who still believes in sola scriptura?
marca...@hotmail.co.uk
Luther?
It is not accepted as such by the RCC and many Protestants have been
heavily influences by critical theology which renders the concept of
sola scriptura obsolete in their way of thinking.
Isaiah 8:20 is a good starting point. The Hebrew words torah and
teudah point to the two main religious authorities of Isaiah's day -
the Scripture (which at that time was the Pentateuch) and the
Testimony = the words of the prophets.
The problem was that with so many false prophets about working for
money, and some consulting spirits, one needed a way to distinguish
the true from the false. Isaiah says if they don't speak in harmony
with the established word of God, then there is no light in them.
There had always been a danger that people will try to usurp the
authority of the scriptures with their own man made theories.
In Matthew 15:3, 6 Jesus showed that Scripture is above tradition.
Paul also rejected human philosophy and gnosis (knowledge) as being
above the Scriptures (Colossians 2:8, 1 Timothy 6:20).
Humanity must surrender to the Word of God, not the other way round
(Isaiah 66:2).
Another principle is tota scriptura that all Scripture is inspired by
God (2 Timothy 3:16).
That scripture is its own interpreter is demonstrated in Luke 24:27,
44-45 when Jesus explained his mission from the Scriptures.
Many times Jesus asked his hearers, "What is written in the Law?" or
"Have you never read in the Scriptures?" (Luke 10:26; Matthew 21:42)
He also said that Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35).
Those who approach the Scriptures with their own presumptions, biases,
pre-understandings, cannot truly understand what is written until they
submit to the leading of the Holy Spirit (John 16:3).
As long as man stands in judgment of the Scriptures he will never be
granted access to the Most Holy Place where Jesus now ministers on our
behalf. Those who meddle with the Ark of God put their own souls at
risk, but the humble soul finds salvation.
God Bless
Marc
Gordon Hudson
news:1173881654.6...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>I wonder how many churches still hold to this dogma started by Martin
> Luther?
I would argue that nobody does, for the following reason (a pity I can't do
a chart with graphics):
God decided what he wanted to say
|
God inspired the writers of the biblical books
|
Some of the content came down by oral tradition
|
The writers interpreted what God was saying to them and wrote the books in
their own languages
|
The texts were copied and distributed, then recopied down the generations.
|
A decision was made on what books to include in the canon of scripture
|
These books were then translated into English
|
We read the bible
|
We interpret what it means in light of the way we have been taught to
interpret scripture
|
From this we work out what God was saying back at the beginning
Thats a lot of steps and all of them are involved so we do not get to the
truth by scripture alone but by the mingling of various traditions.
Now, at least the Roman Catholics admit to being influenced by tradition.
Protestants are equally influenced by tradition except their traditions only
start in the 1500's.
Michael J Davis
<host...@gmail.com> writes
Catholics are not influenced by 'tradition', but Tradition (capital T)
is part of their authority alongside Scripture. It's called 'being
Apostolic'.
LOL! Before that they accepted RC Tradition, eg the Canon of the Bible
(almost perfect), the Nicene and Apostle's Creeds. That's why sola
scriptura is *never* sola scriptura - because scripture has to be
defined as such from the 'outside'.
Mike
[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
--
Michael J Davis
<><
Don't confuse me with an ordinary Catholic
<><
Kendall K. Down
Michael J Davis <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Catholics are not influenced by 'tradition', but Tradition (capital T)
> is part of their authority alongside Scripture. It's called 'being
> Apostolic'.
Oddly, you will find that Adventists, as much as anyone, use tradition in
interpreting the Bible - Adventist tradition.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================
marca...@hotmail.co.uk
wrote:
> In message <rWlXo0D+TB+FF...@trustsof.demon.co.uk.invalid>
> Michael J Davis <?...@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Catholics are not influenced by 'tradition', but Tradition (capital T)
> > is part of their authority alongside Scripture. It's called 'being
> > Apostolic'.
>
> Oddly, you will find that Adventists, as much as anyone, use tradition in
> interpreting the Bible - Adventist tradition.
>
> God bless,
> Kendall K. Down
>
> --
> ================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
> | Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
> | http://www.diggingsonline.com |
> ========================================================
Martin Luther's definition of sola scriptura did not rule out
tradition, only that it be subject to the Bible.
God Bless
Marc
ian.ca...@ukonline.co.uk
> I wonder how many churches still hold to this dogma started by Martin
> Luther?
> It is not accepted as such by the RCC and many Protestants have been
> heavily influences by critical theology which renders the concept of
> sola scriptura obsolete in their way of thinking.
>
> Isaiah 8:20 is a good starting point.
But Marc, even I, as someone fairly conservative about Scripture,
recognise
that you can't argue that "the Bible is true because the Bible says
so."
Unless someone has faith in the beginning this is just a circular
argument
--
Ian Cardinal
"We have to learn to be human along-side all sorts of others, the ones
whose
company we don't greatly like."
Archbishop Rowan Williams
not...@ukonline.co.uk
Simon Woods
.... once it had been purged of James and Revelation. :-)
Richard Emblem
>err what's sola scripture ?
Wikipedia comes to your aid:
Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by scripture alone") is the assertion
that the Bible as God's written word is self-authenticating, clear
(perspicuous) to the rational reader, its own interpreter ("Scripture
interprets Scripture"), and sufficient of itself to be the only source
of Christian doctrine.
Sola scriptura was a foundational doctrinal principle of the
Protestant Reformation held by the reformer Martin Luther and is a
definitive principle of Protestants today (see Five solas)
Sola scriptura may be contrasted with Roman Catholic and Eastern
Orthodox teaching, in which the Bible must be interpreted by church
teaching, by considering the Bible in the context of Sacred Tradition.
--
Richard Emblem
"God loves each of us as if there were only one of us" St Augustine.
Revd. Eric Potts
>
> Sola scriptura may be contrasted with Roman Catholic and Eastern
> Orthodox teaching, in which the Bible must be interpreted by church
> teaching, by considering the Bible in the context of Sacred Tradition.
....which, of course, is what every other church does too, in every
sermon, study group and Alpha Course. The only difference is that the
RCC talks of the teaching authority of the Church while we others
blame our aberrations on the Holy Spirit!
Matthew Vernon
> err what's sola scripture ?
Only studying the Bible during the hours of daylight ;-)
Matthew
--
"My sheep hear my voice. I know them, and they follow me. I give them
eternal life, and they will never perish. No-one will snatch them out
of my hand". John 10 27-28
http://www.pick.ucam.org/
Michael J Davis
<mat...@debian.org> writes
>not...@ukonline.co.uk writes:
>
>> err what's sola scripture ?
>
>Only studying the Bible during the hours of daylight ;-)
LOL! I thought it was studying the Bible by oneself!
Mike
[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
--
Michael J Davis
http://www.trustsof.demon.co.uk
<><
For this is what the Lord has said to me,
"Go and post a Watchman and let
him report what he sees." Isa 21:6
<><
Simon Robinson
>>> err what's sola scripture ?
>>
>> Only studying the Bible during the hours of daylight ;-)
>
> LOL! I thought it was studying the Bible by oneself!
I dunno, and there was me thinking it was the new clean replacement to
coal-fired scripture.
(Perhaps one of us ought to be serious for a moment and actually answer
Al's question: Quoting Wikipedia as that's faster than formulating a
suitable wording myself: "Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by scripture
alone") is the assertion that the Bible as God's written word is
self-authenticating, clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader, its own
interpreter ("Scripture interprets Scripture"), and sufficient of itself
to be the only source of Christian doctrine.")
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist UK.RC
news:1173963570.7...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> err what's sola scripture ?
The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and
the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the
"rule of faith" for Christ's Church. And all that one must believe to be a
Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not
found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience.
The Bible, God's Word, claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith
for true authentic Christian Churches. The Scriptures are not in need of
any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed
revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council.
Authentic Christian Churches look at the Scriptures as the only and
sufficient rule of faith and perfect walk for their lived.
Thus the true Church and the members are ALWAYS subject to the Word, and is
then constantly reformed thereby.
Those who deny or refuse this, are not 1st Century authentic Christians or
true sons of God, no matter how much they protest to the contrary. Such are,
as Paul mentions, only performing reprobates and bastard sons.
Jeff...
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist UK.RC
news:3iljv25sdj46aar91...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 20:31:59 GMT, "1st Century Apostolic
> Traditionalist UK.RC" <broadband[remove]12...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>
>>The Bible, God's Word, claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith
>>for true authentic Christian Churches.
>
Where-ever (today) such adherents may be found, from the 1st Century until
now.
Jeff...
Simon Robinson
> "fergus" <fergusc...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> The Bible, God's Word, claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith
>>> for true authentic Christian Churches.
>> Where?
>
> Where-ever (today) such adherents may be found, from the 1st Century until
> now.
I rather suspect that Fergus was asking you to identify the particular
passage of the Bible that claims that the Bible is the sole and
sufficient rule of faith for true authentic Christian Churches.
Michael J Davis
Apostolic Traditionalist UK.RC <broadband@[remove].invalid> writes
><not...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:1173963570.7...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> err what's sola scripture ?
>
>The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and
>the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the
>"rule of faith" for Christ's Church. And all that one must believe to be a
>Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source.
Why? That, for a start, is *not* in Scripture.
>That which is not
>found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience.
>The Bible, God's Word, claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith
>for true authentic Christian Churches.
No, it doesn't.
>The Scriptures are not in need of
>any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed
>revelation.
How do you know?
>Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council.
>
>Authentic Christian Churches look at the Scriptures as the only and
>sufficient rule of faith and perfect walk for their lived.
>Thus the true Church and the members are ALWAYS subject to the Word, and is
>then constantly reformed thereby.
>
>Those who deny or refuse this, are not 1st Century authentic Christians or
>true sons of God, no matter how much they protest to the contrary. Such are,
>as Paul mentions, only performing reprobates and bastard sons.
At least we can agree that what you say above could not be believed by
1st Century Christians. ;-)
Michael J Davis
<em...@via.my.web.site> writes
Yes, because Richard E had already done that, I had little further to
say of a serious nature.
Simon Robinson
> In message <55tnfoF...@mid.individual.net>, Simon Robinson
>> (Perhaps one of us ought to be serious for a moment and actually
>> answer Al's question: <snip>
> Yes, because Richard E had already done that, I had little further to
> say of a serious nature.
Ah, I missed that :-)
Revd. Eric Potts
It should be pointed out that the above post may well be described as
"sola Jeffura"! Any resemblance between it and orthodox Christian
doctrine is purely a fluke.
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist UK.RC
news:1174043451.0...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
It should also be pointed out that "orthodox Christian doctrine" that Eric
is referring to, is certainly not the one that was taught, commanded and
practised by the Apostles or the devout Christians of the 1st Century.
1 Cor. 11:2 "Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things,
and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you."
Eric's type of Reverent 'Orthodox Christians' denounce and deprecate such
Scripture.
Right Eric?
Listen to Paul for inspired wisdom in such matters....
"16 Take heed unto thyself, and the doctrines; continue in them: for in
doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee."
1 Tim 4:16 (KJV
Jeff...
Luke 4:4 "And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not
live by bread alone, but by every Word of God."
Kendall K. Down
fergus <fergusc...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >The Bible, God's Word, claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith
> >for true authentic Christian Churches.
> Where?
Revelation 23:17
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist UK.RC
news:Kj4P1HDL...@trustsof.demon.co.uk.invalid...
> In message <33iKh.2104$F82....@newsfe4-win.ntli.net>, 1st Century
> Apostolic Traditionalist UK.RC <broadband@[remove].invalid> writes
>><not...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:1173963570.7...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>> err what's sola scripture ?
>>
>>The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and
>>the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the
>>"rule of faith" for Christ's Church. And all that one must believe to be
>>a
>>Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source.
>
> Why? That, for a start, is *not* in Scripture.
That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian
conscience.
Like the constant hypocritical apologising by Christendom over Scripture
endorsed slavery.
Better they start bemoaning themselves over all the evil people in their own
church's who are really sinning, and bringing disgrace to God's name, by
divorcing and remarrying, couples committing fornication by living in sin
and refusing to get married, bishops and clergy indulging in same-sex
abomination, and vile paedophilia offences.
These are the things God hates......not slavery.
The values of 'christians' today are totally out of sync with the practises
of 1st Century Christians, yet in agreement and back-slapping fellowship
with 21st Century reprobates and heretics.
The above indictments and facts speak for
themselves in whatever churches such evils are allowed, for nothing is done
to stop them.
Jeff...
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist UK.RC
>>The Bible, God's Word, claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith
>>for true authentic Christian Churches.
>
> No, it doesn't.
Try and find out about Almighty God, and the salvation we are offered
through faith, belief and baptism [by immersion in water] into Jesus Christ,
from any other source, and you will find it ultimately came from the Bible
itself.
Right Mike?
>>The Scriptures are not in need of
>>any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed
>>revelation.
>
> How do you know?
Because Mike....."All Scripture is inspired by God"
Or are you yet another 'christian' that refuses to believe it?
>>Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council.
>>
>>Authentic Christian Churches look at the Scriptures as the only and
>>sufficient rule of faith and perfect walk for their lived.
>>Thus the true Church and the members are ALWAYS subject to the Word, and
>>is
>>then constantly reformed thereby.
>>
>>Those who deny or refuse this, are not 1st Century authentic Christians or
>>true sons of God, no matter how much they protest to the contrary. Such
>>are,
>>as Paul mentions, only performing reprobates and bastard sons.
>
> At least we can agree that what you say above could not be believed by
> 1st Century Christians. ;-)
It certainly was, and it was practised whilever the Apostles remained alive.
It just sadly shows there are so few to be found now who are faithful and
'authentic' and practise what the great Apostles taught.
2 Timothy 4:4 "Refute, warn, and encourage with the utmost patience when you
teach.
3 For the time will come when people will not put up with healthy doctrine
but with itching ears will surround themselves with teachers who cater to
their own needs.
4 They will refuse to listen to the truth and will turn to myths." (ISV)
Jeff...
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist UK.RC
news:55udkqF...@mid.individual.net...
