The root of denominations.

[Kidron]

I have the answer to the problem of denominations:

Everybody join my church, Lutheran Church Missouri Synod.

We believe in the Father, Creator God, maker of heaven and earth.

We believe in the Son, Jesus the Christ who died on the cross for the forgiveness of sins, was physically dead, physically raised from the dead to witness to the disciples and then rose bodily into heaven.

We believe in the Holy Spirit who regenerates all who come to Christ in faith.

We believe that the bible is the inspired and inerrant word of God.

That's the essentials, right?

So, Former Christian, Called to Serve, Tina, Kidron, Adullum... come on over and join my church and we'll have all the rest of the Christians join the LCMS as well...

Any takers? :waving

thanx for the invite.
currently im across the Atlantic typing this to you while you are asleep.;)
So, im thinking that if i came to your church the long drive back across the Atlantc would be really long.

enjoyed reading your church's creed.

these days, a church that truly takes the bible as the final authority, is not so common.




K

 

[Kidron]

I eventually stopped calling myself a Christian and accepted that I would henceforth be labelled a heretic.kk

Dominus vobiscum.

Fortunately for anyone who has ever truly trusted in Christ alone for their atonement, man's opinion really does not matter.
What matters is how God views you.
The rest as Paul said, in Phillip 3:8, is "dung".
No worries.

 

[Former Christian]

Tina

As much as you may be unaware or are in denial, you are also a denomination of your own - it's called "Former Christians".
You have maintained all along that you're not an ex-Christian but you're "in Christ". It's a unique belief and denomination of your own.

That kind of ad hominem argument no longer angers me. But it has had the effect of angering me in the past, and contributing to where I am now. The more Christians use that argument, the more thankful I am to be something different from whatever it is they think they are.

I gave a Scriptural reason elsewhere (John 17, 1 Corinthians, Galatians 5, Ephesians 4) why I believe denominationalism is more than just a characteristic of Christianity. It’s a sinful characteristic due to following the flesh of man.

It’s not my own idea. Personally, I’d like to think of denominations as just different ways to express the Body of Christ. Just like some people think of the different religions as being different roads to God. But the bible says something else.

Jesus was against division, as was Paul. Paul referred to divisions within a “Churchâ€. Christian denominationalism is different from that kind of division. The divisions of Christianity are each Churches in themselves that divides those who are in Christ from one another. That’s a step beyond division within a “Church†that Paul refers to. Denominationalism is what Jesus and Paul spoke against, taken to its logical conclusion.

Your response is only one way to deny the obvious. Another is to say denominationalism is necessary as a continual means of renewal or reformation. A necessary evil?. Another is to say that denominations exist so that people can find their own kind of Church that is good for them, i.e., the pick and choose method of Christian expression. Another is to say “it’s not as bad as all thatâ€, for those who don’t read the bible at all. Another is to say “my Church is the True Churchâ€. You would be surprised at how many Christian Churches fit into that category. Another is to just deny denominations exist at all, usually with a reference to common ground. The common practice of closed communion belies any argument for common ground. Because it’s not what’s common ground that divides, it’s what’s not common ground that divides.

Question is : Do you think you are saved ?

If you have to ask after all I’ve said in the last several months, obviously you don’t think so. Welcome to the ever burgeoning club.

In Christianity, essential doctrines, or rather what are considered essential doctrines, are the important thing. What is considered essential is not agreed upon, except in a denominational sense. There are more than 30, 000 views as to what the bible alone says. No reason to ask why I think Protestantism is the greatest expression of Christian denominationalism to exist so far. There is no practical ground for the Protestant view of bible alone, no matter how many verses they use to defend it. Further, the diversity of views in Protestantism is good evidence for the bible not being anything more than a collection of human writings being understood diversely by many human minds.

So far, I still believe in the bible, in spite of that good evidence.

I don’t think you’ve resorted to an ad hominem argument before. That implies to me you’re reaching, you’re reacting. My question to you, is what are you going to do now? Go on as if nothing has happened? Or will you go with what you know to be true in your spirit? I went with my spirit and I continue to pray for a better way to deal with Christian denominationalism than the way I’m dealing with it now.

