Justin Martyr was a heretic

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

zeke25

New Member
May 18, 2014
513
15
0
77
Western USA
Though Justin Martyr did teach correct Christian doctrine in some areas, that does not justify the destructive heresies that he did teach. Compromise with these heretical teachings of Justin cannot be justified.

Here are a few examples of Justin's heresies. More can be presented, but this makes the point. Even though I do not follow the teachings of COG, sometimes aberrant groups do good research.

Justin Martyr


From http://www.cogwriter.com/justin.htm

I have taken the liberty of editorializing the material.

Justin is claimed as the earliest post-New Testament source for such doctrines as Sunday worship, Jesus being born in a cave, calling the newly baptized "illuminated", and other positions that are not in the Bible.

Sunday worship came from pagan sources, not from the resurrection of Christ from the dead.

Justin inaccurately claimed,

And then, when Jesus had gone to the river Jordan, where John was baptizing, and when He had stepped into the water, a fire was kindled in the Jordan (Dialogue. Chapter LXXXVIII).

There is no fire in mentioned in any biblical account of Jesus' baptism (see Matthew 3:1-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22; John 1:29-34). Justin simply is teaching this without biblical support.


Justin taught Mithra-Like practices.

(1) He taught that Water Baptism causes one to be illuminated - this is heresy:

For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water...And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings (First Apology 61).

Water Baptism does not cause illumination. One receives the knowledge of the God and His truth at conversion. Water Baptism is a ceremony performed after that conversion. Water Baptism does nothing to change the knowledge one has in his mind or spirit.

I knew a man who had been taught for years that he would rise from the waters of baptism fully illuminated and filled with the Holy Ghost. When that did not happen, he surmised that all of Christianity was a lie and devoted the last decades of his life to atheism.

(2) He taught that Communion caused our flesh and blood to be nourished by transmutation - this is heresy:

And this food is called among us Εύχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished...Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn (First Apology 66).

The communion elements do nothing to our flesh and blood. The communion elements are a symbol of Christ sacrificing His flesh and Blood for us for the washing away of our sins. This is a spiritual washing. Our flesh and blood have not changed or benefited in any way from taking communion.

Zeke25
 

rockytopva

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Dec 31, 2010
5,160
2,360
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Everybody in Christianity is a heritic... In the eyes of some another Christian. Here is poor St Patrick trying to dodge heritic allegations...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCw
 

zeke25

New Member
May 18, 2014
513
15
0
77
Western USA
rockytopva said:
Everybody in Christianity is a heritic... In the eyes of some another Christian. Here is poor St Patrick trying to dodge heritic allegations...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCw
rockytopva,
You missed ecumenical. I'm sure you are very happy. Try not to study the Scriptures too much, it will dampen your euphoria.
Zeke25
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
zeke,


Justin inaccurately claimed,

And then, when Jesus had gone to the river Jordan, where John was baptizing, and when He had stepped into the water, a fire was kindled in the Jordan (Dialogue. Chapter LXXXVIII).

There is no fire in mentioned in any biblical account of Jesus' baptism (see Matthew 3:1-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22; John 1:29-34). Justin simply is teaching this without biblical support.


Justin Martyr's 'Dialogue with Trypho' states in chapter 88:
Chapter 88. Christ has not received the Holy Spirit on account of poverty Justin: Now, it is possible to see among us women and men who possess gifts of the Spirit of God; so that it was prophesied that the powers enumerated by Isaiah would come upon Him, not because He needed power, but because these would not continue after Him. And let this be a proof to you, namely, what I told you was done by the Magi from Arabia, who as soon as the Child was born came to worship Him, for even at His birth He was in possession of His power; and as He grew up like all other men, by using the fitting means, He assigned its own [requirements] to each development, and was sustained by all kinds of nourishment, and waited for thirty years, more or less, until John appeared before Him as the herald of His approach, and preceded Him in the way of baptism, as I have already shown. And then, when Jesus had gone to the river Jordan, where John was baptizing, and when He had stepped into the water, a fire was kindled in the Jordan; and when He came out of the water, the Holy Ghost lighted on Him like a dove, [as] the apostles of this very Christ of ours wrote. Now, we know that he did not go to the river because He stood in need of baptism, or of the descent of the Spirit like a dove; even as He submitted to be born and to be crucified, not because He needed such things, but because of the human race, which from Adam had fallen under the power of death and the guile of the serpent, and each one of which had committed personal transgression. For God, wishing both angels and men, who were endowed with free-will, and at their own disposal, to do whatever He had strengthened each to do, made them so, that if they chose the things acceptable to Himself, He would keep them free from death and from punishment; but that if they did evil, He would punish each as He sees fit. For it was not His entrance into Jerusalem sitting on an ass, which we have showed was prophesied, that empowered Him to be Christ, but it furnished men with a proof that He is the Christ; just as it was necessary in the time of John that men have proof, that they might know who is Christ. For when John remained by the Jordan, and preached the baptism of repentance, wearing only a leathern girdle and a vesture made of camels' hair, eating nothing but locusts and wild honey, men supposed him to be Christ; but he cried to them, 'I am not the Christ, but the voice of one crying; for He that is stronger than I shall come, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear.' Isaiah 1:27 And when Jesus came to the Jordan, He was considered to be the son of Joseph the carpenter; and He appeared without comeliness, as the Scriptures declared; and He was deemed a carpenter (for He was in the habit of working as a carpenter when among men, making ploughs and yokes; by which He taught the symbols of righteousness and an active life); but then the Holy Ghost, and for man's sake, as I formerly stated, lighted on Him in the form of a dove, and there came at the same instant from the heavens a voice, which was uttered also by David when he spoke, personating Christ, what the Father would say to Him: 'You are My Son: this day have I begotten You;' [the Father] saying that His generation would take place for men, at the time when they would become acquainted with Him: 'You are My Son; this day have I begotten you.'(available at: http://newadvent.org/fathers/01286.htm)
Just because Justin stated that 'fire was kindled in the Jordan' and that is not in Scripture at the baptism of Jesus, does not make him an inaccurate promoter But, we have to remember that Justin's writings are not inspired Scripture.

However, also remember what John said at the end of his Gospel? 'Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written' (John 21:25 ESV). Could it be that there was oral tradition available that reached Justin Martyr (ca 100-165)? He is a very early Christian writer outside of the NT. Acts 2:1-3 (ESV) uses 'fire' to describe the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost. Justin was born around the time John the apostle was dying. Also Hebrews 12:29 (ESV) states that 'our God is a consuming fire'.

Sadly, we don't have available to us the sources from which Justin drew this information.

Oz
 

zeke25

New Member
May 18, 2014
513
15
0
77
Western USA
OzSpen said:
zeke,


Justin inaccurately claimed,

And then, when Jesus had gone to the river Jordan, where John was baptizing, and when He had stepped into the water, a fire was kindled in the Jordan (Dialogue. Chapter LXXXVIII).

There is no fire in mentioned in any biblical account of Jesus' baptism (see Matthew 3:1-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22; John 1:29-34). Justin simply is teaching this without biblical support.


Justin Martyr's 'Dialogue with Trypho' states in chapter 88:
Just because Justin stated that 'fire was kindled in the Jordan' and that is not in Scripture at the baptism of Jesus, does not make him an inaccurate promoter But, we have to remember that Justin's writings are not inspired Scripture.

However, also remember what John said at the end of his Gospel? 'Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written' (John 21:25 ESV). Could it be that there was oral tradition available that reached Justin Martyr (ca 100-165)? He is a very early Christian writer outside of the NT. Acts 2:1-3 (ESV) uses 'fire' to describe the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost. Justin was born around the time John the apostle was dying. Also Hebrews 12:29 (ESV) states that 'our God is a consuming fire'.

Sadly, we don't have available to us the sources from which Justin drew this information.

Oz
Oz,

Thank you for sharing. But your information comes from the same source - Justin. But let us suppose that this information is accurate. It really is of little significance. I would not teach from the Book of Enoch nor from the Apocrypha nor from the Lost Books of the Bible. Therefore, the point is, I would not teach from Justin Martyr. We have the cannon of Scripture and it is tried and true. We have the writings of the apostles and the guidance of the Holy Ghost. What need have we of Justin?

So, even if Justin was correct in this one point, his teaching on water baptism and communion cannot be justified. These are much more important and serious breaches against the gospel of Christ.

The danger in all of this is that many who have been weaned on the likes of Justin, all too frequently give them a place of importance on a par with the Bible or even elevate them above the Bible. There are whole denomination(s) that tout the virtues of those who sat under the original apostles and condemn to hell those who refuse to go by the teachings of these underlings. Those who are held captive to the teachings of these underlings may preach the gospel at times, as a parrot does. But their mixing and compromise with these extra-biblical teachings and Biblical teachings puts them in an apostate category. They are arrogant deceivers, ever learning, but never coming to a knowledge of the truth.

Zeke25
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
zeke25 said:
Oz,

Thank you for sharing. But your information comes from the same source - Justin. But let us suppose that this information is accurate. It really is of little significance. I would not teach from the Book of Enoch nor from the Apocrypha nor from the Lost Books of the Bible. Therefore, the point is, I would not teach from Justin Martyr. We have the cannon of Scripture and it is tried and true. We have the writings of the apostles and the guidance of the Holy Ghost. What need have we of Justin?

