| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Pastor Dave" |
| Date: |
24 Jan 2008 12:25:39 PM |
| Object: |
@ CHUCK'S "LORD"! |
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 00:10:04 -0800, "Chuck Stamford"
<shell__stamford@cox.net> said the following:
"Pastor Dave" wrote in message:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 01:55:04 -0800,
"Chuck Stamford" said the following:
"gatekeeper" wrote in message
Hey Chuck, where do you get off calling
Jesus Lord? That would indicate that
He has a Kingdom...
No, it wouldn't. He doesn't have to have
a kingdom to be my Lord. All that need
be for Him to be my Lord is that I submit
to and obey Him.
There's no such thing as someone being lord
over all, when they have no kingdom!
Non sequitur.
Bull! It was right on target and that's why you
snipped 99% of what I wrote and yet, you slam
others when they snip your words, you hypocrite!
Is He Lord over all, or not, Chucky?
The claim was
I don't trust your version of what the claim was,
since you are a known word twister and liar and
you are well known for snipping out whatever
proves what a Scripture torturer you are!
that my calling Jesus my Lord "indicated" Jesus
had a "Kingdom". It doesn't.
Then He isn't "Lord over all", AS YOU HAVE
PREVIOUSLY CLAIMED!!! And I dealt with
this issue, BUT YOU SNIPPED IT!!!
I have reinserted the text you snipped below.
All it needs indicate is my submission to His will.
This is true whether or not Jesus ALSO has a Kingdom.
Also??? Are you really that foolish?!?
And why would you submit to the will of one who
has no rule?! And He surely has no rule, if He
rules over nothing! You claim He rules over you,
but why would you submit to someone who has
no kingdom?! Would you submit to some guy
on the street, because he thinks you should?
Of course not!
But you submit to the President, because he is
President of the U.S.! But what if he was not?
Would you still submit? Same man, Chucky boy!
So what's the difference, that makes you say that
you won't submit to him? NO KINGDOM, Chuck!
And if Jesus does not rule over all, even now, almost
2,000 years later, then He was just some guy on the
street, Chuck! Hey, almost 2,000 YEARS LATER and
He STILL has NO KINGDOM, Chucky?! Please! That's
not a "Lord"! That's just some guy who went around
saying nice things, but was a liar, since what He said
never happened, even 2,000 years later and the Jews
were right to demand His crucifixion, by Deut 18:20-22!
Deuteronomy 18:20-22
20) But the prophet who presumes to speak a word
in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak,
or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet
shall die.
21) And if you say in your heart, How shall we know
the word which the Lord has not spoken?
22) When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord,
if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is
the thing which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet
has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid
of him.
And now, let's look at what He said...
"Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no
means pass away till all these things take place."
- Matthew 24:34
And that Greek word, translated into "assuredly",
in the original Greek, is very emphatic! It is as if
Jesus staked His whole credibility on this statement!
And Daniel 2:44 says that before the last of the four
kingdoms passed, Christ would rule! And we both
know the following two things:
1) The four kingdoms have passed!
a) Babylonian
b) Medo-Persian
c) Greek
d) Roman
2) Daniel, never, NOT ONCE said anything about either
a "revived Roman Empire", nor a "fifth kingdom"!
And Daniel 7:13-14 says that Christ took His throne
and began to rule when He ascended and it says that
at that time, He ruled even over the nations of Earth!
Note that He does not come FROM the Ancient of Days
(God the Father), but TO the Ancient of Days, on the
clouds! Also note that His rule, even over the nations,
is present tense to THAT TIME!
Daniel 7:13-14
13) I was watching in the night visions,
And behold, One like the Son of Man,
coming with the clouds of heaven!
He came *_TO_* the Ancient of Days,
and they brought Him near before Him.
14) *_THEN_* to Him was given dominion
and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples,
NATIONS, and languages should serve Him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion,
which shall not pass away, and His KINGDOM
the one which shall not be destroyed.
So sorry Chuck, but He rules NOW!
And as for your claim of animal sacrifices and you
raising your hands in some supposed "rebuilt temple",
let's see what Hebrews says about your Dispy doctrine:
Hebrews 10:8-12
8) Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and
burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not,
neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by
the law;
No pleasure in the animal sacrifices by the Law
and yet, you claim that Jesus will be sitting in
this temple and take pleasure in it!
9) Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God.
He taketh away the first, that he may establish the
second.
The first is the Mosaic Law system. Jesus took it
away (Colossians shows us that Christ nailed the
Law to the cross and "took it out of the way")!
10) By the which will we are sanctified through the
offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
SANCTIFIED ONCE, FOR ALL!!! The only thing
that condemns a person now, is disbelief in Jesus
and that is what Jews would be doing, by trying
to get to Heaven through the Law! And yet,
you claim that Jesus will be there, praising this?!
Jesus said that He was the only way to God and yet,
you claim that the Jews have another way to God!
11) And every priest standeth daily ministering and
offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can
never take away sins:
These sacrifices can never take away sins and yet,
you claim that the Jews can do it!
12) But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice
for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God.
Notice, ONE SACRIFICE that took away sins FOREVER!!!
And furthermore, Chuck...
If Jesus has no Kingdom, then He is not King and this
is where you're totally screwed, Chuck, because YOU
HAVE called HIM, "King of kings and Lord of lords"!!!
Do you deny that?! You know better than to do that!
And the fact is, that if He is "King of Kings", then He
*_MUST_* have a Kingdom and you damn well know it!!!
How can you call Him "King" and then say that He isn't
the King?!? And don't try to hand me that, "He's King
over me" crap, because you don't pick someone and
just call then king over you! They must BE A KING,
for you to do THAT, Chuck! I covered that above!
I believe He does [have a kingdom], and so do you.
Now you're just simply trying to weasel out of
your previous statement! There would have been
NO REASON for you to even make such a claim
as you did, if you believed that He has a Kingdom!
You would NOT have said that it isn't necessary,
if that's not what you were saying!
And we both know that you have stated more than
once, that He does NOT rule over all and yet, you
have called Him "Lord over all"!
As I said, Futurism always ends up contradicting itself
and that's why you have to continually snip what I write
and run away when I keep cornering you with this stuff
and try to attack me and lie about what I'm saying,
after snipping what I said, to try to cover your tracks,
thinking that because you snipped my words, it means
that no one saw my message and that no one can go
back one message and read what you wrote and all
of what i replied to you with!
And as I said, if you did believe that He has a Kingdom,
then you wouldn't be saying that it isn't necessary for
a king to have a kingdom! And you may try to play
word games here and just use "lord", but the fact is,
when speaking of Jesus, there is no such thing as just
a basic "lord", like some schmoe! And you have called
Him "King" and that means that you know He has to
already have a Kingdom and you are just trying to
promote your Dispy (Dispensationalist) doctrine,
that says that He's "lord, but not lord over all and
has no kingdom yet", when you have called Him King
and have said that He is Lord over all!
The difference, and it's a biggy, is that I believe
He has not yet come down from Heaven to take
possession of it, and you do.
Take possession of it?! What?! Why would He have
to come to this planet, to rule it?!
You are just not too bright, Chuckles! You admitted
to me, that the Old Testament states very clearly that
God has always ruled the world. You had to, when
I showed you the passages, even though you didn't
want to! And so where did God do that from, Chucky?
Hint: It wasn't Earth!
"Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool:
What house will ye build me? saith the Lord:
Or what is the place of my rest?" - Acts 7:49
Now since you Dispy's are ignorant of the OT
and think it's all new stuff in the NT, let me
enlighten you and show you that he was simply
quoting Isaiah:
"Thus saith the Lord, The heaven is my throne,
and the earth is my footstool: Where is the house
that ye build unto me? And where is the place of
my rest?" - Isaiah 66:1
And now, let's look at it together with the prior verse,
which destroys your Futurist view, in which you think
people (and said you want to be among them) will be
standing in a temple in the future, praising God for
animal sacrifices, while Christ sits in this temple,
happy that the Jews are spitting in His face by performing
these animal sacrifices, which automatically deny His
"once for all" sacrifice! And pay special attention to
the last verse, which is what applies to you especially,
just like it did to them, when Stephen said it, because
they also wanted that Earthly temple for God to dwell
in, but like them, you're too stiffnecked to get the fact
that God has always ruled from Heaven, which proves
that He doesn't need to "come here and claim it",
as you tried to claim He does, Chucky boy!:
Acts 7:48-51
48) Howbeit the most High dwelleth NOT in temples
made with hands; as saith the prophet,
49) Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool:
What house will ye build me? saith the Lord:
Or what is the place of my rest?
