• CFN has a new look and a new theme

    "I bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4)

    More new themes will be coming in the future!

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join For His Glory for a discussion on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/

  • CFN welcomes new contributing members!

    Please welcome Roberto and Julia to our family

    Blessings in Christ, and hope you stay awhile!

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • Read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need

    https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

My Vow Concerning Doctrines

thus meaning that the trinity is what the church has always said. if God came to the earth and well why would he pray to himself if there was one person? some other power greater then him had to grant him those requests. hmm that would be the father. the hyperstatic union doesnt deny the father and his power. jesus made himself lower then all the angels. i dont fully understand this but it i what is said.

so the idea of genesis and its account should discarded to? or the idea of five hebrew words for soul? both are found in also pagan myths.

I do not believe in the trinity as espoused by the heretics Tertullian and Origen. Prior to them, there was only the oneness view of God. God the Father is not human so the word persons does not fit Him. However, God the Father is invisible and this is repeatedly demonstrated in the Old Testament until He decides what form to take. In the Old Testament, He assumed many forms (manifestations) including a burning bush, an angel, earthquake and thunder, pillars of fire and cloud, Holy Spirit, etc... Using Tertullian's and Origen's thesis, taken from Plato's theory of forms, every single one of these manifestations is a separate person that is co-existent and co-eternal with God the Father. This turns Judaism from a monotheistic religion into a polytheistic religion. This is why Jews continue to reject Christianity because Gentiles have turned Christianity from a monotheistic into a polytheistic religion like all of the pagan religions that were in existence when Christianity first spread. Egypt, Rome, Greece, Carthage, etc... all believed in the three in one godhead.
 
I do not believe in the trinity as espoused by the heretics Tertullian and Origen. Prior to them, there was only the oneness view of God. God the Father is not human so the word persons does not fit Him. However, God the Father is invisible and this is repeatedly demonstrated in the Old Testament until He decides what form to take. In the Old Testament, He assumed many forms (manifestations) including a burning bush, an angel, earthquake and thunder, pillars of fire and cloud, Holy Spirit, etc... Using Tertullian's and Origen's thesis, taken from Plato's theory of forms, every single one of these manifestations is a separate person that is co-existent and co-eternal with God the Father. This turns Judaism from a monotheistic religion into a polytheistic religion. This is why Jews continue to reject Christianity because Gentiles have turned Christianity from a monotheistic into a polytheistic religion like all of the pagan religions that were in existence when Christianity first spread. Egypt, Rome, Greece, Carthage, etc... all believed in the three in one godhead.
well you are off in that the gemetria which was around and i use to point jews to the lord with. says that the metatron(malach YHWH is also by the gemetria linked to the name EL SHADDAI) JESUS CLAIMED THAT NAME. if an angel which god said dont worship was worship what does then? remember also that jesus called him the good shepphard which is linked to that metatron. jews will accept this explanation as these are persons of god.

again you cant also reconcile JOHN 1 which it says clearly in the beginning was the word. and word was with god and the word was god and the word become flesh and dwelt amongst us.

that denies oneness clearly.
 
well you are off in that the gemetria which was around and i use to point jews to the lord with. says that the metatron(malach YHWH is also by the gemetria linked to the name EL SHADDAI) JESUS CLAIMED THAT NAME. if an angel which god said dont worship was worship what does then? remember also that jesus called him the good shepphard which is linked to that metatron. jews will accept this explanation as these are persons of god.

again you cant also reconcile JOHN 1 which it says clearly in the beginning was the word. and word was with god and the word was god and the word become flesh and dwelt amongst us.

that denies oneness clearly.

Actually, it doesn't deny oneness since God sent His Spirit to Mary and the result is Jesus. Since God is the Word and Jesus is God manifested in the flesh there is no denial of oneness. Isaiah 7:14 clearly states that God will be manifesting Himself in the flesh. Isaiah 53 states that Jesus will die by crucifixion.

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

Think about this for a bit, prior to Tertullian and Origen, everyone wrote the oneness view point and adhered to it. This is why Tertullian and Origen were called heretics in their day. They created a heresy that went against the Bible.

Keep in mind what Proverbs 30:5-6 says, "“Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar."