So, even if Justin was correct in this one point, his teaching on water baptism and communion cannot be justified. These are much more important and serious breaches against the gospel of Christ.

The danger in all of this is that many who have been weaned on the likes of Justin, all too frequently give them a place of importance on a par with the Bible or even elevate them above the Bible. There are whole denomination(s) that tout the virtues of those who sat under the original apostles and condemn to hell those who refuse to go by the teachings of these underlings. Those who are held captive to the teachings of these underlings may preach the gospel at times, as a parrot does. But their mixing and compromise with these extra-biblical teachings and Biblical teachings puts them in an apostate category. They are arrogant deceivers, ever learning, but never coming to a knowledge of the truth.

Zeke25
So are you going to throw out all contemporary teachers in the Christian church? I'm thinking of people like Marcus Loane, Peter Jensen, Leon Morris, John Stott, F F Bruce, N T Wright, Richard Bauckham, R C Sproul, John MacArthur, Albert Mohler, D A Carson, Wayne Grudem, Roger Olson, Kevin Vanhoozer, Darrel Bock, etc.

Are all of these teachers to be put into your category: 'It really is of little significance'. You claim, 'I would not teach from Justin Martyr. We have the cannon (sic) of Scripture and it is tried and true. We have the writings of the apostles and the guidance of the Holy Ghost. What need have we of Justin?' In your sermon preparation do you NEVER refer to writers other than Scripture? I have found other writers who are very helpful in explaining a concept from Scripture better than I am. I will quote them (with appropriate credit) when I preach.

Do you NEVER EVER refer to any other source but the Bible when you preach? If that is the case, how do you obtain information about the culture and history of the day? What about archaeology?

In addition, there is not one word in the NT that teaches me Greek grammar. I had to learn all of my introductory Greek grammar from a writer outside of the Bible. That was John Wenham (author) and Larry Hurtado at Regent College, Vancouver BC, Canada. I'm forever grateful for the introductory work Wenham and Hurtado did to give me a grounding in the Greek NT. And have a guess what? Not one word of grammar for Hebrew, Aramaic or Koine Greek is found in the Bible.

I think it is rather naive not to go to writers outside of the Bible to obtain information.

Remember what you wrote in your original post?
Here are a few examples of Justin's heresies. More can be presented, but this makes the point. Even though I do not follow the teachings of COG, sometimes aberrant groups do good research.

Justin Martyr


From http://www.cogwriter.com/justin.htm

I have taken the liberty of editorializing the material.
So you rely on other groups for your research (even 'aberrant groups' - your word) as well, so why are you now taking your Bible-only approach?

Then you stated in your OP:
But their mixing and compromise with these extra-biblical teachings and Biblical teachings puts them in an apostate category. They are arrogant deceivers, ever learning, but never coming to a knowledge of the truth
What have you done? mixed CoG research with what you want to say. So you are prepared to use an 'aberrant group' (your language as with CoG) to prove your point. Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.

In Christ,
Oz
 

JimParker

Active Member
Mar 31, 2015
396
39
28
Las Vegas, NV
zeke25 said:
Though Justin Martyr did teach correct Christian doctrine in some areas, that does not justify the destructive heresies that he did teach. Compromise with these heretical teachings of Justin cannot be justified.

Here are a few examples of Justin's heresies. More can be presented, but this makes the point. Even though I do not follow the teachings of COG, sometimes aberrant groups do good research.

Justin Martyr


From http://www.cogwriter.com/justin.htm

I have taken the liberty of editorializing the material.

Justin is claimed as the earliest post-New Testament source for such doctrines as Sunday worship, Jesus being born in a cave, calling the newly baptized "illuminated", and other positions that are not in the Bible.

Sunday worship came from pagan sources, not from the resurrection of Christ from the dead.

Justin inaccurately claimed,

And then, when Jesus had gone to the river Jordan, where John was baptizing, and when He had stepped into the water, a fire was kindled in the Jordan (Dialogue. Chapter LXXXVIII).

There is no fire in mentioned in any biblical account of Jesus' baptism (see Matthew 3:1-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22; John 1:29-34). Justin simply is teaching this without biblical support.


Justin taught Mithra-Like practices.

(1) He taught that Water Baptism causes one to be illuminated - this is heresy:

For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water...And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings (First Apology 61).

Water Baptism does not cause illumination. One receives the knowledge of the God and His truth at conversion. Water Baptism is a ceremony performed after that conversion. Water Baptism does nothing to change the knowledge one has in his mind or spirit.

I knew a man who had been taught for years that he would rise from the waters of baptism fully illuminated and filled with the Holy Ghost. When that did not happen, he surmised that all of Christianity was a lie and devoted the last decades of his life to atheism.

(2) He taught that Communion caused our flesh and blood to be nourished by transmutation - this is heresy:

And this food is called among us Εύχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished...Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn (First Apology 66).

The communion elements do nothing to our flesh and blood. The communion elements are a symbol of Christ sacrificing His flesh and Blood for us for the washing away of our sins. This is a spiritual washing. Our flesh and blood have not changed or benefited in any way from taking communion.

Zeke25
<< Justin is claimed as the earliest post-New Testament source for such doctrines as Sunday worship,>>

At the time when Justin was writing, Sunday, the day of Jesus' resurrection (Mar 16:9), was already the day that Christian believers gathered to celebrate God's victory over death and to worship.

The idea that Sunday worship was a pagan practice introduced into Christianity by some heretic is pure nonsense.

<<He taught that Water Baptism causes one to be illuminated - this is heresy:>>

More nonsense.

Peter told the crowd on Pentecost that they needed to be Baptized in the name o Jesus and they would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Act 2:38) T hose who receive the Holy Spirit experienced an awakening of their minds to understand the scriptures. Just as anyone who gains understanding is said to ave been "enlightened"

Paul refers to that process in his letter to the Ephesian church.

Eph 1:15-19 Therefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints, do not cease to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers: that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him, the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; (Gr: photizo) that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints,
and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power


The word translated "illuminated" (Heb 10:32) or "enlightened" (Heb 6:4; Eph 1:18) is photizo. It is used twice in Hebrews to refer to those who have believed and received the Holy Spirit. They were "illuminated" or "enlightened" in the same manner as the apostles who did not understand Jesus' teaching before they were baptized in the Holy Spirit on Pentecost but after receiving the Holy Spirit understood it all.

<< He taught that Communion caused our flesh and blood to be nourished by transmutation - this is heresy:>>

No, he did not. Your misunderstanding illuminates (Gr.: photizo) room for improvement of your reading comprehension skills.

By the partaking of the body and blood of the Eucharist, we are changed (transmuted) from being dead in our sins to having eternal life in Christ. That's what John reported Jesus to have said.

John 6:53-54 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

John 6:56 “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him."

John 15:4 “Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me. 6 “If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned."

<< The communion elements are a symbol >>

nonsense

NO WHERE in scripture is there an inkling of a suggestion on a hint that when Jesus said "this is my body" and "this is my blood" that He really meant; "this is the symbol of my body and the symbol of my blood."

The church has always taught that the bread and wine became the body and blood of Christ exactly as Jesus and Justin stated.

<< Our flesh and blood have not changed or benefited in any way from taking communion.>>

Jesus disagrees with your heretical view.

John 6:53-54 Then Jesus (you remember hearing something about him, right?) said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

So, according to the Jesus fellow, (Remember Him? You suggested that you had met.) if you don't eat His flesh and drink His blood (the Eucharist) then you have no life in you.

But, if you DO eat His flesh and drink His blood (the Eucharist) then you have ETERNAL life.

Again, that's just Jesus talking. I don't know how much faith you have in what HE said, but there it is. Take it or leave it.


I'd say that is both a change (from death to life) and a definite benefit. (ETERNAL life.)

But, if you really insist, you can eat the symbols of His body and blood and you can have "symbolic" eternal life. (Which is not real eternal life. It's just a warm fuzzy thing that some folk like to do.)

I'll go for the real thing.
 

zeke25

New Member
May 18, 2014
513
15
0
77
Western USA
OzSpen said:
So are you going to throw out all contemporary teachers in the Christian church? I'm thinking of people like Marcus Loane, Peter Jensen, Leon Morris, John Stott, F F Bruce, N T Wright, Richard Bauckham, R C Sproul, John MacArthur, Albert Mohler, D A Carson, Wayne Grudem, Roger Olson, Kevin Vanhoozer, Darrel Bock, etc.

Are all of these teachers to be put into your category: 'It really is of little significance'. You claim, 'I would not teach from Justin Martyr. We have the cannon (sic) of Scripture and it is tried and true. We have the writings of the apostles and the guidance of the Holy Ghost. What need have we of Justin?' In your sermon preparation do you NEVER refer to writers other than Scripture? I have found other writers who are very helpful in explaining a concept from Scripture better than I am. I will quote them (with appropriate credit) when I preach.

Do you NEVER EVER refer to any other source but the Bible when you preach? If that is the case, how do you obtain information about the culture and history of the day? What about archaeology?

In addition, there is not one word in the NT that teaches me Greek grammar. I had to learn all of my introductory Greek grammar from a writer outside of the Bible. That was John Wenham (author) and Larry Hurtado at Regent College, Vancouver BC, Canada. I'm forever grateful for the introductory work Wenham and Hurtado did to give me a grounding in the Greek NT. And have a guess what? Not one word of grammar for Hebrew, Aramaic or Koine Greek is found in the Bible.

