The Nicene Creed is not Christian

[Butch5]

The Bible says that there is One Lord,
One Faith,
and only
One Baptism.

John the Baptist told the people "I baptize you with water, but the One Who is coming (Jesus) will baptize you with the Holy Spirit, and with fire.

Now, it seems to me that the water is just a symbol. The real baptism is the baptism of Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit and with fire. That is something that takes place inside the believer...it is an interaction between his/her heart, and the Heart of God.
Now, the person may choose to get himself dunked, or splashed, or whatever...I had a crippled friend once who couldn't go down into the water, so they just dumped a bucket of water on his head...but I know that he was changed, so I'm guessing his baptism "took".

And there it is.
Of course, we can't see any change that might be going on...other than the person is getting wet. Whatever is going on inside his/her heart is strictly between him/her and God.
Therefore, we need to stop trying to "guess" what baptism is...or what it isn't.

Let's leave it between each individual believer....and God.

I think Paul's point with that passage is stressing unity. They all have the same Lord, same baptism, etc.

 

[ewq1938]

I'm afraid you've lost me, here.
I know of only ONE God...just ONE.
I know of a God Who is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit...
In each of these capacities, that ONE God is called Lord.

Think of it this way. My name is Deborah.
When my children introduce me, they will say "This is my mother. Her name is Deborah."
When my parents introduce me, they will say "This is our daughter. Her name is Deborah."
When my friends introduce me, they will say "This is my friend. Her name is Deborah."

In the same way, when I speak of God the Father, I call Him "Lord."
When I speak of God the Son, I call Him "Lord."
And when I speak of the Holy Spirit, it would also be correct to call Him "Lord."

There is only one Deborah. I am a mother, and a daughter, and a friend.
There is only one Lord. He is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit...

I hope this helps.

Lord is not a term that means God. God is Lord but Lord has a different definition. There are two Lords both are God. I'm just trying to show you that "One Lord" doesn't mean there aren't two because it is speaking specifically about Jesus in the verse.

 

[ewq1938]

I think Paul's point with that passage is stressing unity. They all have the same Lord, same baptism, etc.

The problem is people like Unitarians will take the next verse and claim only the Father is God and not Jesus basing that on a fallacious understanding of the verse, misunderstanding the use of "one" this or that which is the issue with "One lord" or "One baptism".

What it means is there is one CERTAIN Lord and one CERTAIN baptism being addressed not that there aren't two Lord and two types of baptisms.

 

[Butch5]

The problem is people like Unitarians will take the next verse and claim only the Father is God and not Jesus basing that on a fallacious understanding of the verse, misunderstanding the use of "one" this or that which is the issue with "One lord" or "One baptism".

What it means is there is one CERTAIN Lord and one CERTAIN baptism being addressed not that there aren't two Lord and two types of baptisms.

Yeah, his point is that they all experienced the same thing.

 

[Barrd]

Lord is not a term that means God. God is Lord but Lord has a different definition. There are two Lords both are God. I'm just trying to show you that "One Lord" doesn't mean there aren't two because it is speaking specifically about Jesus in the verse.

Deborah isn't a term that means Mom, either.
But there's still only one of me...

 

[Wormwood]

Doug,

I probably wont have time to read the articles until later today. As for the Acts verse you quoted with Cornelius, I am of the opinion that this constitutes a unique situation. I'll explain below.

I believe we need to be cautious in using the book of Acts as a case study for exactly how God works in converting unbelievers. We see all kinds of unusual situations in Acts that we do not expect to see today, and I think the Cornelius example is a prime one. As you know, the book of Acts relates how the Gospel dispersed from Jerusalem, to Samaria, to the uttermost parts of the world. That is the framework for the book and how Luke begins by explaining the command of Jesus. As one person put it, the book of Luke is about getting Jesus into Jerusalem, and the book of Acts is about getting him out of Jerusalem.