There is also 2 Timothy 4:2-4, "Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage —with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths."

Tertullian and Origen went back to Plato and his theory of forms, which was a myth created to explain why the gods acted the way that they do. Plato lived from 424/423-348/347 BC.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Funny but history says otherwise. The Roman Empire lasted from 509 BC to 476 AD.

The Roman church did not unilaterally take over the role of lead church until 1030 or thereabouts.

There were five patriarchs - all equal with one another - until Rome decided to got it alone. This is history you need to understand.

You are forgetting that the patristic fathers after the Apostles were Roman citizens.

What has that to do with the Christian Church?

[
You're quite mistaken that this was the split with Judaism. The split didn't occur until Simon bar Kakhba when the Jews were expecting the Christians to support the Israeli revolt against Rome. The Christians refused to join in the revolt since Jesus is the messiah.

They did they same in the War of 66. The split was well underway before the end of the 1st century.

The Nicene Creed utilized quite a few pagan philosophies that runs counter to what Jesus preached like the trinity.

Then you cannot be a Christian. Perhaps you are an atheist posing as a Christian.

Good bye.
 
The Roman church did not unilaterally take over the role of lead church until 1030 or thereabouts.

I never brought up the Roman See. I was talking about the Roman Empire.

There were five patriarchs - all equal with one another - until Rome decided to got it alone. This is history you need to understand.

There were actually more since you failed to include the churches founded by Thomas on his way to India and the church in Ethiopia founded by a converted official who Philip was responsible for the official's conversion.

What has that to do with the Christian Church?

It has everything to do with the Christian Church. Before Christianity was recognized and given protection by the Roman government the members had to meet in secret. Their activities as these secret church meetings had to kept separate from their official Roman lives. Mind you this occurred mainly in Rome itself. Outside of church they had to adhere to what the Roman government decreed.

They did they same in the War of 66. The split was well underway before the end of the 1st century.

It could be the way you said or it can't.

Then you cannot be a Christian. Perhaps you are an atheist posing as a Christian.

Tell that to the Christians in Ethiopia and the churches founded by the Apostle Thomas. They did not sign onto the Nicene Creed. Come to think of it, neither did any of the Apostles or Jesus for that matter. Careful on what you judge of person because Christ taught us to not judge in Matthew 7:1-6. You certainly are not in God's authority to determine who is a Christian and who isn't.

Good bye.

Blessings and peace be to you and yours.
 
That's actually exactly what it is. It gives Greek and Hebrew words and their exact usage verse for verse. Please take a look at BLB.com, type in a verse, click on the "c" on the left, which brings up the lexicon for that word. Page down to "Thayer's Lexicon (Help)". There you will find each definition and which verses apply to which exact definition, if there are more than one. There are NOT more than one in this case, however, because the word used by Matthew can ONLY be translated as "false PROPHET".
Doing this alone fails to take into consideration the link between prophet and teacher found in the scriptures. Prophets not only 'foretell' the Word of God, they 'forth tell' (teach and expound on) the Word of God. The 'forth telling' apparently being the more prevalent ministry of the prophet in this New Covenant.


LOL...Really? Give me an example, please.
(LOL? Is that really appropriate here?)

The doctrine of the 're' newed covenant. 'Adultery' meaning spiritual idolatry. And one more...if and when my mind remembers the specifics of it, lol.


How so? Because of the word "evil"? False PROPHETS prophecies can be evil too.
They most definitely are evil...that's how we know they are false. That's what the passage is about. Their evil fruit reveals them to be false. This is given to us for our benefit...so we can 'beware' such people, as Jesus says, their lawlessness being the signifying mark of their falseness.


I never said I "understand" this silliness. Straw man.
That's not what I'm saying (that you understand the argument of this thread). I'm rebutting the suggestion that false prophets/teachers can't say anything good. If you think that's what's being said here you have to dismiss that to understand the truth being shared here.


Not this verse. This verses only deals with false prophets, not "false teachers", and that's according to the standard in Greek scholarship, not just my personal interpretation.
Which does not take into consideration the close link between prophet and teacher and how prophets lead the people of God. We have no obligation to respect a prophet/ teacher who does not live the truth himself. None. In fact, we are commanded to 'beware' them.



