not addressing men being "saved" but saved men in their walk, it is addressed to the faithful in Christ Jesus.  However I Tim 2 is speaking about praying for kings and those in authority and God's will that all men be saved.  Yet BOTH of them emphasize the word "ONE" -- understandable, given the pagan/polytheistic world they inhabited.

With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace [There is] one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, One faith, One baptism, One God and father of us all...who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ. 
the "body" referred to is "the body of Christ." Twice in short order "spirit" is mentioned, up front as the unifying quality.  It says nothing about "one and only God-man" here -- and if this was "the calling" then surely the concept might have made an appearance?

One more reference comes to mind, as Paul, being "apostle to the Gentiles" and from a monotheistic heritage (obviously) was constantly confronted with the issue.  In I Corinthians 12, another chapter dealing with spiritual matter, the "ONE" is again emphasized, as well as the image of the one body....

Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant. 2Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led3Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

This pretty well describes how "gentiles" started worshipping dumb idols.  They were led by someone.  Well, in this context of 'making disciples of all nations," if the leaders will not read the plain truths of the Bible, and intentionally "forget" to count to one -- and only one -- where the Bible (OT & new) says "ONE" and clearly means it -- they nations will still be worshipping dumb idols, even if the words "Jesus Christ" is used; it appears to be the essence of Christianity, and to believe otherwise than as codified in 381 A.D. (or an even more garbled version, also by convention, in 1980 called "lausanne") they will still be worshipping idols, and not the living God as Moses called Israel to, allegedly.  In short, they will be "dumb."

If the practice of doing this to scripture is the norm-- what's going to be interpreted when a youngster from the planted church comes up and says, my pastor, my youth worker, or my father, or mother and father -- are abusing me?  Will THAT be believed either?  And incest (although not with a child) was also a topic addressed in I Corinthians as unique to this set of believers...

Catch the references to "the same Spirit" -- and (v. 12ff) the ONE body.Catch the flow:

Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit5And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord6And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. 7But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. 
there is a kind of pause, and it launches into the "to one, to another" segment, reiterating "the same spirit" and then picking up speed towards the end.
8For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; 9To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; 
(then after 4 repetitions (3 "by the same spirit") it picks up speed, but then gets back to "the same spirit" -- actually intensifying it...finishing the list of "the manifestation of the spirit" which introduces the segment:
10To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: 11But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.
Omitting the conjunctions ("and") is a figure of speech directing one's attention toward the concluding statement, which is in pink, above, as the list (if you count, there are 9 items on the list) and was also introduced by "the same God which worketh all in all."

Having just narrated (to Gentiles, to whom monotheism was not the cultural norm) how the Spirit (God) -- who is invisible (recall that the practice of worshipping idols included something to see and look at, i.e., statues) functions and what God does, he gives an analogy of the human body, and says "so also is Christ."
12For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. 13For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit
The audience was seeing evidences of the working of God, or of Spirit, but had not yet conditioned themselves to understand the unifying power -- one God, one Spirit, Christ is one --that was behind it all.  It was a "logical" as looking at one's left hand, and right foot, and thinking they did not belong to oneself, he (literally, if you read on) says.

The word "Christ" is in reference to "anointing." About 3 chapters later (I Cor 15, same book), he compares Adam and Jesus.  "The first Adam was made a living soul, the second, a quickening (life-giving) spirit."  Moreover, the emphasis is not on the personality ("person") of spirit, but it is something one drinks of, and by which one is baptized into a single "body." There is no mention of "Planting a church" but there is talk in I Corinthians 3 (in reproving the divisions among them)

5Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? 6I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.7So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. 8Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour. 9For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.

Moreover, in Hebrews 2 Jesus is called the captain of our salvation and not ashamed to call (those who he's saved) "brethren."  So there must be something in common between us.:

What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? ...Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands. . .Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands   
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man..For it became him, for whom [are] all things, and by whom [are] all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings...For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified [are] all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee, And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me
 Three times, within Hebrews, scripture is quoted to speak to the relationship between Jesus and (those who he has sanctified) and God -- and not one uses the phrase "God-man" and it's clearly a collective designation -- not "the only God-man."   "He that sanctifieth" in context (same sentence) refers to Jesus; it uses the word "brethren," and to "the children which God hath given me (again, re: Jesus)."  To be "of one" means you are related, and the "of one" they are all "of" is God.

For verily he took not on [him the nature of] angels; but he took on [him] the seed of Abraham. . .Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto [his] brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things [pertaining] to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. . For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.
The concepts of mediator, prophet (Deut 18, "like unto Moses") and priest all indicate commonality with man.

And this is "the truth" that God our Savior (per this passage) wants all man to come to the (full) knowledge of.  Apparently Horizons International does NOT want us to come to the knowledge of that truth, nor do the Lausanne Covenanters, who are many and international...  Hmm..

4. Holy Spirit

We believe in the person and the power of the Holy Spirit, etc.

