Clarification on Communion (Lord's Supper) - not commanded?

Discuss topics related to the nature, character, and work of the Holy Spirit, including related topics of miracles, signs, and inspiration. Also included are apostles, because of their miraculous deeds.

Moderator: grand_puba

Post Reply
User avatar
email
Non-Member
Posts: 2994
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: ether
Contact:

Clarification on Communion (Lord's Supper) - not commanded?

Post by email » Sat Nov 29, 2003 11:04 pm

Dear Brother,

I am of the opinion, after a detailed study of my own, that celebration of Lord's Supper was instituted by St.Paul, and it has no solid backing from the Gospel accounts. Jesus defined worship as the one that should be done with devoted spirit and truth. Therefore, He would not have recommended a ritual like communion to be part of worship that too when he totally abolished the law and its rituals once for all by taking us closer to God by His sacrifice. The curtain between man and God no longer exits now!

The last supper is recorded in the gospels, but "do this in remembrance of me" is not recorded by Matthew, Mark and John. Matthew and John were participants in the supper, but they do not mention that it should be celebrated frequently. Even in Luke's version, the verse containing " in remembrance of me" is not found in quite a few old manuscripts!

Therefore, I believe that Paul came up with a compromise to stop undesirable activities of gentile believers during sharing of the meal. It appears that the first Jerusalem Church never had this practice except "breaking of the bread" which denotes sharing of the common meal. Even Corinthian Church was not taught about the communion at the beginning, but brought in by Paul for spiritual discipline with a claim of authority to solve the problem.

I would like to have your opinion on this.
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?

jim
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 2:57 pm
Location: Cedar Park, TX

Post by jim » Fri Dec 05, 2003 8:35 am

I am sure that to this man the Lord's Supper is a ritual and so he takes issue with it first on that basis. That probably comes from his background and the way he is used to observing it. Jesus did not refer to it as a ritual. In fact, it is supposed to be done with great reflection upon our own lives, behavior and upon reflection of what Christ did for us.

His approach to the Bible is very liberal and the thing a liberal doesn't seem to understand is that when you begin attacking the credibility of parts of the Bible, then you are crumbling the very foundation of your faith system. He is attacking the credibility of the gospel accounts in reference to the reason as to why Jesus took the bread and the fruit of the vine, gave it to his disciples and told them to eat and drink. This was not a part of the Passover. This was obviously something new that Christ said he would not do until he did it new with them in his kingdom. And what can he mean when he gave them the bread and the fruit of the vine and said, "This is my body...this is my blood" if this is not representative and designed to cause them to remember?

Then his explanation that Paul instituted it as a compromise to deal with a Gentile problem takes direct issue with what Paul says, "...For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread...this do in remembrance of me." It had already been delivered by him. Paul claims the Lord told him what it was (not a compromise he came up with himself) and that the Lord said, "this do in remembrance of me." It is a very serious charge to accuse Paul of coming up with that which he said the Lord told him. It questions his apostleship and really charges him with lying.

Then his reference to "breaking of bread" as being a common meal is an assertion that he cannot substantiate -- in Acts 2:42 "breaking of bread" is in setting of "apostles' doctrine, fellowship and prayers" -- a context of spiritual things, not eating meals.

I doubt he is an authority in "textual criticism" but puts himself in that position by claiming that the phrase "this do in remembrance of me" is not found in some of the older MSS of Luke and because of that is not to be a part of the text. It is accepted by those who are knowledgeable in textual criticism as authentic. Ask him which MSS omit "this do in remembrance of me". In fact, the MSS that omit the statement "this do in remembrance of me" also omit the rest of verse 20 as well. Will he deny the authenticity of v. 20, as well?

Have fun.
Jim

will
Posts: 357
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:47 pm

Post by will » Sat Dec 06, 2003 2:31 am

Some thoughts( Several, but not all, used when I presided at the Table Sunday A.M. 23, Nov.): 1) Ref Mt 26:29,; Mark 14: 25; Lk 22:18 and the gospels use of ..."Drink until..". Clearly, Jesus had in mind a definite, foreseeable time( in the kingdom as we learn later) when it would be "drunk again" and with His disciples. Consider He knew that night He was to die physically and His death would not stop or hinder the future partaking of the 'cup' again. Now the kingdom had not yet come but would come w/ power(mk 9:1) and did come w/ power(Mt 28:18-20, Dan 7:13-15, Acts 1). The point to be emphasized from the foregoing observations is that Jesus taught there was to be a place / time after the resurrection and in the Kingdom that the Father was to give Him(LK 22:29) where these emblems would be partaken of again. Paul didn't invent it!.