This is subjective and personal. Suppose this "pastor or church leader" just doesn't like you (or me). How many times have you met a teacher, pastor, boss, or anyone else in authority, who is loved by certain people and despised by others?
That does not represent in any way shape or form what I'm talking about.

What this hypothetical person teaches doesn't change from person to person, yet some like him, some don't. You seem to agree that you will rarely find a random person, let alone a pastor or priest, who is TOTALLY prideful, is TOTALLY consumed by rage, or TOTALLY evil. It's a matter of degrees and opinion, in most cases.
Every human being is entitled to a moment of honest weakness. But if a church leader is characterized by the deeds of the flesh (Gal. 5) we have no obligation to respect his authority. We are to reject his leadership. For he has identified himself as a false prophet/ teacher, or whatever leadership role he is serving in.



This should have nothing to do with whether what he teaches is True or not. I'm pretty sure Jesus bothered some first century Jews.
Did Jesus walk in the flesh? Of course not. We're talking about leaders who walk in the flesh as a matter of a consistent lifestyle.


Do you have any other verses besides Matt. 7 to back this up?
Do you think Peter is teaching us to submit to the kind of prophet/ teacher he's warning us about here in 2 Peter 2?

2 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. 2 Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; 3 and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.

4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; 5 and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; 6 and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter; 7 and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men 8 (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds), 9 then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, 10 and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority.

Daring, self-willed, they do not tremble when they revile angelic [d]majesties, 11 whereas angels who are greater in might and power do not bring a reviling judgment against them before the Lord. 12 But these, like unreasoning animals, born as creatures of instinct to be captured and killed, reviling where they have no knowledge, will in the destruction of those creatures also be destroyed, 13 suffering wrong as the wages of doing wrong. They count it a pleasure to revel in the daytime. They are stains and blemishes, reveling in their deceptions, as they carouse with you, 14 having eyes full of adultery that never cease from sin, enticing unstable souls, having a heart trained in greed, accursed children; 15 forsaking the right way, they have gone astray, having followed the way of Balaam, the son of Beor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; 16 but he received a rebuke for his own transgression, for a mute donkey, speaking with a voice of a man, restrained the madness of the prophet.

17 These are springs without water and mists driven by a storm, for whom the black darkness has been reserved. 18 For speaking out arrogant words of vanity they entice by fleshly desires, by sensuality, those who barely escape from the ones who live in error, 19 promising them freedom while they themselves are slaves of corruption; for by what a man is overcome, by this he is enslaved. 20 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. 21 For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them. 22 It has happened to them according to the true proverb, “ A dog returns to its own vomit,” and, “A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire.”


What does Peter say are the signifying marks of these false teachers?

And if a pastor, or teacher, or 'prophet', or elder, or whatever fills this description do I embrace his leadership and submit to his authority or do I run the other way?



I'm not getting the reference to the "early church". Could you elaborate?
'It is anathema to observe a Mosaic Sabbath'.

That is absurd. But that is what the early church decreed.

Look how many have been influenced by this ridiculously misguided and uneducated doctrine. The Spirit of the Pharisee is, and always has been, alive and well in the church leading us astray into meaningless talk and taking us away from what really counts.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Actually John chapters 13 to 17 has many references to Father, Son and Holy Spirit. So does the end of Matthew chapter 28, with its baptismal formula.
 
Actually John chapters 13 to 17 has many references to Father, Son and Holy Spirit. So does the end of Matthew chapter 28, with its baptismal formula.

The Old Testament has many references to God the Father, Emmanuel, and the Holy Spirit. However, there is no indication that they are separate persons according to Greek theory of forms. Judaism specifically states that these are all manifestations of God.

Depends upon which manuscript you go by for Matthew 28:19. There has been recent evidence showing that the phrase 'baptize in the name of Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit' is a later addition to the translations. The earliest manuscripts do not contain this, but they state 'baptize in the Name' or 'baptize in the Name of Yeshua'. Eusebius quotes Matthew 19:28 quite frequently in his earlier letters and he always used 'baptize in the Name'. After he was threatened with excommunication from the church and acquiesced to the Nicene Creed did he quote the changed version of Matthew 28:19 in his writings.