Proverbs 17:28 Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent, and discerning if he holds his tongue. (NIV)

That’s how I deal with it now. I attend a Christian Church practicing silence. Where their worship is according to their own denominational thinking, I am silent. Where it is inclusive, then I worship with them. Regarding doctrine and practice, when they speak according to their own denominational thinking I am silent. When they speak in an inclusive way, or about things not related to doctrine and practice, I am part of the conversation. Because like most Christian denominations, they practice closed communion. Apart from this practice of silence, I would run out of Christian Churches to attend. And I currently know of no other way to express the community nature of being in Christ. I have considered that the others who are in Christ who attend there, need me in some way. I have no idea how considering the situation.

I couldn’t join Handy’s Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod. Because once they found out that I don’t believe in Justification by faith alone, not only would I not be able to join as a member, I would be subject to their version of closed communion. Justification by faith alone is an essential doctrine to Protestants. Almost as essential as their Protestant view of the Trinity. About as essential as their Protestant view of bible alone.

The view on Justification held by Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism is apparently as high on their list of essential doctrines as it is on the Protestant list. Since my view of Justification is different from their view as well, I have the same problem with them as I do with Protestants.

There are a couple things that those who use this particular ad hominem argument that you used against me don’t take into account. First, I’m the only one who believes as I do, so far as I know. A unique belief? Definitely. But I’ve never started a community based on my unique beliefs. A denomination by definition includes more than one. So a denomination? Not at all. Second, the term Christian, in my view, is inadequate as a description for one who is in Christ. So if I were to actually start a denomination, it would NOT be a “Christian†denomination. It would be a religious expression apart from Christianity. In spite of certain things that some might consider common ground. My denomination (if it existed) would be called by a different name, I don’t know what. I’m sure some innovative Christian would come up with a designation for it. And it would probably take hold whether we as a community wanted it to or not. But Like Buddhist communities are frequently called Churches in America, it would probably be called a Church.

There is a Christian denomination that refers to itself as “The Recoveryâ€. In the sense of the recovery of Christianity, not a recovery from some drug or another. It’s called by other Christians, “The Local Church†or “The Local Churchesâ€. The reason is because the one who started that community, Witness Lee, emphasized the practical expression of the Church in the local churches. I don’t think this community acknowledges itself to be a Christian denomination. But I think they’re a Christian denomination for one reason. They refer to themselves as Christians. They think of themselves as the recovery of Christianity that began with the Protestant Reformation. Most conservative Protestant apologists refer to them as a cult. Primarily because they believe in a form of Trinitarianism that’s not quite according to the Protestant orthodox version of Trinitarianism. And Protestant apologists frequently confuse their view with Modalism, which it is not. I don’t think it’s possible to recover, restore, or reform Christianity. A change in doctrines or practice just increases diversity. Even when they think of the change as a return from what’s already changed.

The idea of Former Christian cuts me off from a connection to Christianity altogether. But there are Christians who then say I’m “unsaved†for that reason alone. For to them, being a Christian and “being saved†are the same thing. To me they’re not the same thing at all. No one is saved by becoming a Christian, or joining a Christian denomination. Those who are saved are saved by being put into Christ by God. I’ve explained this before.

I’m moving closer and closer every day to bowing to the conviction of those who think I’m not saved. They often make very persuasive arguments, in directions they do not intend. The ad hominem argument you used is not one of them. But today, I still consider myself Justified and Saved because I’m in Christ.

NC

 

[Former Christian]

Aardverk

Denomination “a recognized autonomous branch of the Christian Church.†(Oxford Dictionary)

I expand that a little personally by also saying that a Christian Denomination has its own leadership, its own organizational structure, its own doctrinal standard, its own adherents. In short, it’s its own Christian Church.

Since I consider the religious orders and the other divisions over language you spoke of to still be within the venue of the Catholic Church, I see them as a part of that denomination. Religious orders are simply ways of service. The contemplative orders such as the Benedictines and the Cistercians emphasize prayer for the Church. The Dominicans emphasize teaching. St. Vincent de Paul emphasizes helping the poor. There are orders that emphasize dealing with the sick and infirm. I think Pope Benedict has bent over backwards trying to keep those who prefer the old ways prior to Vatican II from splitting off from the Church altogether. He has done all that is feasible. What ever happens now is on those who split away. Those who consider there hasn’t been a Pope since Pius XII, they’re a different story. They’ve pretty much already left, and are as you say a denomination.

