BBC Blog Network

User Profile

grammarsgonetopot

Listed below are comments made by grammarsgonetopot between Tuesday, 18th August 2009 and Monday, 31st August 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Sunday Sequence visits Whitewell Metropolitan Tabernacle 12:55pm on 31 Aug 2009 JTB Post 313:
I was not asking for information on the Masoretic text in a previous post. When asked which version of the KJV you accepted as the word of God you replied, "The received text or the textus receptus or also called the byzantine text, which also can be called the majority text." (298)

The TR is a manuscript for the Greek New Testament - I was trying to point out that your answer not only failed to address the question but it only related to a New Testament text and included nothing for the Old! If the KJV translators had only used the TR you would only have a New Testament.

Let me challenge directly your quote above and your subsequent argument in defending it. The Majority Text (the standard Byzantine text) differs from the Textus Receptus in 1,838 Greek readings of which more than one thousand represent translatable differences. To say they are the same is factually inaccurate. BTW to point out a factual error is not a slur!

Why did I bother to raise the issue? Because IMO you chose to defend a particular tranlation (1611 KJV) as the word of God while feeling entirely free to directly challenge its meaning without any supporting argument. You say (313) that you have NEVER done this. Again I quote, "A year in Biblical times has not the same time scale length as a year today, it was much lesser" (280). You read the text and then you make a statement to say that it does not mean what it says!! You do not explain why it is clear from the scripture that a day in the life of Methuselah is a different length than a day for us. You present no supporting argument - you just make an assertion that the text does not mean what it says. Why, if it is okay to handle scripture so carelessly, would it matter what manuscript the translators worked from?

Auntjason has asked you a lot of questions now about the KJV and the various revisions of it - however, I would suggest that much more important than your commitment to a particular translation would be a commitment not to handle the text carelessly.
Sunday Sequence visits Whitewell Metropolitan Tabernacle 1:42pm on 29 Aug 2009 Puretruthseeker - My apologies for going to pot! I did check back over the following 36 hours and everything had gone silent so I have not looked at Will & Testament until this morning.

My apologies also for typing the wrong reference. It should have read Job 36:26.

It seems from post 301 that your are absolutely certain that you have got truth. If you do start a campaign to trust the scriptures I will join it. However, you argue in an earlier post that if we had more scriptures (you assert that the apostles must have written more) then we would know more perfectly. The difficulty is how would we validate them as scripture? Whose authority would you accept in that role and with your view of early church history, on what authority do you accept the Canon of Scripture as you do?

I accept the authority of scripture, therefore I do not make my arguments from the silence of scripture or the material that we do not have. I do not assume (from silence) that Stephen and Philip must have received additional callings - why should I? In Matthew 28:19-20 Jesus gives a specific commission to his disciples. In it they are commanded to teach those they disciple to obey everything Jesus taught them. This would include teaching them to obey the instruction of Matthew 28:19-20. This gives direction to all believers to make disciples and to baptise. Why, if Stephen & Philip had been properly taught would they think they needed any additional calling. The calling to what they did is explicit in the commission of Matthew 28:19-20 and it is applicable to all believers if you trust the scriptures!

I believe that there is a clear line of authority going back to Jesus and you will find it in verse 18 of Matthew 28. This is an assertion of authority that allows those who believe to pursue this commission. How do I identify the things that Jesus taught? I read his words and I read the instruction of those to whom he gave authority. My trust is not in some line of institutional authority that remains unbroken since the time of Christ my trust is in what he taught and what those he entrusted taught.

You state clearly your confidence in the scriptures and in the ability of the Holy Ghost to lead us into all truth. I absolutely agree. It seems to me that much of what Jesus was seeking to convey to his disciples immediately prior to his death was that they would not be left alone but that he would send the Holy Ghost to be with them (John 14 -16). Why do you not trust the command of scripture then to assemble with other believers.

You have stated your scepticism about people's desire for power and your opinion that the true church may not exist. That is especially harsh on those who are asembling together in persecuted countries where their lives are endangered. They have no desire for power, just mutual support and encouragement and all who visit speak of the humility and servanthood of leaders in those situations. If the true church does not exist then Jesus statement in Matt 16:18 is wrong. Building is a progressive work. Jesus could only restore to his original intention something that already exists.