2) Jesus taught two things about that kingdom. That is, in the Kingdom and coextensive with the existence of the kingdom and the reign of Christ in that Kingdom(coextensive meaning exist in time, at the same time, for the entire duration of the period of time under consideration): a),that in that kingdom ruled by Christ, coextensively the apostles of Christ would reign and b)that in that kingdom and coextensive with that kingdom they would also share in a table (called " my table" ). Lk 22:29-30.I Corr 10:16-21 reference to "communion" , "cup", "bread' at the "Lord's table( cf "10:21 ' ref to Lk 22: 29-30)is identically synonymous with the " Lord's Supper" of I Corr 11: 20! Paul clearly taught what the Lord Himself had referred to re the 'table' and that it was 'supper' provided on that 'table of the Lord's ' in his kingdom.

3)Reputed absence of the phrase "do this in remembrance of me" on some old manuscripts , does not eliminate it, if it is in other old manuscripts and ancient translations. It would seem the passage is virtually unquestionable as to authenticity. Slim pickings to reject the Lk 22 text and hang such a consequential conclusion on without much more research and authentication from reputable textual studies, etc.

4) The inquirer's view seems to accept that the Gospel accounts only are inspired and to be trusted vs Acts and the Epistles. If on the other hand, all of the NT is inspired then Paul's instructions in I Corr. 10 and 11 must be accepted as also from the Lord. In I Corr 2:12-16, Paul sets forth that all that he preached was from the Lord as revealed by the Holy Spirit to him! Paul claimed inspiration, did he lie?This puts the inquirer in a dangerous position of rejecting the inspired Word of God if he assumes Paul only spoke his personal opinions. This is a whole other study, but the inquirer should carefully consider it!

5)The apostles on Pentecost(all of them!) expounded a doctrine re the Lord's Supper (called ' breaking of bread' in Acts 2:42). All of the new Christian converts beginning that day (a Sunday, no less!). This was not a common meal for disciples , but involved relationship on a spiritual plane(.."fellowship"..)and "prayers". The Apostles taught and the disciples "continued steadfastly" , suggestive of a common teaching that was heard / understood, gladly received, wholeheartedly obeyed on a continuing basis and not a one time or seldomly occurring thing. Note the occasion and company the phrase 'breaking of bread' keeps in this passage(2:42). This breaking of bread was surely not ordinary or part of daily life.

6)Paul said that what he taught the Corinthian church was not in any way ever unique to them and them alone. He said that what he taught them was the same as what he taught everywhere in every church(I Corr 4: 17b). This has great significance when one reads what he says in ICorr 11: 23. What he said in that text was that what he taught the Corinthians re the observance of the Lord's Supper was 'received' from the Lord Himself and we already know from I Corr4:17b that that is what he taught in every church everywhere.

7)II PT 3: 15- 16, The inspired Apostle Peter calls the Apostle Paul a "beloved brother" and that in ALL his epistles the things he (Paul) wrote while "hard" and often "wrested (twisted)" by the "unlearned and unstable unto their own destruction". I would caution the inquirer to not be hasty in his studies , but realize that even just as Peter said that to reject what Paul taught is to bring about our own spiritual destruction!!That includes realizing we can not reject what he said on the Lord's Supper either.

8) There is the possibility as Maurice Barnett said on Mt 26: 29 that "day" is fraught with much and great significance. I.e., that it is 'specific', 'continuous', and 'durative'. If Jim can contribute here on this , I would like to hear his thoughts. If this is a correct understanding of the word, then Jesus in the Gospels taught that the Lord's Supper to be done in His remembrance was to be observed when the Kingdom came on a 'specific' day, 'continuously' - that is,every time that day reoccurred, and 'endure' until the end of the age(i.e., end of time when the Lord returns). I want to do more on this one , but keep it in mind as a possible response to the inquirer.

P.S. Given more time , I would like to work on this input a little further, but this about the best I can get done tonite.

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

Post by m273p15c » Wed Dec 10, 2003 12:13 am

I apologize for the delay. Several inquiries came in about the same time, and it's taken a little while to respond to each of them.