50) Hath not My hand made all these things?
51) Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and
ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your
fathers did, so do ye.
So you want God to reside in a temple that is
a physical building, even given what He said!
And since you say that Jesus is God, you don't
get to say, "But Jesus will"!
And as I said previously, to paste back in what
you snipped:
Hey Chuck, where do you get off calling
Jesus Lord? That would indicate that
He has a Kingdom...
No, it wouldn't. He doesn't have to have
a kingdom to be my Lord. All that need
be for Him to be my Lord is that I submit
to and obey Him.
There's no such thing as someone being lord over
all, when they have no kingdom! And the truth is,
that you call Him the Creator and "Lord over all"
and yet, claim that He isn't Lord over all! And that
makes you a hypocrite and a liar when you say
those things!
Futurism always ends up contradicting itself and
the Futurists deny it, because for them, it has to
be all about them, or the Bible is useless! (:
What you have just done, is make Jesus no more
powerful than say, Abraham, who was called "lord"
by those who worked for him and actually, even
less powerful than Abraham, considering that at
least Abraham had some land and you claim Jesus
doesn't yet! So your "lord" is a "no land owning,
can't control anything here, is lord of nothing on
Earth, nice guy from almost 2,000 years ago".
Gee, I'm sure He appreciates the vote of confidence!
But why would you want to follow someone like that,
who is not even as powerful as Abraham was?!
But thank you for admitting that your "Savior",
according to you, is not Lord and that you claim
that He is only Lord over a certain amount of
people, but not over the creation that they live in!
According to you, He is "Savior", but not really "Lord",
since He has no kingdom!
No thanks! I'm not interested in your brand of "lord"!
My Lord and Savior rules all and has done so, since
He ascended, as Daniel 7:13-14 prophesied and as
Hebrews says happened and Daniel 2:44 said it would
happen before the four kingdoms ended and the four
kingdoms did end! So you worship your "less powerful
than Abraham guy" and I'll worship the Lord Jesus
Christ who rules now and has a Kingdom!
--
The Last Days were in the first century:
James 5:8-9
8) Be YE also patient; establish YOUR hearts:
for the coming of the Lord DRAWETH NIGH.
9) Grudge not one against another, brethren,
lest YE be condemned: behold, the judge
STANDETH BEFORE THE DOOR.
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Jesus Christ, My Lord And Savior Who Will Return Visibly One Day AndEVERY Eye Shall See |
24 Jan 2008 12:41:19 PM |
|
|
1 Tim 3:2-3
Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife,
temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not
a lover of money. (NIV)
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant,
sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not
given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient,
not a brawler, not covetous; (KJV)
it behoveth, therefore, the overseer to be blameless, of one wife a
husband, vigilant, sober, decent, a friend of strangers, apt to teach,
not given to wine, not a striker, not given to filthy lucre, but
gentle, not contentious, not a lover of money, (YLT)
Titus 1:6-8
An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose
children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and
disobedient. Since an overseer is entrusted with God's work, he must
be blameless - not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to
drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. Rather he must
be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled,
upright, holy and disciplined. (NIV)
If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children
not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the
steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no
striker, not given to filthy lucre; But a lover of hospitality, a
lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; (KJV)
if any one is blameless, of one wife a husband, having children
stedfast, not under accusation of riotous living or insubordinate -
for it behoveth the overseer to be blameless, as God's steward, not
self-pleased, nor irascible, not given to wine, not a striker, not
given to filthy lucre; but a lover of strangers, a lover of good men,
sober-minded, righteous, kind, self-controlled, (YLT)
BISHOP
An overseer, elder, or pastor charged with the responsibility of
spiritual leadership in a local church in New Testament times. Before
the church was founded, the Greek word for bishop was used in a
general sense to refer to local gods as those who watched over people
or countries. The word was later applied to men, including those who
held positions as magistrates or other government offices. And
eventually the term was extended to refer to officials in religious
communities with various functions, including those who supervised the
revenues of pagan temples. The SEPTUAGINT (Greek translation of the
Old Testament) uses bishop to refer to those who exercise power;
sometimes it indicates those who hold positions of authority. It
represents a Hebrew term that refers to those who are overseers or
officers (Num 4:16; Neh 9:9).
