In honor of Applied Kinesiology…

I saw this from Phil Johnson.  Apparently Mark Twain didn’t think highly of charlatans who peddled psuedo-medicine that claimed to heal all sorts of illness and fed on the simple or uneducated.  Beware of non-western medicine that makes outlandish claims (like it cures cancer, allergies or any other currently incurable conditions).

Until Next Time,

Lyndon Unger

Advertisements

52 thoughts on “In honor of Applied Kinesiology…

  1. You had mentioned that you believe in eternal salvation. That once saved, always saved? And you are in seminary?
    Seems to me, that we come to Him with free will! And once in, He doesnt take away our free will, or as you suggest, He does?
    John 15….relates to those grafted in branches that don’t produce fruit being cut off and thrown in the fire.. And Rev 3:5 “‘In this way he who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments; and I will certainly not blot out his name from the Book of Life, but will acknowledge him in the presence of My Father and His angels.
    Seems ones name can be blotted out of the book of life Mr Unger…
    Would you like even more scripture? IF, being the biggest word in the bible….

    Bar

  2. Uh, I didn’t mention eternal salvation in this post. Apparently, you are not refering to the post upon which you commented. It seems rather that you are cruising the internet, under a pseudonym, picking theological fights.

    Well, since you claim to be named “son of God” or “son of the gods”, I’ll simply call you “Francis”.

    Well Francis, I am wondering where the Bible teaches that we have a free will? Care to show where the scriptures teaches that any person in history has a morally or rationally neutral, self-determining, uncoerced, *free* will?

    Francis, you have to biblically establish the reality of the *free* will before you even bring up the debate. Unless you can establish that, there is no debate.

    Good luck Francis. I look forward to you ignoring my rebuttals and rebuking me for not being teachable before you shake the dust off your feet. Let’s just say I’ve had this conversation before.

  3. Jos 24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

    Me thinks you like to jump to conclusions too quickly Mr Unger, for you do err in your assumptions. I offer an alternative to what you have taken as truth.

    As to the [barelohim] meaning *son of God*, isn’t everyone born of His spirit, a son, or daughter? Otherwise how can it be legal to call Him Father, unless one be born of His seed? Or perhaps one uses His name in vain?

    And it may also be possible that you have touched this *debate* before, but not with me. I would however like to submit the fact that man has always had free will to choose. Even Cain in the begining had opportunity to make the right choices…
    Gen 4:6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
    Gen 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.
    And Abraham, did he not have free choice to slay Isaac, or not? He chose to obey, out of free choice, knowing that God would somehow cause a resurrection of Isaac, for the promise was to be through Isaac…

  4. 2Co 8:3 For I can testify that to the utmost of their power, and even beyond their power, they have of their own free will given help.

    2Co 8:17 for Titus welcomed our request, and, being thoroughly in earnest, comes to you of his own free will.

    Isn’t a concordance a nice tool? And the Greek and Hebrew translations?

    I also do understand that there are other voices that can sway one, one way or the other, unless they have not been made aware of the spiritual influences at large.. BUT, we …2Co 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

    amen

    Bar

  5. Francis, I don’t believe you’ve even made an effort at establishing the reality of a free will. Simply quoting texts that offer people choices doesn’t establish a case for the existence of truly *free* will. All it suggests is that God offers people legitimate choices. The sheer presence of a choice doesn’t prove anything about free will, though I’m guessing that this is around 90% of your argument.

    Quoting passages that have the phrase “free will” doesn’t establish the case either.

    You need to establish a case that neither God nor sin ultimately directs the will of man, but that the will of man is self-directed; unfettered from both and is *free*, meaning uncoerced by external forces in an inescapable way.

    Try again.

    Try harder.

    Present a biblical argument, not a series of random texts that are related by a common noun.

  6. Oh My Lord Mr Unger… I should have realized that a *seminary education* reduces a believers *discerning of spiritual things* and heightens their worldly/theological wisdom..

    Maybe you could explain why it is you have come to believe that man doesn’t have *free/uncoreced/will? Since having *legitimate choices* to choose right, or not, isn’t in your classification of free. [[The sheer presence of a choice doesn’t prove anything about free will.]]

    I think this statement of yours shows the inability to see, what is right in front of you! IF, for the case of man not having free will, would make man a puppet..
    And I also notice that my explanation of the name, and the reason of the new birth was ignored..?

    2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

    How about we use the Word to make our case MR Unger? The texts are related by the precept of making a choice through ones own volition. Even if one is tempted to make a choice contrary to what they might never do, it is still made by their free will to do so. One can’t say ” The devil made me do it!” and be innocent.

  7. Nice jab at being educated. Completely nonsensical Francis, but not shocking at all. I can only imagine how much of an autodidact you are.

    Maybe I could explain why it is that I have come to believe that man doesn’t have free will? Maybe I could, but I didn’t come here looking for a fight.

    I am unable to see what is right in front of me?

    It’s always intriquing to me how people like yourself make such blanket insults like that and then continue attempting to present any form of argumentation. Why do you attempt to argue with a blind idiot like myself? I’m guessing that it’s because you have a fair bit more interest in presenting your own judgments/opinions than actually discussing anything or (*gasp*) possibly learning something.

    You, on the other hand, are making an argument about your name where as I never challenged it. I agree on the meaning of the combination of “bar” + “elohim”. I simply recognized it as a pseudonym, hiding who you really were so you could be free to shoot your mouth off with anonymity (for that reason alone, I don’t really take your serious.) Hence I simply reject your chosen pseudonym and choose a new one for you: Francis.

    As for 2 Time 3:16-17, I doubt there’s much disagreement there. I believe the scriptures and I build my theology from the texts of scripture.

    As for a scripture that suggests that the will of man is not autonomous, I don’t really know where to start, since I know how this plays out.

    Romans 6:16-17?
    Romans 8:7?
    Titus 3:3-4?
    Ephesians 2:3
    Isaish 10:5-19?

    The list goes on and on. You can pick a text and we can interact with it.

  8. Maybe I could explain why it is that I have come to believe that man doesn’t have free will? Maybe I could, but I didn’t come here looking for a fight.

    Hmm, and who is looking for a fight Mr Unger? Since we are to be of the same mind, and the same accord, it is only right and just that when we disagree, we come together and discuss our differences, so that we can come to the same conclusion…
    Php 2:2 Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.
    1Co 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
    Rom 12:16 Be of the same mind one toward another. Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits.

    Why do you attempt to argue with a blind idiot like myself?

    I don’t consider you an idiot Mr Unger, but I do take what you say with a grain of salt….

    I’m guessing that it’s because you have a fair bit more interest in presenting your own judgments/opinions than actually discussing anything or (*gasp*) possibly learning something.

    I have presented opinions of the precept of scripture on free will, but so far haven’t been able to *learn* anything relevant through all your condecending remarks..

    hiding who you really were

    Mr Unger, I presented a name that represents who I am, in Christ. Born of the Spirit/God, therefore being one of His many sons, in process of developing His character and likeness, as the scriptures declare.

    As for 2 Time 3:16-17, I doubt there’s much disagreement there

    There now, that wasn’t so hard was it? At least we can agree on 2 Tim….

    Would you agree with the concept of man, born of a woman, born under the condemnation/sentence of death, because of the sin nature passed through adams disobediance? And even the good that unregenerated sinners do, is off the wrong tree? And that the unregenerated are not sinners because they sin, but they sin because of what they are?

    Before we press on in attaining some form of *the same mind, and the same accord*, could I get your input on those statements Mr Unger?

    sincerely In Christ
    Bar

  9. Francis, do you know me or not?

    Drop the pseudonym and talk to me and I’ll take you seriously. I don’t blog anonymously and I don’t post comments hiding behind a pseudonym and I have little respect for people that do.

    Pretending that it’s a description of ‘who you are in Christ’ is simple rhetorical gymnastics equivalent to the 8 year old who argues with his parents that his actions weren’t disobedience on semantic technicality. (“Son, we told you not to throw it!” “I didn’t ‘throw’ it, I ‘tossed’ it!”).

    Do you refer to yourself as BarElohim when you get your license renewed?
    When you go to the doctor?
    When you meet a new individual?

    Give me a break. You’re hiding your identity for a reason, and it’s not because you live in Saudi Arabia and are afraid of becoming a martyr. Anonymity is the bush that fools, cowards, pranksters and criminals hide behind on the internet. Which one are you?