Thanks for your kind inquiry. Although I disagree with your conclusion, I hope you will graciously consider these reasons for my conclusion. Also, please forgive my abrupt language. I fear vagueness, so I often err on the side of being too blunt. I trust that you know my intentions are selfless, even as I know you consider truth important above everything else (II Thessalonians 2:9-12), even my poor wording. :-)

Briefly, I believe your question is answered by Paul in the context, "For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you ..." (I Corinthians 11:23-ff). Paul stated that the Lord was the origin of the commandment, not himself. Elsewhere, Paul indicates that the practices he gave the Corinthians was common to the teaching he gave in all the churches (I Corinthians 4:17; 7:17; 14:33). This was not a teaching reserved for a local geography.

Also, Jesus promised to partake of this feast with them in the day of the kingdom (Matthew 26:29), which began on Pentecost and continues even today (Daniel 2:44; 7:13-14; Mark 9:1; Acts 1:4-8; 2:1-4). Therefore, even if they were not commanded to observe the feast, the commandment is implied by Jesus statement that He would be partaking with them (Matthew 18:20). This is not something that Paul invented. Since Jesus looked forward to partaking the feast with His saints, why would we deny Him? (Please note that the tense of "partake" is future and durative, or ongoing. The grammar indicates that this was not a single point event.)

I believe this answers your questions, but I'd like to next discuss what I consider to be the most disconcerting point:

First and foremost, I would be concerned about your view of the inspired text: Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit, who would guide his apostles into "all truth" (John 14:26; 16:13-15). The apostles claimed to have received all truth, even the very "mind of Christ" (I Corinthians 2:1-16; II Peter 1:2-3; Jude 1:3). Additionally, the claim is made for word-for-word, plenary, inspiration (I Corinthians 2:12-13). This reliance upon Scripture is indicated by the use of the OT Scriptures by Jesus and His apostles and prophets (Matthew 22:23-33; Luke 20:27-40 - Argument rested on tense of verb; John 10:33-36; Hebrews 7:11-14; Galatians 3:16). Now, if Paul is set opposed to Jesus, one of them must be lying. Either Paul lied when he added the observance of the Lord's Supper, or Jesus lied when He affirmed the inspiration of the texts and His apostles. The only way both are telling the truth is if they are in harmony and not set against each other. Paul claimed that what he received was from the Lord (I Corinthians 11:23). Was Paul lying? Was he not inspired? Peter considered Paul's writings as part of "Scripture" (II Peter 3:14-17). Either way, how can we have confidence in any of Paul's writings, once we begin to judge the inspiration of any one passage, apart from textual evidence? Will we not become subjective judges, trying to decide what to keep and what not to keep? How will we avoid keeping what we like and discarding what is unpleasant to us? I do not believe that God ever intended for us to take such liberties with His Word (I Peter 1:22-25; James 4:11-12).

With that being said, I'd like to address your other points for completeness.

The Lord's Supper is not intended to be a ritual. It is meant to be a time of self-examination, not empty motions. The value is not in consuming unleavened bread and grape juice, any more than being dipped in water alone brings one closer to God (Acts 2:37-38; Romans 6:1-6; I Peter 3:21). The value of the Lord's Supper is only had in examining one's self. In fact, if one does not examine himself, it does more harm than good (I Corinthians 11:27-32). Jesus' comparison of the elements to His body and blood further substantiate that the feast was to be spiritual, not just a thoughtless carnal ritual. If we partake correctly, then we will be worshipping God in our heart, growing closer to Him, just as singing is to be done from the heart (Ephesians 5:18-20; Colossians 3:16). Do you believe we should get rid of all music, since it could be called a required ritual, which only supports our carnality?

You are correct that the New Covenant has gotten rid of many carnal rituals and supports. The New Covenant expects more out of man, as it does show us God more clearly (John 14:6-9). However, we are not yet in heaven. We still live in fleshly bodies that tug at the spirit and constantly weaken it, if we do not resist (Matthew 26:41; James 4:4-5). Please note that Peter had to remind his audience of things that they already knew (II Peter 1:12-15; 3:1-2). Repetition is essential, because we lose focus, we forget what we once knew, priorities slip, and sin resumes. We are commanded to worship with brethren. (Hebrews 10:24-25). Why? Are we not close enough to God to not require such ritual crutches? We need the encouragement of our brethren. God knows our weakness and provided for them. Again, why do we sing? What can be gained from singing that cannot be gained from preaching or Bible study? Why do we pray? Are we telling God something that He did not know? Why is it good for the rich to contribute? How is it beneficial to the rich? God knows our weaknesses and provided supports. The Lord's Supper is just one of many "rituals" of the New Testament, although it should never be a habit that we observe mindlessly. Of course, if we do not observe these in "truth and spirit", then we will be no better off than the Hebrews of the OT (John 4:24; Deuteronomy 6:4-9; Amos 5:21-24; Micah 6:6-8). We can also fall into another trap by trying to take a human shortcut to God's goal. If we try to accomplish God's purposes differently than the manner He prescribed by bypassing the Lord's Supper, then how can we say we still have faith in God? To whom will it bring glory? God, or us? Will not God's way best accomplish God's purposes? Will any other way accomplish God's purposes?