I think it is rather naive not to go to writers outside of the Bible to obtain information.

Remember what you wrote in your original post?
So you rely on other groups for your research (even 'aberrant groups' - your word) as well, so why are you now taking your Bible-only approach?

Then you stated in your OP:
What have you done? mixed CoG research with what you want to say. So you are prepared to use an 'aberrant group' (your language as with CoG) to prove your point. Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.

In Christ,
Oz
Oz said: So are you going to throw out all contemporary teachers in the Christian church? I'm thinking of people like Marcus Loane, Peter Jensen, Leon Morris, John Stott, F F Bruce, N T Wright, Richard Bauckham, R C Sproul, John MacArthur, Albert Mohler, D A Carson, Wayne Grudem, Roger Olson, Kevin Vanhoozer, Darrel Bock, etc.

Zeke reply: I cannot know the background of every teacher in history. If I cannot find out something about the person, then their teachings could be suspect. So, why waste my time with these teachers? I simply go to the same source they should have gone to - the Bible and the Holy Ghost. If they found their answers there, then so should I. Besides, I do recognize some of the names you posted here and some of them are antichrists, not Christians.





Oz: Are all of these teachers to be put into your category: 'It really is of little significance’.

Z: I did not say the teachers were of little significance, I said the Jordan catching on fire is, and that was only if that were true. I never said I agreed with it, I was posing it to be true as a gimme, so we could move onto more important matters. But you want to belabor the point. I don’t believe it to be true for a second. I would suspect that a miracle that would scare the tar out of a multitude of people, not to mention some getting scorched, would be worthy of mention in the Bible. So, with no biblical support, let’s just log that one in the looney bin.






Oz: You claim, 'I would not teach from Justin Martyr. We have the cannon (sic) of Scripture and it is tried and true. We have the writings of the apostles and the guidance of the Holy Ghost. What need have we of Justin?' In your sermon preparation do you NEVER refer to writers other than Scripture?

Z: Sorry about the typo on canon. Almost never, do I refer to other writers. That doesn’t mean that I haven’t read some of their material. But after reading some of their material, then I almost always reject that which they have said, because it almost always contradicts the Bible. Even if a writer has written solid information of the subject I am researching, I cannot use that information. Why? Because I continue to look into other things they have written and I almost always uncover some bizarre theology they teach. So, if I quote them where they are solid that might encourage others to seek after their teachings, and the others (innocent children) might get sucked into their bizarre teachings that would be harmful to their souls. What are some of these bizarre things? It runs the full gamut from craftily hidden heresy that seems innocent enough on the surface to out right science fiction, such as an asteroid sucked all the water off of Mars and dumped it on Earth and Noah’s flood was spawned. One pastor, whom I confronted, was quoting Michael "I sleep with little boys" and "I hang my small child out the 2nd story window for fun" Jackson and Michael's words in one of his sermons. He didn't quote the Bible, he quoted M. Jackson. BTW, God closed that church down, a relatively mainstream Assembly of God church.

If you can show me even one of these teachers you listed who can give me the Biblical definition of “evening”, then I’ll give some attention to their writings.






Oz: Do you NEVER EVER refer to any other source but the Bible when you preach? If that is the case, how do you obtain information about the culture and history of the day? What about archaeology?

Z: Seldom is culture and history of significance. God is teaching us about the hearts and souls of men. I corresponded with scholars who have done it all: archeology, etc. and they are the most ignorant men on the planet.

Here is an sample from one of my teachings. Please pay particular attention to paragraph 1c. If you think you know anything about this subject, then let us met on another thread. None of your experts have anything to say on this subject that is accurate, I’ve looked for one for years. They do not exist. I’ve dialogued with one scholar on this subject. He even helps write the tripe that is put on the History Channel and the Discovery Channel. He has literally done it all, and literally is a biblical illiterate.


Crucifixion Week and the Harmony of the Gospels


Section I


THE CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS DURING CRUCIFIXION WEEK

1.a. What does the Bible teach about the chronology of events during crucifixion week? On which day was the Last Supper eaten? On which day was Christ crucified? Which day was Passover? Which day did the resurrection take place? By the end of this study, you should have the correct answers to these five questions. Please notice that the first question asks what the Bible teaches. We will not concern ourselves with the teachings of the Jews, nor the teachings of cults, nor the teachings of antichrist groups, nor even the teachings of most of Christianity or those who think that they are Christians. The Bible is our only authority. These other groups are not our authority and their teachings on the chronology of events during crucifixion week are usually in gross error and frequently, even blasphemous. The Scriptures say, in 1 Corinthians 11:19 KJV, "For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you."

1.b. There are a number of things taught in the Bible which must be studied and understood before anyone can do any meaningful study regarding the chronology of events during crucifixion week. Many pick up the Bible, read a few passages out of the gospels, and say: "Here it is, we now know what took place and when." Unfortunately, if this is all they did, then they know little to nothing about the proper sequence of events during crucifixion week.

1.c. Bible scholars will read numerous books written by their peers and read other works written in past centuries. They will study the exegesis of linguists in all the biblical languages. They will study the works of those who have traveled to Jerusalem, or make the trip themselves and study the steps taken by our Savior in His final days and hours. They will study the customs, mores, and laws of that day, both Roman and Jewish. They will study the geography and topography of the city and street maps. They will dig into the ancient literature of the time, looking for clues from any archeological discoveries that may have been made. They will do it all. And when they are finished digesting all of this, they will know little to nothing about the chronology of events during crucifixion week. Why is this so?

1.d. The reason so little is known, is that hundreds of years ago a few people along the way decided the answers for everyone that followed in history. They concocted man-made rules and ideas that needed to be followed and were determined to make it fit, no matter how many Scriptures they had to twist and improperly translate. They convinced their students of the rightness of their assumptions, and those students in turned convinced their students, until the scholars, pastors, and laymen of today are so dumbed down and so committed to their pre-determined agenda that they have dug a hole for themselves that they not only refuse to climb out of, but could not climb out of even if someone tried to lift them out with a rescue helicopter. It is a sad state of affairs. There is more to be said later in this teaching.

1.e. So, in the following few paragraphs I will detail some of those biblical teachings that one must first familiarize themselves before they can attempt any credible study of the chronology of events during crucifixion week. Then we will move forward to explore the Bible for the correct answers.






Oz: In addition, there is not one word in the NT that teaches me Greek grammar. I had to learn all of my introductory Greek grammar from a writer outside of the Bible. That was John Wenham (author) and Larry Hurtado at Regent College, Vancouver BC, Canada. I'm forever grateful for the introductory work Wenham and Hurtado did to give me a grounding in the Greek NT. And have a guess what? Not one word of grammar for Hebrew, Aramaic or Koine Greek is found in the Bible.

Z: A working knowledge of the Biblical languages is a definite plus. I am not anti-education. But we must be careful what is taught. I have found errors in the lexicons, and most of them merely copy one another, so the errors are carried forward. I paid a lot of money to obtain a Greek Lexicon that was not based on the Bible. I needed to know what words in Greek meant, even if those words were not written into the Biblical text. The Bible lexicons, all by themselves, are not enough.





Oz: I think it is rather naive not to go to writers outside of the Bible to obtain information.

Z: If they have something worthy to say, sure I check them out. But like I say, I cannot know about everyone in the history of man, so I have a few litmus tests that are reliable and true. It helps me weed out a whole bunch. But even if I find what appears to be reliable and true information from another man’s writings, what good is that to me? If I do not do all of the research from scratch myself, from the Bible with the Holy Ghost, then I have nothing that I can rely upon. I must trace their every step. I must check every Biblical reference. I must check everything they have written on the subject under study. If I do not, and I just go with their conclusions, and if they happen to be wrong, even in a minor area, then I am at fault and might end up teaching heresy. This I do not want to do.






Oz: So you rely on other groups for your research (even 'aberrant groups' - your word) as well, so why are you now taking your Bible-only approach?

Z: I have found many aberrant groups that know a whole lot more about some Christian doctrines than Christians do. Do I trust them because of this? No, of course not. But when their research, into things such as Justin Martyr, are done, they are frequently done with great precision, and their writings reflect this. In this case, I’ve contented with COG on many occasions in the past. I know how confused their theology is. But, I do respect their scholarship. If COG quoted from J. Martyr’s writings, then I have fair confidence that his quotes were accurate. Besides, COG is not the only one who makes this info available. I needed a quick reminder, with quotes, about some of Justin’s theology, so I went and found it in short order. It’s not like I have an encyclopedia mind and I can pull up Justin 20 years after the last time I had a reason to discuss him. On another thread, another poster on this forum was beside himself touting the virtues of Justin. His boasting deserved an answer and a thread of its own. Isn’t that part of the reason we are all here?






Oz: What have you done? mixed CoG research with what you want to say. So you are prepared to use an 'aberrant group' (your language as with CoG) to prove your point. Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.

Z: I’m sorry if you mistakenly take that as mixing. The mixing I’m talking about is the mixing of heresy and antichrist teachings with the gospel of Christ. I have committed no such infraction. I did not take COG theology and try to mix it with the true gospel. I gave them credit for the material I borrowed from their website. It would be dishonest for me to do otherwise. But this is in no way a mixing of doctrine. I made it clear that I considered their doctrine to be aberrant. I do not want to encourage others to follow their teachings, instead, I want them warned to stay away. I have the same problem with many lexicons and bible translations. I warn people away from certain elements in these books. But if I point out an error in a Bible translation, I am not mixing doctrine, I am correcting error.