In the New Testament, Jesus is called the "Overseer of your souls" (1
Peter 2:25). In this passage the word is associated with the term
shepherd. It is also used to identify the leader of a Christian
community or the one who filled the office of overseer. In Acts 20:28
the elders of the church at Ephesus summoned to meet Paul are
identified as overseers. Their responsibility, given by the Holy
Spirit, was "to shepherd the church of God." In Phil 1 bishops are
associated with deacons, and the qualifications are outlined in 1 Tim
3:2-7 and Titus 1:7-9. Included are standards for his personal and
home life, as well as the bishop's relationships with non-believers.
In Acts 20:17,28 and Titus 1:5,7, the terms bishop and elder are used
synonymously. Also the word bishop, or its related words, appears to
be synonymous with the word shepherd, or its equivalents (Acts 20:28;
1 Peter 2:25; 5:2). In his work, the bishop was to oversee the flock
of God, to shepherd his people, to protect them from enemies, and to
teach, exhort, and encourage. He was to accomplish this primarily by
being an example to his people. He was to do this willingly and with
an eager spirit, not by coercion or for financial gain. To desire a
position as bishop, the apostle Paul declared, was to desire a good
work (1 Tim 3:1). Also see ELDER.
(from Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary)
ELDER
A term used throughout the Bible but designating different ideas at
various times in biblical history. The word may refer to age,
experience, and authority, as well as specific leadership roles. In
ancient times authority was given to older people with wider
experience. These were often considered the most qualified to hold
places of leadership. The basic meaning of the Hebrew and Greek words
for elder is "old age." In the Old Testament those leaders associated
with Moses in governing the nation of Israel were called "the elders
of Israel" (Ex 3:16; 24:1), "the elders of the people" (Ex 19:7), or
the "seventy elders" (Ex 24:1). Moses called these elders together to
give them instructions for the observance of the Passover before the
Exodus from Egypt. Later, after the years of wandering in the
wilderness, bodies of elders ruled in each city. These elders were
viewed as the representatives of the nation and its people. The term
elder eventually came to be applied to those who governed in the local
communities, the rulers of the various tribes, and those who ruled all
of Israel. These leaders were responsible for legal, political and
military guidance and supervision. During the years of Israel's
captivity in Babylon and the following centuries, elders again
appeared as leaders who were responsible for governing in the Jewish
communities. These elders became the upper class, forming a type of
ruling aristocracy. Later in this period, a council of elders of 71
members, called the SANHEDRIN, emerged. This council had both
religious and political authority among all the Jewish people in
Palestine, particularly in New Testament times. The HIGH PRIEST was
the chairman of the Sanhedrin. Local Jewish synagogues, which emerged
in the period between the Old and New Testaments, were also governed
by a council of elders.
A governing structure similar to the ruling elders among the Jews was
followed in the early church. The title elder was continued, but the
significance of the office changed. Thus, the term elder is used in
the New Testament to refer to the Jewish elders of the synagogue, to
the members of the Sanhedrin, and to certain persons who held office
in the church. It also implied seniority by reason of age (1 Tim 5:2;
1 Peter 5:5). The presence of elders in the church in the New
Testament indicates that this office was taken over from the
synagogue. Elders were associated with James in Jerusalem in the local
church's government (Acts 11:30; 21:18) and, with the apostles, in the
decision of the early church council (Acts 15). Elders were also
appointed in the churches established during the apostle Paul's first
missionary journey (Acts 14:23). Paul addressed the elders at Ephesus
(Acts 20:17-35). Elders played an important role in church life
through their ministry to the sick (James 5:14,15). They were
apparently the teachers also in a local congregation. In addition to
ministering to the sick, their duties consisted of explaining the
Scriptures and teaching doctrine (1 Tim 5:17; 1 Peter 5:5).
(from Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary)
Let us consider the qualifications of a Christian Bishop, and then we
shall soon discover who is fit for the office.