Would you like to make an attempt and show this gentlemen one or two of the
many passages that help claim this, Simon?
Here is a starter for you...."Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the
Word of God. (KJV)
Or "The point is, Before you trust, you have to listen. But unless Christ's
Word is preached, there's nothing to listen to." (Message Bible)
And thus in it's finality the Bible alone "is the sole and sufficient rule
of faith for true authentic Christian Churches" without it, they exist on
mere speculation and personal conjecture.
Jeff...
Gareth McCaughan
> That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian
> conscience.
Is that statement found in scripture?
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist UK.RC
news:87abycn...@g.mccaughan.org.uk...
> Jeff Hickling wrote:
>
>> That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian
>> conscience.
>
> Is that statement found in scripture?
I doubt it Gareth......it's an accumulative informed statement.
For an example, and there are many more.....Christians should not vote, or
care or worry who governs them, those who do, show lack of faith in NT
Scripture and vote for whom they think fit, whereas God may have other
ideas, and the less-faithful professing Christian, because of his lack of
faith in God's ability to make the right decision in their eyes, can end up
voting against God's Will.
Daniel 4: 32 "The most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to
whomsoever he will."
Romans 13:1 "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For
there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been
instituted by God."
This has of course led to the faithless and heretical churches approving of
their brethren marching off to war to the kill their 'enemies', which Christ
has strictly forbidden, thus we saw the inevitable, detestable scenario, of
Christian fighting and killing other Christians etc.
The Popes of course, over the centuries, have been some of the worst
offenders of instigating and involving others in self-protecting,
warmongering, wickedness.
Jeff...
Matthew 5:38 "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and
a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite
thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also".
Simon Robinson
> "Simon Robinson" <em...@via.my.web.site> wrote in message
>> I rather suspect that Fergus was asking you to identify the particular
>> passage of the Bible that claims that the Bible is the sole and sufficient
>> rule of faith for true authentic Christian Churches.
>
> Would you like to make an attempt and show this gentlemen one or two of the
> many passages that help claim this, Simon?
Why would I want to do that? He was asking *you*, and I don't believe
such a passage exists.
> Here is a starter for you...."Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the
> Word of God. (KJV)
Well, even assuming for the sake of argument that that statement is
correct (and I remind you once again that you have never provided any
reason for believing that statements in the Bible necessarily are
correct), that begs the question of what is meant by the 'Word of God'.
Even the most elementary consideration of the history of the Bible will
reveal that such a statement cannot possibly mean the body of works that
you call scripture, since that body had not been compiled at the time
when any of the verses were written.
> Or "The point is, Before you trust, you have to listen. But unless Christ's
> Word is preached, there's nothing to listen to." (Message Bible)
That's even easier to deal with. The natural meaning of 'Christ's Word'
is things that Christ has said. Yet almost nothing in the Bible is
'Christ's word' since most of it (the entire OT) was written before
Christ was born, and most of the new testament consists of works by
others who are giving their own opinions. A very small part of the Bible
(the gospels) contains material that is claimed to have been stated by
Christ, and therefore might be considered to constitute 'Christ's Word'
(assuming that the people who wrote the gospels did their research
properly and got all their facts correct).
> And thus in it's finality the Bible alone "is the sole and sufficient rule
> of faith for true authentic Christian Churches" without it, they exist on
> mere speculation and personal conjecture.
Which is what you currently do.
Michael J Davis
<webm...@diggingsonline.com> writes
>In message <3iljv25sdj46aar91...@4ax.com>
> fergus <fergusc...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> >The Bible, God's Word, claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith
>> >for true authentic Christian Churches.
>
>> Where?
>
>Revelation 23:17
ROTFL!!
Michael J Davis
>>>The Bible, God's Word, claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith
>>>for true authentic Christian Churches.
>>
>Mike stated
>> No, it doesn't.
>
>Try and find out about Almighty God, and the salvation we are offered
>through faith, belief and baptism [by immersion in water] into Jesus Christ,
>from any other source, and you will find it ultimately came from the Bible
>itself.
Jeff, although there are *many* things on which you and I might well
agree, there are two areas on which we don't:-
1. Are your claims about the Bible that you are unable to substantiate
(though I note recently a reluctant acceptance that the Church did in
fact establish the canon of scripture to your satisfaction),
2. Your constant legalistic interpretation of specific verses of the
Bible, which you then go to extreme lengths to justify even though the
text leaves you weak.
The statement above that I disagree with is one of those.
I don't dispute it is the source of authority - and indeed - God's Word,
but I do disagree that it 'claims' to be anything such as you suggest.
For instance, in Jesus own words...
"... But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all
truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears,
and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will bring glory to me by
taking from what is mine and making it known to you.
All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit
will take from what is mine and make it known to you."
John 16:13-15 (NIV)
We need the Holy Spirit ('Him' not 'it' - note) to help us understand
the living Word of God.
So Jeff apart from the fact that we need people (inspired by the Holy
Spirit) to tell us what 'books' comprise the canon of Scripture, we also
need the Holy Spirit to help us understand them, as Jesus says.
So please answer my simple question - in what way does the Bible
*without outside help* make the claim you attribute to it above?
>
>>>The Scriptures are not in need of
>>>any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed
>>>revelation.
>>
>> How do you know?
>
>Because Mike....."All Scripture is inspired by God"
>Or are you yet another 'christian' that refuses to believe it?
I believe that all Scripture is inspired by God. (But not just from 2
Tim 3:16 because that specifies its limitations in specific ways.)
But when Scripture itself looks forward to the Holy Spirit then it does
not say it is "not in need of any supplement". You really must not make
such un-scriptural claims just because you want to believe it. (You'll
be telling me next that you believe it because it's one of the tenets of
the Protestant reformers!)
>
>>>Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council.
>>>
>>>Authentic Christian Churches look at the Scriptures as the only and
>>>sufficient rule of faith and perfect walk for their lived.
>>>Thus the true Church and the members are ALWAYS subject to the Word, and
>>>is
>>>then constantly reformed thereby.
>>>
>>>Those who deny or refuse this, are not 1st Century authentic Christians or
>>>true sons of God, no matter how much they protest to the contrary. Such
>>>are,
>>>as Paul mentions, only performing reprobates and bastard sons.
>>
>> At least we can agree that what you say above could not be believed by
>> 1st Century Christians. ;-)
>
>It certainly was, and it was practised whilever the Apostles remained alive.
Yes, because those who knew Jesus in the flesh did not need the
scriptures, they had *seen* the Word of God.
>It just sadly shows there are so few to be found now who are faithful and
>'authentic' and practise what the great Apostles taught.
There I think you are mistaken - I *know* many who are following Jesus
closely.
>2 Timothy 4:4 "Refute, warn, and encourage with the utmost patience when you
>teach.
>3 For the time will come when people will not put up with healthy doctrine
>but with itching ears will surround themselves with teachers who cater to
>their own needs.
>4 They will refuse to listen to the truth and will turn to myths." (ISV)
Indeed Jeff. But the divinity of Christ is scriptural and Apostolic.
It's sad that you do not accept that, you are missing out on real joy.
Alec Brady
<1173881654.6...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
marca...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>I wonder how many churches still hold to this dogma started by Martin
>Luther?
I'm intrigued that you say it was started by Martin Luther. Is that
literally what you believe? Let me say, it's pretty much what *I*
believe, but I'm surprised to see *you* say it!
>It is not accepted as such by the RCC and many Protestants have been
>heavily influences by critical theology which renders the concept of
>sola scriptura obsolete in their way of thinking.
>Isaiah 8:20 is a good starting point. The Hebrew words torah and
>teudah point to the two main religious authorities of Isaiah's day -
>the Scripture (which at that time was the Pentateuch) and the
>Testimony = the words of the prophets.
>
>The problem was that with so many false prophets about working for
>money, and some consulting spirits, one needed a way to distinguish
>the true from the false. Isaiah says if they don't speak in harmony
>with the established word of God, then there is no light in them.
That's right. But that's a long way from saying that they can only
derive their message from scripture.
>There had always been a danger that people will try to usurp the
>authority of the scriptures with their own man made theories.
>In Matthew 15:3, 6 Jesus showed that Scripture is above tradition.
>Paul also rejected human philosophy and gnosis (knowledge) as being
>above the Scriptures (Colossians 2:8, 1 Timothy 6:20).
Jesus didn't show that scripture was above tradition, he criticised
people for putting tradition above scripture. Not the same thing at
all. Much less did he say that it's wrong to have a tradition, only
that it can't contradict scripture. And that's what the RCC says as
well.
>Humanity must surrender to the Word of God, not the other way round
>(Isaiah 66:2).
That chapter doesn't mention Torah or Teuda. What Isaiah spoke was the
word of God already, but it only became scripture later.
>Another principle is tota scriptura that all Scripture is inspired by
>God (2 Timothy 3:16).
The RCC says the same; but we include *all* Scripture in that, and not
just the bits that Martin Luther approved of! :-)
>That scripture is its own interpreter is demonstrated in Luke 24:27,
>44-45 when Jesus explained his mission from the Scriptures.
That seems to me to show that Jesus, not Scripture, is the interpreter
of Scripture. And 2 Peter 1:20 and 1 Cor 15:1-11 both suggest that we
can't arrive at the truth by reading scripture with our own
understanding, but that we need both the Spirit and the apostolic
preaching if we are to understand.
(Note that in 1 Cor 15:3-4, Paul appeals to the Scriptures as a
witness that Jesus was the fulfilment of prophecy, not as a way of
proving his doctrines).
>Many times Jesus asked his hearers, "What is written in the Law?" or
>"Have you never read in the Scriptures?" (Luke 10:26; Matthew 21:42)
>He also said that Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35).
And the RCC agrees with you about this.
>Those who approach the Scriptures with their own presumptions, biases,
>pre-understandings, cannot truly understand what is written until they
>submit to the leading of the Holy Spirit (John 16:3).
Correct. They also have to submit to the apostolic preaching (1 Cor
15)
>As long as man stands in judgment of the Scriptures he will never be
>granted access to the Most Holy Place where Jesus now ministers on our
>behalf. Those who meddle with the Ark of God put their own souls at
>risk, but the humble soul finds salvation.
And the RCC agrees with you about this (though we don't think "the Ark
of God" is the Scriptures alone).
Alec Brady
<34625bc44...@diggingsonline.com>,
>In message <3iljv25sdj46aar91...@4ax.com>
> fergus <fergusc...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> >The Bible, God's Word, claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith
>> >for true authentic Christian Churches.
>
>> Where?
>
>Revelation 23:17
Exactly!
Gareth McCaughan
>>> That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian
>>> conscience.
>>
>> Is that statement found in scripture?
>
> I doubt it Gareth......it's an accumulative informed statement.
Then presumably it isn't "binding upon the Christian conscience".
> For an example, and there are many more.....Christians should not vote, or
> care or worry who governs them, those who do, show lack of faith in NT
> Scripture and vote for whom they think fit, whereas God may have other
> ideas, and the less-faithful professing Christian, because of his lack of
> faith in God's ability to make the right decision in their eyes, can end up
> voting against God's Will.
That's another principle that isn't found in scripture, so by
your own criterion it isn't "binding upon the Christian conscience".
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist UK.RC
>>It just sadly shows there are so few to be found now who are faithful and
>>'authentic' and practise what the great Apostles taught.
>
> There I think you are mistaken - I *know* many who are following Jesus
> closely.
If they were, it would not be as I just stated "there are so few to be found
now who are faithful and 'authentic' and practise what the great Apostles
taught."
For Jesus taught obedience to their teachings as if Christ himself had
commanded it.
Luke 10:16 "He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you
despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me."
Thus such people who reject Apostolic doctrines and their "Traditions" are
NOT following Jesus closely.
>>2 Timothy 4:4 "Refute, warn, and encourage with the utmost patience when
>>you
>>teach.
>>3 For the time will come when people will not put up with healthy doctrine
>>but with itching ears will surround themselves with teachers who cater to
>>their own needs.
>>4 They will refuse to listen to the truth and will turn to myths." (ISV)
>
> Indeed Jeff. But the divinity of Christ is scriptural and Apostolic.
> It's sad that you do not accept that,
I accept just what the Scripture teaches, sadly you won't, that Jesus was a
MAN, not a god, nor an angel, and that is Gospel, yet you still stubbornly
refuse to accept that truth.
Hebrews 2:17
16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him
the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren"
1 Timothy 1:5 "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men,
the man Christ Jesus;"
>you are missing out on real joy.
I am experiencing great joy Mike, as I believe 100% of what the Scripture
teaches, and great blessing comes from that, no doubts in belief, no
puzzling aspects of why God did one thing one time, then commands another
way, another time, no anxieties about who rules the nations in the world, no
hang-ups about slavery, no confusion or human sentiment regarding Paul's
letters to the faithful women who will obey Scripture teaching in head
covering, and remaining silent as the Lord has commanded.
No hating ones enemies and fighting in wars killing other brethren and
sister, no worries about having been baptised properly by full immersion in
water as the 1st Century Christians were, no worries of being bamboozled by
'Reverends' who don't believe half of what the Bible teaches, and the
blasphemous 'holy fathers' who have disgraced Christ's name for over 1500
years, etc ,etc.
Tragically you my friend, are the one to be really pitied, and I mean that
sincerely, for you are still in your sins of 63 years, not having put on the
saving name of Christ by first belief, then baptism, as the Jesus and the
Apostles taught.
Acts 2: 37 "Men and brethren, what shall we do?
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in
the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins"
Thus without an authentic baptism there is no remission of our sins.
Jesus stated " Believeth AND is baptized" not the other way about.
The teaching and practises of the RCC has truly sealed your fate and that of
millions of others, because it falsely teaches that babies can be merely
sprinkled on the head with water BEFORE they have any belief in Christ, and
will still be saved.
It is one of the biggest lies under the Sun, as a baby baptism without
beleive is not a NT Christian baptism, or indeed is a 'confirmation' umpteen
years later. You have been had Mike, and it really greaves me you cannot see
it, before it is too late for you.
Acts 8:36 "And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water:
and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou
mayest......."