I hope this helps ease some of your concerns.

In Christ,

Zeke25

JimParker said:
<< Justin is claimed as the earliest post-New Testament source for such doctrines as Sunday worship,>>

At the time when Justin was writing, Sunday, the day of Jesus' resurrection (Mar 16:9), was already the day that Christian believers gathered to celebrate God's victory over death and to worship.

The idea that Sunday worship was a pagan practice introduced into Christianity by some heretic is pure nonsense.

<<He taught that Water Baptism causes one to be illuminated - this is heresy:>>

More nonsense.

Peter told the crowd on Pentecost that they needed to be Baptized in the name o Jesus and they would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Act 2:38) T hose who receive the Holy Spirit experienced an awakening of their minds to understand the scriptures. Just as anyone who gains understanding is said to ave been "enlightened"

Paul refers to that process in his letter to the Ephesian church.

Eph 1:15-19 Therefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints, do not cease to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers: that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him, the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; (Gr: photizo) that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints,
and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power


The word translated "illuminated" (Heb 10:32) or "enlightened" (Heb 6:4; Eph 1:18) is photizo. It is used twice in Hebrews to refer to those who have believed and received the Holy Spirit. They were "illuminated" or "enlightened" in the same manner as the apostles who did not understand Jesus' teaching before they were baptized in the Holy Spirit on Pentecost but after receiving the Holy Spirit understood it all.

<< He taught that Communion caused our flesh and blood to be nourished by transmutation - this is heresy:>>

No, he did not. Your misunderstanding illuminates (Gr.: photizo) room for improvement of your reading comprehension skills.

By the partaking of the body and blood of the Eucharist, we are changed (transmuted) from being dead in our sins to having eternal life in Christ. That's what John reported Jesus to have said.

John 6:53-54 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

John 6:56 “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him."

John 15:4 “Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me. 6 “If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned."

<< The communion elements are a symbol >>

nonsense

NO WHERE in scripture is there an inkling of a suggestion on a hint that when Jesus said "this is my body" and "this is my blood" that He really meant; "this is the symbol of my body and the symbol of my blood."

The church has always taught that the bread and wine became the body and blood of Christ exactly as Jesus and Justin stated.

<< Our flesh and blood have not changed or benefited in any way from taking communion.>>

Jesus disagrees with your heretical view.

John 6:53-54 Then Jesus (you remember hearing something about him, right?) said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

So, according to the Jesus fellow, (Remember Him? You suggested that you had met.) if you don't eat His flesh and drink His blood (the Eucharist) then you have no life in you.

But, if you DO eat His flesh and drink His blood (the Eucharist) then you have ETERNAL life.

Again, that's just Jesus talking. I don't know how much faith you have in what HE said, but there it is. Take it or leave it.


I'd say that is both a change (from death to life) and a definite benefit. (ETERNAL life.)

But, if you really insist, you can eat the symbols of His body and blood and you can have "symbolic" eternal life. (Which is not real eternal life. It's just a warm fuzzy thing that some folk like to do.)

I'll go for the real thing.
Hello Jim,

Let’s try to make some sense of what you are posing here.

JimParker said: << Justin is claimed as the earliest post-New Testament source for such doctrines as Sunday worship,>>

At the time when Justin was writing, Sunday, the day of Jesus' resurrection (Mar 16:9), was already the day that Christian believers gathered to celebrate God's victory over death and to worship.

The idea that Sunday worship was a pagan practice introduced into Christianity by some heretic is pure nonsense.

Zeke25 replied: I never said that Sunday worship was a pagan practice. I know that it is, but I didn’t use that information in my postings. What I said was that Christ was not risen from the dead on Sunday, but on Saturday night, prior to Sunday sunrise. If a Christian wants to worship on Sunday that’s his business, I hope he does it the other six days as well.






Jim: Peter told the crowd on Pentecost that they needed to be Baptized in the name o Jesus and they would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Act 2:38) T hose who receive the Holy Spirit experienced an awakening of their minds to understand the scriptures. Just as anyone who gains understanding is said to ave been “enlightened"

Z: You need to consult the whole counsel of God. Peter is not saying that the physical act of being baptized will command the Holy Spirit to come upon you. No Christian preacher should ever preach such nonsense - it is pure heresy. People get baptized for lots of reasons besides becoming born again. Baptism is an act of obedience for true believers and an act to show the whole world that they have accepted Christ. Repentance comes before being saved and before baptism, being indwelt by the Holy Ghost comes before baptism. But receiving the gifts of the Holy Ghost are not guaranteed at baptism. They will come, but when is another story. Illumination is not the proper description. Having your mind conformed to the image of Christ is a continuous process after one has been saved. It has nothing to do with baptism. Do I really need to look up these Scriptures for you? Why is it so important to you to defend a heretic?





Jim: They were "illuminated" or "enlightened" in the same manner as the apostles who did not understand Jesus' teaching before they were baptized in the Holy Spirit on Pentecost but after receiving the Holy Spirit understood it all.

Z: Pure speculation on your part. There were 3 times the apostles received the Holy Spirit. Which of these 3 times gave them this so-called illumination you and Justin seem infatuated with? And none of these three times were connected to water baptism.
1. Yahoshua sent them out to do signs, wonders, and miracles.
2. He breathed on them and said for them to received the Holy Ghost.
3. Pentecost.
Like they didn’t have any understanding before Pentecost?






Jim: He taught that Communion caused our flesh and blood to be nourished by transmutation - this is heresy:>>

No, he did not. Your misunderstanding illuminates (Gr.: photizo) room for improvement of your reading comprehension skills.

By the partaking of the body and blood of the Eucharist, we are changed (transmuted) from being dead in our sins to having eternal life in Christ. That's what John reported Jesus to have said.

John 6:53-54 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

John 6:56 “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him."

Z: Jim, you’ve really lost it on this one. One, Christians do not take a eucharist. Christians take communion.

Two, John did not report any such thing in John 6:53-56. John was not talking about communion at all. In fact, John knew nothing about communion at that point in history. Christ taught communion at the Last Supper. So, in John 6 Christ was teaching something altogether different. You have to read the entire passage through to John 6:63 to find out what Christ was teaching. He was teaching that you must consume his teachings into your heart and believe on Him to receive eternal life. Communion was not even in the picture, and to teach otherwise is to teach heresy.







Jim: NO WHERE in scripture is there an inkling of a suggestion on a hint that when Jesus said "this is my body" and "this is my blood" that He really meant; "this is the symbol of my body and the symbol of my blood."

The church has always taught that the bread and wine became the body and blood of Christ exactly as Jesus and Justin stated.

Z: Jim, it is right there is Scripture to be plainly seen. Since you are apparently caught in a mind trap, you are blinded when you read it and therefore do not see it. So, except you repent, I am wasting my time trying to explain it to you.


Zeke25
 

JimParker

Active Member
Mar 31, 2015
396
39
28
Las Vegas, NV
zeke25 said:
Oz said: So are you going to throw out all contemporary teachers in the Christian church? I'm thinking of people like Marcus Loane, Peter Jensen, Leon Morris, John Stott, F F Bruce, N T Wright, Richard Bauckham, R C Sproul, John MacArthur, Albert Mohler, D A Carson, Wayne Grudem, Roger Olson, Kevin Vanhoozer, Darrel Bock, etc.

Zeke reply: I cannot know the background of every teacher in history. If I cannot find out something about the person, then their teachings could be suspect. So, why waste my time with these teachers? I simply go to the same source they should have gone to - the Bible and the Holy Ghost. If they found their answers there, then so should I. Besides, I do recognize some of the names you posted here and some of them are antichrists, not Christians.





Oz: Are all of these teachers to be put into your category: 'It really is of little significance’.

Z: I did not say the teachers were of little significance, I said the Jordan catching on fire is, and that was only if that were true. I never said I agreed with it, I was posing it to be true as a gimme, so we could move onto more important matters. But you want to belabor the point. I don’t believe it to be true for a second. I would suspect that a miracle that would scare the tar out of a multitude of people, not to mention some getting scorched, would be worthy of mention in the Bible. So, with no biblical support, let’s just log that one in the looney bin.






Oz: You claim, 'I would not teach from Justin Martyr. We have the cannon (sic) of Scripture and it is tried and true. We have the writings of the apostles and the guidance of the Holy Ghost. What need have we of Justin?' In your sermon preparation do you NEVER refer to writers other than Scripture?

Z: Sorry about the typo on canon. Almost never, do I refer to other writers. That doesn’t mean that I haven’t read some of their material. But after reading some of their material, then I almost always reject that which they have said, because it almost always contradicts the Bible. Even if a writer has written solid information of the subject I am researching, I cannot use that information. Why? Because I continue to look into other things they have written and I almost always uncover some bizarre theology they teach. So, if I quote them where they are solid that might encourage others to seek after their teachings, and the others (innocent children) might get sucked into their bizarre teachings that would be harmful to their souls. What are some of these bizarre things? It runs the full gamut from craftily hidden heresy that seems innocent enough on the surface to out right science fiction, such as an asteroid sucked all the water off of Mars and dumped it on Earth and Noah’s flood was spawned. One pastor, whom I confronted, was quoting Michael "I sleep with little boys" and "I hang my small child out the 2nd story window for fun" Jackson and Michael's words in one of his sermons. He didn't quote the Bible, he quoted M. Jackson. BTW, God closed that church down, a relatively mainstream Assembly of God church.