    The trackback info on your comment says you’re from Regina, or accessing the web from Regina. If you are someone who used to know me and is stalking me on the web looking to score points against me by some strange rhetorical trap (with others watching), then you’re really barking up the wrong tree.

    If you randomly stumbled on here (and being from Regina is a simple coincidence) and are wanting to evangelize me with some form of free-will ideology/Arminianism/whatever concoction you personally hold to, you’re also barking up the wrong tree. I’ve likely read the same books you’ve read (Geisler, Hunt, Bryson, Walls & Dongell, Olson, Basinger, etc.) and have encountered, and rejected, the arguments that you have found convincing.

    Francis, you came here and initiated this ‘interaction’. Your first comment was about “eternal salvation” (otherwise known as ‘eternal security’) and you made negative insinuations about my intelligence.

    That’s called picking a fight.

    This can go on forever and ever if texts are being thrown back and forth. So, here’s what we can do:

    1. Drop the pretense and pseudonyms.
    2. Pick a specific text and work through it.

  10. Mr Unger (mennoknight)…Mr Burns (barelohim) didn’t realize that you had paranoia tendencies….

    [[[If you are someone who used to know me and is stalking me on the web…]]]

    So as not to disturb you any further, or rather (rattle your tree ) I will bid you adieu, and regret, that you didn’t realize His visitation.

    ” IF words still offend you, are you yet not carnal?”

  11. Well, I don’t take lightly to people appearing out of nowhere looking to educate a fool (namely, me) on an issue that’s apparently a large hobby-horse.

    Paranoia? You’re the one talking like some sort of street prophet and hiding your name. Why the inability to talk about something as straightforward as eternal security without using a pseudonym? Are you in danger of religious persecution or something? Is this issue so hot that you use the pseudonym for your safety?

    Over the last decade and a bit, the internet has shown that people who fight theological issues under psuedonyms are often nutbars (Remember the recent silliness of “Servetus the Evangelical”?) or simply want the freedom to shoot their mouths off without worrying about accountability for their slander, hiding behind a pseudonym in order to more easily facilitate sin.

    Also, I’m asking you who you are and whether or not you know me. If anything, that changes how I interact with you. If you’re not a random arminian troll, I won’t treat you like it. Nobody likes trolls. They’re spineless creatures, often spotted by psuedonyms and “holier-than-thou” tone that makes fun of biblical education…but not always.

    Beyond that, what does “I will bid you adieu, and regret, that you didn’t realize His visitation” mean?

    Why is “his” capitalized?

    Are you suggesting that your appearance on my blog was a visit from the Lord?

    I’ll give you the invitation again to dialogue with some intergrity:

    1. Drop the pretense and pseudonyms.
    2. Pick a specific text and let’s work through it.

  12. Sir, I don’t think you would know a visitation of the Lord in the first place..

    You remind me of the sadducees in the time of Christ…. Lots or religious knowledge, but didn’t know who it was who was chastizing them… And as He said to them…..” Joh 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

    You have ears to hear mennoknight, but you aren’t hearing!
    Mat 23:24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

    Rather than listening to what is being pointed out to you, you are more interested in the messenger. This only shows where your immaturity in spiritual things really lies..

    As Jesus said, ” IF you knew My Father, you would know me!” It is clear, you don’t know the Father mennoknight, but you could probably write volumes about Him.. which is really really sad…

    Israel of old, believed in God, knew His reality, heard His voice through the prophets sent to her, had many prayers answered,…….yet all the while, they never came to Know Him, which was the cry of His heart… And even when He came in His son, to those who were His own, they still did not KNOW HIM…

    Your *religious studies* will never prepare you to KNOW HIM, Mr Unger. He is known by the spirit, and seen in the spirit of His word…not the letter.. It is sad, that too many like you, and the Galatians that Paul wrote about… ” Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
    Gal 3:3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

    Sincerely In Him
    Mr.B.

  13. So I’m unregenerate now?

    uh, isn’t that a slightly harsh judgment for someone to make?

    Isn’t that also a deity claim? (What, with knowing the internal state of a human heart in respect to salvation)

  14. Mr Unger (mennoknight)….

    One can know what is in the well, by what comes up in the bucket!

    The mouth speaks of that which fills the heart! Just re-read your own posts Mr Unger.

    Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. *[[[Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. ]]]*

    One can be *saved* (born of God), Mr Unger, but have not the spirit of Christ. And having the Spirit, one also will possess the gifts of the Spirit, one being….1Co 12:10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy;
    [[[[[[ to another discerning of spirits;]]]]] to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:

    Dan 5:27 ………..; Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting.

    Read my lips…..!

    Quit looking at the messenger, and weigh yourself, you still have time!

    (barelohim)

  15. “One can be *saved* (born of God), Mr Unger, but have not the spirit of Christ. And having the Spirit, one also will possess the gifts of the Spirit, one being….1Co 12:10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; [[[[[[ to another discerning of spirits;]]]]] to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:”

    Ah. I see. That makes things clear.

    Did God tell you I’m not saved? I sure wouldn’t want to be wasting my life if God almighty has made the truth of my eternal state clear to someone who has the ability to warn me.

    You don’t attend Rick Parkyn’s church by chance, do you?

    Or maybe Bishop Van Johnson’s church?

    Just guessing.

    So Romans 8:9 says that salvation is seperate and distinct from being indwelt with the Spirit of Christ.

    Could you walk through Romans 8, tracing Paul’s argument through 8:1-17, and explain the passage to me, explaining how Paul seperates salvation and being indwelt with the Spirit?

    Biblical exegesis, not simple citation of texts in random fashion, is the best way to convince someone like me of a new or differing teaching of scripture.

  16. Since Jesus is our example MR Unger, all one needs to do is look to Him.

    Was He not *born of the Spirit?* But did He have the Spirit? Not until He was near 30 years old, after the baptisim of repentence at the river Jordan… And if you don’t think this is relevant. Then why would Jesus need the baptisim by John, which was a baptisim of repentence…? “To fulfill all righteousness!” He said. Do you not know He said, as Paul…”follow ME!”

    Take a look at Acts chapter 18, and 19….. Look at what Appolos needed to further know, and the disciples of John that Paul spoke to in 19….

    Act 18:24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.
    Act 18:25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.
    Act 18:26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

    And what did Apollos have *expounded* unto him? The same as Paul explained to these twelve…

    Act 19:1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
    Act 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
    Act 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism.
    Act 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
    Act 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
    Act 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

    Side step all you like Mr Unger, but the evidence facing you is clear… and your right, you are being warned

  17. 1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

    “This same anointing!” This He speaks of the Holy Spirit. If, you and I were of the same spirit Mr, Unger, you would know the teaching of which I speak.

    Joh 7:17 If any one is willing to do His will, he shall know about the teaching, whether it is from God or originates with me.

    The christians in the early body of Christ, didn’t need any seminary. They didn’t even have the new testament, and yet were able to understand the scriptures and what they spoke about, through the Holy Spirit…. Same with Paul..Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle, (((not of men, neither by man))), but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)

    Joh 15:2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.

    And where is this branch, that is bearing not fruit? It has been grafted into the Vine, and yet!!! Branches don’t graft themselves in Mr Unger, they are grafted in by the gardener (christ)..

    And quit trying to *guess* where I am, whom I’ve read, under whose tutilage. Hear what the Spirit is saying, and heed the message…

    Sincerely In Christ
    B

    The reason why you insist on some exegist on the teaching, is your seminary structured theology is in the way of the spirit..

  18. 1. So Jesus didn’t have the Holy Spirit until he was 30?

    Well, Luke 1:15 says that John had the Holy Spirit from Birth, Isaiah 11:1-5 seems to suggest that Jesus was differentiated by the presence of the Spirit and in Matthew 3:11-13 (before Jesus’ baptism), John the baptist foretold that Christ would Baptize in the Spirit (meaning it was his to give) and John asked Christ to baptize him when they met (presumably in the Spirit, before John baptized Jesus). Before John baptized Jesus, John asked Jesus for the baptism of the Spirit.

    I dare suggest that you are dangerously confused on whether or not God the Son “had” the Holy Spirit before he was 30, as if he was “just a dude like us” and received the Spirit like we did.

    2. The subject of Apollos expounded in Acts 18:26 was the same as what Paul explained to those in Ephesus. Okay. So I need to receive the Holy Spirit and speak in tongues? Is that what you’re saying?

    3. “‘This same anointing!’ This He speaks of the Holy Spirit. If, you and I were of the same spirit Mr, Unger, you would know the teaching of which I speak. ”

    What teaching is this? The baptism of the Spirit evidenced by speaking in tongues?