What is essential to church:
1) People who have faith and obey God's word (I read that in post 301)
2) Because they obey God's word they will meet with other believers for mutual support and edification to live out the obedience in community that is required by the "one another" statements of the New Testament.
Sunday Sequence visits Whitewell Metropolitan Tabernacle 12:30pm on 29 Aug 2009 RJB - You have no problem in looking at the Bible and drawing from it what is inspired, credible, beautiful and meaningful (288). Can we all do the same thing and what are the principles that we should use to do this? What should we do then with the stuff that we consider uninspired, incredible, ugly and meaningless? Will the principles you give us enable us all to agree on this stuff?

There is art, litreature, and music that people choose to consider, inspired, credible, beautiful and meaningful and they allow it to influence their lives. Is the Bible just the same as these other works?
Sunday Sequence visits Whitewell Metropolitan Tabernacle 12:20pm on 29 Aug 2009 JTB - Post 280 - Do you have any sort of argument for why you think the text of your KJV does not mean what it says? You didn't answer the question you were asked about which version of the KJV you accepted as inspired (298). You apparently reffered to texts that you accept - except the Textus Receptus and the Byzantine Text are not the same thing and these would leave you with a very small Bible. Are their Hebrew texts you would accept as well - Masoretic perhaps? So which version of the KJV do you accept as inspired and does it make any difference anyway if you are free to arbitrarily decide it doesn't mean what it says?
Sunday Sequence visits Whitewell Metropolitan Tabernacle 12:09pm on 29 Aug 2009 JTB - It is obvious that your metaphor (246) has nothing to do with John 15 - it just thoroughly unhelful when you take a biblical methaphor and then change it and expect people to treat it as credible.
Sunday Sequence visits Whitewell Metropolitan Tabernacle 11:41pm on 19 Aug 2009 Puretruthseeker Ref 241:
I have tried to point out why you have a responsibility to be able to identify a true church in my last post. As to your father's statement about concepts and 8 year olds, it may contain some truth but it is not wholly true. There are many concepts that are beyond the grasp of the average 8 year old. I had a lecturer once who had great grasp on his subject but little ability to convey it to others in a simple way. This did not mean he did not understand it. Some have the capacity to make the complicated simple but not everyone does. In 2Pet3:16, Peter says that Paul's letters contain stuff that is hard to understand and consequently ignorant people distort it. According to your logic this would actually mean that Paul did not understand it himself and if this is true then it counters your argument about "men of God" today.

The scriptures that indicate God is beyond our understanding are Job 36:36; Is 40:28; Is 55:9. It is this last one where God himself is speaking. The previous one is a prophet speaking on God's behalf and the first one is the only man, among Job and his friends, who is not reproved for his understanding of God. However, the principle of the New Testament is that God can only be known by revelation. This is spelled out in 1Cor2 and Paul prays for the church in Ephesus to have a spirit of wisdom and revelation in order that they may get to know God better (Eph 1:17). You will find a very similar prayer in Col 1:9-10 and in Philippians 3:8-10 Paul expresses his longing to know Christ. A man's understanding without revelation from the spirit of God can never know God or Jesus Christ. And according to 1Cor 13:12 our knowledge in this life will only be partial at best.
Sunday Sequence visits Whitewell Metropolitan Tabernacle 11:02pm on 19 Aug 2009 Puretruthseeker Ref 240:
Thanks for your reply which helps to clarify your position to me. I have no doubt that the NT churches had some understanding of the numerous doctrinal issues that you cite. However, it is clear that for some it was partial and poorly worked out. Corinth is challenged about entirely unacceptable practice around the Lord's supper and they are told that what they are practicing is not the Lord's supper at all. They are confused in their understanding about spiritual gifts hence the correction advised by 1Cor 12-14. Galatians and Hebrews both challenge misconceptions about the nature of salvation.