1 John 5:7 has been found to be an addition to the book added in the Middle Ages. It's called Comma Johanneum. Biblical scholars found that the verse does not exist in the earliest manuscripts and was an addition later. They give a date of possibly the early Middle Ages as to when it was inserted.
 
The Old Testament has many references to God the Father, Emmanuel, and the Holy Spirit. However, there is no indication that they are separate persons according to Greek theory of forms. Judaism specifically states that these are all manifestations of God.

Depends upon which manuscript you go by for Matthew 28:19. There has been recent evidence showing that the phrase 'baptize in the name of Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit' is a later addition to the translations. The earliest manuscripts do not contain this, but they state 'baptize in the Name' or 'baptize in the Name of Yeshua'. Eusebius quotes Matthew 19:28 quite frequently in his earlier letters and he always used 'baptize in the Name'. After he was threatened with excommunication from the church and acquiesced to the Nicene Creed did he quote the changed version of Matthew 28:19 in his writings.

1 John 5:7 has been found to be an addition to the book added in the Middle Ages. It's called Comma Johanneum. Biblical scholars found that the verse does not exist in the earliest manuscripts and was an addition later. They give a date of possibly the early Middle Ages as to when it was inserted.

Called to Serve:

Sorry, but what's your agenda?

Ephesians 4.30 says: 'Grieve not the Holy Spirit'. It's accurate to speak of a Person being grieved, but not a vague influence or idea. The Son prayed to the Father: one Person to another; a vague idea or entity doesn't pray to another.
 
Called to Serve:

Sorry, but what's your agenda?

Ephesians 4.30 says: 'Grieve not the Holy Spirit'. It's accurate to speak of a Person being grieved, but not a vague influence or idea. The Son prayed to the Father: one Person to another; a vague idea or entity doesn't pray to another.

I have no agenda. I shared my vow out of fellowship and love. Whether or not you agree with my doctrinal beliefs or my vow is no concern of mine. If you have a problem with either of them take it up with God.

I would suggest that when you quote scripture that you quote it in context. The full context of Ephesians 4:30 is Ephesians 4:29-32 which says, "Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you."

If my words help someone then it is glory for the Lord. That is what Ephesians 4:29-32 is all about.
 
I have no agenda. I shared my vow out of fellowship and love. Whether or not you agree with my doctrinal beliefs or my vow is no concern of mine. If you have a problem with either of them take it up with God.

I would suggest that when you quote scripture that you quote it in context. The full context of Ephesians 4:30 is Ephesians 4:29-32 which says, "Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you."

If my words help someone then it is glory for the Lord. That is what Ephesians 4:29-32 is all about.

CalledtoServe:

Sorry, the Holy Spirit referred to in Ephesians 4 is clearly not a vague idea or influence, but One Who is capable of emotion, capable of being grieved as part of what accurately may be described as Personality.

Regarding 1 John 5.7, Father, Son and Holy Spirit are present all through John's First Epistle; interpretations of the textual history of this one verse hardly negate all the other references.
 
CalledtoServe:

Sorry, the Holy Spirit referred to in Ephesians 4 is clearly not a vague idea or influence, but One Who is capable of emotion, capable of being grieved as part of what accurately may be described as Personality.

Regarding 1 John 5.7, Father, Son and Holy Spirit are present all through John's First Epistle; interpretations of the textual history of this one verse hardly negate all the other references.

Strawman since I've never said that God doesn't have characteristics, influence, or is a vague idea. Try another argument that actually counters my points.

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all present in the Old Testament, but they are specific manifestations of God. They are not separate people like Isis, Horus, and Seth are.
 
I have no agenda. I shared my vow out of fellowship and love. Whether or not you agree with my doctrinal beliefs or my vow is no concern of mine. If you have a problem with either of them take it up with God.
This is an interesting thread although divided in semantics. While I agree with the premise of your beliefs and vows, I am afraid we all have done no better than the early church Fathers or the Jews. Hence your words are true and not hypocritical, but yet support a paradox. Just like the one that exists at the center of the mercy seat represented on the Ark of the Covenant.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Actually, it doesn't deny oneness since God sent His Spirit to Mary and the result is Jesus. Since God is the Word and Jesus is God manifested in the flesh there is no denial of oneness. Isaiah 7:14 clearly states that God will be manifesting Himself in the flesh. Isaiah 53 states that Jesus will die by crucifixion.