    4. John 7:17 teaches that I don’t need biblical education?

    Is 7:19 a condemnation of me?

    5. I hear what the Spirit says. I also hear what you say. The Spirit speaks through the scripture, applied to the heart and the conscience. You take the scripture and seem to look for the english noun or verb that you’re talking about, then quote the text as if it’s a ‘no-brainer’ and is saying what you’re saying. That’s called ‘proof-texting’. Can you explain what exegesis even is?

    6. There’s no such word as “exegist”. The nominal form of “exege” is “exegete”.

    7. Do you even know what Seminary I attend? Do you know what I’ve been taught? Did the Spirit tell you that too?

  19. Joh 7:39 He referred to the Spirit which those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not bestowed as yet, because Jesus had not yet been glorified.

    Mr Unger…. This scripture speaks very plain! And Jesus Himself said…Joh 16:7 “Yet it is the truth that I am telling you–it is to your advantage that I go away. For unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you.

    Since it is plain, Jesus speaks of the Holy Spirit not given to others, until after His ascension, then there has to be a mis-understanding of other scriptures *depicting* Him, Elizabeth, and others, as receiving the Spirit, before the Spirit was sent…

    The words, was filled/shall be filled/ are designated by the Greek as…
    G4130
    πλήθω
    plēthō
    play’-tho, pleh’-o,
    A prolonged form of a primary word πλέω pleō (which appears only as an alternate in certain tenses and in the reduplicated form of πίμπλημι pimplēmi to “fill” (literally or figuratively [imbue, influence, supply]); specifically to fulfil (time): – accomplish, full (. . . come), furnish.

    Which, in the light of Jesus’ own words of the Spirit only being sent to others after His ascension, would more correctly refer to * being influenced * as a more accurate application. If we accept your theology of these being filled with the Spirit, then it makes Jesus’ own words mute.

    Also. The Holy Spirit doesn’t abide in ‘unsanctified” vessels. Only those washed in the blood, and the blood had not yet been shed.

    Your reference to John is misapplied as well Mr Unger… Jesus couldn’t give John what He had not yet received. John was right in his statement that He would baptize, but not as yet…

    [quote]I dare suggest that you are dangerously confused on whether or not God the Son “had” the Holy Spirit before he was 30, as if he was “just a dude like us” and received the Spirit like we did.]

    That is exactly what I am saying Mr Unger… The Son, was conceived by the Spirit/born of God. Same as we, when we get born again! But being filled with the Spirit, comes after the conception. Even the believers that gathered in the upper room in Acts, were believers, yet didn’t receive the Spirit till Jesus had ascended….Act 1:4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
    Act 1:5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost (((not many days hence. )))

    Pentecost…. you have heard of that Mr Unger?

    [quote]
    The subject of Apollos expounded in Acts 18:26 was the same as what Paul explained to those in Ephesus. Okay. So I need to receive the Holy Spirit and speak in tongues? Is that what you’re saying?

    Yes, you need to be filled with the Spirit, and have the evidence. 1Cor 14. Not only tongues, but prophesy, and the rest of the nine gifts of 1Cor 12.

    Apollos, and the twelve disciples of John, were born again believers of Christ, but had not received the Holy Spirit. Which is why Paul explained to them, as Aguila explained to Apollos, the need of being filled. Speaking in tongues, was only one of the signs of this happening…

    And here again. A believer, baptized in water… then receiveing the Spirit….

    Act 8:13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.
    Act 8:18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money

    And again…Luk 11:13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

    [quote] The Spirit speaks through the scripture, applied to the heart and the conscience.

    Sorry the Spirit, speaks to the spirit. Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: Pro 19:21 There are many devices in a man’s heart; nevertheless the counsel of the LORD, that shall stand.

    [quote]6. There’s no such word as “exegist”. The nominal form of “exege” is “exegete”.

    [a critical explanation or interpretation of a text, especially of scripture. ]

    [quote]
    7. Do you even know what Seminary I attend? Do you know what I’ve been taught? Did the Spirit tell you that too?

    Any, and all Seminaries, would better be called…Cemetaries… Dead Works. I can tell what you’ve been taught Mr Unger, and it has nothing to do with….1Co 2:13 Of these we speak–not in language which man’s wisdom teaches us, but in that which the Spirit teaches–adapting, as we do, ((((spiritual words to spiritual truths))).

    And the Spirit says……..

    Pro 23:9 Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words.

    Mr, Unger. We’re done!

  20. 1. So in Greek, “to fill” means “to fill”? You got me there. Cannot argue that one.

    Problem – Luke 1:15 says of John the Baptist “καὶ πνεύματος ἁγίου πλησθήσεται ἔτι ἐκ κοιλίας μητρὸς αὐτοῦ” – “And (the) Holy Spirit will fill (him) even from the womb of his mother”. (Hooray! I know Greek too! Let’s be Greek Geeks together!) That talks about John the Baptist being filled (πίμπλημι) from birth, and John was older than Jesus. How can this be?

    You say “Since it is plain, Jesus speaks of the Holy Spirit not given to others, until after His ascension, then there has to be a mis-understanding of other scriptures *depicting* Him, Elizabeth, and others, as receiving the Spirit, before the Spirit was sent…”

    I would say that you have a problem with the clear words of the Angel of the Lord in Luke 1:15.

    Can you make sense of how the Angel of God would say, in no uncertain terms, how John (who was born slightly before Christ) would be filled by the Spirit from his mother’s womb?

    2. The Holy Spirit indwells only sanctified vessels? So what about the individuals in the Old Testament who had the Holy Spirit? I’m guessing you’d deny that there were any.

    3. “The Son, was conceived by the Spirit/born of God. Same as we, when we get born again!”

    Except that Christ was physically born by the Spirit. That’s a slight difference to us. My dad was a physical man, as was yours.

    4. I’ve heard of Pentecost. Yup.

    5. “Yes, you need to be filled with the Spirit, and have the evidence. 1Cor 14. Not only tongues, but prophesy, and the rest of the nine gifts of 1Cor 12.”

    Wow. You’re not Pentecostal then. You’re farther along the spectrum than they are. You definitely don’t attend the Ap. I need to speak in tongues, be a prophet, and have all other nine gifts?

    That’s, uh, difficult to suggest seeing that Paul says

    “And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? But eagerly desire the greater gifts.” (1 Cor 12:28-31)

    That seems to suggest that not everyone has every gift. How do you make sense of that?

    6. “Sorry the Spirit, speaks to the spirit. Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God…”

    You say the Spirit speaks “to” the spirit where as the verse you quote says that the Spirit bears witness “with” out spirit. ‘With’ is not the same as ‘to’. One of the rules of biblical interpretation is that “the words matter”. How do you make sense of that?

    7. You gave Webster’s definition of “exegesis” (I hope you don’t get theological and technical definitions from there). There is no such word as “exegist”, but we’ll chalk that one up to being a typo.

    8. “Any, and all Seminaries, would better be called…Cemetaries… Dead Works. I can tell what you’ve been taught Mr Unger, and it has nothing to do with….1Co 2:13”

    a. Well, you’re saying that Kings Seminary, Fuller Seminary, Princeton and Baptist Bible Seminary are all the same?

    If doctrine, teaching, history, theological agenda, environment and curriculum are completely ignored…maybe. I suspect you don’t have a clue about any of those Seminaries. We’ll chalk that one up to “getting excited and speaking before you think”.

    b. But you don’t have a clue what I’ve been taught. Can you even name one of my professors and tell me what class I’ve had with them?

    9. “Pro 23:9 Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words.”

    So are you saying that I’m a fool and we’re done?

  21. Maybe you would like to explain?

    Joh 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
    Joh 7:39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

    Joh 7:39 He referred to the Spirit which those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not bestowed as yet, because Jesus had not yet been glorified.

    Joh 16:7 “Yet it is the truth that I am telling you–it is to your advantage that I go away. For unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you.

    Joh 14:16 And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Advocate to be for ever with you–the Spirit of truth.

    Joh 14:26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send at my request, will teach you everything, and will bring to your memories all that I have said to you.

    Joh 15:26 “When the Advocate is come whom I will send to you from the Father’s presence–the Spirit of Truth who comes forth from the Father’s presence–He will be a witness concerning me.

    Joh 16:7 “Yet it is the truth that I am telling you–it is to your advantage that I go away. For unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you.

  22. Nope.

    I asked you first.