If you can show me even one of these teachers you listed who can give me the Biblical definition of “evening”, then I’ll give some attention to their writings.






Oz: Do you NEVER EVER refer to any other source but the Bible when you preach? If that is the case, how do you obtain information about the culture and history of the day? What about archaeology?

Z: Seldom is culture and history of significance. God is teaching us about the hearts and souls of men. I corresponded with scholars who have done it all: archeology, etc. and they are the most ignorant men on the planet.

Here is an sample from one of my teachings. Please pay particular attention to paragraph 1c. If you think you know anything about this subject, then let us met on another thread. None of your experts have anything to say on this subject that is accurate, I’ve looked for one for years. They do not exist. I’ve dialogued with one scholar on this subject. He even helps write the tripe that is put on the History Channel and the Discovery Channel. He has literally done it all, and literally is a biblical illiterate.


Crucifixion Week and the Harmony of the Gospels


Section I


THE CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS DURING CRUCIFIXION WEEK

1.a. What does the Bible teach about the chronology of events during crucifixion week? On which day was the Last Supper eaten? On which day was Christ crucified? Which day was Passover? Which day did the resurrection take place? By the end of this study, you should have the correct answers to these five questions. Please notice that the first question asks what the Bible teaches. We will not concern ourselves with the teachings of the Jews, nor the teachings of cults, nor the teachings of antichrist groups, nor even the teachings of most of Christianity or those who think that they are Christians. The Bible is our only authority. These other groups are not our authority and their teachings on the chronology of events during crucifixion week are usually in gross error and frequently, even blasphemous. The Scriptures say, in 1 Corinthians 11:19 KJV, "For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you."

1.b. There are a number of things taught in the Bible which must be studied and understood before anyone can do any meaningful study regarding the chronology of events during crucifixion week. Many pick up the Bible, read a few passages out of the gospels, and say: "Here it is, we now know what took place and when." Unfortunately, if this is all they did, then they know little to nothing about the proper sequence of events during crucifixion week.

1.c. Bible scholars will read numerous books written by their peers and read other works written in past centuries. They will study the exegesis of linguists in all the biblical languages. They will study the works of those who have traveled to Jerusalem, or make the trip themselves and study the steps taken by our Savior in His final days and hours. They will study the customs, mores, and laws of that day, both Roman and Jewish. They will study the geography and topography of the city and street maps. They will dig into the ancient literature of the time, looking for clues from any archeological discoveries that may have been made. They will do it all. And when they are finished digesting all of this, they will know little to nothing about the chronology of events during crucifixion week. Why is this so?

1.d. The reason so little is known, is that hundreds of years ago a few people along the way decided the answers for everyone that followed in history. They concocted man-made rules and ideas that needed to be followed and were determined to make it fit, no matter how many Scriptures they had to twist and improperly translate. They convinced their students of the rightness of their assumptions, and those students in turned convinced their students, until the scholars, pastors, and laymen of today are so dumbed down and so committed to their pre-determined agenda that they have dug a hole for themselves that they not only refuse to climb out of, but could not climb out of even if someone tried to lift them out with a rescue helicopter. It is a sad state of affairs. There is more to be said later in this teaching.

1.e. So, in the following few paragraphs I will detail some of those biblical teachings that one must first familiarize themselves before they can attempt any credible study of the chronology of events during crucifixion week. Then we will move forward to explore the Bible for the correct answers.






Oz: In addition, there is not one word in the NT that teaches me Greek grammar. I had to learn all of my introductory Greek grammar from a writer outside of the Bible. That was John Wenham (author) and Larry Hurtado at Regent College, Vancouver BC, Canada. I'm forever grateful for the introductory work Wenham and Hurtado did to give me a grounding in the Greek NT. And have a guess what? Not one word of grammar for Hebrew, Aramaic or Koine Greek is found in the Bible.

Z: A working knowledge of the Biblical languages is a definite plus. I am not anti-education. But we must be careful what is taught. I have found errors in the lexicons, and most of them merely copy one another, so the errors are carried forward. I paid a lot of money to obtain a Greek Lexicon that was not based on the Bible. I needed to know what words in Greek meant, even if those words were not written into the Biblical text. The Bible lexicons, all by themselves, are not enough.





Oz: I think it is rather naive not to go to writers outside of the Bible to obtain information.

Z: If they have something worthy to say, sure I check them out. But like I say, I cannot know about everyone in the history of man, so I have a few litmus tests that are reliable and true. It helps me weed out a whole bunch. But even if I find what appears to be reliable and true information from another man’s writings, what good is that to me? If I do not do all of the research from scratch myself, from the Bible with the Holy Ghost, then I have nothing that I can rely upon. I must trace their every step. I must check every Biblical reference. I must check everything they have written on the subject under study. If I do not, and I just go with their conclusions, and if they happen to be wrong, even in a minor area, then I am at fault and might end up teaching heresy. This I do not want to do.






Oz: So you rely on other groups for your research (even 'aberrant groups' - your word) as well, so why are you now taking your Bible-only approach?

Z: I have found many aberrant groups that know a whole lot more about some Christian doctrines than Christians do. Do I trust them because of this? No, of course not. But when their research, into things such as Justin Martyr, are done, they are frequently done with great precision, and their writings reflect this. In this case, I’ve contented with COG on many occasions in the past. I know how confused their theology is. But, I do respect their scholarship. If COG quoted from J. Martyr’s writings, then I have fair confidence that his quotes were accurate. Besides, COG is not the only one who makes this info available. I needed a quick reminder, with quotes, about some of Justin’s theology, so I went and found it in short order. It’s not like I have an encyclopedia mind and I can pull up Justin 20 years after the last time I had a reason to discuss him. On another thread, another poster on this forum was beside himself touting the virtues of Justin. His boasting deserved an answer and a thread of its own. Isn’t that part of the reason we are all here?






Oz: What have you done? mixed CoG research with what you want to say. So you are prepared to use an 'aberrant group' (your language as with CoG) to prove your point. Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.

Z: I’m sorry if you mistakenly take that as mixing. The mixing I’m talking about is the mixing of heresy and antichrist teachings with the gospel of Christ. I have committed no such infraction. I did not take COG theology and try to mix it with the true gospel. I gave them credit for the material I borrowed from their website. It would be dishonest for me to do otherwise. But this is in no way a mixing of doctrine. I made it clear that I considered their doctrine to be aberrant. I do not want to encourage others to follow their teachings, instead, I want them warned to stay away. I have the same problem with many lexicons and bible translations. I warn people away from certain elements in these books. But if I point out an error in a Bible translation, I am not mixing doctrine, I am correcting error.

I hope this helps ease some of your concerns.

In Christ,

Zeke25

Hello Jim,

Let’s try to make some sense of what you are posing here.

JimParker said: << Justin is claimed as the earliest post-New Testament source for such doctrines as Sunday worship,>>

At the time when Justin was writing, Sunday, the day of Jesus' resurrection (Mar 16:9), was already the day that Christian believers gathered to celebrate God's victory over death and to worship.

The idea that Sunday worship was a pagan practice introduced into Christianity by some heretic is pure nonsense.

Zeke25 replied: I never said that Sunday worship was a pagan practice. I know that it is, but I didn’t use that information in my postings. What I said was that Christ was not risen from the dead on Sunday, but on Saturday night, prior to Sunday sunrise. If a Christian wants to worship on Sunday that’s his business, I hope he does it the other six days as well.






Jim: Peter told the crowd on Pentecost that they needed to be Baptized in the name o Jesus and they would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Act 2:38) T hose who receive the Holy Spirit experienced an awakening of their minds to understand the scriptures. Just as anyone who gains understanding is said to ave been “enlightened"

Z: You need to consult the whole counsel of God. Peter is not saying that the physical act of being baptized will command the Holy Spirit to come upon you. No Christian preacher should ever preach such nonsense - it is pure heresy. People get baptized for lots of reasons besides becoming born again. Baptism is an act of obedience for true believers and an act to show the whole world that they have accepted Christ. Repentance comes before being saved and before baptism, being indwelt by the Holy Ghost comes before baptism. But receiving the gifts of the Holy Ghost are not guaranteed at baptism. They will come, but when is another story. Illumination is not the proper description. Having your mind conformed to the image of Christ is a continuous process after one has been saved. It has nothing to do with baptism. Do I really need to look up these Scriptures for you? Why is it so important to you to defend a heretic?





Jim: They were "illuminated" or "enlightened" in the same manner as the apostles who did not understand Jesus' teaching before they were baptized in the Holy Spirit on Pentecost but after receiving the Holy Spirit understood it all.

Z: Pure speculation on your part. There were 3 times the apostles received the Holy Spirit. Which of these 3 times gave them this so-called illumination you and Justin seem infatuated with? And none of these three times were connected to water baptism.
1. Yahoshua sent them out to do signs, wonders, and miracles.
2. He breathed on them and said for them to received the Holy Ghost.
3. Pentecost.
Like they didn’t have any understanding before Pentecost?






