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