    You don’t get to side step a question when you get caught in an obvious problem of your own position. You either face the problem and work through it, providing a clear and biblically consistent explanation, or you bow to the scripture and repent of your wrong understanding; i.e throw away your unbiblical position for a biblical one.

    Sir, you claim to be a prophet of God with every spiritual gift and you have the Holy Spirit directly teaching you what the Bible means, right? This should be easy as pie for you! I’m really surprised you didn’t already straighten me out with a flowing and glorious refutation.

    In case you forget, here’s it is, again:

    “Problem – Luke 1:15 says of John the Baptist “καὶ πνεύματος ἁγίου πλησθήσεται ἔτι ἐκ κοιλίας μητρὸς αὐτοῦ” – “And (the) Holy Spirit will fill (him) even from the womb of his mother”. (Hooray! I know Greek too! Let’s be Greek Geeks together!) That talks about John the Baptist being filled (πίμπλημι) from birth, and John was older than Jesus. How can this be?

    You say ‘Since it is plain, Jesus speaks of the Holy Spirit not given to others, until after His ascension, then there has to be a mis-understanding of other scriptures *depicting* Him, Elizabeth, and others, as receiving the Spirit, before the Spirit was sent…’

    I would say that you have a problem with the clear words of the Angel of the Lord in Luke 1:15.

    Can you make sense of how the Angel of God would say, in no uncertain terms, how John (who was born slightly before Christ) would be filled by the Spirit from his mother’s womb?”

    *******************************

    Let’s make this clear.

    – You say the Spirit wasn’t given to others before his ascension.

    – In Luke 1:15, the angel of the Lord says that the Holy Spirit indwelt John from the womb.

    – The greek words are the same.

    ***Show me the money***

  23. Mat 18:8 Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.

    Mr Unger, does this scripture really mean to cut off the offending part of ones body? That is what one would presume with your way of thinking!

    Mar 11:23 For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.

    You really think He is talking about a literal mountain?

    Mr Unger how does one explain a spiritual concept to a naturally minded person?

    IF Jesus is saying the Spirit would not come to indwell a person until He ascended, then one has to look at other scriptures that would seem to say directly opposite in another light. And that light, I’m sorry to say, you don’t have.

    1Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
    1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
    1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
    1Co 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

    And this is why you are having such a problem with what I am pointing to.

    Sorry.

  24. So do you believe what you believe, regardless of the consistent teaching of scripture?

    If there’s a problem, do you simply cover your ears and scream while ignoring the issue and condemning the messenger to hell?

    Surely you can answer such a simple question.

    Maybe you’re testing my faith to see if I persevere?

    So again, how do you make sense of Luke 1:15 in the light of your understanding that the Holy Spirit didn’t fill anyone before the ascension?

  25. [quote]
    So again, how do you make sense of Luke 1:15 in the light of your understanding that the Holy Spirit didn’t fill anyone before the ascension?

    Simple! The same way I know He didn’t mean to actually cut your hand and foot off, even though He said to cut off your hand and foot, if they offend!

    [quotr]
    So do you believe what you believe, regardless of the consistent teaching of scripture?

    Yes! Especially when the consistent teaching of the scriptures is from a literal understanding, rather than the spirit of the letter. Which, as I have stated over and over. The big difference, one is life, and the other death.

    [quote]
    If there’s a problem, do you simply cover your ears and scream while ignoring the issue and condemning the messenger to hell?

    No covering of the ears Mr Unger. for I do have ears to hear, but it is to what the Spirit teacheth, rather than the wisdom of men. And no screaming either. Just a shaking of the head, and a cringing of the heart, at those who use logic, and common sense, to try and understand the things that are spiritually understood…. It has nothing to do with how educated, or well read, one is… It has nothing to do with human logic, or logistiics. For the things of the spirit are contrary to the natural thinking.

    1Co 2:6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
    1Co 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

    1Co 1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
    1Co 1:20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
    1Co 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
    1Co 1:22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
    1Co 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
    1Co 1:24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
    1Co 1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
    1Co 1:26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
    1Co 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
    1Co 1:28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
    1Co 1:29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

    [quote]
    Maybe you’re testing my faith to see if I persevere?

    Nope! Just trying to point out the difference between you, and I…. and how we look at the scriptures.. The bible is a spiritual book. Men wrote what they were inspired to write by the very Spirit. And to understand the spiritual context of the scriptures, one must not only possess the very same Spirit that caused it to be written, but be able to hear what the Spirit is saying about that which is written…

    It is just as Peter wrote about Pauls writings. 2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

    This does not refer to the one trying to understand the scriptures as stupid, but they are just ill equipped to understand the spiritual precepts. Putting the Spirits thoughts to the spiritual words….

    Paul speaking of the LAW, of which he was a master. And yet never convicted by the Law, that he knew and studied. UNTIL, he was changed, and filled with the Spirit, after meeting the Lord on the damascus road…. Then he writes of the Law…..Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

    THIS STATEMENT IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL TO UNDERSTANDING THE SCRIPTURES, AS STATED TIME AND AGAIN….
    1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

    AND TO KNOW THE TRUTH OF WHAT IS BEING SHARED BY THE SPIRIT, THIS IS THE TEST….
    1Jn 5:6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
    1Jn 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
    1Jn 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. [[[THIS IS THE WITNESS. IF ONE DOES NOT HAVE THE THREE, HE CAN PUT WHAT IS SAID, ON THE SHELF!]]]
    1Jn 5:9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.

    Barelohim, an apostle of Jesus Christ.

  26. The new testament also depicts truth in shadow. The point being that the Spirit doesn’t fill that which is not sanctified/cleansed by water and blood…. The tabernacle of old is a shadow of the tabernacle we now inhabit, meaning these bodies. And as then, the tabernacle had to be cleansed with blood, and water, before the Cloud descended and filled the tabernacle….. Same with us today. We are cleansed with the water of His word, and by His shed blood.. Made ready for the infilling of His Spirit, as depicted in the old testament….

    Heb 9:19 For when Moses had proclaimed to all the people every commandment contained in the Law, he took the blood of the calves and of the goats and with them water, scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people,
    Heb 9:20 saying, “THIS IS THE BLOOD WHICH CONFIRMS THE COVENANT THAT GOD HAS MADE BINDING UPON YOU.”
    Heb 9:21 And in the same way he also sprinkled blood upon the Tent of worship and upon all the vessels used in the ministry.
    Heb 9:22 Indeed we may almost say that in obedience to the Law everything is sprinkled with blood, and that apart from the outpouring of blood there is no remission of sins.

    To confer that the Spirit/Cloud, would reside in an unsanctified vessel, runs contrary to the precepts stated..

    And no one was sanctified/cleansed until the blood of Christ was shed!

    Your theology is flawed, from begining to end…

    God made Himself a body in which to dwell namely Christ Jesus. He is, since then, making Himself another body, namely the corporate body of Christ. And both of these bodies were cleansed in water and blood.

    If you don’t *get it*, then I pray that God will open your theological eyes, to truly *see* with spiritual eyes….

    amen

  27. It’s strange how your explanations of biblical texts involve ignoring grammar, language, and any obvious meaning to the text…as well as consistent insults at me.

    Strange how the Holy Spirit motivates your heart to use your mouth so unlovingly. I’d think that if you’re so spiritually mature, you’d use your tongue in an edifying way…?!?

    2 Question:

    1. What is the relationship between the actual words of the text and the “spiritual meaning”? I’ve noticed that you recognize that 1 Corinthians 12-14 is about spiritual gifts (i.e. you didn’t se Nehemiah 3 as your text on that one), so there’s SOME relationship between what the words say and the meaning that the spirit gives you.

    What is that relationship?

    2. If the Spirit communicates the “true” meaning of a text of scripture to you, what do you do when someone who (according to your criteria) equally has the spirit happens to disagree with you?

    Can the spirit make the “spiritual” meaning of a text different to two different people?

  28. 2 Question:

    1. What is the relationship between the actual words of the text and the “spiritual meaning”? I’ve noticed that you recognize that 1 Corinthians 12-14 is about spiritual gifts (i.e. you didn’t se Nehemiah 3 as your text on that one), so there’s SOME relationship between what the words say and the meaning that the spirit gives you.

    What is that relationship?

    2. If the Spirit communicates the “true” meaning of a text of scripture to you, what do you do when someone who (according to your criteria) equally has the spirit happens to disagree with you?

    Can the spirit make the “spiritual” meaning of a text different to two different people?