Jim: He taught that Communion caused our flesh and blood to be nourished by transmutation - this is heresy:>>

No, he did not. Your misunderstanding illuminates (Gr.: photizo) room for improvement of your reading comprehension skills.

By the partaking of the body and blood of the Eucharist, we are changed (transmuted) from being dead in our sins to having eternal life in Christ. That's what John reported Jesus to have said.

John 6:53-54 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

John 6:56 “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him."

Z: Jim, you’ve really lost it on this one. One, Christians do not take a eucharist. An eucharist is an abomination. Christians take communion.

Two, John did not report any such thing in John 6:53-56. John was not talking about communion at all. In fact, John knew nothing about communion at that point in history. Christ taught communion at the Last Supper. So, in John 6 Christ was teaching something altogether different. You have to read the entire passage through to John 6:63 to find out what Christ was teaching. He was teaching that you must consume his teachings into your heart and believe on Him to receive eternal life. Communion was not even in the picture, and to teach otherwise is to teach heresy.







Jim: NO WHERE in scripture is there an inkling of a suggestion on a hint that when Jesus said "this is my body" and "this is my blood" that He really meant; "this is the symbol of my body and the symbol of my blood."

The church has always taught that the bread and wine became the body and blood of Christ exactly as Jesus and Justin stated.

Z: Jim, it is right there is Scripture to be plainly seen. Since you are apparently caught in a mind trap, you are blinded when you read it and therefore do not see it. So, except you repent, I am wasting my time trying to explain it to you.


Zeke25
<<John was not talking about communion at all.---- I never said that Sunday worship was a pagan practice. I know that it is,...>>

OK, so you have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about.

You're just parroting the same crackpot nonsense that self declared Bible geniuses have been babbling since there was a Bible.

Got it.

Have a nice day.
 

zeke25

New Member
May 18, 2014
513
15
0
77
Western USA
JimParker said:
<<John was not talking about communion at all.---- I never said that Sunday worship was a pagan practice. I know that it is,...>>

OK, so you have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about.

You're just parroting the same crackpot nonsense that self declared Bible geniuses have been babbling since there was a Bible.

Got it.

Have a nice day.
JimParker,

Just because your understanding of the Scriptures is incomplete, does not mean that others don't know what they are talking about.

It is a shame that you have been taught such horrible Bible doctrine that you actually believe (with your emotions, not your intellect) that John 6 talks about communion, when it does nothing of the sort. One does not have to be a genius to see that. They only have to have a love of the truth and be willing to study and learn.

Zeke25
 

JimParker

Active Member
Mar 31, 2015
396
39
28
Las Vegas, NV
zeke25 said:
JimParker,

Just because your understanding of the Scriptures is incomplete, does not mean that others don't know what they are talking about.

It is a shame that you have been taught such horrible Bible doctrine that you actually believe (with your emotions, not your intellect) that John 6 talks about communion, when it does nothing of the sort. One does not have to be a genius to see that. They only have to have a love of the truth and be willing to study and learn.

Zeke25
<< others don't know what they are talking about.>>

I didn't say "others"; I said "YOU."

Oh! I see. One has to be a Bible Genius like YOU to understand the scriptures!

Please. You're making a fool of yourself.
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
zeke25 said:
Oz said: So are you going to throw out all contemporary teachers in the Christian church? I'm thinking of people like Marcus Loane, Peter Jensen, Leon Morris, John Stott, F F Bruce, N T Wright, Richard Bauckham, R C Sproul, John MacArthur, Albert Mohler, D A Carson, Wayne Grudem, Roger Olson, Kevin Vanhoozer, Darrel Bock, etc.

Zeke reply: I cannot know the background of every teacher in history. If I cannot find out something about the person, then their teachings could be suspect. So, why waste my time with these teachers? I simply go to the same source they should have gone to - the Bible and the Holy Ghost. If they found their answers there, then so should I. Besides, I do recognize some of the names you posted here and some of them are antichrists, not Christians.

Oz: Are all of these teachers to be put into your category: 'It really is of little significance’.

Z: I did not say the teachers were of little significance, I said the Jordan catching on fire is, and that was only if that were true. I never said I agreed with it, I was posing it to be true as a gimme, so we could move onto more important matters. But you want to belabor the point. I don’t believe it to be true for a second. I would suspect that a miracle that would scare the tar out of a multitude of people, not to mention some getting scorched, would be worthy of mention in the Bible. So, with no biblical support, let’s just log that one in the looney bin.

Oz: You claim, 'I would not teach from Justin Martyr. We have the cannon (sic) of Scripture and it is tried and true. We have the writings of the apostles and the guidance of the Holy Ghost. What need have we of Justin?' In your sermon preparation do you NEVER refer to writers other than Scripture?

Z: Sorry about the typo on canon. Almost never, do I refer to other writers. That doesn’t mean that I haven’t read some of their material. But after reading some of their material, then I almost always reject that which they have said, because it almost always contradicts the Bible. Even if a writer has written solid information of the subject I am researching, I cannot use that information. Why? Because I continue to look into other things they have written and I almost always uncover some bizarre theology they teach. So, if I quote them where they are solid that might encourage others to seek after their teachings, and the others (innocent children) might get sucked into their bizarre teachings that would be harmful to their souls. What are some of these bizarre things? It runs the full gamut from craftily hidden heresy that seems innocent enough on the surface to out right science fiction, such as an asteroid sucked all the water off of Mars and dumped it on Earth and Noah’s flood was spawned. One pastor, whom I confronted, was quoting Michael "I sleep with little boys" and "I hang my small child out the 2nd story window for fun" Jackson and Michael's words in one of his sermons. He didn't quote the Bible, he quoted M. Jackson. BTW, God closed that church down, a relatively mainstream Assembly of God church.

If you can show me even one of these teachers you listed who can give me the Biblical definition of “evening”, then I’ll give some attention to their writings.

Oz: Do you NEVER EVER refer to any other source but the Bible when you preach? If that is the case, how do you obtain information about the culture and history of the day? What about archaeology?

Z: Seldom is culture and history of significance. God is teaching us about the hearts and souls of men. I corresponded with scholars who have done it all: archeology, etc. and they are the most ignorant men on the planet.

Here is an sample from one of my teachings. Please pay particular attention to paragraph 1c. If you think you know anything about this subject, then let us met on another thread. None of your experts have anything to say on this subject that is accurate, I’ve looked for one for years. They do not exist. I’ve dialogued with one scholar on this subject. He even helps write the tripe that is put on the History Channel and the Discovery Channel. He has literally done it all, and literally is a biblical illiterate.


Crucifixion Week and the Harmony of the Gospels


Section I


THE CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS DURING CRUCIFIXION WEEK

1.a. What does the Bible teach about the chronology of events during crucifixion week? On which day was the Last Supper eaten? On which day was Christ crucified? Which day was Passover? Which day did the resurrection take place? By the end of this study, you should have the correct answers to these five questions. Please notice that the first question asks what the Bible teaches. We will not concern ourselves with the teachings of the Jews, nor the teachings of cults, nor the teachings of antichrist groups, nor even the teachings of most of Christianity or those who think that they are Christians. The Bible is our only authority. These other groups are not our authority and their teachings on the chronology of events during crucifixion week are usually in gross error and frequently, even blasphemous. The Scriptures say, in 1 Corinthians 11:19 KJV, "For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you."

1.b. There are a number of things taught in the Bible which must be studied and understood before anyone can do any meaningful study regarding the chronology of events during crucifixion week. Many pick up the Bible, read a few passages out of the gospels, and say: "Here it is, we now know what took place and when." Unfortunately, if this is all they did, then they know little to nothing about the proper sequence of events during crucifixion week.

1.c. Bible scholars will read numerous books written by their peers and read other works written in past centuries. They will study the exegesis of linguists in all the biblical languages. They will study the works of those who have traveled to Jerusalem, or make the trip themselves and study the steps taken by our Savior in His final days and hours. They will study the customs, mores, and laws of that day, both Roman and Jewish. They will study the geography and topography of the city and street maps. They will dig into the ancient literature of the time, looking for clues from any archeological discoveries that may have been made. They will do it all. And when they are finished digesting all of this, they will know little to nothing about the chronology of events during crucifixion week. Why is this so?

1.d. The reason so little is known, is that hundreds of years ago a few people along the way decided the answers for everyone that followed in history. They concocted man-made rules and ideas that needed to be followed and were determined to make it fit, no matter how many Scriptures they had to twist and improperly translate. They convinced their students of the rightness of their assumptions, and those students in turned convinced their students, until the scholars, pastors, and laymen of today are so dumbed down and so committed to their pre-determined agenda that they have dug a hole for themselves that they not only refuse to climb out of, but could not climb out of even if someone tried to lift them out with a rescue helicopter. It is a sad state of affairs. There is more to be said later in this teaching.

1.e. So, in the following few paragraphs I will detail some of those biblical teachings that one must first familiarize themselves before they can attempt any credible study of the chronology of events during crucifixion week. Then we will move forward to explore the Bible for the correct answers.


Oz: In addition, there is not one word in the NT that teaches me Greek grammar. I had to learn all of my introductory Greek grammar from a writer outside of the Bible. That was John Wenham (author) and Larry Hurtado at Regent College, Vancouver BC, Canada. I'm forever grateful for the introductory work Wenham and Hurtado did to give me a grounding in the Greek NT. And have a guess what? Not one word of grammar for Hebrew, Aramaic or Koine Greek is found in the Bible.