One of the first verses protested on this petition is Matthew 28:19, which is itself likely a Trinitarian insert, and the only place in the Bible this formula seems to occur.

Wycliffe/SIL produced Stories of the Prophets, an Arabic Bible that uses “Lord” instead of “Father” and “Messiah” instead of “Son.”

• Frontiers worked with an SIL consultant to produce True Meaning of the Gospel of Christ, an Arabic translation which removes "Father" in reference to God, and removes or redefines "Son," e.g. the Great Commission in Mt 28:19 reads, "Cleanse them by water in the name of God, his Messiah and his Holy Spirit."

By replacing or removing "Father" or "Son" from the text of Scripture, these translations fail to portray God as who he is: the familial, eternal, loving God the Father, Son and Spirit. The deity of Jesus is obscured, and thus the self-sacrifice of God on our behalf.

In June 2011, the ;Presbyterian Church in America explicitly declared such translations as “unfaithful to God’s revealed Word” because they “compromise the doctrines of the Trinity, Scripture, and the person and work of Jesus.”

Obviously there are financial and legal considerations in translation, not just theological. Another related link:

Scott Seaton was a Presbyterian pastor in Atlanta in 1998, minding his own business, when he read an article in Evangelical Missions Quarterly about the "insider movement" in Muslim-majority countries—part of evangelists' efforts to be more culturally sensitive to Muslims they are trying to win to faith—for example, planting churches that aren't like Western chapels, but reflect local sensibilities, like sitting on the floor instead of in pews. The movement then was controversial, and 13 years later is increasingly so—and more widespread.

{{the pews -- besides the extra expense -- keeps people from face-to-face interaction with each other and promotes an audience/performer relationship.  I have always personally been against them in general, and I'm USA born & bred.   They are, however, good for crowd control, or preventing a quick exit shortly before the solicitation (collection of tithes and offerings.)  I fail to see why Jesus would have protested..}}

In 2001 Seaton became the head of Muslim ministry for his [PRESBY] denomination's Atlanta-based mission agency, Mission to the World (MTW). In 2003, Milton Coke of Global Partners for Development *approached the missions agency about supporting a Bengali (or Bangla) language translation that he and others were working on to reach Muslims in Bangladesh. According to Seaton,"They really wanted MTW's imprimatur."

 But the mission agency balked, believing that the translation changed the familial language between God the Father and God the Son. MTW sent Seaton along with two others to Bangladesh with Coke to investigate. Seaton said his suspicions were confirmed, and MTW refused to support the work.

 Coke and others working on the Bible in Bangladesh published their translation in 2005, though it had no copyright information that would identify the group or individuals behind the Bible. But in a June 8, 2005, email to supporters, Coke wrote about the new Bibles: "10,000 copies printed this month in India are in danger of falling into hostile hands, so please pray these can be moved and quickly distributed through our network." He also referred to "traditional Christian attacks" on the translation.
(NOTE this excerpt should be within Fair Copyright Use)

...same org here? More info


In 1989, several altruistic runners traveled to East Africa to participate in a marathon for which they had raised money in pledges. Visiting several programs devoted to alleviating hunger and poverty and seeking a place to donate their funds.
A Rohnert Park, CA charity; at least they are filing!

Organization NameRegistration NumberRecord TypeRegistration StatusCityStateRegistration TypeRecord Type
GLOBAL PARTNERS FOR DEVELOPMENT034643CharityCurrentROHNERT PARKCACharity RegistrationCharity

... In looking up "Milton Coke," saw this reference (only footnoted once, not cited), and include it "for reference" as a certain type of evangelism, talking about how to reach Muslims.  "Discipling All Muslim Peoples in the 21st Century," International Journal of Frontier Missions. (winter 2000) by "Rick Love."  DNK if related to "Frontier" above (and don't care, either).

I'm having a hard time connecting "Milton Coke" with GPD above, which began as a marathon runners association and an address of 765 California in SF; it seems rather liberal progressive and too supportive of girls and women to be associated with a very religious group.  However, this site "Covenant Presby. Church aka "the Barn" definitely mentions "Milton Coke" in Bangladesh.  For those who are uninformed, a lot of (so-called) Christian churches are aware they are being out-bred by Muslims, as formerly perhaps was a similar fear re: Catholics, and others not of their tribe. Hence they are urgent to evangelize and are often found setting up organizations, church plants using the internet and a variety of creeds to define themselves and their purpose.  I guess that's a good substitute for those unable to keep "the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace," (Ephesians).  Some of these smaller groups are extremely abusive.

OK, Milton Coke in Georgia (Corporations search) has the same nonprofit name with an "inc." which was formed in 1988, is active /noncompliance (although I see a 2011 registration so don't see why) and the address is a $300K? 5- bedroom home whose price is way out of sink, per basic RE search, with its neighbors, having apparently been bought for $60K in 1999?? in DeKalb County. ..

to put this simply (after a "corporation search" by Officer Name) -- these companies -- only a few of who are still in noncompliance (like, two of them, the "Grapevine") are a combination of the same people -- Milton Coke & Stephanie (wife?), plus a Tim R Pfau -- and focusing around two addresses -- the above one, and 582 Olive Street NW, Atlanta (probably someone else's home). . . . Probably the California group (above) is simply unrelated, mea culpa.