Up until Acts 8, the Gospel was contained in Jerusalem. In Acts 8, we see the Gospel enter Samaria for the first time. Here we see a very unusual situation. The Gospel is preached and believed, but no Holy Spirit. Instead, it takes Peter traveling from Jerusalem to lay hands on these Samaritans in order for the HS to fall on them. Why? I believe this was to show the world that the Samaritans have been accepted by the Church (I think these early acts reveal what Jesus meant when he said that Peter would be the rock and would hold the keys of the Kingdom). In chapter 10, we see Peter being sent to Gentiles for the first time. However, we see in this chapter, that Peter is very reluctant to embrace the Gentiles. Thus, God has the HS fall on them as he did on the Apostles at the beginning of the book to reveal to Peter that God does not show favoritism. Even Peter is surprised at this event and immediately baptizes Cornelius and his household as a result. We see how reluctant Peter was and why God acted in this unusual way in chapter 11. We read:

“So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcision party criticized him, saying, “You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them.” But Peter began and explained it to them in order: “I was in the city of Joppa praying, and in a trance I saw a vision, something like a great sheet descending, being let down from heaven by its four corners, and it came down to me. Looking at it closely, I observed animals and beasts of prey and reptiles and birds of the air. And I heard a voice saying to me, ‘Rise, Peter; kill and eat.’ But I said, ‘By no means, Lord; for nothing common or unclean has ever entered my mouth.’ But the voice answered a second time from heaven, ‘What God has made clean, do not call common.’ This happened three times, and all was drawn up again into heaven. And behold, at that very moment three men arrived at the house in which we were, sent to me from Caesarea. And the Spirit told me to go with them, making no distinction. These six brothers also accompanied me, and we entered the man’s house. And he told us how he had seen the angel stand in his house and say, ‘Send to Joppa and bring Simon who is called Peter; he will declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household.’ As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?”” (Acts 11:2–17, ESV)

So, to recap...

1. In Acts 8 we see people hearing and believing but not receiving the Holy Spirit. No one would claim one doesn't have to believe to receive the Spirit based on this narrative. We all understand this is an unusual circumstance. Its unusual because it is the first time the Gospel moved from Jerusalem to Samaria (and the framework of the book reveals these are significant boundaries).

2. In Acts 10 and 11, we see Peter is reluctant to go to Cornelius and God performs this miraculous work to convince Peter to baptize and fully embrace Gentiles. This is not a normal event as it is the first time the Gentiles are seen by other believers as fully accepted by God without any specific preconditions.

3. Peter relates in Acts 11 that he had to baptize these people lest he be guilty of "stand[ing] in God's way." I think even this unusual event portrays the incredible significance of Christian baptism as a mean by which God moves.

4. If we are to use Acts as a means to understand how the Church understood baptism, we should rely on the didactic passages, not the narratives. As you know, narratives often portray very unusual and miraculous events that are not expected to be normative for the Christian experience. However, in the teaching in Acts, we see clear messages concerning how the Church viewed baptism:

“And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.”” (Acts 2:38–40, ESV)

“And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.” And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” (Acts 19:2–5, ESV)

“And he said, ‘The God of our fathers appointed you to know his will, to see the Righteous One and to hear a voice from his mouth; for you will be a witness for him to everyone of what you have seen and heard. And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’” (Acts 22:14–16, ESV)

I believe the Gospels and Epistles also strongly confirm this teaching whenever Christian baptism is described or discussed. I'll try to look at those articles later today and post a thorough response.

 

[Wormwood]