Z: A working knowledge of the Biblical languages is a definite plus. I am not anti-education. But we must be careful what is taught. I have found errors in the lexicons, and most of them merely copy one another, so the errors are carried forward. I paid a lot of money to obtain a Greek Lexicon that was not based on the Bible. I needed to know what words in Greek meant, even if those words were not written into the Biblical text. The Bible lexicons, all by themselves, are not enough.

Oz: I think it is rather naive not to go to writers outside of the Bible to obtain information.

Z: If they have something worthy to say, sure I check them out. But like I say, I cannot know about everyone in the history of man, so I have a few litmus tests that are reliable and true. It helps me weed out a whole bunch. But even if I find what appears to be reliable and true information from another man’s writings, what good is that to me? If I do not do all of the research from scratch myself, from the Bible with the Holy Ghost, then I have nothing that I can rely upon. I must trace their every step. I must check every Biblical reference. I must check everything they have written on the subject under study. If I do not, and I just go with their conclusions, and if they happen to be wrong, even in a minor area, then I am at fault and might end up teaching heresy. This I do not want to do.

Oz: So you rely on other groups for your research (even 'aberrant groups' - your word) as well, so why are you now taking your Bible-only approach?

Z: I have found many aberrant groups that know a whole lot more about some Christian doctrines than Christians do. Do I trust them because of this? No, of course not. But when their research, into things such as Justin Martyr, are done, they are frequently done with great precision, and their writings reflect this. In this case, I’ve contented with COG on many occasions in the past. I know how confused their theology is. But, I do respect their scholarship. If COG quoted from J. Martyr’s writings, then I have fair confidence that his quotes were accurate. Besides, COG is not the only one who makes this info available. I needed a quick reminder, with quotes, about some of Justin’s theology, so I went and found it in short order. It’s not like I have an encyclopedia mind and I can pull up Justin 20 years after the last time I had a reason to discuss him. On another thread, another poster on this forum was beside himself touting the virtues of Justin. His boasting deserved an answer and a thread of its own. Isn’t that part of the reason we are all here?


Oz: What have you done? mixed CoG research with what you want to say. So you are prepared to use an 'aberrant group' (your language as with CoG) to prove your point. Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.

Z: I’m sorry if you mistakenly take that as mixing. The mixing I’m talking about is the mixing of heresy and antichrist teachings with the gospel of Christ. I have committed no such infraction. I did not take COG theology and try to mix it with the true gospel. I gave them credit for the material I borrowed from their website. It would be dishonest for me to do otherwise. But this is in no way a mixing of doctrine. I made it clear that I considered their doctrine to be aberrant. I do not want to encourage others to follow their teachings, instead, I want them warned to stay away. I have the same problem with many lexicons and bible translations. I warn people away from certain elements in these books. But if I point out an error in a Bible translation, I am not mixing doctrine, I am correcting error.

I hope this helps ease some of your concerns.

In Christ,

Zeke25

Hello Jim,

Let’s try to make some sense of what you are posing here.

JimParker said: << Justin is claimed as the earliest post-New Testament source for such doctrines as Sunday worship,>>

At the time when Justin was writing, Sunday, the day of Jesus' resurrection (Mar 16:9), was already the day that Christian believers gathered to celebrate God's victory over death and to worship.

The idea that Sunday worship was a pagan practice introduced into Christianity by some heretic is pure nonsense.

Zeke25 replied: I never said that Sunday worship was a pagan practice. I know that it is, but I didn’t use that information in my postings. What I said was that Christ was not risen from the dead on Sunday, but on Saturday night, prior to Sunday sunrise. If a Christian wants to worship on Sunday that’s his business, I hope he does it the other six days as well.

Jim: Peter told the crowd on Pentecost that they needed to be Baptized in the name o Jesus and they would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Act 2:38) T hose who receive the Holy Spirit experienced an awakening of their minds to understand the scriptures. Just as anyone who gains understanding is said to ave been “enlightened"

Z: You need to consult the whole counsel of God. Peter is not saying that the physical act of being baptized will command the Holy Spirit to come upon you. No Christian preacher should ever preach such nonsense - it is pure heresy. People get baptized for lots of reasons besides becoming born again. Baptism is an act of obedience for true believers and an act to show the whole world that they have accepted Christ. Repentance comes before being saved and before baptism, being indwelt by the Holy Ghost comes before baptism. But receiving the gifts of the Holy Ghost are not guaranteed at baptism. They will come, but when is another story. Illumination is not the proper description. Having your mind conformed to the image of Christ is a continuous process after one has been saved. It has nothing to do with baptism. Do I really need to look up these Scriptures for you? Why is it so important to you to defend a heretic?

Jim: They were "illuminated" or "enlightened" in the same manner as the apostles who did not understand Jesus' teaching before they were baptized in the Holy Spirit on Pentecost but after receiving the Holy Spirit understood it all.

Z: Pure speculation on your part. There were 3 times the apostles received the Holy Spirit. Which of these 3 times gave them this so-called illumination you and Justin seem infatuated with? And none of these three times were connected to water baptism.
1. Yahoshua sent them out to do signs, wonders, and miracles.
2. He breathed on them and said for them to received the Holy Ghost.
3. Pentecost.
Like they didn’t have any understanding before Pentecost?

Jim: He taught that Communion caused our flesh and blood to be nourished by transmutation - this is heresy:>>

No, he did not. Your misunderstanding illuminates (Gr.: photizo) room for improvement of your reading comprehension skills.

By the partaking of the body and blood of the Eucharist, we are changed (transmuted) from being dead in our sins to having eternal life in Christ. That's what John reported Jesus to have said.

John 6:53-54 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

John 6:56 “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him."

Z: Jim, you’ve really lost it on this one. One, Christians do not take a eucharist. Christians take communion.

Two, John did not report any such thing in John 6:53-56. John was not talking about communion at all. In fact, John knew nothing about communion at that point in history. Christ taught communion at the Last Supper. So, in John 6 Christ was teaching something altogether different. You have to read the entire passage through to John 6:63 to find out what Christ was teaching. He was teaching that you must consume his teachings into your heart and believe on Him to receive eternal life. Communion was not even in the picture, and to teach otherwise is to teach heresy.

Jim: NO WHERE in scripture is there an inkling of a suggestion on a hint that when Jesus said "this is my body" and "this is my blood" that He really meant; "this is the symbol of my body and the symbol of my blood."

The church has always taught that the bread and wine became the body and blood of Christ exactly as Jesus and Justin stated.

Z: Jim, it is right there is Scripture to be plainly seen. Since you are apparently caught in a mind trap, you are blinded when you read it and therefore do not see it. So, except you repent, I am wasting my time trying to explain it to you.


Zeke25
Zeke25,

There's too much fuzzy thinking, in my view, in your response for me to spend any time wading through it to refute the points you have made. I'll mention just one:

Z: Sorry about the typo on canon. Almost never, do I refer to other writers. That doesn’t mean that I haven’t read some of their material.
The fact remains that you couldn't even begin this thread without citing from some other writers, the CoG. You didn't quote your 'heretical' quotes directly from the works of Justin Martyr but from another contemporary writer.

There's too much of contradiction is some of your writing here for me to spend time on refuting it. You don't seem to be open to correction.

Oz
 

zeke25

New Member
May 18, 2014
513
15
0
77
Western USA
JimParker said:
<< others don't know what they are talking about.>>

I didn't say "others"; I said "YOU."

Oh! I see. One has to be a Bible Genius like YOU to understand the scriptures!

Please. You're making a fool of yourself.
JimParker,

You can change and admit that John 6 teaches nothing, absolutely nothing, about communion. Or, you can continue to engage in personal attacks instead of engaging the topics at hand. If you continue with personal attacks that merely reveals that are out of intelligent things to say, and that you have no ability to defend your denominational position. Try using your own brain instead of the denominational brain that has been given you. You have a personal responsibility before the God of the Universe to stand on your own, your denomination will not be your attorney before the Judgment Seat of Christ.

Zeke25
OzSpen said:
Zeke25,

There's too much fuzzy thinking, in my view, in your response for me to spend any time wading through it to refute the points you have made. I'll mention just one:


The fact remains that you couldn't even begin this thread without citing from some other writers, the CoG. You didn't quote your 'heretical' quotes directly from the works of Justin Martyr but from another contemporary writer.

There's too much of contradiction is some of your writing here for me to spend time on refuting it. You don't seem to be open to correction.

Oz
Oz,

There is no contradiction in my writing. And no, I did not quote Justin Martyr's writings from another source - the quotes I commented on were directly from Justin himself. If I had located those quotes in a book written by Justin himself, my quoting that as my source would have been no different from that which I already did. You are trying to split hairs where no hair splitting in required or possible. Perhaps you would prefer to address the OP and discuss the real topic at hand, rather than to discuss your mistaken ideas about my character? If so, come on back.

I would suggest your real issue is that I do not consider quoting or teaching from Justin is an appropriate attitude on my part. You don't like that. Well, I don't like the idea that others do quote him and try to make it look as if they are teaching the Bible, when they clearly are not. Instead, they are exalting their own egos because they think it will impress their listeners to quote from another writer. I am not impressed, rather I am appalled at their arrogance and self-aggrandizement.