Now, I say all that not as a Catholic. But while I was studying Catholicism, I found that I eventually knew more than most Catholics about their own faith. And most of those who convert to Protestantism from the Catholic faith, I found to be more ignorant than most, even to saying that Catholics worship statues. Maybe some do. But they aren’t worshipping according to what Catholicism says about it. I often found myself defending Catholicism against ignorance. And I’m not even a Catholic. And sometimes I find myself defending Protestantism (not on this forum) even though I’m not a Protestant. Weird, don’t you think?

The Western split of the 16th century should never have happened. It only happened because of emphasis and human thinking. Had nothing to do with the bible at all really.

But I’m with you. No sense arguing about denominationalism if we’re not even a part of it.

Right, let's see your list of 30,000 denominations

LOL Where to begin. I think a thread listing all the denominations would close down the forum. Do we really want to mess up their forum like that?

I also could not find a denomination where I felt comfortable with their beliefs, and like you, I eventually stopped calling myself a Christian and accepted that I would henceforth be labelled a heretic. I learned to live with that title but it still smarts a bit that I am excluded, by many, from the Christian fellowship due to what I perceive to be ignorance.

You can read toward the end of my post to Tina to see how I’m dealing with denominationalism. How are you dealing with it? Do you attend a Christian Church? Or have you just left it all behind?

Dominus vobiscum.

I know some NT Greek. But the last time I was trying to learn Latin was in high school. So I had to look that up. My favorite Catholic author is Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange. He wrote a book on the Eucharist that was never translated into English. I wonder why. It makes me wish I was more adept at languages.

Et etiam cum vobis (Google Translator)

NC

 

[Adullam]

Tina



That kind of ad hominem argument no longer angers me. But it has had the effect of angering me in the past, and contributing to where I am now. The more Christians use that argument, the more thankful I am to be something different from whatever it is they think they are.

I gave a Scriptural reason elsewhere (John 17, 1 Corinthians, Galatians 5, Ephesians 4) why I believe denominationalism is more than just a characteristic of Christianity. It’s a sinful characteristic due to following the flesh of man.

It’s not my own idea. Personally, I’d like to think of denominations as just different ways to express the Body of Christ. Just like some people think of the different religions as being different roads to God. But the bible says something else.

Jesus was against division, as was Paul. Paul referred to divisions within a “Churchâ€. Christian denominationalism is different from that kind of division. The divisions of Christianity are each Churches in themselves that divides those who are in Christ from one another. That’s a step beyond division within a “Church†that Paul refers to. Denominationalism is what Jesus and Paul spoke against, taken to its logical conclusion.

Your response is only one way to deny the obvious. Another is to say denominationalism is necessary as a continual means of renewal or reformation. A necessary evil?. Another is to say that denominations exist so that people can find their own kind of Church that is good for them, i.e., the pick and choose method of Christian expression. Another is to say “it’s not as bad as all thatâ€, for those who don’t read the bible at all. Another is to say “my Church is the True Churchâ€. You would be surprised at how many Christian Churches fit into that category. Another is to just deny denominations exist at all, usually with a reference to common ground. The common practice of closed communion belies any argument for common ground. Because it’s not what’s common ground that divides, it’s what’s not common ground that divides.



If you have to ask after all I’ve said in the last several months, obviously you don’t think so. Welcome to the ever burgeoning club.

In Christianity, essential doctrines, or rather what are considered essential doctrines, are the important thing. What is considered essential is not agreed upon, except in a denominational sense. There are more than 30, 000 views as to what the bible alone says. No reason to ask why I think Protestantism is the greatest expression of Christian denominationalism to exist so far. There is no practical ground for the Protestant view of bible alone, no matter how many verses they use to defend it. Further, the diversity of views in Protestantism is good evidence for the bible not being anything more than a collection of human writings being understood diversely by many human minds.

So far, I still believe in the bible, in spite of that good evidence.