    Mr Unger… Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
    Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
    The Scriptures are more than type written words on pages of paper, that we read to find doctrine, or a moral way to live ones life, or some theological message to preach! To a born again, spirit filled christian, they are LIFE!
    We are unctioned to *partake* of this bread of Life, His Word. As one does, the Spirit not only nourishes the believer, but causes the believer to KNOW Christ, and grow inHIs likeness……

    NO, Mr Unger the Word of God, is more than correct interpretation of nouns/pronouns/verbs/, etc… They are actual revelations of Him, HIs purposes, His thoughts, His LIFE conceived in the believer..

    It is *milk* to the babe, and *strong meat* to the mature…

    No wafer, or sip of a cup, can replace the *drink* from the water of HIS WORD, the true Manna, and the LIFE in it.

    Mr.B..

  29. Reminds me of a little story about a fish in this lake who wondered how it would be living on the land surrounding the lake…. Well some of his little friends told him, that he couldn’t live out of water, and that he needed water to live! “WATER TO LIVE?” The little fish didn’t understand as he rushed off here and there looking for water! Water to live, water to live, I must find this water or I die! Frantic the little fish races through the lake trying to find water…. Until he runs into this ole fish, who told him, he was already living in this water…..that in which he was swimming, was the water!

    Guess more christians need to know that their water of life is right in that which is read every sunday if they only had the spirit to discern it……

  30. Apparently the question is too difficult for you to answer in a straightforward manner…or you need to hide behind rhetoric because you don’t know the answer.

    I ask you about the relationship between the meaning of the text and the words of the text and you basically tell me that the *word* is spiritual life, the revelation of the God and something about being better than communion…and then a story about a fish that negates the point your trying to make.

    If you cannot simply explain something without resorting to rhetorically hiding behind verbiage, you don’t really understand what you’re talking about. This also makes me question whether or not you’re a prophet of God. If they were anything, they were clear and not opaque.

    Let’s make this as simple as possible:

    Q – Does any single passage of scripture have a single, authorially intended meaning or more than one *true* meaning?

    I’m not asking about multiple interpretations, or applications.

    I’m not asking if some texts are hard to understand.

    Answer me without needless rhetoric, if you are able.

    Again:

    Q – Does any single passage of scripture have a single, authorially intended meaning or more than one *true* meaning?

  31. Luk 16:19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
    Luk 16:20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
    Luk 16:21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
    Luk 16:22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
    Luk 16:23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
    Luk 16:24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
    Luk 16:25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
    Luk 16:26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
    Luk 16:27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house:
    Luk 16:28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
    Luk 16:29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
    Luk 16:30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
    Luk 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

  32. Mat 8:11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.

    Mat 8:12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

    Who is the Rich man? Who is the poor man? Who are the children of the kingdom?

  33. Answering a question with a question?

    That’s about as indirect and avoiding the issue as it possibly gets.

    A simple “yes” or “no” would have sufficed…or if you don’t know the answer, say “I don’t know”…or if you don’t understand the question, say “I don’t think I clearly understand the question. Can you please elaborate?”

    Just a friendly hint at talking to people if you want them to actually interact intelligently with you.

  34. [quote]
    Just a friendly hint at talking to people if you want them to actually interact intelligently with you.

    Mr Unger….herein lies the problem. I don’t want to talk intelligently to anyone! You ask again, and again, questions that you want an intelligent answer to, and I have attempted many times to speak to you on a different level…..

    Paul said it best this way…..
    1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom/intellect teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.

    1Co 2:14 But the natural man(/the wise/the intellectual man,) receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are not (intellectually compliant ) unto him: neither can he know them (intellictually), because they are spiritually discerned.

    1Co 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged/(not understood) of no man. (some of my additions bracketed.)

    And Paul yet again….
    1Co 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
    1Co 3:2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
    1Co 3:3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as (mere/common/inspiritual) men?

    Jesus said it also…
    Joh 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

    So Mr Unger please try to understand. No matter what I attempt to comply with your questions, and I do try, you will only end up, as you are now.

    Even as far as answering a question with a question, which you think as indirect, and avoidance, Jesus did it several times….Was He being indirect, or avoiding? He too had the same problem with, not only the intelligencia of His day, but even His disciples, who didn’t (couldn’t )understand many things. He did explain some of the mystery to some of the parables, but it wasn’t until they too received the Spirit, that they *got it!”

    Joh 12:16 These things understood not his disciples at the first: but when Jesus was glorified, then remembered they that these things were written of him, and that they had done these things unto him.

    Jesus spoke many things in the hearing of His disciples….BUT!
    Luk 9:45 But they understood not this saying, [[[[[[and it was hid from them, that they perceived it not:]]]]] and they feared to ask him of that saying.

    Having eyes to see, but seeing not………perhaps because it is being HID from you! For the things of the Kingdom are received by faith,… not in….” I must see it, to believe it!” “It must make sense, able to be analized, verified, intelligently stated, and so on!” Sounds like Didymus/Thomas, eh?

    Joh 20:25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

    I, in no way, wished to offend you Mr Unger, but it is truly hard to kick against the pricks, and not get hurt.. ” The wounds of a friend, are better than the kisses of an enemy!”

    Sincerely In Christ Jesus..

  35. “Mr Unger….herein lies the problem. I don’t want to talk intelligently to anyone! You ask again, and again, questions that you want an intelligent answer to, and I have attempted many times to speak to you on a different level…

    …So Mr Unger please try to understand. No matter what I attempt to comply with your questions, and I do try, you will only end up, as you are now…

    …Even as far as answering a question with a question, which you think as indirect, and avoidance, Jesus did it several times….Was He being indirect, or avoiding? He too had the same problem with, not only the intelligencia of His day, but even His disciples, who didn’t (couldn’t )understand many things. He did explain some of the mystery to some of the parables, but it wasn’t until they too received the Spirit, that they *got it!”

    ************************************

    Well, I’m through pretending to cater to you.

    Your own claims for yourself are simply untrue.

    You choose to ide behind rhetoric, twisting scripture with reckless abanon to suit your own self-worship (see previous argument about Luke 1:15). You dress up your position in spiritual sounding verbiage that is, in the end, completely meaningless and utterly gnostic double-speak. Your language is neither spiritual nor Christian.

    I’m looking for something like this:

    “‘The woman said, “I know that Messiah’ (called Christ) ‘is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.’

    Then Jesus declared, ‘I who speak to you am he.'” – John 4:25-26

    “With many similar parables Jesus spoke the word to them, as much as they could understand. He did not say anything to them without using a parable. But when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything.” – Mark 4:33-34.

    Jesus could easily speak clearly and straightforwardly, in unconfusing language. People didn’t understand the ultimate significance of his words (i.e. get the spiritual ramifications), but Jesus only spoke in parables as an act of judgment against the religious leaders of his day.

    Are you speaking in judgment of me?

    If so, by whose authority?

  36. [quote]
    Are you speaking in judgment of me?

    If so, by whose authority?

    *************************************************************
    Joh 12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
    Joh 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him:

    …………..the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day……..

    Joh 12:49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
    Joh 12:50 And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.

    Mr Unger, you will have no defense at His judgement, for you were told!

  37. Oh really?

    Let’s try some basic applied hermeneutics.

    QUESTION:

    ***
    ***Who was Jesus speaking about in John 12:44-50?***
    ***

    a. Mr. Unger.

    b. Anyone at anytime in history who isn’t a Christian.

    c. The leaders who believed but wouldn’t confess due to their fear of being cast out of the synagogue by the Pharisees (i.e. the only other people mentioned in the previous immediate context of 12:42-43)

    d. The residents of Solvang, California.

    e. The prophet Isaiah (mentioned in 12:41)

    f. John 20:21 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

    I know you can do this one! Fingers Crossed!

  38. QUESTION:

    ***
    ***Who was Jesus speaking about in John 12:44-50?***
    ***

    Joh 12:47 And if any man hear my words,

    Hmmm, that is a hard one Mr Unger…..but I think he was talking *about* ………ANY MAN! …………………….Who hears His words. Sooooo, (A), (B), (C), (D)………

  39. BEEP!

    WRONG ANSWER!

    There was no option g. (apparently “all of the above”).

    But, seeing that I didn’t tell you that only 1 of the answers was the right answer (i.e. the original authorially intended meaning of the passage).

    So, because I’m so nice and you tripped on a technicality, you have 2 tries left in this edition of “Hermeneutical Jeapordy”.

    Hermeneutical Jeapordy; the game where you attempt to show our host if you can handle basic questions of biblical interpretation.