Zeke25
 

Butch5

Butch5
Oct 24, 2009
1,146
32
48
62
Homer Ga.
zeke25 said:
Though Justin Martyr did teach correct Christian doctrine in some areas, that does not justify the destructive heresies that he did teach. Compromise with these heretical teachings of Justin cannot be justified.

Here are a few examples of Justin's heresies. More can be presented, but this makes the point. Even though I do not follow the teachings of COG, sometimes aberrant groups do good research.

Justin Martyr


From http://www.cogwriter.com/justin.htm

I have taken the liberty of editorializing the material.

Justin is claimed as the earliest post-New Testament source for such doctrines as Sunday worship, Jesus being born in a cave, calling the newly baptized "illuminated", and other positions that are not in the Bible.

Sunday worship came from pagan sources, not from the resurrection of Christ from the dead.

Justin inaccurately claimed,

And then, when Jesus had gone to the river Jordan, where John was baptizing, and when He had stepped into the water, a fire was kindled in the Jordan (Dialogue. Chapter LXXXVIII).

There is no fire in mentioned in any biblical account of Jesus' baptism (see Matthew 3:1-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22; John 1:29-34). Justin simply is teaching this without biblical support.


Justin taught Mithra-Like practices.

(1) He taught that Water Baptism causes one to be illuminated - this is heresy:

For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water...And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings (First Apology 61).

Water Baptism does not cause illumination. One receives the knowledge of the God and His truth at conversion. Water Baptism is a ceremony performed after that conversion. Water Baptism does nothing to change the knowledge one has in his mind or spirit.

I knew a man who had been taught for years that he would rise from the waters of baptism fully illuminated and filled with the Holy Ghost. When that did not happen, he surmised that all of Christianity was a lie and devoted the last decades of his life to atheism.

(2) He taught that Communion caused our flesh and blood to be nourished by transmutation - this is heresy:

And this food is called among us Εύχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished...Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn (First Apology 66).

The communion elements do nothing to our flesh and blood. The communion elements are a symbol of Christ sacrificing His flesh and Blood for us for the washing away of our sins. This is a spiritual washing. Our flesh and blood have not changed or benefited in any way from taking communion.

Zeke25
Let me make sure I understand you. Are you saying Justin was a heretic based on your understanding of Scripture?
 

zeke25

New Member
May 18, 2014
513
15
0
77
Western USA
Butch5 said:
Let me make sure I understand you. Are you saying Justin was a heretic based on your understanding of Scripture?
Butch5,

I am saying that Justin was a heretic based upon the fact that his teachings regarding water baptism and communion are not in agreement with that which the Bible teaches. If you would life to proffer a different opinion - which I believe you just did - then please state your opinion, that's what we are here for. But, please defend your position with a supporting Scripture(s). If you have a standard other than the Bible, then, of course, that must be rejected. The Bible is our standard, not the musings of men.

And for your sake, I hope you come to the table with a teachable attitude. One with a teachable attitude is displaying a Christian attitude. If you are here to blow your denomination horn with no Biblical support, then you're wasting your time. Justin Martyr is not a Biblical support, only the Bible is.

Zeke25
 

Butch5

Butch5
Oct 24, 2009
1,146
32
48
62
Homer Ga.
zeke25 said:
Butch5,

I am saying that Justin was a heretic based upon the fact that his teachings regarding water baptism and communion are not in agreement with that which the Bible teaches. If you would life to proffer a different opinion - which I believe you just did - then please state your opinion, that's what we are here for. But, please defend your position with a supporting Scripture(s). If you have a standard other than the Bible, then, of course, that must be rejected. The Bible is our standard, not the musings of men.

And for your sake, I hope you come to the table with a teachable attitude. One with a teachable attitude is displaying a Christian attitude. If you are here to blow your denomination horn with no Biblical support, then you're wasting your time. Justin Martyr is not a Biblical support, only the Bible is.

Zeke25
Firstly, Zeke, I have no denominational horn to blow as I don't adhere to denominations. Denominations divide the body and Jesus prayed that His followers would be one.

Regarding Justin, I wanted to make sure we are on the same page. You said, "I am saying that Justin was a heretic based upon the fact that his teachings regarding water baptism and communion are not in agreement with that which the Bible teaches." You also said, "But, please defend your position with a supporting Scripture(s). If you have a standard other than the Bible, then, of course, that must be rejected." So, it seems to me that the proof you require can only come from the Scriptures.

Let me ask you a question, whose interpretation of the Scriptures do you consider proof? Because that is really what we are dealing with here. We are dealing with interpretation of translations.
 

zeke25

New Member
May 18, 2014
513
15
0
77
Western USA
Butch5 said:
Firstly, Zeke, I have no denominational horn to blow as I don't adhere to denominations. Denominations divide the body and Jesus prayed that His followers would be one.

Regarding Justin, I wanted to make sure we are on the same page. You said, "I am saying that Justin was a heretic based upon the fact that his teachings regarding water baptism and communion are not in agreement with that which the Bible teaches." You also said, "But, please defend your position with a supporting Scripture(s). If you have a standard other than the Bible, then, of course, that must be rejected." So, it seems to me that the proof you require can only come from the Scriptures.

Let me ask you a question, whose interpretation of the Scriptures do you consider proof? Because that is really what we are dealing with here. We are dealing with interpretation of translations.
I would consider 1 Peter 3:21 a good place to start regarding baptism. But this is a lengthy subject.

1 Co 11:23-26 would be a good place to start with communion.

But if you are concerned about interpretations, go to John 6. There is no question that John 6 does not discuss communion in any shape, manner, or form. Those who claim that it does are misinformed.

Is this what you are looking for?

Zeke25
 

Butch5

Butch5
Oct 24, 2009
1,146
32
48
62
Homer Ga.
zeke25 said:
I would consider 1 Peter 3:21 a good place to start regarding baptism. But this is a lengthy subject.

1 Co 11:23-26 would be a good place to start with communion.

But if you are concerned about interpretations, go to John 6. There is no question that John 6 does not discuss communion in any shape, manner, or form. Those who claim that it does are misinformed.

Is this what you are looking for?

Zeke25
Zeke25,

You didn't answer my question though. Whose interpretation do you consider proof? If you're going to claim that Justin is a heretic and only the Scriptures can be used as proof then we need to know whose interpretation you consider proof. Just because someone is a heretic it doesn't mean they are wrong. A heretic is one who holds an opinion different from that which is commonly held. That means doesn't mean the opinion is wrong. In Justin's day what he believed was orthodox and since what you believe is different that would make your doctrine heretical. The question is which doctrine is the correct one?
 

zeke25

New Member
May 18, 2014
513
15
0
77
Western USA
Butch5 said:
Zeke25,

You didn't answer my question though. Whose interpretation do you consider proof? If you're going to claim that Justin is a heretic and only the Scriptures can be used as proof then we need to know whose interpretation you consider proof. Just because someone is a heretic it doesn't mean they are wrong. A heretic is one who holds an opinion different from that which is commonly held. That means doesn't mean the opinion is wrong. In Justin's day what he believed was orthodox and since what you believe is different that would make your doctrine heretical. The question is which doctrine is the correct one?
Yes, I did, but you didn't like the answer. So, I'll try one more time. The Bible is correct, and that means the whole counsel of the Word of God. Justin's musings on baptism and communion are not in accordance with the Bible.

If you're not going to debate Scripture, then I'm moving on. But you're probably too late, I might move on anyway. There are children who need to be fed, and you do not appear to be hungry.

Let me tell you how this works for me. If you have a Scripture that you think proves Justin right, then bring it out and we'll discuss it. Or, if you prefer, if you have a Scripture that you think proves me wrong, then bring it out and we'll discuss it. That way, you and me together can decide who is right and who is wrong. Hopefully, we'll be in agreement. But one thing for sure, I'm going to be in agreement with that which the Bible teaches.

Zeke25
 

Butch5

Butch5
Oct 24, 2009
1,146
32
48
62
Homer Ga.
zeke25 said:
Yes, I did, but you didn't like the answer. So, I'll try one more time. The Bible is correct, and that means the whole counsel of the Word of God. Justin's musings on baptism and communion are not in accordance with the Bible.

If you're not going to debate Scripture, then I'm moving on. But you're probably too late, I might move on anyway. There are children who need to be fed, and you do not appear to be hungry.

Let me tell you how this works for me. If you have a Scripture that you think proves Justin right, then bring it out and we'll discuss it. Or, if you prefer, if you have a Scripture that you think proves me wrong, then bring it out and we'll discuss it. That way, you and me together can decide who is right and who is wrong. Hopefully, we'll be in agreement. But one thing for sure, I'm going to be in agreement with that which the Bible teaches.

Zeke25
My point Zeke, is that what you "Think" the Bible teaches may not be correct. If you're judging whether Jusitn is a Heretic or not based on what you "Think" the Bible teaches then you need to be 100% correct about what the Scriptures teach in order to judge whether or not he is a heretic. However, just seeing your statement suggests to me that you don't understand baptism correct because you called him a heretic. In the end we can debate wether your or my position is correct, however that won't prove whether Justin was heretic. All it will prove is our position on baptism. You said,


Justin taught Mithra-Like practices.

(1) He taught that Water Baptism causes one to be illuminated - this is heresy:

For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water...And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings (First Apology 61).
How does this statement make Justin a heretic?