But you did not 'believe with all thine heart' you were not in a position
to, thus you have not fulfilled along with the millions of other deluded
ones in many denominations, the NT correct procedure for being accepted as
one of Christ's brethren.
".......And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of
God....."
Then and only then is the "hindrance" to baptism removed, Mike.
"......38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down
both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him."
Amen!
Jeff...
Michael J Davis
>I accept just what the Scripture teaches, sadly you won't, that Jesus was a
>MAN, not a god, nor an angel, and that is Gospel, yet you still stubbornly
>refuse to accept that truth.
Perhaps you would care to reflect on...
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were
made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life,
and that life was the light of men. (John 1:1-4)
Or since you prefer KJV...
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by
him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was
life; and the life was the light of men.
(KJV)
What does 'the Word was God' mean, Jeff?
Nothing else in your post matters unless you know Jesus as God.
Mike
--
Michael J Davis
<>{
"The very man who has argued you down,
will sometimes be found, years later,
to have been influenced by what you said." CSLewis
<>{
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist UK.RC
> In message <eCDKh.8987$NK3....@newsfe6-win.ntli.net>, 1st Century
> Apostolic Traditionalist UK.RC <broadband@[remove].invalid> writes
>>>>The Bible, God's Word, claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of
>>>>faith
>>>>for true authentic Christian Churches.
>>>
>>> No, it doesn't.
>>
>>Try and find out about Almighty God, and the salvation we are offered
>>through faith, belief and baptism [by immersion in water] into Jesus
>>Christ,
>>from any other source, and you will find it ultimately came from the Bible
>>itself.
>
> Jeff, although there are *many* things on which you and I might well
> agree, there are two areas on which we don't:-
>
> 1. Are your claims about the Bible that you are unable to substantiate
> (though I note recently a reluctant acceptance that the Church did in
> fact establish the canon of scripture to your satisfaction),
What things which are not a matter of faith are those?
> 2. Your constant legalistic interpretation of specific verses of the
> Bible, which you then go to extreme lengths to justify even though the
> text leaves you weak.
You show me those text which leave me weak Mike.
Thanks.
> The statement above that I disagree with is one of those.
>
> I don't dispute it is the source of authority - and indeed - God's Word,
> but I do disagree that it 'claims' to be anything such as you suggest.
>
> For instance, in Jesus own words...
>
> "... But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all
> truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears,
> and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will bring glory to me by
> taking from what is mine and making it known to you.
> All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit
> will take from what is mine and make it known to you."
> John 16:13-15 (NIV)
>
> We need the Holy Spirit ('Him' not 'it' - note)
Strong's Note
Greek Word: ekeino"
Transliteration: ekeinos
Part of Speech: pron
1) he, she it, etc.
English Words used in KJV:
that 99
those 40
he 40
the same 20
they 14
misc 38
(Total Count: 251) ]
>to help us understand
> the living Word of God.
Yet, your own Church has proved over the centuries it has not been lead by
the Holy Spirit, on the contrary, it has been lead by the "Spirit of error"
(which cannot be denied) and of disobedience to what Christ and the
Apostles both preached and practised.
> So Jeff apart from the fact that we need people (inspired by the Holy
> Spirit) to tell us what 'books' comprise the canon of Scripture, we also
> need the Holy Spirit to help us understand them, as Jesus says.
>
> So please answer my simple question - in what way does the Bible
> *without outside help* make the claim you attribute to it above?
Because without the Bible as a complete guide, everyone only ends up in
practising preaching and error as your own the other churches of Christendom
prove beyond doubt.
>>>>The Scriptures are not in need of
>>>>any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed
>>>>revelation.
>>>
>>> How do you know?
>>
>>Because Mike....."All Scripture is inspired by God"
>>Or are you yet another 'christian' that refuses to believe it?
>
> I believe that all Scripture is inspired by God. (But not just from 2
> Tim 3:16 because that specifies its limitations in specific ways.)
Then why don't hasn't your Church endorsed Christ's commands on forsaking
violence, on loving it's enemies, instead of raising armies to kill them,
or torturing people to death for make belief heresy?
Your claims of either you or your Church being Spirit-lead, just don't add
up Mike, and you must know it, as you are not stupid.
> But when Scripture itself looks forward to the Holy Spirit then it does
> not say it is "not in need of any supplement". You really must not make
> such un-scriptural claims just because you want to believe it.
I have not made up any "un-scriptural claims" what I preach is ascertained
from Scripture.
>>Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council.
>>
>>Authentic Christian Churches look at the Scriptures as the only and
>>sufficient rule of faith and perfect walk for their lived.
>>Thus the true Church and the members are ALWAYS subject to the Word, and
>>is then constantly reformed thereby.
>>
>>Those who deny or refuse this, are not 1st Century authentic Christians or
>>true sons of God, no matter how much they protest to the contrary. Such
>>are,
>>as Paul mentions, only performing reprobates and bastard sons.
>>
>>> At least we can agree that what you say above could not be believed by
>>> 1st Century Christians. ;-)
>>
>>It certainly was, and it was practised whilever the Apostles remained
>>alive.
>
> Yes, because those who knew Jesus in the flesh did not need the
> scriptures, they had *seen* the Word of God.
Those after needed the Scripture as we do today, more then at any other
time, as there are so many unscriptural opinions, and so much blatant
heresies being preached by the Churches today.
Millions are deluded, because they are not even baptised into Christ at all,
and are still in all of their sins.
Baby baptisms being a totally useless practise, as Christ and the Scripture
insist that belief in him, precedes baptism, which even your Church
practiced until the 13th Century, so it shows once again they have gone
astray on what they knew was the correct procedure.
And so now look at the terrible unholy mess the RCC have left umpteen
millions of lost-souls in.
So what can you and the others do about such a terrible position before God?
Acts 2:37 "Men and brethren, what shall we do?
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in
the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,
There you are Mike, if you really love Christ and want to obey him, and
inherit eternal life, you are being shown exactly what you must do.
Jeff...
BTW, as you have never been properly baptised, it will be your first
baptism, as this time you will have 'believed' before you are dunked. {;o;}
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist UK.RC
> In message <%uYKh.10031$0Z1...@newsfe7-win.ntli.net>, 1st Century
> Apostolic Traditionalist UK.RC <broadband@[remove].invalid> writes
>
>>I accept just what the Scripture teaches, sadly you won't, that Jesus was
>>a
>>MAN, not a god, nor an angel, and that is Gospel, yet you still stubbornly
>>refuse to accept that truth.
>
> Perhaps you would care to reflect on...
Sure, but it still does not alter the facts Mike, even though you snipped
them out.
Hebrews 2:17
16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him
the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren"
1 Timothy 1:5 "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men,
the man Christ Jesus;"
> In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
> God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made;
> without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that
> life was the light of men. (John 1:1-4)
>
> Or since you prefer KJV...
>
> In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
> God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him;
> and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and
> the life was the light of men.
> (KJV)
>
> What does 'the Word was God' mean, Jeff?
Just what it says, God's Word is God, as it emanates from Him, just as
Christ emanated from God when He sent his "ONLY begotten son" born of a
woman, thus
"God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through
him." 1 John 4: 9 ..........thus...... "The Word was made flesh, and dwelt
among us" John 1: 14
> Nothing else in your post matters unless you know Jesus as God.
I know Jesus as Almighty God taught about His son, not some 4th Century
contrived heresy.
"Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him
a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?" Hebrews 1:5
"This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased"
"7 And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the
cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him." Mark 9
> Nothing else in your post matters unless you know Jesus as God.
It all matters Mike, and I know Jesus as God's "Beloved Son" as God taught,
but you use it as a comfy escape route if you wish, but you are only fooling
yourself. just as you regarding your infant baptism.
Jeff...
Now Mike.....take a good long read of the following.
1 Corinthians 15:27 "For the rule and authority over all things has been
given to Christ by his Father; except, of course, Christ does not rule over
the Father himself, who gave him this power to rule.
28 When Christ has finally won the battle against all his enemies, then he,
the Son of God, will put himself also under his Father's orders, so that God
who has given him the victory over everything else will be utterly supreme"
Amen!
ian.ca...@ukonline.co.uk
news:TzDKh.8986$NK3....@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
>
> Better they start bemoaning themselves over all the evil people in their
> own
> church's who are really sinning, and bringing disgrace to God's name, by
> divorcing and remarrying, couples committing fornication by living in sin
> and refusing to get married, bishops and clergy indulging in same-sex
> abomination, and vile paedophilia offences.
> These are the things God hates......not slavery.
>
God
doesn't hate slavery: really? so the Christians that campaigned
against it
were all wrong?
--
Ian Cardinal
"We have to learn to be human along-side all sorts of others, the ones
whose
company we don't greatly like."
Archbishop Rowan Williams
Gordon Hudson
> I accept just what the Scripture teaches, sadly you won't, that Jesus was
> a
> MAN, not a god, nor an angel,
Why would I want to put my faith in a man then?
What can he do to help me compared to any other man for instance?
Where do dyou learn this?
From another person?
> and that is Gospel, yet you still stubbornly
> refuse to accept that truth.
> Hebrews 2:17
> 16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him
> the seed of Abraham.
> 17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his
> brethren"
That sounds to me like somnething that was not human taking on humanity.
> 1 Timothy 1:5 "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men,
> the man Christ Jesus;"
>
>>you are missing out on real joy.
>
> I am experiencing great joy Mike, as I believe 100% of what the Scripture
> teaches,
Is that the biblical canon pre or post reformation?
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist UK.RC
news:1174209515....@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist UK.RC"
> <broadband[remove]12...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:TzDKh.8986$NK3....@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
>>
>> Better they start bemoaning themselves over all the evil people in their
>> own
>> church's who are really sinning, and bringing disgrace to God's name, by
>> divorcing and remarrying, couples committing fornication by living in sin
>> and refusing to get married, bishops and clergy indulging in same-sex
>> abomination, and vile paedophilia offences.
>> These are the things God hates......not slavery.
>>
> Is it me, or does this statement not take other people's breath away?
It's not unusual for this to happen Ian. {;o;}
> God
> doesn't hate slavery: really?
Absolutely!
Leviticas 25:44 "As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you
may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are round about
you.
45 You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their
families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be
your property.
46 You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession
for ever;"
Amen!
>so the Christians that campaigned
> against it
> were all wrong?
Wrong to interfere in worldly affairs, and appalling wrong to apologise (in
their obvious ignorance) for their brethren when they owned slaves in the
past.
Where they should interfere, as is in the Churches, and excommunicate the
wicked among themselves as command, they fail abysmally, and we now see the
catastrophic results in the varies churches.
Jeff...
1 Corinthians 5: 11 "I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man
that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a
railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye
judge them that are within?
13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among
yourselves that wicked person."
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist UK.RC
news:45fd0456$0$758$5a6a...@news.aaisp.net.uk...
> "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist UK.RC"
> <broadband[remove]12...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:%uYKh.10031$0Z1...@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
>
>> I accept just what the Scripture teaches, sadly you won't, that Jesus was
>> a
>> MAN, not a god, nor an angel,
>
> Why would I want to put my faith in a man then?
Hi! Gordon.
Because that man, is Jesus Christ the very Son of Almighty God, also known
as the "Son of man". .....known as the second Adam, who also was a man.
> What can he do to help me compared to any other man for instance?
Give you forgiveness of your sins and when he Returns from heaven to rule
the world, immortality.
> Where do dyou learn this?
From the Holy Bible
> From another person?
If they read the Holy Bible, and adhere to what it states, certainly.
>> and that is Gospel, yet you still stubbornly
>> refuse to accept that truth.
>> Hebrews 2:17
>> 16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him
>> the seed of Abraham.
>> 17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his
>> brethren"
>
> That sounds to me like somnething that was not human taking on humanity.
Well God could have sent Christ in an Angelic form, but decided His son must
be
in Human form so he could suffer death. So as we read, Christ found himself
"Fashioned" as a man
through his human mother, just as we have found ourselves fashioned as men.
Others have been 'fashioned' as women.
>> 1 Timothy 1:5 "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and
>> men,
>> the man Christ Jesus;"
>>
>>>you are missing out on real joy.
>>
>> I am experiencing great joy Mike, as I believe 100% of what the Scripture
>> teaches,
>
> Is that the biblical canon pre or post reformation?
What we have today.....what happened to the Scriptures, in the past was
under God's jurisdiction and His concern, not mine.
Jeff...
Michael J Davis
>"Michael J Davis" <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:Kj4P1HDL...@trustsof.demon.co.uk.invalid...
>> In message <33iKh.2104$F82....@newsfe4-win.ntli.net>, 1st Century
>> Apostolic Traditionalist UK.RC <broadband@[remove].invalid> writes
>>><not...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>news:1173963570.7...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>>> err what's sola scripture ?
>>>
>>>The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and
>>>the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the
>>>"rule of faith" for Christ's Church. And all that one must believe to be
>>>a
>>>Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source.
>>
>> Why? That, for a start, is *not* in Scripture.
>
>That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian
>conscience.
>Like the constant hypocritical apologising by Christendom over Scripture
>endorsed slavery.
[snip]
>These are the things God hates......not slavery.
I can't believe you wrote that, Jeff. What is the meaning of 'neighbour'
as used by Jesus?
[snip]
Gareth McCaughan
[Mike:]
>> John 16:13-15 (NIV)
>>
>> We need the Holy Spirit ('Him' not 'it' - note)
[Jeff:]
> Strong's Note
>
> Greek Word: ekeino"
>
> Transliteration: ekeinos
>
> Part of Speech: pron
>
> 1) he, she it, etc.
You might want to learn a little about NT Greek before appealing
to it. It's true that the same word means "he", "she", and "it",
but Greek words can change their endings according to gender,
and the form "ekeinos" (as used in John 16:13 and 16:14) can't
possibly mean "it".
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist UK.RC
> Jeff Hickling wrote:
>
> [Mike:]
>>> John 16:13-15 (NIV)
>>>
>>> We need the Holy Spirit ('Him' not 'it' - note)
>
> [Jeff:]
>> Strong's Note
>>
>> Greek Word: ekeino"
>>
>> Transliteration: ekeinos
>>
>> Part of Speech: pron
>>
>> 1) he, she it, etc.