I don’t think you’ve resorted to an ad hominem argument before. That implies to me you’re reaching, you’re reacting. My question to you, is what are you going to do now? Go on as if nothing has happened? Or will you go with what you know to be true in your spirit? I went with my spirit and I continue to pray for a better way to deal with Christian denominationalism than the way I’m dealing with it now.



That’s how I deal with it now. I attend a Christian Church practicing silence. Where their worship is according to their own denominational thinking, I am silent. Where it is inclusive, then I worship with them. Regarding doctrine and practice, when they speak according to their own denominational thinking I am silent. When they speak in an inclusive way, or about things not related to doctrine and practice, I am part of the conversation. Because like most Christian denominations, they practice closed communion. Apart from this practice of silence, I would run out of Christian Churches to attend. And I currently know of no other way to express the community nature of being in Christ. I have considered that the others who are in Christ who attend there, need me in some way. I have no idea how considering the situation.

I couldn’t join Handy’s Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod. Because once they found out that I don’t believe in Justification by faith alone, not only would I not be able to join as a member, I would be subject to their version of closed communion. Justification by faith alone is an essential doctrine to Protestants. Almost as essential as their Protestant view of the Trinity. About as essential as their Protestant view of bible alone.

The view on Justification held by Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism is apparently as high on their list of essential doctrines as it is on the Protestant list. Since my view of Justification is different from their view as well, I have the same problem with them as I do with Protestants.

There are a couple things that those who use this particular ad hominem argument that you used against me don’t take into account. First, I’m the only one who believes as I do, so far as I know. A unique belief? Definitely. But I’ve never started a community based on my unique beliefs. A denomination by definition includes more than one. So a denomination? Not at all. Second, the term Christian, in my view, is inadequate as a description for one who is in Christ. So if I were to actually start a denomination, it would NOT be a “Christian†denomination. It would be a religious expression apart from Christianity. In spite of certain things that some might consider common ground. My denomination (if it existed) would be called by a different name, I don’t know what. I’m sure some innovative Christian would come up with a designation for it. And it would probably take hold whether we as a community wanted it to or not. But Like Buddhist communities are frequently called Churches in America, it would probably be called a Church.

There is a Christian denomination that refers to itself as “The Recoveryâ€. In the sense of the recovery of Christianity, not a recovery from some drug or another. It’s called by other Christians, “The Local Church†or “The Local Churchesâ€. The reason is because the one who started that community, Witness Lee, emphasized the practical expression of the Church in the local churches. I don’t think this community acknowledges itself to be a Christian denomination. But I think they’re a Christian denomination for one reason. They refer to themselves as Christians. They think of themselves as the recovery of Christianity that began with the Protestant Reformation. Most conservative Protestant apologists refer to them as a cult. Primarily because they believe in a form of Trinitarianism that’s not quite according to the Protestant orthodox version of Trinitarianism. And Protestant apologists frequently confuse their view with Modalism, which it is not. I don’t think it’s possible to recover, restore, or reform Christianity. A change in doctrines or practice just increases diversity. Even when they think of the change as a return from what’s already changed.

The idea of Former Christian cuts me off from a connection to Christianity altogether. But there are Christians who then say I’m “unsaved†for that reason alone. For to them, being a Christian and “being saved†are the same thing. To me they’re not the same thing at all. No one is saved by becoming a Christian, or joining a Christian denomination. Those who are saved are saved by being put into Christ by God. I’ve explained this before.

I’m moving closer and closer every day to bowing to the conviction of those who think I’m not saved. They often make very persuasive arguments, in directions they do not intend. The ad hominem argument you used is not one of them. But today, I still consider myself Justified and Saved because I’m in Christ.

NC

Those who are saved are saved by being put into Christ by God.

Agreed!!!!

 

[handy]

thanx for the invite.
currently im across the Atlantic typing this to you while you are asleep.;)
So, im thinking that if i came to your church the long drive back across the Atlantc would be really long.

enjoyed reading your church's creed.

these days, a church that truly takes the bible as the final authority, is not so common.




K

You'll be welcome anytime you're in Idaho...

I couldn’t join Handy’s Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod. Because once they found out that I don’t believe in Justification by faith alone, not only would I not be able to join as a member, I would be subject to their version of closed communion.