1. This Christian Bishop must be blameless; anepileepton, a person
against whom no evil can be proved; one who is everywhere
invulnerable; for the word is a metaphor, taken from the case of an
expert and skillful pugilist, who so defends every part of his body
that it is impossible for his antagonist to give one hit. So this
Christian Bishop is one that has so conducted himself, as to put it
out of the reach of any person to prove that he is either unsound in a
single article of the Christian faith, or deficient in the fulfilment
of any duty incumbent on a Christian. He must be irreprehensible; for
how can he reprove that in others which they can reprove in him?
2. He must be the husband of one wife. He should be a married man, but
he should be no polygamist; and have only one wife, i.e. one at a
time. It does not mean that, if he has been married, and his wife die,
he should never marry another. Some have most foolishly spiritualized
this, and say, that by one wife the church is intended! This silly
quibbling needs no refutation. The apostle's meaning appears to be
this: that he should not be a man who has divorced his wife and
married another; nor one that has two wives at a time. It does not
appear to have been any part of the apostle's design to prohibit
second marriages, of which some have made such a serious business. But
it is natural for some men to tithe mint and cummin in religion, while
they neglect the weightier matters of the law.
3. He must be vigilant; neephaleon, from nee, not and pino, to drink.
Watchful; for as one who drinks is apt to sleep, so he who abstains
from it is more likely to keep awake, and attend to his work and
charge. A Bishop has to watch over the church, and watch for it; and
this will require all his care and circumspection. Instead of
neephaleon, many MSS. read neephalion, this may be the better
orthography, but makes no alteration in the sense.
4. He must be sober; soophrona, prudent, or, according to the
etymology of the word, from soos, sound (healthy), and phreen, mind, a
man of a sound mind; having a good understanding, and the complete
government of all his passions. A Bishop should be a man of learning,
of an extensive and well cultivated mind, dispassionate,
prudent, and sedate.
5. He must be of good behaviour; kosmion, orderly, decent, grave, and
correct in the whole of his appearance, carriage, and conduct. The
preceding term, soophrona, refers to the mind; this latter, kosmion,
to the external manners. A clownish, rude, or boorish man should never
have the rule of the church of God; the sour, the sullen, and the
boisterous should never be invested with a dignity which they would
most infallibly disgrace.
6. He must be given to hospitality; philoxenon, literally, a lover of
strangers; one who is ready to receive into his house and relieve
every necessitous stranger. Hospitality, in those primitive times, was
a great and necessary virtue; then there were few inns, or places of
public entertainment; to those who were noted for benevolence the
necessitous stranger had recourse. A Christian Bishop, professing love
to God and all mankind, preaching a religion, one half of the morality
of which was included in, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,
would naturally be sought to by those who were in distress and
destitute of friends. To enable them to entertain such, the church
over which they presided must have furnished them with the means.
Such a Bishop as Paul, who was often obliged to labour with his hands
for his own support, could have little to give away. But there is a
considerable difference between an Apostolical Bishop and an
Ecclesiastical Bishop: the one was generally itinerant, the other
comparatively local; the former had neither house nor home, the latter
had both; the Apostolical Bishop had charge of the church of Christ
universally, the Ecclesiastical Bishop of the churches in a particular
district. Such should be addicted to hospitality, or works of charity;
especially in these modern times, in which, besides the
spiritualities, they possess the temporalities, of the church.
7. He should be apt to teach; didaktikon, one capable of teaching; not
only wise himself, but ready to communicate his wisdom to others. One
whose delight is, to instruct the ignorant and those who are out of
the way. He must be a preacher; an able, zealous, fervent, and
assiduous preacher. He is no Bishop who has health and strength, and
yet seldom or never preaches; i.e. if he can preach-if he have the
necessary gifts for the office.
8. An eighth article in his character is, he must not be given to
wine; mee paroinon. This word not only signifies one who is
inordinately attached to wine, a winebibber or tippler, but also one
who is imperious, abusive, insolent, whether through wine or
otherwise. Kypke contends for this latter acceptation here. See his
proofs and examples.
9. He must be no striker; mee pleekteen, not quarrelsome; not ready to
strike a person who may displease him; no persecutor of those who may
differ from him; not prone, as one wittily said: To prove his doctrine
orthodox By apostolic blows and knocks? It is said of Bishop Bonner,
of infamous memory, that, when examining the poor Protestants whom he
termed "heretics", when worsted by them in argument he was used to
smite them with his fists, and sometimes scourge and whip them: But
though he was a most ignorant and consummate savage, yet from such a
scripture as this he might have seen the necessity of surrendering his
mitre.