Doug,

I read the articles and here are my responses. First, I find the top article to be typical of "faith only" approaches to Scripture that I feel are quite inconsistent and misrepresentative of those who argue for the significance and meaning of baptism as portrayed in the Bible. My response to this author would be, "Suppose a person prays to Jesus to forgive him of his sins, but he refuses to repent. Does this mean that faithful trust in Christ is insufficient for salvation?" "Suppose a person prays to Jesus for forgiveness of his sins, but refuses to forgive those who have sinned against him. Does this mean that faithful trust in Christ is insufficient for salvation? Or, suppose a person prays for Jesus to forgive him of his sins, but is not willing to confess Christ to others. Does this mean...." The author has already determined baptism to be a mere ceremony and therefore has pitted it against faith in his portrayal of this scenario. If baptism is considered a work, so too must repentance, confessing Christ and forgiving others be considered works. The simple fact is that the Bible does not separate out mere cognitive faith with faithful response as many reformed traditions do today. Baptism is not antithetical to faith any more than repentance is. Rather, baptism is an act of faith in the same manner as forgiving others, repentance and confessing Christ are responses of faith. I find it strange that the author would Matt. 28:18 as part of Jesus call for people to ask him for salvation due to his authority, but fails to connect Jesus same command to baptize disciples in that same context. There is no example of a "sinners prayer" as this author wants to establish as the means to call for salvation (John 14:14 as his proof text is completely out of context and has nothing to do with requesting salvation). Yet the NT gives us a host of examples of people being baptized as the biblical model of how a person becomes a Christian. My question is, "What has caused us to recreate the biblical model for coming to Christ and how has the biblical model somehow become viewed as a dangerous act that could promote works-based theology?" It just doesn't make any sense to me.

As for the second article, I wont be able to respond to all the texts right now as I do not have the time. As for Matthew 28, I think this author clearly has another grossly unbiblical view of "salvation." To try to separate out salvation from discipleship is another reformed/Western idea that is completely foreign to how the early believers understood what it meant to be a Christian. The idea that we can be "saved" and not a disciple is ridiculous.

As for the verse in Mark, this is completely terrible exegesis. The author is clearly predetermining what words are significant. The author has determined that belief is important, but baptism is just a meaningless add-on. He argues that its no different than saying "believe and go to church" or "believe and read his Bible." But would this author ever say, "In order to be saved you must believe and read your Bible?" I doubt it. Again, the author is assuming what Mark is valuing and what words can be thrown away. This is irresponsible in my opinion. Suggesting that Mark does not (if Mark wrote this section) add "and be baptized" for the second part of the condition as validation that Mark was not considering baptism to be important is errant. Why would Mark mention baptism for an unbeliever? It is assumed here that believers are baptized whereas obviously someone who is not a believer would not feel compelled to be baptized and be saved by one in which they do not believe! This is simply a matter of basic logic. Mark (or other author) assumes that believers will be baptized...and he assumes that non believers will not be baptized. It is really that simple. Even if Mark did not write this (I do not believe he did) it still reflects the early church view on the significance of baptism. It was simply understood that all believers are immersed...without exception.

I agree the Luke passage is referring to John's baptism. Yet, I think its clear that Luke has a message for his audience as well. Clearly baptism relates the purposes of God for people. Wouldn't those who reject baptism in Christ find themselves in even greater rejection of God's purposes if the Pharisees could be considered to be rejecting God by failing to submit to John's baptism? Can you imagine the audience in Acts 2 saying, "Peter, we believe you but we don't want to be baptized. We don't think that's important." Such a notion is pure nonsense and I think teachers will be held to account for discounting direct commands and teachings from God on this issue. I fail to understand how people can so flippantly dismiss something Christ commanded as a means to make disciples. BTW, the article assumes that "teaching all I have commanded" and "baptism" would both be essential for salvation if we maintain baptism as part of the salvation process. The problem is, the author makes it sound as if "teaching all I have commanded" means "perfectly obeying all I have commanded." The clear implication is that the means of making disciples is, 1) Go out to them, 2) baptize them, 3) teach them what Jesus taught. There is nothing here about perfect obedience, but obviously, making followers of Jesus means teaching them what Jesus taught. Does this author suppose we can make disciples without teaching? Is this author a Moravian? How else does someone come to a knowledge of the truth? I've never heard someone try to discount the importance of teaching unbelievers as a means of discrediting the significance of baptism. If anything, it only emphasizes its importance!