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

Think about this for a bit, prior to Tertullian and Origen, everyone wrote the oneness view point and adhered to it. This is why Tertullian and Origen were called heretics in their day. They created a heresy that went against the Bible.

Keep in mind what Proverbs 30:5-6 says, "“Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar."

There is also 2 Timothy 4:2-4, "Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage —with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths."

Tertullian and Origen went back to Plato and his theory of forms, which was a myth created to explain why the gods acted the way that they do. Plato lived from 424/423-348/347 BC.


so jesus lied when he said? no man has seen the father and also paul when he says the lord will also turn the kingdom to the father when returns? doesnt jesus already have the kingdom then.

i walked an orthodox jew through the torah using the gemetria and the metraton and jesus' statement she seem to understand it. jews reject jesus because he didnt do want they wanted. jews are hardly known today to not believe in reincarnation aslo that all paths lead to god. i have had this very conversation with them. those were consertive. orthodox i dont know. i have to ask them.
 
Doing this alone fails to take into consideration the link between prophet and teacher found in the scriptures. Prophets not only 'foretell' the Word of God, they 'forth tell' (teach and expound on) the Word of God. The 'forth telling' apparently being the more prevalent ministry of the prophet in this New Covenant.

I never said there is no link between teacher and prophet. My only point is that Matt. 7 has NOTHING to do with "false teachers". The word means ONLY false PROPHETS.

(LOL? Is that really appropriate here?)

The doctrine of the 're' newed covenant. 'Adultery' meaning spiritual idolatry. And one more...if and when my mind remembers the specifics of it, lol.
And you have proof these two "heresies" were due to the misuse of Strong's?

This is what I was LOLing about:

"I've seen more than one wrong doctrine born out of this misuse/ misunderstanding of Strong's list of 'word usage'."

How am I misusing the word? There is only one definition and it is "False prophet". Why can't you simply accept this fact?

They most definitely are evil...that's how we know they are false. That's what the passage is about. Their evil fruit reveals them to be false. This is given to us for our benefit...so we can 'beware' such people, as Jesus says, their lawlessness being the signifying mark of their falseness.
Again, it may say so in other places, but not in Matt. 7. This is my only point, Jethro.

That's not what I'm saying (that you understand the argument of this thread). I'm rebutting the suggestion that false prophets/teachers can't say anything good. If you think that's what's being said here you have to dismiss that to understand the truth being shared here.
I don't. That's what this means:

"You seem to agree that you will rarely find a random person, let alone a pastor or priest, who is TOTALLY prideful, is TOTALLY consumed by rage, or TOTALLY evil. It's a matter of degrees and opinion, in most cases."

This was said in my last post.

Which does not take into consideration the close link between prophet and teacher and how prophets lead the people of God. We have no obligation to respect a prophet/ teacher who does not live the truth himself. None. In fact, we are commanded to 'beware' them.

That does not represent in any way shape or form what I'm talking about.

Every human being is entitled to a moment of honest weakness. But if a church leader is characterized by the deeds of the flesh (Gal. 5) we have no obligation to respect his authority. We are to reject his leadership. For he has identified himself as a false prophet/ teacher, or whatever leadership role he is serving in.
According to whom? You are basing this on your own subjective judgements. If a person, say, has an affair once, is this a "moment of weakness"? What about one affair and three fits of anger in a two year period? Two affairs and two shady business deals in a six year period? What do you mean by "characterized"? This sounds good in theory but breaks down in practice. The bottom line is we are all sinners, including the apostles, Paul, Luther, Calvin and all the popes and bishops throughout history.

Did Jesus walk in the flesh? Of course not. We're talking about leaders who walk in the flesh as a matter of a consistent lifestyle.
Which means WHAT? More subjective opinion.