>
> You might want to learn a little about NT Greek before appealing
> to it.
Hold on, Mr. know-it-all.
I 'appealed' to Strong's Bible Concordance and it's indications,
I do need to even learn a little about the NT Greek, I leave that to the
compliers of the Concordance, who if the truth be known can understand the
NT Greek far better then even the great, all endowed, Gareth McCaughan.
>It's true that the same word means "he", "she", and "it",
> but Greek words can change their endings according to gender,
> and the form "ekeinos" (as used in John 16:13 and 16:14) can't
> possibly mean "it".
It can, just as "Wisdom" is called a 'she' instead of an 'it', as though
'wisdom' is an actual person, but it isn't, God's Spirit is just like that,
It is God's immense, awesome power, which serves Him and His commanded
purposes.
Otherwise a Holy Spirit 'person' would have to be divided into millions of
different life-form beings all at once. For God's Spirit is everywhere
holding everything together throughout the earht and the whole Universe.
Job 34:14 "If he set his heart upon man, if he gather unto himself his
spirit and his breath;
15 All flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust."
Thus 'He' is a mere metaphor for God's Spirit. 'It' or 'she' could be used
but the translators chose 'He'. So even when 'all is said and done' it is
not 'set in concrete'
Jeff...
Michael J Davis
<Gareth.M...@pobox.com> writes
Thank you, Gareth.
Gordon Hudson
> "Gordon Hudson" <host...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:45fd0456$0$758$5a6a...@news.aaisp.net.uk...
>> "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist UK.RC"
>> <broadband[remove]12...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> news:%uYKh.10031$0Z1...@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
>>
>>> I accept just what the Scripture teaches, sadly you won't, that Jesus
>>> was
>>> a
>>> MAN, not a god, nor an angel,
>>
>> Why would I want to put my faith in a man then?
>
> Hi! Gordon.
> Because that man, is Jesus Christ the very Son of Almighty God, also known
> as the "Son of man". .....known as the second Adam, who also was a man.
If he is the son of God does that not make him God?
I am a human therefore my sons are humans, not vegetables or minerals.
> Give you forgiveness of your sins
How can the death of a man make any difference to the results of my sin?
This makes no sense.
I could understand the possibility of opne person giving up his life to save
one other but how could one man be able to take the sins of all believers?
How could he be without sin if he was just a man?
>> Is that the biblical canon pre or post reformation?
>
> What we have today.....what happened to the Scriptures, in the past was
> under God's jurisdiction and His concern, not mine.
Even when it was done by the same church councils you so vehemently disagree
with about everything else?
Or by people who believed in all sorts of things you believe are heresies
(for example, Luther and Calvin both believed in the perpetual virginity of
Mary).
The problem is that you use a name which suggests that you are a
restorationist without having a full enough understanding of what the
christians believed in the first and second centuries, which was much more
varied than you think it was precisely because the issues of doctrine and
what constituted scripture had not been dealt with.
Robert Marshall
>
> ... appalling wrong to apologise (in their obvious ignorance) for
> their brethren when they owned slaves in the past.
Slavery being ok even when the slaves were taken prisoner using such
weapons as swords and guns?
Not to mention the treating of them as sub-human on the voyage across
to America
The violence perpetrated on slaves by the transporters and their owners
would I have thought made it beyond the pale even for you.
Feel free to produce examples of slaves who were transported
over America without using violent coercion!
Greetings (btw!)
Robert
--
Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a
strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.
-- Abraham Lincoln
Links and things http://rmstar.blogspot.com/
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist UK.RC
> "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist UK.RC"
> <broadband[remove]12...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:Vf9Lh.4488$B37....@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
>> "Gordon Hudson" <host...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:45fd0456$0$758$5a6a...@news.aaisp.net.uk...
>>> "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist UK.RC"
>>> <broadband[remove]12...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>>> news:%uYKh.10031$0Z1...@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
>>>
>>>> I accept just what the Scripture teaches, sadly you won't, that Jesus
>>>> was
>>>> a
>>>> MAN, not a god, nor an angel,
>>>
>>> Why would I want to put my faith in a man then?
>>
>> Hi! Gordon.
>> Because that man, is Jesus Christ the very Son of Almighty God, also
>> known
>> as the "Son of man". .....known as the second Adam, who also was a man.
>
> If he is the son of God does that not make him God?
> I am a human therefore my sons are humans, not vegetables or minerals.
Adam was not God and man both, was he? So what was the similarity?
First of all, both Jesus and Adam had no earthly father. Both were
called "son of God". (Luke 3:38)
Adam did not prove faithful to Jehovah, but Jesus kept his integrity
perfectly.
God is *not* the son of man. (Numbers 23:19) But Jesus *is*.
>> Give you forgiveness of your sins
>
> How can the death of a man make any difference to the results of my sin?
> This makes no sense.
It does if you study the NT Scriptures in a methodical and daily reading of
the Word.
> I could understand the possibility of opne person giving up his life to
> save one other but how could one man be able to take the sins of all
> believers?
> How could he be without sin if he was just a man?
Because he never once sinned by disobeying his Father in heaven.
Thus he was a perfect man and a perfect "lamb" sacrifice for human sin, and
this being so God granted him eternal life, and promised it to all who
accept Jesus as their saviour and are obedient unto death.
>>> Is that the biblical canon pre or post reformation?
>>
>> What we have today.....what happened to the Scriptures, in the past was
>> under God's jurisdiction and His concern, not mine.
>
> Even when it was done by the same church councils you so vehemently
> disagree with about everything else?
Yes! God throughout human history has often used evil people to carry out
His desired Will.
> Or by people who believed in all sorts of things you believe are heresies
> (for example, Luther and Calvin both believed in the perpetual virginity
> of Mary).
See above.
> The problem is that you use a name which suggests that you are a
> restorationist without having a full enough understanding of what the
> christians believed in the first and second centuries, which was much more
> varied than you think it was precisely because the issues of doctrine and
> what constituted scripture had not been dealt with.
They have all been dealt with within the NT Scriptures, so relax and simply
adhere to them.
1 Timothy 6:3 "These things teach and exhort.
If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the
words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to
godliness;
4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of
words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth,
supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself."
Jeff...
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist UK.RC
news:m11wjmz...@chezmarshall.freeserve.co.uk...
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2007, broadband[remove]12...@ntlworld.com wrote:
>
>>
>> ... appalling wrong to apologise (in their obvious ignorance) for
>> their brethren when they owned slaves in the past.
>
> Slavery being ok even when the slaves were taken prisoner using such
> weapons as swords and guns?
Hi! Robert. {;o;}
True Christians would not use such methods to obtain slaves.
> Not to mention the treating of them as sub-human on the voyage across
> to America
> The violence perpetrated on slaves by the transporters and their owners
> would I have thought made it beyond the pale even for you.
I am referring to owning slaves as a Christian, and treating them as NT
Scripture commands.
What people in the world do in their evil ways is not my concern, I am only
concerned that the names of past God-fearing Christians are not blackened
because human sentiment NOW considers slavery abhorrent, God doesn't, and
that is all that really matters.
The appalling hypocrisy is, the things that really displease God and what He
finds abhorrent is now practiced openly in almost all the churches and yet
these same Christian people who carry on about slavery, couldn't give a jot
about the wicked Adulterers, fornicators, same-sex offenders, uncovered
women praying and peaking in the churches, all sin and unrighteous acts
before Almighty God.
Can the blind lead the blind, won't they both fall into the ditch?
> Feel free to produce examples of slaves who were transported
> over America without using violent coercion!
That is not the issues as I have amply stated above.
Jeff...
Robert Marshall
> "Robert Marshall" <sp...@chezmarshall.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:m11wjmz...@chezmarshall.freeserve.co.uk...
>> On Sun, 18 Mar 2007, broadband[remove]12...@ntlworld.com wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> ... appalling wrong to apologise (in their obvious ignorance) for
>>> their brethren when they owned slaves in the past.
>>
>> Slavery being ok even when the slaves were taken prisoner using
>> such weapons as swords and guns?
>
> Hi! Robert. {;o;}
> True Christians would not use such methods to obtain slaves.
>
No comment ;-)
<snip>
>> Feel free to produce examples of slaves who were transported
>> over America without using violent coercion!
>
> That is not the issues as I have amply stated above.
So none of the slaves taken during the cross-Atlantic slave trade
were taken by Christian methods?
But that context is precisely where the apologies that you so object
to are coming from
Robert
--
Let us in the name of the Holy Trinity go on sending all
the slaves that can be sold.
-- Christopher Columbus
Gareth McCaughan
> "Gareth McCaughan" <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote in message
> news:87ircyl...@g.mccaughan.org.uk...
>> Jeff Hickling wrote:
>>
>> [Mike:]
>>>> John 16:13-15 (NIV)
>>>>
>>>> We need the Holy Spirit ('Him' not 'it' - note)
>>
>> [Jeff:]
>>> Strong's Note
>>>
>>> Greek Word: ekeino"
>>>
>>> Transliteration: ekeinos
>>>
>>> Part of Speech: pron
>>>
>>> 1) he, she it, etc.
>>
>> You might want to learn a little about NT Greek before appealing
>> to it.
>
> Hold on, Mr. know-it-all.
I don't know it all. I just know (on some subjects) more than you.
> I 'appealed' to Strong's Bible Concordance and it's indications,
> I do need to even learn a little about the NT Greek, I leave that to the
> compliers of the Concordance, who if the truth be known can understand the
> NT Greek far better then even the great, all endowed, Gareth McCaughan.
I'm absolutely sure that the authors of Strong's knew
much more NT Greek than me. But it's not the authors
of Strong's who are claiming that what's translated
as "he" in John 16:13ff could just as well be translated
as "it". That bit is your invention, and your quotation
from Strong's doesn't support it at all.
>> It's true that the same word means "he", "she", and "it",
>> but Greek words can change their endings according to gender,
>> and the form "ekeinos" (as used in John 16:13 and 16:14) can't
>> possibly mean "it".
>
> It can, just as "Wisdom" is called a 'she' instead of an 'it', as though
> 'wisdom' is an actual person, but it isn't, God's Spirit is just like that,
> It is God's immense, awesome power, which serves Him and His commanded
> purposes.
OK, so let me clarify, because there are different kinds of "meaning"
flying around here. I don't disagree that someone can say "he"
but not really be referring (or think they're referring) to a
person. Whether it's plausible that the author of John's gospel
was doing *that* is a question that can't be addressed by looking
at the meanings of the words he happened to use. Anyone can use a
word idiosyncratically if they choose to.
Where I disagree is if you claim that the *words* used in John 16:13ff
can mean "it" rather than "he". They can't, even though they could
*be used* to mean that; the distinction is subtle, perhaps, but
very important. Perhaps an example will help to clarify it.
Earlier, you referred to me as "the great, all endowed, Gareth
McCaughan". Now, it's entirely clear that you don't in fact
think I am great or all-endowed, and anyone who thought you did
would seriously misunderstand you. But if you look up those words
in a dictionary you won't find definitions like "contemptible"
or "arrogant" or whatever; it's not a dictionary's job to explain
all the ways in which words can be used ironically, metaphorically,
and so on.
Strong's tells you, or at least intends to (I don't know exactly
how accurate or how complete it is), the literal meaning of the
words. When it says that "ekeinos" can mean "he, she or it",
what it means is that "ekeinos" can mean "he" and "ekeino" can
mean "it" and "ekeine" can mean "she", and so on. The fact that
different forms of the word for "he" can also mean "it" is
completely irrelevant to John 16:13,14, which unambiguously
(as far as the literal meaning goes) says "he". Yes, it's
possible that the author was using the word nonliterally,
but that would be just as possible even if there weren't another
form of the word "ekeinos" that means "it". What Strong's says
is *completely irrelevant* to the point you're making.
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist UK.RC
> possible that the author was using the word nonliterally,
Excellent Gareth, I am so pleased you were able to work that one out.
> but that would be just as possible even if there weren't another
> form of the word "ekeinos" that means "it".
Ah! but it does mean "it", and that brings a more powerful bearing on the
point.
If it could not have also meant "it" you would have no doubt in my mind,
been overwhelming me with cries of..... "the Greek word cannot be translated
using that word at all, please get your facts right".
> What Strong's says
> is *completely irrelevant* to the point you're making.
No it's not, as one of the points *I* was making, which apparently
keeps slipping past you, that the Greek word as shown in Strong's
Concordance can be translated as either He/She/It in the passage that were
mentioned.
OK?
Jeff...
marca...@hotmail.co.uk
wrote:
I apologise if i've got your statement incorrect, but if this has
anything to do with the bible and slavery, I would say that the bible
gives progressive light.
First God made slavery more humane, then finally the principles of the
gospel led to its abolition.
God gives light, step by step and we can't judge people in the past by
what we know today.
American slavery was clearly wrong and inhumane and there was no
excuse because they should have known better.
God Bless
Marc
Gordon Hudson
> Hold on, Mr. know-it-all.
> I 'appealed' to Strong's Bible Concordance and it's indications,
> I do need to even learn a little about the NT Greek, I leave that to the
> compliers of the Concordance, who if the truth be known can understand
> the
> NT Greek far better then even the great, all endowed, Gareth McCaughan.
Mmm, the writers of dictionaries give ALL the possible meanings of a word.
Words can have more than one meaning which is infered by its context.
The writers of dictionaries assume you have the language skills to be able
to work that out.
If you do not have the language skills then you have to rely on translations
and commentaries by people who have the language skills.
A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.
Gordon Hudson
>
> They have all been dealt with within the NT Scriptures, so relax and
> simply adhere to them.
>
> 1 Timothy 6:3 "These things teach and exhort.
> If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the
> words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to
> godliness;
> 4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of
> words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
> 5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth,
> supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself."
See the verses that went before:
1Ti 6:1 Those who are slaves must consider their masters worthy of all
respect, so that no one will speak evil of the name of God and of our
teaching.
1Ti 6:2 Slaves belonging to Christian masters must not despise them, for
they are believers too. Instead, they are to serve them even better, because
those who benefit from their work are believers whom they love. You must
teach and preach these things.