The text in John 3 is also poorly handled in my opinion. By this author's rationale, Jesus could not have been alluding to communion when he spoke of eating his flesh and drinking his blood. Clearly Jesus often spoke of things that his original audience would not have understood until later. In fact, this seems to be almost a given in his teaching. The fact is, this passage certainly is not referring to natural birth (it doesn't make sense contextually, nor is "water" ever used in Greek literature to refer to amniotic fluid), there is no mention of Water/Word here, the water could not be the Spirit since the Spirit is mentioned independently of water, and John the Baptist's baptism doesn't seem to make sense either since Jesus seems to be giving a timeless principle about being "born again." The fact is, every first century reader would likely think of Christian baptism when reading this and make that association. Remember, not only did Jesus have a context, but the author John has a purpose in writing this as well that should not be dismissed. It is quite reasonable to think that Jesus was speaking of something that was yet to come about and that John records this for the purpose of saying something about the people who find eternal life...they belong to the Church. Everyone who joined the church in the first century did so by immersion in water. I think the implications for early readers would have been evident and we have developed some really strange notions (in my opinion) to dismiss how early readers would have likely understood this text.

I don't think John 19 refers to water baptism.

As for Acts 2, this authors Greek is really poor. I am amazed that he would try to use the plural and singular forms of words to disassociate the clear grammatical connection of both baptism and repentance to forgiveness. This is pure nonsense. The Greek connective kai connects both of these words equally to forgiveness and the number has nothing to do with how this is to be understood. It is why all the English translations read as they do. Again, the author simply tries to discount this verse by essentially saying, "If it says what it looks like, than its teaching salvation by work ceremonies, and we know that cant be true!" This is a predetermination the author has made and is rejecting this reading based on his own preconceived theology rather than accepting the verse for what it says. Comparing baptism to circumcision is nonsense. The fact is, the author doesn't like what this verse teaches and is trying to find a reason to dismiss it. I think we need to allow the text to say what it says, rather than contriving theological reasons for why we shouldn't accept the clear teaching of a passage.

In Acts 8, what is compelling here is that in this short journey where Philip is witnessing to this Ethiopian, baptism is mentioned. If baptism was a meaningless ceremony as this author argues, why would Philip even mention it at all? And not only does he mention it, but apparently he emphasized it to the point that the Ethiopian felt compelled to be baptized that moment. I find this passage very compelling and I am amazed that anyone would read it and conclude baptism is meaningless.

His Acts 22 explanation is ridiculous. I think any casual reader can see how faulty this argument is so I wont waste my time on it.

Im out of time. Ill try to address the other texts later, if you want me to.

 

[DogLady19]

Lord is not a term that means God. God is Lord but Lord has a different definition. There are two Lords both are God. I'm just trying to show you that "One Lord" doesn't mean there aren't two because it is speaking specifically about Jesus in the verse.

And technically speaking, there are myriads of "Lords" ... The NT word means "one who completely owns and controls another" [Kurios: http://biblehub.com/greek/2962.htm]...

So anything or anyone can be a person's "lord" ... Some people have alcohol or sex as their lord. Some have a spouse or pastor as their lord.

When we declare "Jesus is Lord" it brings salvation because we are saying that God now "completely owns and controls" our lives. "God" includes the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

 

[Barrd]

And technically speaking, there are myriads of "Lords" ... The NT word means "one who completely owns and controls another" [Kurios: http://biblehub.com/greek/2962.htm]...

So anything or anyone can be a person's "lord" ... Some people have alcohol or sex as their lord. Some have a spouse or pastor as their lord.

When we declare "Jesus is Lord" it brings salvation because we are saying that God now "completely owns and controls" our lives. "God" includes the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Thank you, Dog Lady.

 

[DogLady19]

Thank you, Dog Lady.

 

[ewq1938]

And technically speaking, there are myriads of "Lords" ... The NT word means "one who completely owns and controls another" [Kurios: http://biblehub.com/greek/2962.htm]...

So anything or anyone can be a person's "lord" ... Some people have alcohol or sex as their lord. Some have a spouse or pastor as their lord.

When we declare "Jesus is Lord" it brings salvation because we are saying that God now "completely owns and controls" our lives. "God" includes the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Right, so it is incorrect to interpret "One Lord" as some do that there is only one Lord. Clearly the context is saying "One Lord Jesus". And when scripture says there is "One God the Father", it is not excluding Jesus from being God.