This was why I sent out the invite... You wouldn't be alone in not joining my church, FC... This is why divisions exist... because there are real and valid disagreements within the body.

We can all speak of how divisions are of the debbel... but how many of us would go back to the Catholic Church (which does hold to essential Christian doctrine), or join up with a church whose doctrine conflicts with our own? Not in the essentials (Father, Son who died for our sins, Holy Ghost), but in important things.

As Former Christian points out, the LCMS practices closed communion... That means if Kidron ever does swing through and take me up on my offer of visiting...he will be welcomed, but not allowed to partake of communion....

A lot of Christians are turned off by that and would refuse to join my church because of it. (I don't blame them either. While I understand why the LCMS practices closed communion, I don't agree with it from a biblical perspective.)

My pastor has makes this point and he makes it quite often: We cannot pretend that the divisions are non-existent or unimportant...

The LCMS looks a lot like the Catholic Church... so much so that whenever I happen to catch the Pope's Easter service, I can follow it exactly, even though I don't speak either Latin or Italian.

But, I couldn't join the RCC... not with their views on justification and purgatory. I don't think the Pope's the anti-Christ and that Catholics are apostates rather than my brothers and sisters in the Lord... but I couldn't ally myself with their doctrines. Closed communion, OK, I don't think it's necessary to close the communion but I can live with it. The idea that God "purifies by fire" via torments in purgatory? I can't live with that, because that changes the very Gospel message.

The Evangelical Lutheran Church still (though it might change) holds the essential truth about who Jesus is and what the Gospel is, but they also voted to ordain gays and lesbians... anyone want to join up with them now?

Through either honest misunderstanding the message the Scriptures contain, or through holding too fast to tradition, or to out and out rejection of God's word on certain subject, divisions have arisen within the Church.

We can't pretend that these divisions are not important.

 

[Adullam]

The true church is to be led directly through the Spirit. The leaders are the examples of a life that is lived IN Christ having died according to their own lives. They walk in the power of the risen Lord...and love as Jesus loves. Simple!

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Turn your Bible to Colossians 1:14.
Does it say "in whom we have redemption through his Blood"?
Or does it omit the verse completely or omit the word "blood
Why is that?...
So, here again is a doctrinal scripture, a very important one, found in the greek texts which teaches us the importance of the "blood" of Christ regarding redemption, but yet many "new versions" take it out or change it.
Bibles like the NIV for example.

This is right out of the OP, so I'm not off topic. And I'm not going to debate the subject itself, just the point of it being removed from the NIV...and how it was unfairly used against me to cut me off cold as a fellow Christian.

My main Bible is an NIV fourth printing, 1979. It has put the 'redemption through his blood' part into a foot note that says it is in "A few late manuscripts". If there was a conspiracy to somehow negate the blood of Christ by removing this part of the verse they did a poor job of carrying that conspiracy out by in effect leaving it there, just in a footnote. And they neglected to remove it from the other places where it is found.

The point of this is, a couple of friends of mine that I knew as a teenager (and who eventually married each other) decided to end our relationship because I did not use the KJV and pointed out this very verse to prove why it alone is correct. They had been polluted by a TV ministry that used this very argument to show that other Bibles were satanic and, by extension, the people who use them are in league with him for using it. They refused to listen to the very good and acceptable reason why it's a footnote, and that my Bible left it in at another place.

That, and how they had earlier treated me when I moved back to my hometown where I knew them from, left me no choice but to regard them as false believers. Not so I can in turn shun and hate them, but so I can guard myself against them.

Denominations are good things because they help us identify spiritless, godless people and their doctrines. It's not good that we have so many spiritless, godless people in so many denominations, but it still, nevertheless, serves it's valuable purpose for those of us who know there is a 'church of the world' (where unbelievers go en-masse 'to church') and there is the true church of God where truly born again people dominate. It troubles me to see people recognize the 'church of the world', and the various denominations that represent that 'church', but to then sweep away the true church of God with their misguided assault on all denominations as if there is no distinction.