Gareth McCaughan
> "Gareth McCaughan" <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote in message
>> Yes, it's
>> possible that the author was using the word nonliterally,
>
> Excellent Gareth, I am so pleased you were able to work that one out.
Sorry, but patronizing me doesn't work.
>> but that would be just as possible even if there weren't another
>> form of the word "ekeinos" that means "it".
>
> Ah! but it does mean "it", and that brings a more powerful bearing on the
> point.
> If it could not have also meant "it" you would have no doubt in my mind,
> been overwhelming me with cries of..... "the Greek word cannot be translated
> using that word at all, please get your facts right".
Er, that's exactly what I've said, just not quite so rudely.
>> What Strong's says
>> is *completely irrelevant* to the point you're making.
>
> No it's not, as one of the points *I* was making, which apparently
> keeps slipping past you, that the Greek word as shown in Strong's
> Concordance can be translated as either He/She/It in the passage that were
> mentioned.
> OK?
No, because Strong's *does not say that* and you've misunderstood it
if you think it does. Which was precisely my original point.
It's not "slipping past me"; I understand it and disagreed with it
and explained why. At which point you switched to a different
argument (that the author could have been using the word nonliterally).
Let me summarize.
1. The word one of whose forms is "ekeinos" has forms that mean
"it" as well as forms that mean "he".
2. The particular form used in John 16:13,14 (namely "ekeinos",
is not one of them; it only means "he".
3. To translate that word as "it" would be a mistake.
3. That doesn't make it impossible that the author of John 16:13,14
might have said "he" and meant "it". (Even if so, translating the
word as "it" would be an error, just as if someone chooses to
refer to Nature as "She" it would be a mistake to put that into
another language with an impersonal pronoun; the author chose to
personalize, and reversing that choice isn't translation but
paraphrase.)
4. Strong's doesn't say that "ekeinos" can mean "it"; if you think
it does then you have misunderstood. What it's saying is #1 above.
5. The Strong's entry you quoted therefore offers no support
at all to your claim that the authors of the NT didn't regard
the Holy Spirit as a person.
6. I'm making no comment on that claim itself; assessing it would
require a careful look at all the references to the Spirit in
the NT, and I have other things I'd rather do with my time.
I'm just pointing out that quoting Strong's isn't relevant.
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist UK.RC
Yes! Gordon.
Liked the picture BTW.
I keep pointing these verses out to those who are ashamed of Christians
having had slaves and keep trying to apologise for their God-given right to
own slaves.
I just don't understand such unscriptural objections, as NT Scripture
teaching is plain enough.
Still it's the same up-side-down mentality when showing the hypocrisy of all
the *real evils* being carried on the churches with the happy consent of the
anti-slavers.
Human sentiment fighting Spiritual enlightenment, never ceases to fascinate
me. {;o;}
Jeff...
Kendall K. Down
"Gordon Hudson" <host...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.
Speaking which, I am reminded of a report in the Statesman newspaper in
India many years ago. Someone in a village panchayat (council) who could
understand a little English managed to read a news item in which the
reporter stated that in the course of her speech, "Indira Gandhi hit the
bull's eye". The panchayat member, a devout Hindu, was outraged at the
thought that the prime minister was going around hitting sacred bulls in the
eye and called an emergency meeting, which rapidly degenerated into a riot
in which one person was killed and three were hospitalised with lathi
wounds.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist UK.RC
> Jeff Hickling wrote:
>
>> "Gareth McCaughan" <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote in message
>>> Yes, it's
>>> possible that the author was using the word nonliterally,
>>
>> Excellent Gareth, I am so pleased you were able to work that one out.
>
> Sorry, but patronizing me doesn't work.
And exuding an icy pomposity, in many of your replies, doesn't
work with me either. {;o;}
<snipped>
Another overblown word rant, but finally getting to your point.
> I'm just pointing out that quoting Strong's isn't relevant.
It is to my way of thinking, and I will use it's excellent source whenever
I feel it makes a contributing point, whether enemies of Almighty God and
Christ, like it or not. {;o;}
Jeff...
Please hearken to Paul's warning.
"22 If anyone does not love the Lord, that person is cursed."
1 Cor 16:21-22 (LB)
Michael J Davis
Apostolic Traditionalist UK.RC <broadband@[remove].invalid> writes
>"Michael J Davis" <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> [snip]
>>
>>>These are the things God hates......not slavery.
>>
>> I can't believe you wrote that, Jeff.
>
>Colos. 4: 1 "Masters, treat your slaves with justice and fairness, for you
>know that you also have a master in heaven."
Jeff - the ** whole ** Bible is about freeing people from slavery. What
was the Exodus? What was the restoration from Exile? What was the death
& resurrection of Jesus?
A. To save God's people from being dominated by evil & sin. This is the
whole thrust of the Bible made possible by Jesus.
Sure, I am concerned that it took a long time for the Christian Church
to take action against slavery. Because those who wanted to ignore it
could find certain instructions in the OT that limited the behaviour of
masters to slaves[1]. (Note also the significance of 'jubilee' the 49 +
1 year in which slaves were freed.)
[1] Just as those who wish vengeance can use the 'eye for an
eye' limitation as a justification.
But while I don't disagree with you concerning *my* sin, *your* sin, and
everybody else's sin - for all need to repent and continue repenting - I
also see no reason to continue to rub people's noses into their own sin.
Pointing to the grace, forgiveness and mercy of Jesus that sets people
free, and gives them new life is - in my experience - much more fruitful
than making them look at their sin. You see, the power of God is so
much grater than the enemy's slavery that people brought to Jesus can be
rid of sin (not necessarily all the habits of sin in one go).
Not everyone who calls themselves a Christian throughout the ages has
availed themselves of the grace of God. That is why you can find
examples of evil - even structural evil - in the organisations set up to
do God's work. But equally, if you close your eyes to the good that has
been done in the name of Christ throughout the last 2000 years, you will
also see the grace and power of God at work.
Where you and I disagree profoundly, is that you seem to think that
people have to become perfect under their own power before approaching
the throne of grace.
And that, my friend, is not the experience of those first century
Christians who followed Christ.
When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the
"sinners" and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: "Why does he eat
with tax collectors and 'sinners'?" On hearing this, Jesus said to them,
"It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come
to call the righteous, but sinners."
And you seem to be the devil's terrier savaging people because they have
sinned. I prefer to attempt to be the Lord's sheepdog, helping to guide
people towards the Shepherd who gives freedom and forgiveness.
>
>But look! 'O' Dear, you snipped out the things God really hates, Mike.
>Why do that, yet make attempts to vilify slavery?
>
>>What is the meaning of 'neighbour'
>> as used by Jesus?
>
>You know what it means Mike, but still slavery is not on God's agenda as a
>sin.
>No matter how many try and cry 'foul'. But killing your neighbour is
>.....<Inquisitions, holy wars etc>
>
>Yet the things you neatly snipped out, are, very foul, so why not go on
>about those things Mike, for many are happening in most of the churches
>today, including the RCC, and they are really sinful and abhorrent to God.
>But slave owning isn't abhorrent to God.
>
>Colos. 4: 1 "Masters, treat your slaves with justice and fairness, for you
>know that you also have a master in heaven."
>
>Indeed Christian slaves are commanded to work even harder if their Masters
>are brethren of Christ. How come Mike?
>1 Timothy 6:1 "All who are under the yoke of slavery should regard their own
>masters to be deserving of the highest respect, so that the name of God and
>our teaching may not be discredited.
>2 Moreover, those who have believing masters should not be disrespectful to
>them because they are fellow believers. Rather, they must serve them even
>better, because those who benefit from their service are believers and dear
>to them. These are the things you must teach and exhort." (ISV)
>
>I errr.....haven't noticed you or other dedicated Christans teaching and
>exhorting such things, Mike. {;o;}
>I've been trying as you know, but I am not greeted with a much favourable
>response, on the contrary.....I'm the 'nasty' guy around here....{;o;}
>
>Jeff...
Michael J Davis
>Another overblown word rant, but finally getting to your point.
Umm, 'pot' & 'kettle' come to mind.
>> I'm just pointing out that quoting Strong's isn't relevant.
>
>It is to my way of thinking, and I will use it's excellent source whenever
>I feel it makes a contributing point, whether enemies of Almighty God and
>Christ, like it or not. {;o;}
Jeff, do you *really* not understand Gareth's point? If 'to your way of
thinking' cannot understand the point that Gareth clearly - and
objectively - made, then I'm truly sorry. We are just not going to get
anywhere.
Gareth's point is valid and nothing you have said has dealt with it.
Bluster is not enough.
I appreciate Gareth's interjection, because he is someone I would call a
man of integrity, even when he is disagreeing with me. It is his
integrity that has led him to his current faith position, and I accept
that God understands that too! ;-)
He dealt with the point I was making with an understanding that, I fear,
I would only be able to copy out of a book.
Also he made a good point about the purpose and the result of Strong's
excellent research that needs to be understood by someone who likes to
quote the Bible at length.
Mike
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist UK.RC
> everybody else's sin - for all need to repent and continue repenting - I
> also see no reason to continue to rub people's noses into their own sin.
Look Mike, I am only doing it to bring to notice important life and death
issues for sincere and responsible God-fearing Christians, that neglected
can lead to rejection at the judgment seat.
If I was not truly and honestly concerned for your welfare and that of
others, I would just leave you and them to 'Stew in your own juice's as the
saying goes.
Events took me away from here for some years, on my return I hoped some
lessons may have been learnt in combating the terrible errors of doctrine
that had permeated the churches and this NG.
Yet nothing has changed or improved that would bring hope or joy, as I see
most are still stuck in a time-warp of an elementary and an unspiritual
lack of appreciation for trying to explain some of the most basic errors of
doctrine that are still propagated as 'Sound doctrine" on here, but lack
the very basis of any Scriptural integrity.
It is sad and disheartening, but then, that is the way of things I suppose.
As Jesus warned.....
"When the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth? Luke 18:7
"Many are called, few are chosen"
And dear brother Paul....
2 Timothy 2:3 "For the time will come when people will not put up with
healthy doctrine but with itching ears will surround themselves with
teachers who cater to their own needs.
4 They will refuse to listen to the truth and will turn to myths.
5 But you must be clear-headed about everything. Endure suffering. Do the
work of an evangelist. Devote yourself completely to your ministry."
Amen!
Jeff...
Jeremiah 20: 8 "Because the word of the LORD was made a reproach unto me,
and a derision, daily.
9 Then I said, I will not make mention of him, nor speak any more in his
name. But his word was in mine heart as a burning fire shut up in my bones,
and I was weary with forbearing, and I could not stay.
10 For I heard the defaming of many, fear on every side. Report, say they,
and we will report it. All my familiars watched for my halting, saying,
Peradventure he will be enticed, and we shall prevail against him."
Michael J Davis
>> But while I don't disagree with you concerning *my* sin, *your* sin, and
>> everybody else's sin - for all need to repent and continue repenting - I
>> also see no reason to continue to rub people's noses into their own sin.
>
>Look Mike, I am only doing it to bring to notice important life and death
>issues for sincere and responsible God-fearing Christians, that neglected
>can lead to rejection at the judgment seat.
>
>If I was not truly and honestly concerned for your welfare and that of
>others, I would just leave you and them to 'Stew in your own juice's as the
>saying goes.
I recognise that Jeff - and I, equally truly and equally honestly, wish
that you could understand my concern for you. ;-)
>Events took me away from here for some years, on my return I hoped some
>lessons may have been learnt in combating the terrible errors of doctrine
>that had permeated the churches and this NG.
I think you may have learned something, in that I find it easier to talk
to you, for I am not trying to 'make a Catholic of you', but I am trying
to point you to the living Jesus who is the source of scripture and the
centre of my worship. The one who sets us free. And I speak of Him
because He set me free from churchianity and dead religion.
That is my experience, that is my joy, that is my delight.
>Yet nothing has changed or improved that would bring hope or joy, as I see
>most are still stuck in a time-warp of an elementary and an unspiritual
>lack of appreciation for trying to explain some of the most basic errors of
>doctrine that are still propagated as 'Sound doctrine" on here, but lack
>the very basis of any Scriptural integrity.
I am not posting here to castigate others, but to proclaim God's love
for them, however deep in sin they may be. I know only of God's love
for me and that if He loves me, indeed, if Jesus Himself can die for
*me*, then I want others to know the wonder of such life. Even though I
have a long way to go to be perfected.
>It is sad and disheartening, but then, that is the way of things I suppose.
>As Jesus warned.....
>"When the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth? Luke 18:7
>"Many are called, few are chosen"
However true that be, it is the Holy Spirit that convicts people of
their sin at the appropriate time, and He (mostly) does that quietly and
deeply.
>And dear brother Paul....
>2 Timothy 2:3 "For the time will come when people will not put up with
>healthy doctrine but with itching ears will surround themselves with
>teachers who cater to their own needs.
>4 They will refuse to listen to the truth and will turn to myths.
>5 But you must be clear-headed about everything. Endure suffering. Do the
>work of an evangelist. Devote yourself completely to your ministry."
>Amen!
Again verses 2 & 3 are true indeed, but the words to Timothy may not be
for you. How many have you converted - in this way - Jeff? Are you
*certain* this is the right ministry for you?
>Jeff...
>Jeremiah 20: 8 "Because the word of the LORD was made a reproach unto me,
>and a derision, daily.
>9 Then I said, I will not make mention of him, nor speak any more in his
>name. But his word was in mine heart as a burning fire shut up in my bones,
>and I was weary with forbearing, and I could not stay.
I know the feeling well enough.
>10 For I heard the defaming of many, fear on every side. Report, say they,
>and we will report it. All my familiars watched for my halting, saying,
>Peradventure he will be enticed, and we shall prevail against him."
Because people are against you is no proof that your message is God's.
Ask the person of the Holy Spirit to come to you Jeff, and worship Jesus
Christ, and know the power of the Good News.
In Christ
Mike
Paul Wright
> Events took me away from here for some years
Ah yes, about that:
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.religion.christian/msg/139922f7f0636d53?