 

[Joyful]

You're wrong, brother zeke. No one is redeemed apart from the blood of Christ - this is a strong element in both Holy Scripture and Calvinism's use of Scripture to explain Scripture on all matters of theology. LOL, I have studied the Scriptures since my youth, and everything Calvin ever wrote. I've memorized large portions of both, as well as the Scripture proofed Westminster Standards (The Westminster Larger Catechism, The Westminster Shorter Catechism, and the Westminster Confession of Faith. I won't banter theological credentials or offices otherwise online, and I don't doubt your knowledge of Calvinism, but I'm pretty sure I'm more agreeable with the Reformed understanding of Scripture than you, my eternal friend.

Excuse for butting in.

Why do you have the need of studying Calvin's teachings? Aren't Jesus' teachings not good enough for you?

blessings.

 

[OzSpen]

Excuse for butting in.

Why do you have the need of studying Calvin's teachings? Aren't Jesus' teachings not good enough for you?

blessings.

Joyful,

These verses are also in the Bible:

Eph 4:11-13 (NIV): '11 So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, 12 to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ'

Heb 5:12 (NIV), 'In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again. You need milk, not solid food!'

James 3:1 (NIV), 'Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly'.

God has placed teachers in the body of Christ to equip God's people and build them up to reach unity and maturity. The writer to the Hebrews urges some to be teachers, but James warns that whose who teach will be judged more strictly.

Therefore, the Scriptures teach the need for God-given teachers in the body of Christ. John Calvin was such a teacher. So was Jacob Arminius. Where would Protestants be without the teaching of Martin Luther?

I urge you not to diminish the role of teachers in the body of Christ today. We need them to bring Christians to maturity. Sadly, in my part of the world, the gift of God-given teachers seems to be denigrated, as you've done here.

Oz

 

[Joyful]

I urge you not to diminish the role of teachers in the body of Christ today. We need them to bring Christians to maturity. Sadly, in my part of the world, the gift of God-given teachers seems to be denigrated, as you've done here.

Oz,

Jesus says not to let anyone call you teacher because He is the teacher. You are disregarding His word, friend.

blessings.

 

[OzSpen]

I urge you not to diminish the role of teachers in the body of Christ today. We need them to bring Christians to maturity. Sadly, in my part of the world, the gift of God-given teachers seems to be denigrated, as you've done here.

Oz,

Jesus says not to let anyone call you teacher because He is the teacher. You are disregarding His word, friend.

blessings.

To which verse are you referring that causes you to say that I'm disregarding His word? Where does Jesus say not to let anyone call you teacher because He is the teacher?

 

[DogLady19]

Right, so it is incorrect to interpret "One Lord" as some do that there is only one Lord. Clearly the context is saying "One Lord Jesus". And when scripture says there is "One God the Father", it is not excluding Jesus from being God.

Exactly... That's why it is so important that we read scripture in context.

"There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all..." Ephesians 4:4-6

Personally, I have no issue with the Nicene Creed. My church sometimes recites it together as a body... I just don't see it as necessary. The only benefit I see is for unbelievers to read a brief summation of what Christians believe... and if we are to use it like that, I think we should modernize the language to it wouldn't be misinterpreted... and I'm amazed at how many people I encounter who think the Nicene Creed is verbatim from the Bible...

 

[Wormwood]

Oz,

She is referring to:

“They do all their deeds to be seen by others. For they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces and being called rabbi by others. But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ. The greatest among you shall be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.” (Matthew 23:5–12, ESV)

Sadly, she is taking this way out of context. This isn't about the term "teacher" (as you note, the Bible reflects that there are teachers in the body for the purpose of building the body up!). The focus is using titles as a means to lord one's authority over another and act arrogantly toward others. The term "teacher" today is not a title that calls people to pay homage to a person. That is clearly what Jesus is getting at here. Most teachers I know in the body of Christ were very humble men who loved Jesus and did not demand special adoration or privileges, but lived to serve others.