Do you think Peter is teaching us to submit to the kind of prophet/ teacher he's warning us about here in 2 Peter 2?

2 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. 2 Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; 3 and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.

4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; 5 and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; 6 and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter; 7 and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men 8 (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds), 9 then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, 10 and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority.

Daring, self-willed, they do not tremble when they revile angelic [d]majesties, 11 whereas angels who are greater in might and power do not bring a reviling judgment against them before the Lord. 12 But these, like unreasoning animals, born as creatures of instinct to be captured and killed, reviling where they have no knowledge, will in the destruction of those creatures also be destroyed, 13 suffering wrong as the wages of doing wrong. They count it a pleasure to revel in the daytime. They are stains and blemishes, reveling in their deceptions, as they carouse with you, 14 having eyes full of adultery that never cease from sin, enticing unstable souls, having a heart trained in greed, accursed children; 15 forsaking the right way, they have gone astray, having followed the way of Balaam, the son of Beor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; 16 but he received a rebuke for his own transgression, for a mute donkey, speaking with a voice of a man, restrained the madness of the prophet.

17 These are springs without water and mists driven by a storm, for whom the black darkness has been reserved. 18 For speaking out arrogant words of vanity they entice by fleshly desires, by sensuality, those who barely escape from the ones who live in error, 19 promising them freedom while they themselves are slaves of corruption; for by what a man is overcome, by this he is enslaved. 20 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. 21 For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them. 22 It has happened to them according to the true proverb, “ A dog returns to its own vomit,” and, “A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire.”


What does Peter say are the signifying marks of these false teachers?

And if a pastor, or teacher, or 'prophet', or elder, or whatever fills this description do I embrace his leadership and submit to his authority or do I run the other way?
You run the other way if HIS TEACHING IS INCONSISTENT TO WHAT THE APOSTLES TAUGHT. What's the first line?

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.

He then goes on to describe the destruction. Nowhere in Peter's tirade does he say what you think Matthew is saying, that "by their fruits you will know them". Again, this is my point.

'It is anathema to observe a Mosaic Sabbath'.

That is absurd. But that is what the early church decreed.
Again, more opinion. You can have any opinion you want to about any doctrine, I really don't care. The point is that the Bible doesn't teach to reject doctrine because those that present it are sinners.

Look how many have been influenced by this ridiculously misguided and uneducated doctrine. The Spirit of the Pharisee is, and always has been, alive and well in the church leading us astray into meaningless talk and taking us away from what really counts.
I think we've reached the heart of the reason for your arguments. So let me get this straight. The early Church moved the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday, and we shouldn't listen to them because they were corrupt. Is this about right? Does this apply to EVERY doctrine they taught or just the ones you personally (subjectively) disagree with? Where do you draw the line?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I never said there is no link between teacher and prophet. My only point is that Matt. 7 has NOTHING to do with "false teachers". The word means ONLY false PROPHETS.
And so we should ignore all that prophets do and keep the passage within your narrow understanding of prophet?


This is what I was LOLing about:

"I've seen more than one wrong doctrine born out of this misuse/ misunderstanding of Strong's list of 'word usage'."

How am I misusing the word? There is only one definition and it is "False prophet". Why can't you simply accept this fact?
You're ignoring the close link between prophet and teacher and how prophets don't just foretell the Word of God, but also teach and expound on the Word of God. Beware of those prophets (who foretell and forth tell the Word of God) who bear the fruit of lawlessness.


Again, it may say so in other places, but not in Matt. 7. This is my only point, Jethro.
Lawlessness is the signifying mark of the false prophet. Prophets foretell and forth tell (teach and expound on) the Word of God. You're not going to get that easily out of Strong's, if at all. You get that from reading the Bible.


You are basing this on your own subjective judgements. If a person, say, has an affair once, is this a "moment of weakness"? What about one affair and three fits of anger in a two year period? Two affairs and two shady business deals in a six year period? What do you mean by "characterized"? This sounds good in theory but breaks down in practice. The bottom line is we are all sinners, including the apostles, Paul, Luther, Calvin and all the popes and bishops throughout history.
Are you saying, then, it's too hard to draw the line on prophets and teachers who have bad behavior so we can just ignore what Jesus and Peter said about false prophets/ teachers?. If you're not saying that, how do you draw the line in order to obey what prophets Jesus and Peter teach us in the Bible about prophets and teachers who bear the fruit of lawlessness and who seek to introduce destructive heresies into the church?