> It is sad and disheartening, but then, that is the way of things I suppose.
> As Jesus warned.....
> "When the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth? Luke 18:7
> "Many are called, few are chosen"
>
> And dear brother Paul....
> 2 Timothy 2:3 "For the time will come when people will not put up with
> healthy doctrine but with itching ears will surround themselves with
> teachers who cater to their own needs.
> 4 They will refuse to listen to the truth and will turn to myths.
> 5 But you must be clear-headed about everything. Endure suffering. Do the
> work of an evangelist. Devote yourself completely to your ministry."
As Paul also said:
"But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in
craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by
manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's
conscience in the sight of God." 2 Cor 4:2.
--
Paul Wright | http://pobox.com/~pw201 | http://blog.noctua.org.uk/
Reply address is valid but discards anything which isn't plain text
Gareth McCaughan
> "Gareth McCaughan" <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote in message
> news:87slc1j...@g.mccaughan.org.uk...
>> Jeff Hickling wrote:
>>
>>> "Gareth McCaughan" <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote in message
>>>> Yes, it's
>>>> possible that the author was using the word nonliterally,
>>>
>>> Excellent Gareth, I am so pleased you were able to work that one out.
>>
>> Sorry, but patronizing me doesn't work.
>
> And exuding an icy pomposity, in many of your replies, doesn't
> work with me either. {;o;}
Noted.
>
> <snipped>
> Another overblown word rant, but finally getting to your point.
No, it's not a rant. It's an attempt to explain something that
you seem unable or unwilling to understand.
>> I'm just pointing out that quoting Strong's isn't relevant.
>
> It is to my way of thinking, and I will use it's excellent source whenever
> I feel it makes a contributing point, whether enemies of Almighty God and
> Christ, like it or not. {;o;}
This has got nothing whatever to do with whether I "like"
either Strong's or your use of it. You have stumbled into
a very elementary misunderstanding of what it means. I've
tried to explain where you've gone wrong, but you won't
take any notice. Fair enough; I've done what I can.
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist UK.RC
> In message <hWYLh.12435$0Z1....@newsfe7-win.ntli.net>, 1st Century
> Apostolic Traditionalist UK.RC <broadband@[remove].invalid> writes
>>"Michael J Davis" <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> But while I don't disagree with you concerning *my* sin, *your* sin, and
>>> everybody else's sin - for all need to repent and continue repenting - I
>>> also see no reason to continue to rub people's noses into their own sin.
>>
>>Look Mike, I am only doing it to bring to notice important life and death
>>issues for sincere and responsible God-fearing Christians, that neglected
>>can lead to rejection at the judgment seat.
>>
>>If I was not truly and honestly concerned for your welfare and that of
>>others, I would just leave you and them to 'Stew in your own juice's as
>>the
>>saying goes.
>
> I recognise that Jeff - and I, equally truly and equally honestly, wish
> that you could understand my concern for you. ;-)
>
>>Events took me away from here for some years, on my return I hoped some
>>lessons may have been learnt in combating the terrible errors of doctrine
>>that had permeated the churches and this NG.
>
> I think you may have learned something, in that I find it easier to talk
> to you, for I am not trying to 'make a Catholic of you', but I am trying
> to point you to the living Jesus who is the source of scripture and the
> centre of my worship.
Mike, thank you, but I am very well aware of it, why do you think I am so
concerned about your chronic state of unbaptism as is practised in NT
teaching. If you did really make Christ the "Centre of (my) worship" you
would have made sure you were baptised in the correct manner commanded of by
Christ himself. "He that BELIEVETH and is baptised shall be saved" for as
you are aware 'unbelief' which was the position in your case, *hinders* the
person from being baptised.
In other words, its a pointless exercise, even if it was by a dunking as a
baby, and yours wasn't even that, so how you can carry on not seeing it,
shows you cannot really have Christ as your centre of worship.
Because you would make sure you properly fulfilled the criteria for an
authentic 1st Century Christian baptism.
But you prefer to leave things as they are, which is fine if you wish to
remain in an unbaptised state, which as we both know means, our past sins
are unforgiven, as are our present ones, and thus we are not part of Christ,
as we are told by Scripture, that an authentic baptism requires *belief in
Christ* before it can be performed.
The way your church and other off shoots operates it's baby baptism routine,
is completely wrong and is not a doctrine from Scripture, it's a man-induced
doctrine applied in the 13th Century. Thus it, and you, have rejected what
was formally accepted as the way Christians were initiated into Christ.
If you wish to carry on like you are, then go ahead, but please do not try
and argue that Christ is the centre of your worship, because it cannot be
true, as you reject the first thing that Christ insists we must have, before
a baptism God will recognizes takes place, and that is *belief*, something
it was impossible to have when you had water merely sprinkled or 'poured' as
you say it really was, on your head as an unbelieving baby.
>The one who sets us free.
Yes! but only if you follow the correct procedure of initiation into Christ,
other wise all other 'back-door' attempts will profit no-one, most of all
the poor beggars being denied an authentic baptism acceptable both by Christ
and Almighty God.
>And I speak of Him because He set me free from churchianity and dead
>religion.
But he hasn't Mike, because you refuse to let Him set you free from
"churchianity and dead religion" for the terrible critical errors made
willingly over the past 1600 years by your church, which has apparently
firmly trapped you in it, right up to the hilt.
> That is my experience, that is my joy, that is my delight.
Ok, but I have tried to free you from it's terrible bondage, and get you to
realise you are not in a state of grace before God, as your baptism was not
Scriptural.
>>Yet nothing has changed or improved that would bring hope or joy, as I see
>>most are still stuck in a time-warp of an elementary and an unspiritual
>>lack of appreciation for trying to explain some of the most basic errors
>>of
>>doctrine that are still propagated as 'Sound doctrine" on here, but lack
>>the very basis of any Scriptural integrity.
>
> I am not posting here to castigate others, but to proclaim God's love for
> them, however deep in sin they may be.
Look! if you do love God and yourself, get properly baptised into His saving
name and "Put on Christ" and then you have your past sins forgiven.
> I know only of God's love
> for me and that if He loves me, indeed, if Jesus Himself can die for *me*,
> then I want others to know the wonder of such life. Even though I have a
> long way to go to be perfected.
Then set the example to others and obey the first command of Christ after
believing in him and the things "Concerning the kingdom of God" and Get
baptised!!!! and do it by being "Buried with him" in water "in baptism" as
Scripture teaching.
But you have to throw away the pride and embarrassment of having to admit
your baptism was not authentic as 1st Century Christians practised, and
that would be difficult for you being so popular and respected in your
circle or friends and in your church, I suppose.
Nonetheless, such is the work necessary to become an authentic baptised
believer, and not just a child who was sprinkled over the head with water
while in a complete state of UNBELIEF.
Jeff...
I will reply to the rest of your post later.
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist UK.RC
> In message <hWYLh.12435$0Z1....@newsfe7-win.ntli.net>, 1st Century
> Apostolic Traditionalist UK.RC <broadband@[remove].invalid> writes
>>2 Timothy 2:3 "For the time will come when people will not put up with
>>healthy doctrine but with itching ears will surround themselves with
>>teachers who cater to their own needs.
>>4 They will refuse to listen to the truth and will turn to myths.
>>5 But you must be clear-headed about everything. Endure suffering. Do the
>>work of an evangelist. Devote yourself completely to your ministry."
>>Amen!
>
> Again verses 2 & 3 are true indeed, but the words to Timothy may not be
> for you. How many have you converted - in this way - Jeff?
Seven in 30 years Mike, just as righteous Noah....
He managed seven in 120 years....{;o;}
> Are you
> *certain* this is the right ministry for you?
Yes! it suits me perfectly, and it has enabled me to witness over many years
to a world wide audience.
Almost all speak only of the "goodness" of God, but exceptionally few
witness to His "severity", which is just important for all believers to
understand. Thus I endeavour to correct an imbalance.
>>Jeremiah 20: 8 "Because the word of the LORD was made a reproach unto me,
>>and a derision, daily.
>>9 Then I said, I will not make mention of him, nor speak any more in his
>>name. But his word was in mine heart as a burning fire shut up in my
>>bones,
>>and I was weary with forbearing, and I could not stay.
>
> I know the feeling well enough.
If only it was true about the most basic of doctrines you deny.
>>10 For I heard the defaming of many, fear on every side. Report, say they,
>>and we will report it. All my familiars watched for my halting, saying,
>>Peradventure he will be enticed, and we shall prevail against him."
> Because people are against you is no proof that your message is God's.
No! but when they are against because I tell them truths they don't want to
listen to, or refuse to hearken to plain Scripture teaching, I know I am
pressing the right buttons. {;o;}
> Ask the person of the Holy Spirit to come to you Jeff,
Not when God's awesome Spirit is NOT a person, I won't.
God has given us His commands in His Spirit-Filled-Word, and that is
sufficient for anyone today.
Your own Church's sordid History and even yourself, prove that you both lack
the influence of the Holy Spirit, so please don't try on that one.
> and worship Jesus
> Christ,
Mike truthfully, if you really worship Christ you will be properly baptised
as he has commanded. Belief *before* baptism, by immersion in water.
>and know the power of the Good News.
Sorry Mike, but I have to keep pressing this important point to you, for
none of us know just when the Lord will decide to take back our life force.
Without an authentic baptism, which has not happened yet in your case, the
Good News is slowly passing you by......perhaps for good......unless you do
something about it. ASAP.
Jeff...
Acts 22:16 "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away
thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist UK.RC
> man of integrity, even when he is disagreeing with me. It is his
> integrity that has led him to his current faith position,
[I guess it's my turn now.]
I don't believe you have said that Mike.
What kind of up-side-down mentality is that?
Scripture warns that everyone who rejects Christ after accepting him are in
for a terrible punishment, ever worse then under Moses Law.
Hebrews 10: 28 "He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or
three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who
hath trodden under foot the Son of God."
Now, as for anyone who denies that God exists..... Psalms 54: 1 The fool
hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done
abominable iniquity:"
...... after being invited by Him to eternal Life and freedom from their
sins is certainly not in my mind, a person of "integrity", far, far, from
it.
Frankly, words like, mindless stupidly and foolishness, come to mind.
Hebrews 10:30 "For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me,
I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his
people.
31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."
And....Jesus :
Luke 11:23 "The person who isn't with me is against me, and the person who
doesn't gather with me scatters."
>It is his
> integrity that has led him to his current faith position,
>and I accept
> that God understands that too! ;-)
And you keep trying to impress on me you are lead by God's Spirit?
Really! Mike.
What does Paul have to say.....
1Cor. 6:22 "If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema
Maranatha."
Work that one out from the Greek.
I always find using 'Strong's Exhaustive' is very helpful. {;o;}
> Also he made a good point about the purpose and the result of Strong's
> excellent research that needs to be understood by someone who likes to
> quote the Bible at length.
And I understand, it's there to show just what a word can be translated into
English as, and I use it for that purpose, it could have been He/She/It, and
that is what I stated.
And it's still true, irrespective of Gareth's unsolicited interjection.
Jeff...
Job 34:4 "The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty
hath given me life."
Michael J Davis
Jeff, as it happens I have renewed my Baptismal commitment in the River
Jordan, near where (we assume) Jesus was baptised. Since you so insist
on the proper form of baptism (as you mentioned to me two weeks ago)
then I hope that your baptism was in the Jordan, too. For otherwise you
are falling short of God's instructions, are you not?
But I fear that you are falling short in other ways too. You see, when
you were baptised you did not believe in the Godhead of the Holy
Trinity, in whose name you were baptised - "In the name of the Father
and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".
Clearly, going through the form of baptism while having reservations
about it nullifies it. Let me point out to you again the passage from
Acts you recently referred me to. And let me explain.
Acts 19:1-7
While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior
and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples and asked them,
"Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"
[Why do you supposed he asked that question? I suggest that it was
*obvious* there was something in them that was missing. They did not
know Jesus as Lord and God.]
They answered, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."
So Paul asked, "Then what baptism did you receive?" "John's baptism,"
they replied.
[Clearly their ignorance at baptism resulted in some deficiency.]
Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the
people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus."
On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.
When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and
they spoke in tongues and prophesied. There were about twelve men in
all.
But when they were baptised and received both Jesus and the Holy Spirit
we see changes happening - they spoke in tongues and prophesied!
Did you have hands laid upon you to receive the Holy Spirit - have you
in fact been baptised in the Spirit? Or have you simply been through a
form of immersion which you accepted with reservations - denying the
divinity of Jesus, and so missing our on the power and the joy of the
Spirit? Did you, like St Thomas, say to Jesus, "my Lord and my God!"?
Now I ask you, Jeff, what visible changes actually occurred in you
through the action of the Holy Spirit? Oh I forgot, you still deny the
Biblical evidence that goes with the Spirit - the Charisms that give
power to your preaching.
Remind me Jeff, since leaving the Christadelphian church, how many
disciples have you made? You say (elsewhere) seven in 30 years. Are they
still members of your church or have they moved to other churches?
How many worship with you? Do *you* know the power of the Spirit
assuring you that you are, in fact, preaching His message?
Blessings
Michael J Davis
>"Michael J Davis" <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> In message <%uYKh.10031$0Z1...@newsfe7-win.ntli.net>, 1st Century
>> Apostolic Traditionalist UK.RC <broadband@[remove].invalid> writes
>>
>>>a
>>>refuse to accept that truth.
>>
>> Perhaps you would care to reflect on...
>
>Sure, but it still does not alter the facts Mike, even though you snipped
>them out.
>Hebrews 2:17
>16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him
>the seed of Abraham.
>17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren"
>
> 1 Timothy 1:5 "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men,
>the man Christ Jesus;"
>
>> In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
>> God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made;
>> without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that
>> life was the light of men. (John 1:1-4)
>>
>> Or since you prefer KJV...
>>
>> In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
>> God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him;
>> and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and
>> the life was the light of men.
>> (KJV)
>>
>> What does 'the Word was God' mean, Jeff?