 

[OzSpen]

Oz,

She is referring to:


Sadly, she is taking this way out of context. This isn't about the term "teacher" (as you note, the Bible reflects that there are teachers in the body for the purpose of building the body up!). The focus is using titles as a means to lord one's authority over another and act arrogantly toward others. The term "teacher" today is not a title that calls people to pay homage to a person. That is clearly what Jesus is getting at here. Most teachers I know in the body of Christ were very humble men who loved Jesus and did not demand special adoration or privileges, but lived to serve others.

You are correct. However, there is the additional issue that Matt 23:10 ((ESV) does not use the regular Greek word for teacher, didaskalos, but kathegetes, which can mean 'teacher' (Arndt & Gingrich, Zondervan 1957:389), but it refers to masters/leaders (Vincent, Eerdmans 1946:123, vol 1). The issue here is that there is only One (God Himself) who is Father, Master and Teacher, but that does not exclude God's gift to the church of teachers. These teachers must never usurp the role of God, the Teacher.

This warning was necessary in Matt 23:10 (ESV) because 'many a Jew must have envied the man who was called "rabbi" (loosely translated, "teacher"); or, if a member of the Sanhedrin was addressed as "father" (Acts 7:2).... The epithet "leader" or "guide," ascribed perhaps - this is not certain - to a beloved and highly honored teacher, sounded alluring. So Jesus is saying that the attention of his followers must not be fixed on human titles and distinctions but on God in Christ, worthy of all reverence, praise and honor' (Hendriksen 1973:824).

Lenski rightly states that kathegetes refers to 'a leader who assumes full responsibility for those led and who thus commands and is obeyed. No one can claim a leadership of this kind in the church that is in conflict with our one Leader, the Christ.... This does not imply that men may not also lead us.... But all these human leaders must ever and only follow Christ's leadership' (Lenski 1943:900-901).
We see the emphasis on the meaning of kathegetes (Matt 23:10), as opposed to didaskalos, with these different English translations of the verse:

• 'Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah' (NIV);
• 'And don't let anyone call you 'Teacher,' for you have only one teacher, the Messiah' (NLT);
• 'Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ' (ESV);
• 'Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ' (NASB);
• 'Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.' (KJV);

Works consulted
Hendriksen, W 1973. New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel according to Matthew. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic.

Lenski, R C H 1943. Commentary on the New Testament: The Interpretation of St. Matthew's Gospel. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers (reprint of The Wartburg Press/Augsburg Publishing House edition).

 

[Joyful]

Sadly, she is taking this way out of context.

Everyone is entitled to your their opinion. Jesus is the perfect Teacher. You don't seem to think so.

We have Jesus' word to learn how to love God and love one another; This is the core of Christianity.

 

[OzSpen]

Sadly, she is taking this way out of context.

Everyone is entitled to your their opinion. Jesus is the perfect Teacher. You don't seem to think so.

We have Jesus' word to learn how to love God and love one another; This is the core of Christianity.

Why don't you deal with the issues that Wormwood and I have raised in opposition to your interpretation?

You state here:

• 'Everyone is entitled to your their opinion'. Yep, but I'm not going to take any notice of it if it is not based on evidence.
• 'Jesus is the perfect Teacher. You don't seem to think so'. This is a false accusation in relation to my post where I wrote: 'So Jesus is saying that the attention of his followers must not be fixed on human titles and distinctions but on God in Christ, worthy of all reverence, praise and honor' (Hendriksen) and 'This does not imply that men may not also lead us.... But all these human leaders must ever and only follow Christ's leadership' (Lenski).
• 'We have Jesus' word to learn how to love God and love one another; This is the core of Christianity'. That is NOT what we are debating. Please go back to #135 where you stated, 'Jesus says not to let anyone call you teacher because He is the teacher. You are disregarding His word, friend'. That is what we are discussing and the fact is that Jesus said not to let anyone call you Master/Leader to conflict with Christ our Master/Leader. We know from the remainder of the NT that God gave teachers to the church (see Eph 4:11 ESV).

It doesn't add integrity to our discussion when you make false claims against Wormwood and me.

Oz