But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.

He then goes on to describe the destruction. Nowhere in Peter's tirade does he say what you think Matthew is saying, that "by their fruits you will know them". Again, this is my point.
Are you refusing to acknowledge the traits/ characteristics Peter says these false teachers have?


The point is that the Bible doesn't teach to reject doctrine because those that present it are sinners.
How are you missing this? The sinful leaders Peter is talking about are "secretly (introducing) destructive heresies". Their lawless fruit is the signifying mark of this agenda. That's the whole point of this.

The early church hated the Jews. As direct result of that hate and prejudice destructive heresy was crafted and brought into the church. That's the point.



I think we've reached the heart of the reason for your arguments. So let me get this straight. The early Church moved the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday, and we shouldn't listen to them because they were corrupt. Is this about right?
It's an example to defend the fundamental truth of the OP's argument.

The early, gentile church was anti-Semitic. The result, for example, was their misguided and uneducated doctrines about law keeping. I defend the church's freedom to not have to keep the Sabbath/ Festival laws. But it was dead wrong to declare keeping those laws anathema. It was born out of a sinful prejudice and hatred toward the Jewish people.


Does this apply to EVERY doctrine they taught or just the ones you personally (subjectively) disagree with? Where do you draw the line?
The point is, you stay out of churches and denominations that are lawless. You don't seek truth in a church with a leadership that knows little or nothing about the fundamental command of the Christian faith "love your neighbor as yourself" and doesn't practice it. The warnings in the Bible to avoid lawless leadership in the church were not given to us for nothing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
CalledToServe,

I've never quite understood how modalism reconciles the relationship and interaction between one "manifestation" of the same Person with another "manifestation" of the self same Person - and, why must this be so instead of just a single manifestation?

And how do you understand John 8:17-18? How do you simultaneously reconcile the words, "two", "I(Jesus)/Myself" and "the Father"?
 
CalledToServe,

I've never quite understood how modalism reconciles the relationship and interaction between one "manifestation" of the same Person with another "manifestation" of the self same Person - and, why must this be so instead of just a single manifestation?

And how do you understand John 8:17-18? How do you simultaneously reconcile the words, "two", "I(Jesus)/Myself" and "the Father"?

The reconciliation is that you are focusing solely upon the divinity of Christ while ignoring His human flesh. Christ is both divine and human, since this is what God required for the final atoning sacrifice. When I read Jesus praying to God, I do not see it as God talking to Himself. It is Jesus the man talking to God. To make this clearer look at what Jesus said when He prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane.

Matthew 26:19 Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”

That is Jesus the man talking to God. It is not God talking to God. Here's another scripture that shows God doing the talking as Jesus.

Luke 23:43 Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

That is Jesus as God telling the thief being crucified with Him that he would be in heaven. Only God can tell a person where they will finally rest since He judges everyone.

John 19:30 When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

Again this is God speaking stating the the sacrificial system that He decreed in the Old Testament is finished.

When you leave out Jesus the man from the story you leave out one of the most important characteristics of God. He humiliated Himself out of love for His creations to become just like one of them and to die for them. No human could have fulfilled the atoning sacrifice that God set down, but Jesus had God as His Father and Mary as His mother. He is both human and divine.
 
CalledToServe said:
Christ is both divine and human...
I too would say the same thing...but how do you mean it? Are you saying that Christ-the-human is a different person and that Christ-the-Father-manifested is another different person? Unless you're saying this, we still are left with the same Person in relationship and interacting with the self same Person.

On the other hand, if you're indeed differentiating between Christ-divine and Christ-human as different Persons, then aren't you slipping into stating that the self-same God could exist as different Persons?

I obviously don't adhere to modalism but please don't mistaken me to be trying to prove any position here. I genuinely am interested in knowing how one reconciles that which I find paradoxical or contradictory and would like to find out where exactly our beliefs diverge.
 
Back
Top