>
>Just what it says, God's Word is God, as it emanates from Him, just as
>Christ emanated from God when He sent his "ONLY begotten son" born of a
>woman, thus
> "God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through
>him." 1 John 4: 9 ..........thus...... "The Word was made flesh, and dwelt
>among us" John 1: 14
>
>> Nothing else in your post matters unless you know Jesus as God.
>
>I know Jesus as Almighty God taught about His son, not some 4th Century
>contrived heresy.
>
>"Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him
>a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?" Hebrews 1:5
>
>"This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased"
>
>"7 And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the
>cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him." Mark 9
>
> > Nothing else in your post matters unless you know Jesus as God.
>
>It all matters Mike, and I know Jesus as God's "Beloved Son" as God taught,
>but you use it as a comfy escape route if you wish, but you are only fooling
>yourself. just as you regarding your infant baptism.
>
>Jeff...
>Now Mike.....take a good long read of the following.
>1 Corinthians 15:27 "For the rule and authority over all things has been
>given to Christ by his Father; except, of course, Christ does not rule over
>the Father himself, who gave him this power to rule.
>28 When Christ has finally won the battle against all his enemies, then he,
>the Son of God, will put himself also under his Father's orders, so that God
>who has given him the victory over everything else will be utterly supreme"
>Amen!
I've left the above in (sorry everyone) just to say that all the above
are consistent with the second person of the Trinity ("the Son")
becoming man (fully human) as Jesus, the Christ, as the prophets
foretold.
So Jesus speaks as a human knowing that He is one with the Father (eg Jn
10:30 & 17:11). There is nothing inconsistent in the passages you quote
above with this understanding.
But it is only as God that this human action can take away our sins. To
misquote Paul - if Jesus is not God we are dead in our sins.
Michael J Davis
>news:UhSoVlCZ...@trustsof.demon.co.uk.invalid...
>> for you. How many have you converted - in this way - Jeff?
>
>Seven in 30 years Mike, just as righteous Noah....
>He managed seven in 120 years....{;o;}
>
>> Are you
>> *certain* this is the right ministry for you?
>
>Yes! it suits me perfectly, and it has enabled me to witness over many years
>to a world wide audience.
>Almost all speak only of the "goodness" of God, but exceptionally few
>witness to His "severity", which is just important for all believers to
>understand. Thus I endeavour to correct an imbalance.
>
>
>No! but when they are against because I tell them truths they don't want to
>listen to, or refuse to hearken to plain Scripture teaching, I know I am
>pressing the right buttons. {;o;}
You are using Scripture and that is good, Jeff. But you are using it to
bash them over the head, and not to show the love and forgiveness of
God.
>
>> Ask the person of the Holy Spirit to come to you Jeff,
>
>Not when God's awesome Spirit is NOT a person, I won't.
>God has given us His commands in His Spirit-Filled-Word, and that is
>sufficient for anyone today.
Alas, sticking to man made doctrines....
>
>Your own Church's sordid History
If you only see the evil and not the good, then you are looking with the
wrong eyes, Jeff. The church comprises sinners and some, sadly, do
wrong, but those sinners are also saints, equipped for every good work
and many have changed the face of the earth over the last 2000 years.
>and even yourself, prove that you both lack
>the influence of the Holy Spirit, so please don't try on that one.
What you see is what *you* see.
>> and worship Jesus
>> Christ,
>
>Mike truthfully, if you really worship Christ you will be properly baptised
>as he has commanded. Belief *before* baptism, by immersion in water.
>
>>and know the power of the Good News.
>
>Sorry Mike, but I have to keep pressing this important point to you, for
>none of us know just when the Lord will decide to take back our life force.
>
>Without an authentic baptism, which has not happened yet in your case, the
>Good News is slowly passing you by......perhaps for good......unless you do
>something about it. ASAP.
I have replied to much of this in another post. After this, to avoid
boring others here I shall stop.
Kendall K. Down
Michael J Davis <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> How many worship with you? Do *you* know the power of the Spirit
> assuring you that you are, in fact, preaching His message?
Very pertinent questions, Mike.
Michael J Davis
>> I appreciate Gareth's interjection, because he is someone I would call a
>> man of integrity, even when he is disagreeing with me. It is his
>> integrity that has led him to his current faith position,
>
>[I guess it's my turn now.]
>I don't believe you have said that Mike.
Well read it again Jeff. I'm beginning to believe that you don't
understand what faith is.
>What kind of up-side-down mentality is that?
>Scripture warns that everyone who rejects Christ after accepting him are in
>for a terrible punishment, ever worse then under Moses Law.
I don't believe that Gareth has rejected Christ, Jeff, just as I'm not
sure that you really know Him. AIUI, Gareth has rejected a God who seems
inconsistent and whose people seem to be no different from those around
them. (Yes, it's much more complex than that, and I believe Gareth when
he says that he's tried.)
I hope and pray that Gareth will know the loving God I know, and
experience that power in his life that I am beginning to appreciate. But
what stand him in good stead before God (IMVHO) is his honesty and
open-mindedness. That cannot be said of all who call themselves
Christian.
>
>Now, as for anyone who denies that God exists..... Psalms 54: 1 The fool
>hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done
>abominable iniquity:"
I am sure that Gareth has taken that into account.
>
>...... after being invited by Him to eternal Life and freedom from their
>sins is certainly not in my mind, a person of "integrity", far, far, from
>it.
Oh Jeff, but you don't think his baptism is a real one, so you cannot
accuse him of turning away, can you?
>
>Frankly, words like, mindless stupidly and foolishness, come to mind.
>Hebrews 10:30 "For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me,
>I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his
>people.
>31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."
>
>And....Jesus :
>Luke 11:23 "The person who isn't with me is against me, and the person who
>doesn't gather with me scatters."
>
>>It is his
>> integrity that has led him to his current faith position,
>>and I accept
>> that God understands that too! ;-)
>
>And you keep trying to impress on me you are lead by God's Spirit?
>Really! Mike.
Meditate upon John 3:8, Jeff, before you think you know how God works.
"The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot
tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone
born of the Spirit."
>What does Paul have to say.....
>1Cor. 6:22 "If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema
>Maranatha."
ROTFL! Very clever, now you are making up verses that don't exist! But
you could just be referring to 1 Cor 16:22 et seq.
>Work that one out from the Greek.
>I always find using 'Strong's Exhaustive' is very helpful. {;o;}
And recall, Jeff, that that was written to those in Corinth, now read
the context, for unless you do the trees will become more important than
the wood.
>
>> Also he made a good point about the purpose and the result of Strong's
>> excellent research that needs to be understood by someone who likes to
>> quote the Bible at length.
>
>And I understand, it's there to show just what a word can be translated into
>English as, and I use it for that purpose, it could have been He/She/It, and
>that is what I stated.
Wrong! How you wriggle when it's shown that you may have misunderstood
Scripture! Just say, as I frequently have to, "Sorry - I got that
wrong!"
>And it's still true, irrespective of Gareth's unsolicited interjection.
In which case, Jeff, you are inadequately equipped to pronounce on the
meaning of the scriptures.
Blessings
Gareth McCaughan
> Oh Jeff, but you don't think his baptism is a real one, so you cannot
> accuse him of turning away, can you?
Oh, very neat. :-)
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist UK.RC
> Mike Davis wrote:
>
>> Oh Jeff, but you don't think his baptism is a real one,
Do not tell a lie, Mike, I have never stated I think that about *Gareth's*
baptism.
>so you cannot
>> accuse him of turning away, can you?
Yes! I can, as he has done just that, turned away from Christ and Almighty
God even as many other baptised and unbaptised people do.
Study the parable of the sower.
> Oh, very neat. :-)
ROFL.....it might be 'neat' Gareth, if he or you had told me you had been
baptised, or 'christened' as an infant, as Mike has confessed he was.
Even so, knowledge brings responsibility, and thus you are still responsible
before God for refusing His invite, even if your 'baptism' was invalid, and
for the wicked lie and blasphemy that is perpetrated by contending that
Almighty God does not even exist.
Thus you are still, very much, 'up to your neck in it'.
" Thess. 1:7 "The Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty
angels,
8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey
not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of
the Lord, and from the glory of his power"
1 Cor. 16:21 "The salutation of me Paul with mine own hand.
22 If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema
Maranatha."
I guess you can work that out, Gareth, "Anathema Maranatha."
Jeff...
Hebrews 10:28 "He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or
three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who
hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the
covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done
despite unto the Spirit of grace?
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist UK.RC
> I don't believe that Gareth has rejected Christ, Jeff,
Would you care to asked him then, Mike?
Jeff...
celia
<broadband[remove]1...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> "Gareth McCaughan" <Gareth.McCaug...@pobox.com> wrote in message
I hope you wrote that with tears in your eyes Jeff and a prayer for
Gareth. I don't know how you can bear to think on such things but I
know this, "mercy triumphs over judgement"
Gareth might call himself an atheist but he doesn't come between
people and God and is honest and open minded.
If Peter could deny Christ so can any Christian and Peter was later
used mightily by God.
Celia
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist UK.RC
> Gareth might call himself an atheist but he doesn't come between
> people and God
Come off it, Celia, he tries to convince others by preaching through his
posts, the wicked lie that Almighty God does not exist. How much more
offensive can anything be to God?
To tell Him and God's children He doesn't even exist. It's the height of
pomposity, human arrogance, and spiritual ignorance.
>and is honest and open minded.
And you think that preaching the lie that God does not even exist is being
"honest and open minded"?
Sorry, it's a perverted way of excusing awesome blasphemy.
To deny the very existence of Almighty God is a terrible sin.
And the Scripture confirms the same opinion also.
Psalms 14:1 "That man is a fool who says to himself, "There is no God!"
Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good
person at all." (TLB)
Amen!
Jeff...
Just look what happened in Israel to anyone who dare state such a
disgraceful thing, they were stoned to death without mercy.
Michael J Davis
>
>> I don't believe that Gareth has rejected Christ, Jeff,
>
>Would you care to asked him then, Mike?
Read what I wrote Jeff.
Don't quote me out of context. My writings are not scripture, you know!
;-)
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist UK.RC
> In message <wQVNh.22335$0Z1....@newsfe7-win.ntli.net>, 1st Century
> Apostolic Traditionalist UK.RC <broadband@[remove].invalid> writes
>>"Michael J Davis" <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>>> I don't believe that Gareth has rejected Christ, Jeff,
>>
>>Would you care to asked him then, Mike?
>
> Read what I wrote Jeff.
>
> Don't quote me out of context.
It's in context of the statement you made, whether inadvisably or not.
>I don't believe that Gareth has rejected Christ, Jeff,
So what is the problem of asking him to confirm it?
Knowing the aspirational mind-set of Gareth, I am convinced he will be most
obliging.
>My writings are not scripture, you know!
No offence intended.
But they aren't even very often "Spiritually" correct just lately either,
Mike. {;o;}
Jeff...
Matthew 12:36 "I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give an
account for every thoughtless word they utter.
37 For by your words you'll be acquitted, and by your words you'll be
condemned."
celia
<broadband[remove]1...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> "celia" <c_a_b...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > Gareth might call himself an atheist but he doesn't come between
> > people and God
>
> Come off it, Celia, he tries to convince others by preaching through his
> posts, the wicked lie that Almighty God does not exist. How much more
> offensive can anything be to God?
Well i can think of some things that might be more offensive to God
but am not exactly in the position to judge this !
It might be nit picking but there's a difference between not believing
in God yourself and trying to persuade others not to believe in God.
> To tell Him and God's children He doesn't even exist. It's the height of
> pomposity, human arrogance, and spiritual ignorance.
It's a conclusion that he has reached, it might or might not be his
final conclusion but it wasn't come to through pomposity or arrogance.
> >and is honest and open minded.
>
> And you think that preaching the lie that God does not even exist is being
> "honest and open minded"?
I meant honest to himself and willing to consider things and possibly
change his mind.
> Sorry, it's a perverted way of excusing awesome blasphemy.
> To deny the very existence of Almighty God is a terrible sin.
I don't know if it's a terrible sin, it's so unthinkable that the
Bible hardly mentions the possibility. It seems logical that it
should be a sin but I can't give chapter and verse. Can you ?
> And the Scripture confirms the same opinion also.
> Psalms 14:1 "That man is a fool who says to himself, "There is no God!"
> Anyone who talks like that is warped and evil and cannot really be a good
> person at all." (TLB)
The second bit of your quote goes with the following verses so all
that shows is that not believing in God is foolish. Unless of course
you take the word to mean 'morally degenerate' but there's still the
problem that the Psalms are poetry and not usually used to determine
doctrine.
> Amen!
>
Celia
Simon Robinson
I share Mike's view that Gareth (probably) has not rejected Christ.
Gareth has certainly ceased to believe that a God exists, or that Christ
died for our sins and no doubt lots of other points of 'Christian'
doctrine. But I don't offhand to see any reason to believe that doing
all that is necessarily synonymous with 'rejecting Christ'.
Simon Robinson
> "celia" <c_a_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> Gareth might call himself an atheist but he doesn't come between
>> people and God
>
> Come off it, Celia, he tries to convince others by preaching through his
> posts, the wicked lie that Almighty God does not exist.
Generally the term 'lie' refers to something that the person saying it
*knows* to be (or believes to be) untrue. Do you have some reason to
think that Gareth is actually knowing lying when he claims that God does
not exist (as opposed to merely being mistaken)? (And if not, why did
you use language that implies that he is)?
> How much more
> offensive can anything be to God?
Whatever gives you the idea that God finds it offensive if someone
doesn't believe he exists?
I'm pretty sure that there are billions of people on the world who do
not know of my existence, and I don't find this even remotely offensive.
And I'm pretty sure that God is rather more perfect (and therefore
rather harder to offend) than I am.
> To tell Him and God's children He doesn't even exist. It's the height of
> pomposity, human arrogance, and spiritual ignorance.
It may be a mistake, but I see no reason to believe that it necessarily
implies pomposity or arrogance. Do you?
>> and is honest and open minded.
>
> And you think that preaching the lie that God does not even exist is being
> "honest and open minded"?
Well if it's what you honestly believe the it's clearly honest. It is
possible to be honestly mistaken! As to open minded, well that depends
on a person's attitude. I see no reason why it shouldn't be possible to
be inclined to the view that there is no God and yet also be open
minded. Do you?