The texts you quote to illustrate structure and authority are interesting in that it would be impossible to put them together into a single method. You draw attention to Stephen specifically but what is interesting about his choosing is that it was done by a group of his peers based on specific qualifications and it was for the purpose of serving food to widows. There are people similarly appointed within some churches today but if they were to widen their ministry in the way that Stephen and Philip did it would be objected to because their call was to a much more limited sphere of ministry

If on the other hand you used the method of Paul's calling how would you verify this. Paul said he saw Jesus and that Jesus called him (any leaders like that today?)but who can testify to that. The early church didn't believe him at first and were very suspicious of him. Paul claimed angelic visitation yet that seems to be one of the stumbling blocks that you have made reference to with today's leaders. There is undoubtedly structure in the NT church with elders (the word is interchangeable with bishops) appointed in local churches and there was some translocal covering but how in reality did it function? Paul pleads with churches to listen to him and asks them to acknowledge his authority (it seems that some were very reluctant to do that and he had no capacity to demand it) and John acknowledges that there is a leader (Diotrophes) who will not recognise him or his colleagues but he has no power to remove him?? Some of the texts you refer to identify prophets in leadership but there is no explanation as to how they were called or appointed. Would you be happy to have prophets in leadership today and how do you think they should be appointed?

Jesus only mentioned the church twice in the whole of his ministry and on one occasion it was to say he would build his church and the gates of hades couldn't stop it. If you accept his word that means he is building his church and it matters a whole lot to find out what that church is because he calls people to be a part of this called out group. He does not invite people into isolated relationship with God. It will be a perfect spotless church (bride) that he presents to the Father. The church is the pinnacle of his redemptive purpose in the world according to the NT writers. It is not sufficient therefore to challenge the structures that you see if you are actively seeking something better. It is also essential according to NT writers that the world sees a community that lives out the teaching of Christ. There are many NT references to positive "one another" statements. These demand meeting in a corporate setting. NT Christians are urged not to forsake meeting together. This all necessitates identifying the hallmarks of the real church and getting into it.

I am not sure what the three strands of Christianity were that you refer to by the end of the first century but I accept that Luther was limited in the outcome he achieved. It seems to me his intention was to question/challenge leadership who were abusing power by the sale of indulgences and I am not sure that he ever expected to be excommunicated or to see a Reformation in the way that he did. Sometimes asking questions leads to consequences that we had not forseen and for this reason it is important that we try to find answers not just ask questions.

I do not in any way dispute that the NT church had both structure and authority but that did not prevent it from division, immorality, false doctrine or poor leadership. All those things are recorded of the NT churches and had been warned about. It is for this reason that I would see much similarity with the church of today. It is clear from the NT that local churches were overseen by elders and their responsibility is clearly identified. The qualifications are also clear but the method of appointment is not.

It is also evident that there was accountability whatever the level of leadership. Paul and Peter both make their case to a council in Jerusalem made up of apostles and elders. It is a Biblical principle that those under authority can exercise authority. I do not think that any church leader should be unaccountable but if they are that does not demonstrate that the church is not a true church it just demonstrates that they have allowed dysfuntional leadership to operate.

The very fact that false teachers, unscrupulous people and abusive leaders seek to gain position within a church would indicate that that church is part of the church of Jesus Christ. All the Biblical warnings that alert us to this danger say that these people will try to infiltrate the church of Jesus Christ. When they succeed why would we assume it cannot be a true church?
Sunday Sequence visits Whitewell Metropolitan Tabernacle 4:41pm on 18 Aug 2009 Puretruthseeker Ref 236:

You say that you should have known that those who allow themselves to be led will never question or challenge the leaders. If that were true the threads on this blog about WW would not exist. It seems to me that the majority of 1500 posts are from people questioning and challenging. Perhaps that fact has escaped your attention. It is not going to help your search for truth if you apply the actions of a tiny minority to the whole and then draw conclusions.

You ask how leaders get appointed to positions of prominence and citing Obama as an example you conclude they do not work their way up by serving and proving themselves. Let me fill in the gaps of your Obama illustration. I agree that he did not first lead a small country (funny that - that we don't get people from other countries to learn the trade of leadership on foreign nations just because they're small)but he did pursue an education at Columbia Uni and Harvard Law School. He did serve as a community organizer before practicing as a Civil Rights lawyer and he did teach Constitutional law at the Uni of Chicago. He served 3 terms on Illinois State Senate before being elected to the US Senate and he fought elections in all sorts of primaries in order to win the Democrats nomination. He then put himself up as a candidate and was democratically chosen to be the leader of his nation.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the appointment of leaders in Church but it does seem that you have questions about what right anyone has to be in a position of leadership. How would you appoint political leaders and what would the criteria be for them to qualify to serve?