10. He must not be greedy of filthy lucre; mee aischrokerdee, not
desirous of base gain; not using base and unjustifiable methods to
raise and increase his revenues; not trading or trafficking; for what
would be honourable in a secular character, would be base and
dishonourable in a bishop. Though such a trait should never appear in
the character of a Christian prelate, yet there is much reason to
suspect that the words above are not authentic; they are omitted by
ADFG, many others, the Syriac, all the Arabic, Coptic (and Sahidic),
AEthiopic, Armenian, later Syriac (but it appears in the margin), the
Vulgate and Itala, and by most of the Greek fathers. Griesbach has
left it out of the text, in which it does not appear that it ever had
a legitimate place. The word covetous, which we have below, expresses
all the meaning of this; and it is not likely that the apostle would
insert in the same sentence two words of the same meaning, because
they were different in sound. It appears to have been borrowed from 1
Tim 3:8.
11. He must be patient; epieikee, meek, gentle; the opposite to
pleekteen, a quarrelsome person, which it immediately follows when the
spurious word aischrokerdee is removed. Where meekness and patience do
not reign, gravity cannot exist, and the love of God cannot dwell.
12. He must not be a brawler; amachon, not contentious or litigious,
but quiet and peaceable.
13. He must not be covetous; aphilarguron, not a lover of money; not
desiring the office for the sake of its emoluments. He who loves money
will stick at nothing in order to get it. Fair and foul methods are to
him alike, provided they may be equally productive. For the sake of
reputation he may wish to get all honourably; but if that cannot be,
he will not scruple to adopt other methods. A brother pagan gives him
this counsel: "Get money if thou canst by fair means; if not, get it
by hook and by crook."
(from Adam Clarke's Commentary)
Titus 1:6-8
[If any be blameless] See the notes at 1 Tim 3:2, etc.
[Having faithful children] Whose family is converted to God. It would
have been absurd to employ a man to govern the church whose children
were not in subjection to himself; for it is an apostolic maxim, that
he who cannot rule his own house, cannot rule the church of God; 1 Tim
3:5.
For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled,
not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy
lucre;
[Not self-willed] Mee authadee. Not one who is determined to have his
own way in everything; setting up his own judgment to that of all
others; expecting all to pay homage to his understanding. Such a
governor in the church of God can do little good, and may do much
mischief.
[Not soon angry] Mee orgilon. Not a choleric man; one who is
irritable; who is apt to be inflamed on every opposition; one who has
not proper command over his own temper.
But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy,
temperate;
[A lover of hospitality] Philoxenon. A lover of strangers. See the
note at 1 Tim 3:2. Instead of philoxenon, one manuscript has
philoptoochon, a lover of the poor. That minister who neglects the
poor, but is frequent in his visits to the rich, knows little of his
Master's work, and has little of his Master's spirit.
[A lover of good men] Philagathon. A lover of goodness or of good
things in general.
[Sober] Prudent in all his conduct. Just in all his dealings. Holy in
his heart. Temperate-self-denying and abstemious, in his food and
raiment; not too nice on points of honour, nor magisterially rigid in
the exercise of his ecclesiastical functions. Qualifications rarely
found in spiritual governors.
(from Adam Clarke's Commentary)
Folks, take at look at the qualifications set out by God Himself and
take note of how many of them Dave Raymond violates. It is numerous
enough that he disqualifies himself from any leadership position in
any Christian church. According to God's standards as set out the
verses I cited above, Dave Raymond is not a legitimate "Pastor" nor
qualified to be a leader in any Christian church. Keep those passages
in mind each and every time Dave Raymond tries to claim to be a
"Pastor" while behaving in a ungodly and unholy manner.
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
[Say, Dave, why don't you email Pastor Jim West
(Pastor@CovenantReformedChurch.org) and Dr. Kenneth Gentry
(KennethGentry@CompuServe.COM) and discuss Preterism with them so they
may explain in greater detail where you err? Or are you too cowardly
to do so?]
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