> Sorry, it's a perverted way of excusing awesome blasphemy.
> To deny the very existence of Almighty God is a terrible sin.
Sez you.
Gareth McCaughan
> "Gareth McCaughan" <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote in message
> news:87slbrb...@g.mccaughan.org.uk...
>> Mike Davis wrote:
>>
>>> Oh Jeff, but you don't think his baptism is a real one,
>
> Do not tell a lie, Mike, I have never stated I think that about *Gareth's*
> baptism.
But, as it happens, I too was baptized as an infant, and
not AFAIK by full immersion. So whatever you say about Mike's
baptism surely applies equally to mine.
> Thus you are still, very much, 'up to your neck in it'.
I wasn't expecting you to think otherwise.
Gareth McCaughan
[Mike Davis:]
>> I don't believe that Gareth has rejected Christ, Jeff,
[Jeff:]
> So what is the problem of asking him to confirm it?
> Knowing the aspirational mind-set of Gareth, I am convinced he will be most
> obliging.
What's an "aspirational mind-set"?
If you'll clarify what you mean by "rejecting Christ" then I'll
be very glad to tell you whether I've done it. I wouldn't use
those words myself, generally; what I've rejected is (in my view)
a set of beliefs and practices, not a person. But if you want
to use the words "rejected Christ" to mean "decided not to believe
that Jesus was the Son of God, perfect in every way, all of whose
teachings are true" or "decided not to put one's complete trust
in Jesus", then I have indeed done those things.
Michael J Davis
Apostolic Traditionalist UK.RC <broadband@[remove].invalid> writes
>"celia" <c_a_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> Gareth might call himself an atheist but he doesn't come between
>> people and God
>
>Come off it, Celia, he tries to convince others by preaching through his
>posts, the wicked lie that Almighty God does not exist. How much more
>offensive can anything be to God?
Gareth - unlike many atheists who posts here, merely says that he has
come to the conclusion that God doesn't exist. I would not call that
preaching.
>To tell Him and God's children He doesn't even exist. It's the height of
>pomposity, human arrogance, and spiritual ignorance.
>
>>and is honest and open minded.
>
>And you think that preaching the lie that God does not even exist is being
>"honest and open minded"?
Jeff, are *you* 'open minded'?
Michael J Davis
>"Michael J Davis" <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:VKMcNGFn...@trustsof.demon.co.uk.invalid...
>> In message <wQVNh.22335$0Z1....@newsfe7-win.ntli.net>, 1st Century
>> Apostolic Traditionalist UK.RC <broadband@[remove].invalid> writes
>>>"Michael J Davis" <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>
>>>> I don't believe that Gareth has rejected Christ, Jeff,
>>>
>>>Would you care to asked him then, Mike?
>>
>> Read what I wrote Jeff.
>>
>> Don't quote me out of context.
>
>It's in context of the statement you made, whether inadvisably or not.
I said...
I don't believe that Gareth has rejected Christ..... AIUI, Gareth has
rejected a God who seems inconsistent and whose people seem to be no
different from those around them.
>>I don't believe that Gareth has rejected Christ, Jeff,
>
>So what is the problem of asking him to confirm it?
>Knowing the aspirational mind-set of Gareth, I am convinced he will be most
>obliging.
Good.
>
>>My writings are not scripture, you know!
>
>No offence intended.
>But they aren't even very often "Spiritually" correct just lately either,
That's probably true, Jeff. I keep descending to the level of argument
you use. I'll stop.
"For this reason, since the day we heard about you, we have not stopped
praying for you and asking God to fill you with the knowledge of his
will through all spiritual wisdom and understanding." Col 1:9
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist UK.RC
> In message <viXNh.16959$B37....@newsfe2-win.ntli.net>, 1st Century
> Apostolic Traditionalist UK.RC <broadband@[remove].invalid> writes
>>"celia" <c_a_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> Gareth might call himself an atheist but he doesn't come between
>>> people and God
>>
>>Come off it, Celia, he tries to convince others by preaching through his
>>posts, the wicked lie that Almighty God does not exist. How much more
>>offensive can anything be to God?
>
> Gareth - unlike many atheists who posts here, merely says that he has come
> to the conclusion that God doesn't exist. I would not call that preaching.
You may not think it is, but you are wrong once again, Mike.
For Gareth has "proclaimed" and indeed made "known" time and again, that he
does not believe that Almighty God even exists.
Dic. [preach
Pronunciation: 'prEch
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English prechen, from Anglo-French precher, from Late
Latin praedicare, from Latin, to proclaim, make known.]
Jeff...
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist UK.RC
>used mightily by God.
Yes! Peter did deny Christ, but only on the 'spur' of the moment, and he
did not thereafter go around insisting Almighty God doesn't exist, or as
Gareth confesses "if you want
to use the words "rejected Christ" to mean "decided not to believe that
Jesus was the Son of God, perfect in every way, all of whose teachings are
true" or "decided not to put one's complete trust in Jesus", then I have
indeed done those things.
So to try and infer that Gareth's degenerate faith-loss in the Lord Jesus,
and Peter's momentary lapse is somewhat similar, is simply appalling, even
from an Anglicanised woman, and shows how low some people have to sink to
try and justify some fallen away, God despising atheist.
Btw, what did Peter do a little while after he had denied Christ, Celia.?
Luke 22:62 "And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto
him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.
62 And Peter went out, and wept bitterly.
When you can tell me Gareth has done that, "wept bitterly" for his
continuing disgraceful Anti-God and Anti-Christ propaganda on a supposedly
Christian orientated NG, then please let me know.
Meanwhile.....what sayeth the Apostle Paul, in Scripture.
1 Cor. 16:22 "If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema
Maranatha."
I don't suppose you agree with that inspired Scripture either, Celia?
Jeff...
Observation: As Gareth is now such a keen God denying atheist, why doesn't
he pack his bags and wonder off to the atheistic NGs and be with his
new-friends, who will willingly believe and endorse such evil and wicked
confessions and protestations, for I am sure he would be welcome with open
arms.
Gareth McCaughan
> So to try and infer that Gareth's degenerate faith-loss in the Lord Jesus,
> and Peter's momentary lapse is somewhat similar, is simply appalling, even
> from an Anglicanised woman, and shows how low some people have to sink to
> try and justify some fallen away, God despising atheist.
I don't despise God, any more than I despise Oliver Twist or
Gandalf or Hamlet. And Mike isn't trying to "justify" me, he's
just saying that one particular one of your obnoxious comments
about me is false.
> Observation: As Gareth is now such a keen God denying atheist, why doesn't
> he pack his bags and wonder off to the atheistic NGs and be with his
> new-friends, who will willingly believe and endorse such evil and wicked
> confessions and protestations, for I am sure he would be welcome with open
> arms.
What new friends would those be, Jeff? "Friend" doesn't mean
"person you agree with". I dare say I could go and make some
friends on atheistic newsgroups (though actually I have the
impression that most of the more interesting and civilized
online discussion among atheists takes place elsewhere), but
I already have some in uk.r.c and I'm not going to leave just
because you'd like me to.
Michael J Davis
Apostolic Traditionalist UK.RC <broadband@[remove].invalid> writes
>Jeff...
>Observation: As Gareth is now such a keen God denying atheist, why doesn't
>he pack his bags and wonder off to the atheistic NGs and be with his
>new-friends, who will willingly believe and endorse such evil and wicked
>confessions and protestations, for I am sure he would be welcome with open
>arms.
This group is for the discussion of Christianity in the UK, Jeff.
You ought to know the charter by now.
Michael J Davis
>"Michael J Davis" <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:hzIBDfA0...@trustsof.demon.co.uk.invalid...
>> In message <viXNh.16959$B37....@newsfe2-win.ntli.net>, 1st Century
>> Apostolic Traditionalist UK.RC <broadband@[remove].invalid> writes
>>>"celia" <c_a_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> Gareth might call himself an atheist but he doesn't come between
>>>> people and God
>>>
>>>Come off it, Celia, he tries to convince others by preaching through his
>>>posts, the wicked lie that Almighty God does not exist. How much more
>>>offensive can anything be to God?
>>
>> Gareth - unlike many atheists who posts here, merely says that he has come
>> to the conclusion that God doesn't exist. I would not call that preaching.
>
>You may not think it is, but you are wrong once again, Mike.
>For Gareth has "proclaimed" and indeed made "known" time and again, that he
>does not believe that Almighty God even exists.
>
>Dic. [preach
>Pronunciation: 'prEch
>Function: verb
>Etymology: Middle English prechen, from Anglo-French precher, from Late
>Latin praedicare, from Latin, to proclaim, make known.]
The COED says..
preach / v.
1 a intr. deliver a sermon or religious address. b tr. deliver (a
sermon); proclaim or expound (the Gospel etc.).
2 intr. give moral advice in an obtrusive way.
3 tr. advocate or inculcate (a quality or practice etc.).
preach to the converted commend an opinion to a person or persons
already in agreement.
preachable adj.
[Middle English via Old French prechier from Latin praedicare
‘proclaim’, in ecclesiastical Latin ‘preach’ (as prae-, dicare
‘declare’)]
(None of which is attributable to GMcC).
Which version do you use and how do you know it is infallible?
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist UK.RC
> I don't despise God, any more than I despise Oliver Twist or
> Gandalf or Hamlet. And Mike isn't trying to "justify" me, he's
> just saying that one particular one of your obnoxious comments
> about me is false.
But it isn't false Gareth, it's the truth, you have rejected Christ and what
he stands for.
Jeff...
Gareth McCaughan
> The COED says..
> preach / v.
> 1 a intr. deliver a sermon or religious address. b tr. deliver (a
> sermon); proclaim or expound (the Gospel etc.).
> 2 intr. give moral advice in an obtrusive way.
> 3 tr. advocate or inculcate (a quality or practice etc.).
> preach to the converted commend an opinion to a person or persons
> already in agreement.
> preachable adj.
> [Middle English via Old French prechier from Latin praedicare
> ‘proclaim’, in ecclesiastical Latin ‘preach’ (as prae-, dicare
> ‘declare’)]
>
> (None of which is attributable to GMcC).
I have been known to proclaim or expound things, though
admittedly these days it would be "etc." rather than
"the Gospel", and I've certainly advocated certain
qualities and practices, not to mention "etc." again.
Whether any of that could fairly be described by saying
that I "preach that God does not exist" is another matter;
I'm sure the answer would be yes according to Jeff's
approach to dictionary usage, which seems to be "if
there's any part of any listed meaning that could ever
be taken to agree with what I want the word to mean,
then that's what it means".
Simon Woods
I'd be surprised if Gareth had rejected peace, love, joy, truth and the
other fruits.
celia
<broadband[remove]1...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> "celia" <c_a_b...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > If Peter could deny Christ so can any Christian and Peter was later
> >used mightily by God.
>
> Yes! Peter did deny Christ, but only on the 'spur' of the moment, and he
> did not thereafter go around insisting Almighty God doesn't exist, or as
> Gareth confesses "if you want
> to use the words "rejected Christ" to mean "decided not to believe that
> Jesus was the Son of God, perfect in every way, all of whose teachings are
> true" or "decided not to put one's complete trust in Jesus", then I have
> indeed done those things.
>
> So to try and infer that Gareth's degenerate faith-loss in the Lord Jesus,
> and Peter's momentary lapse is somewhat similar, is simply appalling, even
> from an Anglicanised woman, and shows how low some people have to sink to
> try and justify some fallen away, God despising atheist.
>
> Btw, what did Peter do a little while after he had denied Christ, Celia.?
> Luke 22:62 "And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto
> him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.
> 62 And Peter went out, and wept bitterly.
>
> When you can tell me Gareth has done that, "wept bitterly" for his
> continuing disgraceful Anti-God and Anti-Christ propaganda on a supposedly
> Christian orientated NG, then please let me know.
>
> Meanwhile.....what sayeth the Apostle Paul, in Scripture.
> 1 Cor. 16:22 "If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema
> Maranatha."
> I don't suppose you agree with that inspired Scripture either, Celia?
The problem of evil in the world and personally seeing the results of
evil are among the most common reasons for deciding that God does not
exist. In many ways it is less rejecting of true Christian values than
trying to reconcile the existence of evil in the world etc with the
existence of God. Another possible solution is to think of God as
containing all possibilities, being neutral rather than good.
Gareth has obviously thought deeply about the subject and concluded
that there is no God.He has used his God given intelligence and free
will to come to this conclusion and might one day change his mind as I
see no evidence that he has a closed mind.
All of us have within us the potential to 'deconvert'. Your own faith
Jeff is of a rather legalistic nature and so relies a lot on your own
efforts, a fragile foundation.
A few months ago I came within a hair's breadth of losing my faith
and thank God for a member of this newsgroup who prayed and gave
support.
"My brothers if one of you should wander from the truth and someone
should bring him back, remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the
error of his way will save him from death and cover over a multitude
of sins."
Celia
Tony Gillam
> Jeff Hickling wrote:
>> Observation: As Gareth is now such a keen God denying atheist, why
>> doesn't he pack his bags and wonder off to the atheistic NGs and be
>> with his new-friends, who will willingly believe and endorse such
>> evil and wicked confessions and protestations, for I am sure he
>> would be welcome with open arms.
>
> What new friends would those be, Jeff? "Friend" doesn't mean
> "person you agree with". I dare say I could go and make some
> friends on atheistic newsgroups (though actually I have the
> impression that most of the more interesting and civilized
> online discussion among atheists takes place elsewhere), but
> I already have some in uk.r.c and I'm not going to leave just
> because you'd like me to.
What do they find to talk about on alt.atheism? They don't have
doctrinal issue to discuss do they?
--
Tony Gillam
tony....@lineone.net
http://www.bookourvilla.co.uk/spain
Sun, sand and sangria
Matthew Vernon
I heard a nasty rumour he's taken to binning apples uneaten...
Matthew
--
"My sheep hear my voice. I know them, and they follow me. I give them
eternal life, and they will never perish. No-one will snatch them out
of my hand". John 10 27-28
http://www.pick.ucam.org/