You make reference to power in religion and politics and then cite soldiers, bankers, medics, industrialists and scientists as areas of life that are about power. I am not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that all these professions are only interested in power or are you simply acknowledging the fact of life that they all have power? We all have power in some measure - so what? Do you think that any of those that you refer to decided to pursue a course of life that would use their talents in serving others? There are industrialists who could not spend their fortune on themselves or their families in a thousand lifetimes yet they are still working long hours, employing thousands and enabling lots of people to live fulfilled lives. Why do they do it? Why do they not retire, and selfishly never work another day again? They could close their companies and live at ease but they don't.

It is easy to criticise others in positions of leadership in life but I would love to hear constructive suggestions from you about how some of these things might be done differently. You say you want to engage the bigger questions but that is only possible if you have suggestions otherwise when the questions have been asked the conversation finishes.

My first car was a Vauxhall Magnum with rostyle wheels and lots of dials in the dashboard. It wasn't any better than a Viva but it used a lot more petrol. I have had loads of different cars since. Functionality and appearance are not mutually exclusive. Do I assume that because children imitate adults and people repeat what they hear from others that everbody is more concerned about image than substance? No. Do I think that lots of people say things that are poor echoes of others and are not their own thoughts? Yes - in all sorts of areas of life! Do I think that some people don't ask enough questions or the right questions and say things that are not carefully considered and that lack reasoned argument? Yes - I think that's obvious from these last three posts.
Sunday Sequence visits Whitewell Metropolitan Tabernacle 3:51pm on 18 Aug 2009 Puretruthseeker Ref 222:
I'd be interested to hear from you what you think a restored Church would look like. It seems a massive leap evidentially to cite two specific points in history and infer from that and the present that all leaders are perpetrating a "myth" of calling.

The objective test that you give for identifying the veracity of a leader's calling defies logic. If a leader cannot explain the Godhead in terms comprehensible to an 8 year old that apparently proves your point! Have you ever wondered why most 8 year olds are not sitting degrees or involved in bio chemistry or researching the properties of dark matter? There is a reason that curricula are carefully set in relation to age. There are lots of complicated concepts around a wide variety of disciplines that we do not expect to be comprehensible to 8 year olds.

This of course only relates to the development of intellectual understanding and does not include the not insignificant challenge of grasping the nature of an all powerful, infinite being who has delared himself to be beyond understanding!
Sunday Sequence visits Whitewell Metropolitan Tabernacle 2:53pm on 18 Aug 2009 Puretruthseeker Ref 219:
You question the authenticity of local churches based on a particular text from 1Cor 14:33 and do not see the linkage between these and the Church Jesus established. While I applaud the search for truth it will be continually frustrated if the search does not go beyond the superficial reference to proof texts.

I would suggest 1Cor 14:33 answers the very question you are asking. Paul points out to this congregation that God is not the author of confusion but of peace and that this is not just true of their congregation but of all churches. Why does Paul need to make the statement at all? Isn't it because he is challenging the confusion that exists in Corinth? Not only is there confusion - but division, factions, immorality, power struggles and the abuse of freedom. That sounds a lot to me like some of the churches you have referred to. Can you not see the similarity? Does Paul ever suggest to the Christians in Corinth that they are not part of the real Church? In spite of all their flaws and failings he is crystal clear as to whether or not they are the real deal and points this out in 1Cor 1:2. It is because they are part of the real Church of Jesus Christ that he tells them their behaviour is totally unacceptable, that it is not initiated by God and he calls them to live differently.

If you read much at all of the New Testament Churches you will find repeated challenges to completely unacceptable behaviour that looks exactly like the Churches you describe. Why is it identified? In order to call people to something better and challenge the mediocrity that many are willing to settle for.

What would the necessary criteria be that would allow you to authenticate someone's call to leadership?

Please do not misread my position. I do believe that there is an absolute demand for accountability to all who are in leadership.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

grammarsgonetopot