    This time I’ll give you the text in multiple translations, to help alleviate any confusion:

    John 12:42-50 (NIV)

    Yet at the same time many even among the leaders believed in him. But because of the Pharisees they would not confess their faith for fear they would be put out of the synagogue; for they loved praise from men more than praise from God.

    Then Jesus cried out, “When a man believes in me, he does not believe in me only, but in the one who sent me. When he looks at me, he sees the one who sent me. I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness.

    “As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it. There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day. For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it. I know that his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say.”

    John 12:42-50 (KJV)

    Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.

    Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me. I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness. And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

    He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.

    John 12:42-50 (ESV)

    Nevertheless, many even of the authorities believed in him, but for fear of the Pharisees they did not confess it, so that they would not be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the glory that comes from man more than the glory that comes from God.

    And Jesus cried out and said, “Whoever believes in me, believes not in me but in him who sent me. And whoever sees me sees him who sent me. I have come into the world as light, so that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness. If anyone hears my words and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. The one who rejects me and does not receive my words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day. For I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Fatherwho sent me has himself given me a commandment—what to say and what to speak. And I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I say, therefore, I say as the Father has told me.”

  40. “As for the person who hears my words (NIV)

    And if any man hear my words,(KJV)

    If anyone hears my words (ESV)

    Just as He spoke to those present, His Word speaks to us today! Especially to the Pharisee, and Saducee of today. Those that believe on Him, but……..

    Any who hear His words, yesterday, today, and tomorrow, will give account. ” Why do you say you love ME, but do not do as I say?”

    Mr Unger, Jesus said, “Unless two agree, how can they walk together?”

    It is apparent, we don’t agree. So continue on your path, and I will continue with Him.

    Barelohim..

  41. Well, at least you’re trying. I’ll give you that and appreciate the sincere effort.

    I was hoping for an effort without a blatant violation of Ephesians 4:29. Strange how a prophet and apostle has so little patience with someone like myself and has so little restraint over their tongue.

    Luke 6:46?

    I claim to love Christ but don’t do what he says? How so?

    You then quote something like Amos 3:3 at me, placing that in the mouth of Jesus. That’s a frightening handling of scripture Bud. Can I attribute any of the words of Jesus to God the Father or vice versa based on some strange application of Trinitarianism?

    “It is apparent, we don’t agree. So continue on your path, and I will continue with Him.”

    Well, if you’d like the answer to the question on hermeneutical jeopardy, I will still walk through the text for you.

    On a side note, I was speaking in tongues a decade and a half ago. I used to be an apostle, or at least that’s what people called me. I’ve taken spiritual gifts tests and scored high on prophecy, apostlicity, discernment, word of wisdom, i.e. all of them.

    Ironically, after that I came to understand the gospel and got saved.

    I’m sure that my claims don’t phase you for a second though. Critical thinking is dangerous when applied to areas in which we have vested interest…

    …or in areas where we are spiritually deceived.

    I’m sure we’ll both be praying for each other.

  42. Well, at least you’re trying. I’ll give you that and appreciate the sincere effort.
    [[[ It is hard to find any appreciation in your posts, as yet, Lyndon!]]]

    I was hoping for an effort without a blatant violation of Ephesians 4:29. Strange how a prophet and apostle has so little patience with someone like myself and has so little restraint over their tongue.

    Eph 4:29 Let no unwholesome words ever pass your lips, but let all your words be good for benefiting others according to the need of the moment, so that they may be a means of blessing to the hearers.
    [[[ Notice, it says *a blessing, to the hearers?* As I have stated to you many times in these posts, * you have ears, but you don’t hear!*]]]

    Luke 6:46?I claim to love Christ but don’t do what he says? How so?
    [[[Read on Lyndon! Read on!]]]]

    You then quote something like Amos 3:3 at me, placing that in the mouth of Jesus. That’s a frightening handling of scripture Bud. Can I attribute any of the words of Jesus to God the Father or vice versa based on some strange application of Trinitarianism?
    (((Amos 3:3 Can two walk together, except they be agreed? )))

    [[[ And you don’t think, that those words from the book of Amos, were given him to write by someone other than Jesus? That’s a frightening misunderstanding of the source of the WORD!]]]]

    “It is apparent, we don’t agree. So continue on your path, and I will continue with Him.”

    Well, if you’d like the answer to the question on hermeneutical jeopardy, I will still walk through the text for you.

    [[[ No, forget the hermeneutics! But I would like more info on the following. Because something is blatantly wrong here?]]]

    On a side note, I was speaking in tongues a decade and a half ago. I used to be an apostle, or at least that’s what people called me. I’ve taken spiritual gifts tests and scored high on prophecy, apostlicity, discernment, word of wisdom, i.e. all of them.

    Ironically, after that I came to understand the gospel and got saved.

    [[[ Now we’re getting somewhere! You mention you had the gifts, and the calling of apostle? But from this statement, it sounds like not anymore? And from your statement it also sounds like you had these gifts and calling, before you were saved, and before you understood the gospel??? And scoring high on these gifts tests??]]]

    [[[Have I understood correctly,what you have written here? I find this of much importance, as to why we are on so different pages…! Into what denomination/fellowship, have you enjoined yourself, if I may ask? For this is an important question also!]]]

  43. How come every time you seem to shake the dust off you feet, you return?

    I neither told you nor gave you permission to use my first name.

    This smells like someone I used to know went off into “theological Disneyland” and came back with a call to repentance for me.

    **********************************************************

    Amos 3:3 is clearly not Jesus. It’s God the Father talking through his prophet Amos. I don’t deny that Christ is the eternal ‘logos’ of the father, and I don’t deny that when God the Father speaks, Christ is also (in some mysterious way) speaking.

    None the less, did Amos think that he was speaking for Yahweh Adonai or Iesous Christos? If you claim both, then who was talking in Matthew 3:17 of Matthew 17:5? How can Jesus call himself “my son”?

    Surely you’re not so insane to suggest that God the Father and God the Son are utterly identical to the point that Christ refers to himself as his own son, or that God the Son wasn’t actually physically incarnated (and Phil. 2:5-11 isn’t true). If that’s the case, then there must be some difference between them, at least that so when one speaks, the other does not *necessarily* speak. Three persons, one essence. Not one person, one essence.

    ********************************************************

    “No, forget the hermeneutics!”

    Why am I not surprised? From my experience, that’s a typical charismatic battle cry.

    Sadly, that’s the root of most of your problems. Those who fear the correct handling of the word of God do so because it’s so dangerous to their beliefs.

    *********************************************************

    Interesting how when I get onto a subject that interests you, you all of a sudden possess the ability to speak straightforwardly and without hiding behind rhetoric. Why is that?

    ***

    Well, I “had” the gifts, and everyone around me thought I was something special. I was anointed and prophesied over several times (each time it was something different in a different country). I’ve been to more than a few dozen healing services. I’ve been to GodRock in Abbotsford, Tehillah Mondays in Calgary, Church on the Way in Los Angeles, etc. Pastors spoke highly of me (years ago) and everyone thought I had “the anointing”.

    But, I didn’t understand the gospel and wasn’t a believer. I *thought* I was a believer, and people around me told me I was, but I was incorrect (and the people around me didn’t understand the gospel either).

    After coming to faith in Christ, I sought to grow in understanding the word of God and obedience to that word. As I studied (while still heavily involved at a charismatic church), I started reading and meeting people and trying to sort the various issues out. As I kept working through the scriptures, I started realizing how wrong much of my beliefs were. All the while, I was reading anything that people would give me in efforts to bolster “my faith”.

    I’ve read all the charismaniac theological garbage (Benny Hinn, TD Jakes, Kathryn Kuhlman, Joyce Meyer, Jack Deere, John Whimber, John Bevere, Jesse Duplantis, Oral Roberts, Richard Roberts, John Haggee, etc.) and all the more respectable, scholarly defenses of charismatic issues (Sam Storms, DA Carson, Henry Blackaby, Frank Macchia, Simon Chan, Glen & Robert & William Menzies, Wayne Grudem, Roger Olson, CJ Mahaney, Max Turner, Stanley Horton, Anthony D. Palma, etc.).

    I’m currently working on an update to an exegetical digest on 1 Corinthians 12-14 and I’m documenting every single piece of writing on 1 Corinthians 14:12-18 written since 1996. I have a 20 page bibliography so far, so I’m at least not guilty hiding from what’s being said in both scholarly and lay circles, in all camps on the issue.