According to Jude and the Apostles, this is who, and what, causes divisions among us:

17 ...you, beloved, ought to remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, 18 that they were saying to you, “ In the last time there will be mockers, following after their own ungodly lusts.” 19 These are the ones who cause divisions, worldly-minded, devoid of the Spirit." (Jude 17-19 NIV 1979)


Separating oneself from those who cause godless divisions does not equate to the same ungodly division they are guilty of...unless you are separating to serve an equally ungodly and spiritless agenda and tear down the true church of Christ in a broad assault on all churches and denominations. I put people who do this in the same category as the people Jude speaks about. Many times the godless agenda being served by those who have rebelled against the 'church of the world' is a desire to get back at them... little knowing they are destroying the true church of God in the process.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Take the bible you use and turn to 1st Timothy 3:16.
Does your "bible" say.."God was manifested in the flesh" or does it say "He was manifested in the flesh"?
Well, the greek manuscripts say "GOD" and because of scriptures like this, we as Christians are able to prove the deity of Christ.
However, once you substitute "he" for "God" you lose the revelation and of course the doctrine.

My NIV has this footnote:

"16 Some manuscripts God"

It's not a hill worth dying for, and just causes needless debate and division in the church. If you read your whole Bible the revelation and the doctrine of the divinity of Christ does not get lost by being honest about the passage. We know about the divinity of Christ from more than just this passage.

 

[reba]

I have the answer to the problem of denominations:

Everybody join my church, Lutheran Church Missouri Synod.

We believe in the Father, Creator God, maker of heaven and earth.

We believe in the Son, Jesus the Christ who died on the cross for the forgiveness of sins, was physically dead, physically raised from the dead to witness to the disciples and then rose bodily into heaven.

We believe in the Holy Spirit who regenerates all who come to Christ in faith.

We believe that the bible is the inspired and inerrant word of God.

That's the essentials, right?

So, Former Christian, Called to Serve, Tina, Kidron, Adullum... come on over and join my church and we'll have all the rest of the Christians join the LCMS as well...

Any takers? :waving

Me :yes

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I find it interesting when the vast number of denominations created by men with godless, spiritless agendas (Jude 19) are then denounced by people with godless, spiritless agendas.

Denominations are good for discerning godless agendas, but they are bad when they are mistakenly understood to represent all Christian agendas as being godless and spiritless and misguided.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

So, Former Christian, Called to Serve, Tina, Kidron, Adullum... come on over and join my church and we'll have all the rest of the Christians join the LCMS as well...

Any takers? :waving

Been there, done that...

http://www.stjohns-lpin.org/?view=mobile

Nice church. Great people. And I liked the Bible study before the service. You can prolly guess what I didn't like about it.

(I did a quick search on line for this church. I'm pretty sure it's the Missouri Synod church I attended for 2 months back in '96).

 

[Kidron]

The point of this is, a couple of friends of mine that I knew as a teenager (and who eventually married each other) decided to end our relationship because I did not use the KJV and pointed out this very verse to prove why it alone is correct. .

Ive never told you to use the KJV, nor have i said i used it.
I just said the scripture was removed in the NIV., similar to the way "God" is removed from Timothy 3:16.
Its in most bibles.
And i explained specifically why "GOD", if its taken out of a "bible", in that verse, eliminates one of the proofs that Jesus is God.
This matters.
It matters a lot.
This is a doctrinal scripture, and if you look at the number of times in 1st and 2nd Timothy that Paul told him over and over and over to be concerned about Doctrine..then this explains that it matters to God that the doctrines be in the bible.
Unfortunately, this does not matter to a lot of Christians.
Also,
If you didnt believe in some of the basic fundamental doctrines of the NT, and the reason you didnt is because some of them are missing from the NIV, and you would not accept that the reason you didnt believe is because that bible has a lot of things missing,.....well, we would have to sit down and do some studying unless you are just not interested..

Here is something as an example.
Say there is a new Christian, and he knows nothing yet about God being Jesus and Jesus being God.
So, he is given an NIV .
He reads Timothy and it says........"He" was manifested in the flesh, instead of "GOD" was manifested in the flesh.
So, what has happened to this person?
He's been jipped.
He's been denied the understanding that he needs to have.
He has missed the revelation of Jesus being God, because that bible omits it in that verse.
And why would that bible do that?

And the other thing , is, would God want to have himself omitted from that verse?
Maybe you should ask him, JB.