Respecting the gospels over Paul's writings, and denying the inspirations of the epistles was handled above, but let me also ask, "What else is missing from those texts of Luke?" The phrase you mentioned is not the only thing missing from those texts.

"Breaking of bread" is originally listed in a spiritual context, "And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers" (Acts 2:42), although it may sometimes be used in a more casual context (Acts 2:46). The meaning has to be determined by the context. One cannot assume a blanket meaning for the phrase, especially considering the significance of Christ's actions, "breaking of bread" (Matthew 26:26). Considering that Paul instructed the saints to eat common meals at home, and not make the Lord's Supper into a common meal (I Corinthians 11:20-22), it seems strange that he would do the very thing in Acts 20:7 that he reprimanded in I Corinthians 11:20-22.

Paul said that he had previously given them instruction for observing the Lord's Supper (note past tense of "delivered" - I Corinthians 11:23). It was not something new. Since he started the church in Corinth, I think it is safe to consider him present at their "beginning" (Acts 18:1-18).

Although many passages have been cited, I hope and pray that the study of these passages will be profitable for you. Of course, if you are not persuaded by these points, I hope you will share your concerns with me. I would not want to continue to proclaim and encourage a practice that the Lord never intended to be adopted; consequently, I would value your insight.

May God bless us both in coming to a full knowledge of His will
Last edited by m273p15c on Fri Jan 05, 2007 1:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

jim
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 2:57 pm
Location: Cedar Park, TX

Post by jim » Wed Dec 10, 2003 9:19 am

Very well put! -- if he has a good heart it will have an impact on him.
Jim

User avatar
email
Non-Member
Posts: 2994
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: ether
Contact:

Post by email » Wed Dec 17, 2003 7:25 am

Thanks for your elaborate reply on the points I have raised on Communion. Sorry for the delay in responding because of the problem with my system. It has not been properly configured yet; therefore, I may discuss in detail later. However, for me, the most important spiritual things are based on what you have quoted already: John 4:24; Deut. 6:4-9; Amos 5: 21-24 & Micah: 6:6-8. Hence, communion which can easily degenerate to a nominal ritual should not be given any importance. People easily tend to replace spiritual matters with rituals. You see, even Jesus had priorities: He had one apostle close to Him and an inner circle of three apostles out of twelve and gave importance to two commandments in the entire Law (Matthew 22:36-40).

For me, what Jesus said is more important than what Paul proclaimed! Paul cannot be equated to Jesus, and Paul cannot replace Jesus by his theory! Paul never had the bliss of companionship of Jesus in person! He was a Pharisee by learning which is very much ritualistic and quotes not even one single statement in all his epistles that can be attributed to Jesus (that is supported by the Gospels!). What I am trying to highlight is the degree of importance we should give to several verses in arriving at the truth. Without the Gospels, Paul’s epistles have no significance! Even Jews of OT times held that different books have varying degrees of inspiration. Even in NT people give different degrees of importance to different books of NT! Now we realize how Martin Luther was wrong in opposing the book of James. He was certainly, I believe, wrong on his concept of communion! We do not believe that a person sheds his old nature and becomes new creature immediately after he accepts Jesus as his Saviour! It might be the case with Paul. None other than Peter gets corrected by Paul. Why did Peter go wrong? Was he was not inspired by the Holy Spirit for all his actions? Why did Holy Spirit inspire only Paul to correct Peter?

Since you are part of the organization in search of truth, I am interested in continuing my dialogue with you without any bias. More specific points later after my system is set right. I would like to have your valuable opinion on this.

In His love
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?

jim
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 2:57 pm
Location: Cedar Park, TX

Post by jim » Wed Dec 17, 2003 12:38 pm

If I were you I would simplify and condense -- a few, concise, strong points are worth more than a bunch of material -- he might get bogged down in too much information. He doesn't seem to want to respond to what you have written -- only to give you what is to him important.