    That all being said, I left the entire charismatic movement and embraced Christianity, and the only thing that lead me there was careful exegesis of the scriptures. I kept seeking to learn hermeneutics and exegesis, and hone the application of those tools. That’s the only thing that led me to where I am now, which would be a fairly aggressive (but limited) position of cessationism.

    Somehow, most of the people who were (at one time) “on fire” are all the ones who now, when I ask them “What’s the Lord doing in your life?” end up either sighing and breaking into a large “it’s not my fault” confession of whatever massive sin they’re involved with (usually divorce, immorality or rank nominalism) or simply saying they no longer are interested in talking about the Lord at all.

    Strange how when I talk to some of the people who were “on fire” they end up asking me questions like “why are you still a Christian?”

    Strange how I’m still defending the faith when many of them have given up or simply don’t care.

    Strange how with many of my old charismatic friends, I’m the one they seek out when they need biblical advice because their pastors simply throw scriptures at them nonsensically where as when I talk to them, I walk through the scriptures, explaining the issue and the solution and they find that the stuff I say makes way more sense to them.

    Strange how that works.

    Strange how I’m the one who’s still growing in the Lord, what with being the guy who studies the scriptures and makes efforts to kill sin in my life; to put off the old man and put on the new (Eph. 4-6).

    Strange almost all of the “godly men” I looked up to as leaders and pastors are now disqualified from ministry and selling wine or singing in southern gospel groups.

    But, I’m likely the bad guy. I’m likely the faithless one. I’m likely the pagan.

    The guy who’s sold everything to follow Christ is most likely the one who’s not his disciple.

    The guy who’s devoted his life to studying and accurately handling the word is most likely the false teacher.

    The guy who’s faced his sin and admitted it to others in leadership, seeking to fall under their authority and exemplify biblical repentance and restoration; he’s most likely the pharisee.

  44. [quote]
    How come every time you seem to shake the dust off your feet, you return?

    Over the years I have come to find that the Lord seems to always send me the hard cases, the stiff necked, the hard headed. When I asked Him why that was, He simply said, ” where else can I send them as to where they will hear the truth?”

    Guess your one of them, Lyndon!

    [quote]
    I neither told you nor gave you permission to use my first name.

    I don’t need your permission Lynden, especially when you have it displayed at the top of this thread….for anyone to see!

    [quote]
    This smells like someone I used to know went off into “theological Disneyland” and came back with a call to repentance for me.

    Well there you go, thinking I’m someone you’ve known before. But, as usual, your wrong again…! I’ve never met you, nor heard of you, before reading your statements
    on the previous thread..and contemplating that “mennoknight” tag…thinking you might be a mennonite/quaker/amish! But instead, finding a lamb who has gone astray!

    After reading the rest of your profile, I am now thoroughly convinced, there is a problem with your theology/your belief/your interpretations of scripture..and how subtly the counterfeiter has worked his way with you!

    I’m reminded of ..Heb 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
    Heb 6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
    Heb 6:6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

    I don’t feel you have gotten to the point of *impossibility* in being renewed, BUT, how to get *through* your hard headedness, and stiff neckedness, in what you think you have found as the Way, the Truth,and the Life!

    I won’t be dealing with every line you have written which is badly in need of adjustment, for there is a more important issue in play with your belief system/your gyroscope,.. is out of sink! You study the word, but you haven’t come to the knowledge of the Christ of the word.

    I will just wait on the Lord, to see what needs to be said, in order to bring you back into the true light….

    I know that your reading this is going to upset you, because words do seem to get your goat, but bear with me, and the Lord and I will get you back on track…..

    Sincerely.
    B.

  45. 1. We’re not on a first name basis, unless you’re ready to stop hiding behind a pseudonym.

    Until then, I’ll shift back to Francis.

    2. As for the name, I am culturally mennonite and theologically *historic* mennonite, with some more modern additions fitting with the reformation heritage of the Mennonites.

    3. “After reading the rest of your profile, I am now thoroughly convinced, there is a problem with your theology/your belief/your interpretations of scripture..”

    And after reading your various postings, I can and do same exactly the same thing to you.

    4. Hebrews 6:4-6? If you think I’ve tasted the heavenly gift, the word of God, etc. then Hebrews doesn’t say that there is a *point* of impossibility. It simply says that if these following things have happened, it is impossible to repent.

    How in the world could you know that point either? How can you discern the limitations of God’s grace in the life of a person? That is disturbingly arrogant to suggest.

    5. “You study the word, but you haven’t come to the knowledge of the Christ of the word.”

    How else would I come to know Christ except through the word?

    6. “I know that your reading this is going to upset you, because words do seem to get your goat, but bear with me, and the Lord and I will get you back on track…”

    My little precious child, words get my goat because words have meaning. Scripture has meaning. The Bible is not a cookbook or a “choose your own adventure”. The prophets and apostles wrote to real people in a real place at a real time of history, addressing real problems with real solutions/revelations that were divine in origin.

    If you are coming out of a charismaniac church in Regina (of which I know several), you are likely coming from a grossly relativistic hermeneutic where the Bible can mean different things to different people, depending simply on what they feel the Spirit is saying to them.

    In essence the Bible has no intrinsic meaning.

    That’s not Christianity.

    By God’s grace I will never be on that track.

    I’ll be back in Saskatchewan in around 8 weeks though. We should do coffee. These kinds of talks are a lot more profitable in person.

  46. [quote]
    4. Hebrews 6:4-6? If you think I’ve tasted the heavenly gift, the word of God, etc. then Hebrews doesn’t say that there is a *point* of impossibility. It simply says that if these following things have happened, it is impossible to repent.

    How in the world could you know that point either? How can you discern the limitations of God’s grace in the life of a person? That is disturbingly arrogant to suggest

    Because Lyndon, you haven’t yet learned that the biggest word in the scriptures is….*IF*….. (..Heb. 6:6….”IF…. they have fallen away.”)

    One has to be there, in order to *fall away*, from it!And secondly one would have to have had the true reality of all things mentioned. And thirdly, since Gods *Grace*, is His enabling power to cause one to be, and to do, His purposes, it is obvious that you aren’t there, for the fact of your trying to fulfill His purposes in your own strengths and abilities. A dead give away Lyndon. You’ve read, you’ve studied, you’ve written, etc….It is all about you, and what you’ve been, seen, done, aspired to, etc.

    He is to be the *ALL IN ALL*, and HE is to receive all the glory and praise. He is the potter….. the clay, as the branch can do nothing, in and of itself, to accomplish the manifestation of Christ-like-ness.

    5. “You study the word, but you haven’t come to the knowledge of the Christ of the word.”

    How else would I come to know Christ except through the word?

    One comes to know about Christ, His teachings, etc, through the word, But one comes to KNOW CHRIST BY HIS SPIRIT!
    Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
    Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
    Joh 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
    Joh 16:14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
    Joh 16:15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

    [quote]My little precious child, words get my goat because words have meaning. Scripture has meaning. The Bible is not a cookbook or a “choose your own adventure”. The prophets and apostles wrote to real people in a real place at a real time of history, addressing real problems with real solutions/revelations that were divine in origin.

    Yes, they did! And what they addressed was the failing to comply with the Spirit. They were suseptible to the teachings of men, and every whim of doctrine. Pauls writings were of mainly this vein to the various fellowships. Even some of the main apostles of the time needed admonishment. And the bottom line….” they that are led of the Spiirt, are the true sons of God!
    Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

    [quote]If you are coming out of a charismaniac church in Regina (of which I know several), you are likely coming from a grossly relativistic hermeneutic where the Bible can mean different things to different people, depending simply on what they feel the Spirit is saying to them.

    I’m not coming out of any denomination Lyndon! Gal 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
    Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
    He has declared unto me, the things of the hidden manna Lyndon. It is, and has been by His Spirit that the mysteries of His word are revealed.

    Paul relates that the word contains *milk to babes*, and *strong meat* to the mature! So the possibility of scripture meaning one thing to a babe, and another to the mature is a way of *seeing*! Just as Paul explained in 1Co 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
    1Co 2:6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect {mature}: yet not the wisdom of this world…

    [quote]I’ll be back in Saskatchewan in around 8 weeks though.

    And I shall be on my houseboat, somewhere in the Shushwap of BC….

    [quote]We should do coffee. These kinds of talks are a lot more profitable in person.

    Just like the scriptures Lyndon…. Much more profitable when one has a fellowship/an intimate relationship, with the PERSON WHO WROTE IT!