One thing we know for sure, is that if "God" is replace by "HE", and you dont already know that Jesus is God, then you are not going to find it out in that NIV verse, are you?
This should make Satan very happy, as he loves it when the light of revelation is hidden from a believer.





K

 

[CalledToServe]

Ive never told you to use the KJV, nor have i said i used it.
I just said the scripture was removed in the NIV., similar to the way "God" is removed from Timothy 3:16.
Its in most bibles.
And i explained specifically why "GOD", if its taken out of a "bible", in that verse, eliminates one of the proofs that Jesus is God.
This matters.
It matters a lot.
This is a doctrinal scripture, and if you look at the number of times in 1st and 2nd Timothy that Paul told him over and over and over to be concerned about Doctrine..then this explains that it matters to God that the doctrines be in the bible.
Unfortunately, this does not matter to a lot of Christians.
Also,
If you didnt believe in some of the basic fundamental doctrines of the NT, and the reason you didnt is because some of them are missing from the NIV, and you would not accept that the reason you didnt believe is because that bible has a lot of things missing,.....well, we would have to sit down and do some studying unless you are just not interested..

Here is something as an example.
Say there is a new Christian, and he knows nothing yet about God being Jesus and Jesus being God.
So, he is given an NIV .
He reads Timothy and it says........"He" was manifested in the flesh, instead of "GOD" was manifested in the flesh.
So, what has happened to this person?
He's been jipped.
He's been denied the understanding that he needs to have.
He has missed the revelation of Jesus being God, because that bible omits it in that verse.
And why would that bible do that?

And the other thing , is, would God want to have himself omitted from that verse?
Maybe you should ask him, JB.

One thing we know for sure, is that if "God" is replace by "HE", and you dont already know that Jesus is God, then you are not going to find it out in that NIV verse, are you?
This should make Satan very happy, as he loves it when the light of revelation is hidden from a believer.





K

Having read numerous translations and researching the original Greek and Hebrew meanings of the words in the original manuscripts some translations have translator bias where things have been added to the Bible or translated differently to support certain doctrines. The one that readily springs to mind is the alteration of Matthew 28:19 where they changed the text from "baptize in the Name"/"baptize in the Name of Lord Jesus Christ" to "baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit". Another alteration is in 1 John 5:7-8 where in the 5th-7th centuries the text was added to after the comma in verse 7 and before the Spirit in verse 8.

The NIV translators acknowledge upfront that there has been bias in the translations. They even include the altered translation as a footnote, but keep the text as the original manuscript has it. The Thompson Chain Reference version of the NIV is quite enlightening in that it has additional material concerning the various translations.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Ive never told you to use the KJV, nor have i said i used it.

I didn't say you did. But I did point out my 'friends' did.

I just said the scripture was removed in the NIV., similar to the way "God" is removed from Timothy 3:16.
Its in most bibles.

My NIV is just being honest. It left it completely intact, word for word, in Ephesians 1:7

"7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of His grace..." (NIV 1979)

It must be in all or most of the earliest manuscripts in that verse for them to have left it there. No demonic conspiracy here, folks.

And i explained specifically why "GOD", if its taken out of a "bible", in that verse, eliminates one of the proofs that Jesus is God.
This matters.
It matters a lot.
This is a doctrinal scripture, and if you look at the number of times in 1st and 2nd Timothy that Paul told him over and over and over to be concerned about Doctrine..then this explains that it matters to God that the doctrines be in the bible.
Unfortunately, this does not matter to a lot of Christians.
Also,
If you didnt believe in some of the basic fundamental doctrines of the NT, and the reason you didnt is because some of them are missing from the NIV, and you would not accept that the reason you didnt believe is because that bible has a lot of things missing,.....well, we would have to sit down and do some studying unless you are just not interested..

Here is something as an example.
Say there is a new Christian, and he knows nothing yet about God being Jesus and Jesus being God.
So, he is given an NIV .
He reads Timothy and it says........"He" was manifested in the flesh, instead of "GOD" was manifested in the flesh.
So, what has happened to this person?
He's been jipped.
He's been denied the understanding that he needs to have.
He has missed the revelation of Jesus being God, because that bible omits it in that verse.
And why would that bible do that?

