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:
http://horizonsinternational.org/for_muslims
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}}
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."
[FN3]
The decision comes after a growing number of critics decried the materials as attempts to avoid controversy that fundamentally altered Christian theology.
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.
[[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...]]
[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?
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?
| ||
Quoting from the prophet Isaiah (8:)
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.
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.**
[[etc.]]
(**hasn't that already been done, for centuries?)
FN1
CORPORATE IDENTITIES, CREED, LEADERSHIP,
PRODUCTS:
Rev. Georges Houssney
Horizons International, (evid. a colorado corporation)
| D Number: | 19901042542 |
| Name: | HORIZONS INTERNATIONAL |
| 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 |
| Jurisdiction: | Colorado |
| Formation Date: | 05/07/1990 |
Other trade names (there are two, both as of 2012. Like, this month....)
| ID Number | Document Number | Name | Status | Form | Effective Date | Comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 20121442495 | 20121442495 | Biblical Missiology | Effective | DNC | 08/15/2012 10:12 AM | |
| 2 | 20121446527 | 20121446527 | International Crossroads | Effective | DNC | 08/17/2012 03:44 PM |
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."
(From the TGI website, About Us & Beliefs, basically similar to Horizons International & with same accepted doctrine & leader):
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):
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.
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:
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 Bible.cc for consecutive text, or Blueletterbible.org) 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:
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...
JESUS SENDS OUT THE TWELVE -- WHAT DID HE DO, WHAT DID HE TELL THEM?
(matthew 10, KJV):
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:
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?)
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!):
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.
No marketer or salesperson could've done it better. THIS is the problem, THIS is the solution:
The word "Lord" occurs only twice. it is not first -- it is nearly last. Points 10 & 13. here's point 10:
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:
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:
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:
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.
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:
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.
(303) 736-9806tgichurch.org
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:
- Bible
- God
- Christ
- Holy Spirit
- Salvation
- Church
- Baptism
- Kingdom of God
- Missions
- Evangelism
- World Concern
- Social responsibility
- 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:
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:
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.
19<>To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. 20And 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 Bible.cc for consecutive text, or Blueletterbible.org) 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:
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.
3. Christ
We affirm that Jesus Christ, being himself the only God-man,
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...
JESUS SENDS OUT THE TWELVE -- WHAT DID HE DO, WHAT DID HE TELL THEM?
(matthew 10, KJV):
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:
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?)
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.
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.
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!):
{{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:}}
<< 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 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...
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:
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.
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:
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.
"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:
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.
The word "Lord" occurs only twice. it is not first -- it is nearly last. Points 10 & 13. here's point 10:
{{who raised him? What happened to "Lord"?}}
10. Evangelism
To evangelize is to spread the good news that Jesus Christ died for our sins and was raised from the dead.
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.
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.
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:
This was not news, but it was news for Peter to understand it. Usually, people need a demonstration to understand anything!
Here it comes -- this is "the word" (the gospel):
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.
Resurrection -- he gets pretty quickly to the topic. It's central!
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:
| ||
How PAUL preached, he said: I Corinthians 1, 2. 1:17, he confirms he was sent to preach the gospel, also:
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:
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.
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:
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 theand 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!
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)
"It is clear, therefore, that of the MSSThis 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:
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.
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.
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.
1. BibleWe 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
which reads, along with I Timothy 3:15: "God's Word Translation" (lord have mercy..catch the tone.):
| ||
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:
| ||
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).
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.
| ||
Or: KJV -- this verse has an interesting blip in it, not shown in English:
| ||
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:
| ||
16καὶ ὁμολογουμένως 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.
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:
| ||||||||
which was "manifest in the flesh" -- God? Or "the mystery of godliness.
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.
2. God
We affirm our belief in the one-eternal, creator God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
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??
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:
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.
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.
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:
Parsed, God is "the savior of us"
who wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge (special word, click on it) of the truth:
Strong's Transliteration Greek English Morphology 3778 [e] touto τοῦτο for this DPro-NNS 2570 [e] kalon καλὸν [is] good Adj-NNS 2532 [e] kai καὶ and Conj 587 [e] apodekton ἀπόδεκτον acceptable, Adj-NNS 1799 [e] enōpion ἐνώπιον before Adv 3588 [e] tou τοῦ the Art-GMS 4990 [e] sōtēros σωτῆρος Savior N-GMS 1473 [e] hēmōn ἡμῶν of us, PPro-G1P 2316 [e] theou θεοῦ God; N-GMS
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"):
Strong's Transliteration Greek English Morphology 3739 [e] hos ὃς who RelPro-NMS 3956 [e] pantas πάντας all Adj-AMP 444 [e] anthrōpous ἀνθρώπους men N-AMP 2309 [e] thelei θέλει wishes V-PIA-3S 4982 [e] sōthēnai σωθῆναι to be saved, V-ANP 2532 [e] kai καὶ and Conj 1519 [e] eis εἰς to Prep 1922 [e] epignōsin ἐπίγνωσιν knowledge N-AFS 225 [e] alētheias ἀληθείας of [the] truth N-GFS 2064 [e] elthein ἐλθεῖν to come. V-ANA
| ||
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.
| |||||||||||||||
"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....
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:
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.
(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:
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."
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)
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 meThree 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:
RELIGION | Missions, agencies and churches wrestle with controversial Muslim friendly translations of the Bible and fallout from 'insider movement' tactics | Emily Belz 5/7/2011 in "worldmag.com"
{{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.
Copyright © 2012 God's World Publications
All rights reserved
Articles may not be reproduced without permission
May 07, 2011, Vol. 26, No. 9
(NOTE this excerpt should be within Fair Copyright Use)
...same org here? More info
History
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!
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
... 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.
| |||||||||||||||
(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.
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...]
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....}}
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 "americanamnesia.blogspot.com" the other day; was making the point about political strategies by reference to the concept.
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.
**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....
"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. "
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 life. We will be supplying these to selected leaders around Africa
No comments:
Post a Comment