    *************************************************************
    [quote]In essence the Bible has no intrinsic meaning.

    Its meaning is to those who have partaken of the DIVINE Nature Lyndon. To the *new man*….all things become new! The natural man, the old man, of the adamic nature, tries the scripture from the natural/literal. ” You cannot put new wine, in an old wine skin, nor a patch of new cloth, on an old garment!”

    [quote]That’s not Christianity.

    I would love to hear your explanation of just what real christianity is to you Lyndon? Possibly in 20 words or less?

    Regards
    Mr B.

  47. Here’s some thinking for you:

    1. I hear and wholeheartedly believe the gospel, including the condemning parts, the promise parts and the difficult parts (like the diety of Christ).

    2. I cannot do that in and of myself.

    3. I exhibit faith in the person and work of Christ (that he is who he says he is and does what he says he does), I exhibit a hatred of and repentance of sin, and I exhibit the fruits of the spirit.

    4. I exhibit a pattern of putting of old, sinful behaviors and putting on new, righteous behaviors (i.e. living in obedience to Christ).

    THEREFORE,

    I have every reason to believe that I am rightly related to God, sharing in Christ’s imputed righteousness.

    Here’s some comments for you:

    1. You don’t seem to have a practical clue what exegesis is, most likely because you’ve never been taught it and the pastors under whom you’ve sat never exemplified it to you.

    2. No true Christian can possibly “fall away” because salvation is not a work of man, in any part.

    3. Everyone comes from a church tradition. If you’re not currently part of a local church, you’re living in blatant disobedience to the Lord.

    4. You’re not the apostle Paul, or any of the apostles for that matter. Things said about them are not necessarily referring to you, and promises made to them are not necessarily made to you.

    ***

    What is Christianity?

    – Christianity is being saved from sin’s pain and penalty and restored to God by the atoning work and imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

    That being said, it’s the end of the semester, I’ve got several projects that are due and I don’t have internet at home. I will not likely be back here much in the next several weeks, and I may simply terminate this interaction because it’s going nowhere.

    We’ll see. Either way, until I decide otherwise, you’re welcome to post whatever.

  48. • noun (pl. exegeses /eksijeeseez/) critical explanation or interpretation of a text, especially of scripture.

    Mr Unger;
    If you would like to get a true ‘exegesis’ of the scriptures, I would ask in all politeness allowed over the internet, to please go to this URL, and open the writing pointed out, and as you read, see if I haven’t been declaring to you the same thing?

    http://www.godfire.net/eby/

    Scroll to near the bottom of the page, and open “Forsake not the assembling!”

    These writings of Mr Eby are true spiritual truths, and spiritual explanations of the scripture concerning, ” the assembling together! ”

    All I ask is that you read this one writing. If you do not agree, then I will post no more. BUT, if you can see, that a true exegesis of the scriptures is not of the wisdom of man. Then post your reply and we can continue, or not.

    Sincerely

    Mr B

  49. Well, there’s a bunch I can say to that article, but I won’t pursue all the various issues. I’ll simply say the following:

    1. He makes many points that I would agree with.

    1.1. Christian worship is not based on geography. I can (and do) worship God anywhere and everywhere. I necessarily have to go to any building to worship God.

    1.2. Salvation isn’t based on any denomination or specific local church, and anyone who teaches so is not in step with the scriptures. Salvation is a divine work of God, not mediated by any earthly person or organization.

    1.3. With regards to a local body of believers, Christians aren’t free to do whatever they want in the name of Christian liberty, but they’re also not sinning if they miss a week of attending church.

    2. J Preston Eby is a textbook example of someone who has learned enough to be dangerous, but definitely not enough to really know what he’s talking about.

    2.1. He conflates the words “ministry”, “church” and “worship”, at times using them synonymously and at other times using them differently. This tends to point to either a lack of clarity on the terminology or the surrounding issues.

    2.2. He doesn’t know what he’s doing with Biblical languages. His whole article sits on a Greek word-study fallacy, which is demonstrably wrong. He commits three tricky errors. First, He commits what would be called “the root fallacy” or “the butterfly fallacy”, where he breaks apart a word into its components (“episunago” into “epi” and “sunagego” – See the following comment) and makes a startling discovery based on the supposed etymology of the word. The problem is that words are not necessarily the sum of their component words, hence the “butterfly fallacy”; butterflies are not flying butter, pancakes aren’t actually cakes made in pans (which sounds like regular old cake…) and headcheese isn’t actually cheese made from (or in) heads. Of course, being even lightly educated in issues related to morphology or semantics will help one understand that a word is defined by its usage in context, not its components in history.

    Second, he simply says a bunch of things that are demonstrably not true. He initially says that the word is “episunagoge” and then says that it’s a verb. ‘Episunagoge’ is not a verb. It’s a noun. “Episunago” is the verbal form. Hebrews 10:25 has a noun in it, not a verb. He says that ‘Episunagoge’ is a combination of ‘epi’ and ‘sunagoge’, which is also not true. The root of ‘Episunagoge’ is ‘sunago’, which means “to gather, gather together, draw together, join, join together, assemble, collect, etc.

    Third, he commits what’s called a “false semantic isolation” fallacy. He says ‘epi’ means “above, higher than, highest, upon” and then basically goes on his long exploration of the “THE ABOVE SYNAGOGUE, THE HIGHER MEETING, THE HIGHEST ASSEMBLY, THE HIGHER-THAN-ALL-GATHERINGS” commentary. Again, this is demonstrably untrue. The Greek preposition ‘epi’ has a broad range of possible meanings (at least 15) which, like all Greek prepositions, are understood by which case it’s used with (Genitive, Dative or Accusative). The definitions he gives are only part of the possible definitions for the Dative usage of ‘epi’, and that simply shows me that Eby doesn’t know Greek from a hole in the ground. I’m wondering why he’s “going to the Greek” when he, so clearly, doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Either it’s a guy struggling to make a point that’s not in the scripture, or he’s guilty of the criminal mishandling of scripture.

    This is a great display for any readers or lurkers on the significance and value of being educated in matters like Biblical languages, especially if you’re trying to use them to prove a point.

    So, my question is then simple.

    You said “These writings of Mr Eby are true spiritual truths, and spiritual explanations of the scripture concerning, ” the assembling together! ”

    So, how can I have spiritual truths based on obvious untruths about the language of scripture?

    To be more clear, if his points are all lies how can his conclusion be true?

    Regarding the writing of Mr. Eby that is a matter of opinion, I have much to agree with him on.

    Regarding the writing of Mr. Eby that is regarding the facts of the Greek language, he is essentially demonstrably wrong on all points.

    If you’re suggesting that Mr. Eby’s article is an example of “true exegesis of the scriptures”, I’d simply say that you may be able to look up the definition to ‘exegesis’, but you’re unclear what it actually looks like. When a guy doesn’t know a verb from a noun, commits several clear and obvious logical and hermeneutical fallacies and has to resort to misinformation about biblical languages to make his point, that’s not exegesis at all.

    That’s called eisegesis.

    It’s called twisting scripture.

    Mr. Eby needs to repent of his sinful handling of scripture and you need to repent of recommending the teaching of a man who shows such laziness with the handling of God’s holy word.

    I’d recommend checking out someone who takes the Bible a little more serious, like this gentleman:

    http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/1623_Responding-to-the-New-Covenant

  50. No clever response?

    I gave him a solid reading and interacted with his exegesis. I dare you to attempt to read and interact with a fellow like MacArthur…I’d love to see you try to show me how he mishandles scripture.

    Either way, I read a little more of Mr. Eby.

    I read this:

    http://www.godfire.net/eby/creative_word.htm

    and this:

    http://www.godfire.net/eby/2/lordprayer/LP1.htm

    I now say, without reservation, that J. Preston Eby is a false teacher.

    He needs to repent of his ‘word faith’, “your words create reality” trash. I’m guessing that they’re not his only departures from biblical Christianity.

    Friend, you need to repent of following a guy like J. Preston Eby.

    I’d still love to do coffee sometime, maybe when you’re back from the Shushwaps. I’m guessing you need to talk to someone who can tell you the truth in love, but this venue is very poorly suited for that.

  51. Such discussion is a great refresher of the truth, so with that said, as a good Polish-Canadian boy, headcheese is not a cheese, but it is definitely made from the head of a pig! You’re entire argument fell on account of a failure to know the uses of one of God’s most beloved creatures. Doh!

    HAAAAA! 😀

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headcheese

    Glad you’re back home safe and sound.

Share your thoughts

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s