And the other thing , is, would God want to have himself omitted from that verse?
Maybe you should ask him, JB.

One thing we know for sure, is that if "God" is replace by "HE", and you dont already know that Jesus is God, then you are not going to find it out in that NIV verse, are you?
This should make Satan very happy, as he loves it when the light of revelation is hidden from a believer.

I think God is very interested in us being honest about the manuscripts we have available to us to consult to print our Bibles from. That is easily the more important matter. But if doctrine is more important than character to a person, they may not agree with that for that reason. That is why we have this problem with denominations--people differing over what they are sure is of prime importance in the faith. I choose to stay away from churches and believers who think doctrine in and of itself is more important than character. That does not mean doctrine is not important. It means one is the expected and obligatory measure of saving faith, and one is not, though many, many people think doctrine is how one supremely is required to show their saving faith. That may well be the biggest deceit in the church today...and the number one motivator of divisions among us true believers.

The bottom line is, it has not been removed from the Bible. That particular verse has been translated according to the earliest and most reliable manuscripts available to us with 'God' being put in a footnote for the sake of honest translation. To put 'God' into the verse would be to interpret the verse (apparently that's what later manuscripts did). Nothing wrong with that either...as long as it truly is correct. Which obviously it is in this case...and we know that from other passages in the Bible that don't need interpretation.

I honestly think you're fighting for a hill not worth dying for in this case. We have other scriptures that plainly show Christ to be God. No reason to split the church over this one. Really. Your agenda seems righteous, and your heart is probably in the right place, but there is a more important agenda, one of honesty, that is more important...even if it does require one to read his whole Bible to discern the truth about a given subject.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The NIV translators acknowledge upfront that there has been bias in the translations. They even include the altered translation as a footnote, but keep the text as the original manuscript has it.

(You posted while I was composing my post.)



Generally true, although they do include some interpretative inserts as well, like John 7:8.

IMO, a good Bible has a good mix of both translation and interpretation. As long as the interpretation can be reconciled with the whole of scripture, I think it's okay.

 

[CalledToServe]

(You posted while I was composing my post.)



Generally true, although they do include some interpretative inserts as well, like John 7:8.

IMO, a good Bible has a good mix of both translation and interpretation. As long as the interpretation can be reconciled with the whole of scripture, I think it's okay.

Very true on what you said. The thing I really like about the NIV is that they are quite upfront about it.

 

[Aardverk]

Denomination “a recognized autonomous branch of the Christian Church.†(Oxford Dictionary)"

Life just gets more and more complicated. My copy of the 'Concise Oxford Dictionary 9th Edition' simply says: "A church or religious sect." but it is only 3" thick. I guess you have a different version. My earlier definition was lifted straight off the 'net and I'm afraid I can't confirm with certainty which one I used. Have a look and you will find several saying the same. I would maintain that it is not restricted to Christianity only but I guess we would have to ask a Jew, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, etc, etc to get an informed view. But never mind, it is just an illustration of how difficult it is to communicate with accuracy

And most of those who convert to Protestantism from the Catholic faith, I found to be more ignorant than most, even to saying that Catholics worship statues..... Weird, don’t you think?

How bizarre. It is amazing how ignorant some people are

The Western split of the 16th century should never have happened. It only happened because of emphasis and human thinking. Had nothing to do with the bible at all really.

Indeed! It all had to do with power, persecution and freedom to do something different. There was never a time in history when Christians were united. Neither before nor after the Bible was compiled. Even those who 'signed up' to Constantine's Bible fragmented the religion almost immediately.

. How are you dealing with it? Do you attend a Christian Church? Or have you just left it all behind?

I did, infrequently, for about 50 years but eventually realized it was more stressful dealing with prejudice so I stopped. When I am near enough, it is delightful to join in with a meeting/service of the 'Sea of Faith'. A wonderful organization open to all who embrace the peace, harmony and love aspects of any religion or indeed none. THAT is what Jesus would have liked - I think:p

Et etiam cum vobis

Thank you. The traditional response to 'Dominus vobiscum' is however 'Et cum spiritu tuo'.

I was taught as a child that it meant, 'And the Holy Spirit with you'. It translates however as, 'And with your spirit':