Hugh Milton CokeGRAPEVINE COMMUNITY OUTREACH, *INC. (formed in 1988??) **

From an Arlington, TEXAS Community church listing the Cokes as outreach contacts, here it is:
Milton and Stephanie Coke
(project of laides in Sr. Class) Bangeldesh
Children: Barbara and Hugh
Global Partners for Development; P.O. Box 942480; Atlanta, GA. 31141
Church Planting, training local ministers, operating fish farms and feed mills to support local ministers.

And of course in its statement of beliefs, there's no contradiction between "the Bible, inerrant in the original writings, is the Word of God" (#1) and (#2) God exists eternally in three Persons...the three have distinct personalities but are in substance one God (John 10:30).  "

Today, Christ is the head of the one church that He is building. All who place their trust in Jesus Christ, are instantly baptized by Christ Himself into this one body. This church is composed of all believers since its inception and will be completed when it is raptured or caught away into heaven. At that time all its members will receive their glorified bodies."  [See I Cor 15 for the alternate version...]

Arlington Community Church Logo
Under "ministries" they have:  Kids, Youth, Adult & Men's & College (none "women's")...
Apparently Dr. Coke is Fuller Seminary, and here's his master's thesis; "An ethnohistory of Bible translation among the Maya" (1978, Fuller's, 411 pp.)  Sigh.  I finally found a "footnote 2" listing of this book (but so far haven't located "foonote 2" in the text) which is yet another organization -- wish apparently some overlap and a focus on "the Great Commission" (Mth 28:19) and "MAKING DISCIPLES OF ALL NATIONS." by "DAWN Ministries" (1996) "Discipling A Whole Nation" being the acronym.  Words such as mobilize, saturate, etc. are common throughout it.

See?  Africa has been regionally organized by (yet another) Christian religious nonprofit? with a plan: DAWNAFRICA.ORG
Africa Map


 (the word "church" in Greek is "ekklesia" which comes from the word to "call out" (from among); not to Push In or "Implant,", however, whatcha gonna do?

Throughout other sections of the Bible, the call is to preach the gospel, but this crew is naturally inclined (failing to preach the gospel), rather instead to the training habit.

When Ephesians 4 says of Christ that when he "ascended up on high" he "led captivity captive and gave gifts unto men" after which it names what are sometimes called "gift ministries" (apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers).  Not everyone, apparently, is an evangelist, but this is not what the doctrine says.

However, by contrast, this crew has instead a teaching platforms, toolkits, and an "arsenal" -- to make sure the right theology is taught.  And it is for sale, too:

Church planters in third world contexts usually have very little in their arsenal to go with in their quest to disciple their nations
Many of the church planters we work with have not been to regular Bible School and therefore lack sound theological grounding
{{Nor did the blind man in John 9 whose eyes Jesus opened.  Nor did the woman at the well in John 4.   In fact it also said of the 12 that they were perceived as "unlearned" but, however they had been with Jesus.}} 

In the end, this affects the quality of churches because a leader can only take people as far as he/she has gone before the law of diminishing returns sets in. 
{{the same thing was said of Jesus....}}

It is therefore crucial that they be armed with suitable training materials that can equip them on the job. Dawn is constantly on the lookout for such materials that can be duplicated and distributed easily. 
By contrast (with the Bible): Ephesans 6:10 describes, piece by piece, "the whole armor of God."  II Corinthians 4 (Paul) says the weapons of our warfare (words related to "strategy.") are not earthly but mighty through God.  (I put a little phrase study of the Greek to this, over on "" the other day; was making the point about political strategies by reference to the concept.

"Currently, we have a cd we purchased from the Josh McDowell Ministries** which we are distributing at a cost of $10 each. The cd contains several Bibles and commentaries as well as all of Josh McDowell’s books. "

**Josh McDowell Ministries turns out to be a subdivision of Campus Crusade for Christ and while maybe its slant is still appealing to youth (i.e., "Campus Crusade. . .") it's itself over 40 yrs old....

Re: this habit of distributing (selling) CDs with bibles and commentaries, and while they're at it, books.
  • {{Jesus:  Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth of the mouth of God.
  • Isaiah, of God:  My word doesn't go out void, but accomplishes that which I sent it to.
  • Paul to Timothy:  Preach the word, in season, out of season.
  • see end of the book of Ecclesiastes regarding the topic of "the making of many books" versus "the whole of man.."
  • DAWN:  Men shall be made disciples by some of the words referring to God, fewer referring to Christ (and the resurrection), plus because this is too hard for most people to understand, the commentaries...}} 

Another useful tool comes from Logos Bible Software who has a program that equips the pastor with a library for lifeWe will be supplying these to selected leaders around Africa

No comments:

Post a Comment