Here are some thoughts:

His concepts are very immature and are based on ignorance and he doesn’t seem to understand his subjective analysis when he says, “For me, what Jesus said is more important than what Paul proclaimed…” What makes him the standard? Also, he seems to have missed the point that the gospels were written by three apostles and a physician – how do we know Jesus’ words are his unless we accept the inspiration of the apostles?

First, I would refer him to Mt. 16:19 and 18:18 – “…whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven…whatsoever thou shalt loose…shall be loosed in heaven.” Jesus first made that observation to Peter and then repeated it to the other apostles. The binding and loosing of the apostles was by the authority of heaven (Jesus). This is actually a periphrastic statement – “…shall be having been bound…loosed”.

Second, I would refer him to the promise made by Jesus to his apostles of the coming “comforter” who would guide them into all truth. The “Comforter” (parakletos = legal assistant, counselor) was to take the place of Jesus to make sure that they were guided correctly and accurately. They did not have to rely on their own memories – Jno. 14:26; 15:26; 16:8-13.

Then, I would argue that he necessarily attacks Paul’s apostleship and credibility as a witness. Paul claims he saw Jesus. He claims that what was revealed to him was from the Lord. He claims to be an apostle. He claims to speak by inspiration (1 Cor. 2:9-13). To eliminate or question Paul’s writings does away with most of the New Testament epistles. Surely, Paul’s epistles have no significance apart from the gospels – so what? He is minimizing the inspiration and authority of the epistles by claiming that the gospels are more important than the epistles. He says, “Paul never had the bliss of companionship of Jesus in person! He was a Pharisee by learning which is very much ritualistic and quotes not even one single statement in all his epistles that can be attributed to Jesus (that is supported by the Gospels!). Well, if he rejects the statement in 1 Cor. 11:23 (this do in remembrance of me) the rest of what Paul quotes here he said came from the Lord. Paul also references what Jesus taught about marriage (1 Cor. 7:10).

I just received your email with the points you are making – many of them are the same as I have mentioned above. Perhaps this will help some. I think you need to attack the fallacy of his questioning the inspiration of the scriptures.

Jim

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

Post by m273p15c » Wed Dec 17, 2003 11:49 pm

It is good to hear from you again. I'm sorry to hear you're having computer troubles. They can be frustrating.

It seems to me that there are two basic issues. I have tried to discuss these in detail, additionally responding to each of your points. It is probably a lengthier response than you intended, but I trust that this is important to you. Consequently, I'm including a full response, risking that some of this may never be read or fully considered. However, I hope and trust that this is not the case.

Fundamentally, it seems that you are sitting as judge in determining what is important and what is not, a seat not meant for mortals. I say this not because I see your heart, but your conclusions were not supported by Scripture. If you prove your distinction between Jesus' sayings and Paul's writings with Scripture, then I would listen more carefully. However, it seems that Scripture speaks against your distinction. I'm not sure which came first, but it seems that there is a second related error, doubting Paul's apostleship and inspiration. The case for inspiration and apostleship is made quite strong in Scripture by Jesus, as well as Paul himself. If we reject his case, the same reasoning will force us to reject the Gospels, if we are consistent. Consistency is a test of our honesty, which is a proof of our love for truth and God (II Thessalonians 2:9-12). Details below...

- "Which is the great commandment in the law?"

The Bible does teach an "importance" among commandments, but does it mean that certain important things should be honored, while neglecting the others? If we fail to keep the Lord's Supper with Him, because we do not think it is important, then we are making this statement: "Unimportant" items do not have to be observed. Is that what God said during the OT (Deuteronomy 6:4-9; Amos 5:21-24; Micah 6:6-8)? Did God say as long as you have a good, spiritual heart, then the other things don't matter? By placing significance on two commands, did Jesus say that we can keep these and not keep the others (Matthew 22:36-40)? Let's look a little closer at some of these texts:
Matthew wrote:"Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?" Jesus said to him, " 'You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." (Matthew 22:36-40)
Why are these commandments important? Do they somehow compete with all the other commandments of the OT, forcing one to prioritize some commandments by keeping some and not keeping others? I believe this is an incorrect concept of "importance", inconsistent with Jesus' statement - "On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets". These 2 commands were the nail, which gave the support for all the other commandments. If this nail was pulled out of the wall, all the others would fall. These commandments are more important in that they are more encompassing. They encompass the entire old law. The rest of the commands are mere expressions of these two; God derived the other commands from these two. Although one may have kept the other commands without loving God or his neighbor, it was impossible to love God and his neighbor and not observe all the other commands. This is further evidenced by other statements of Jesus:
John wrote:"If you love Me, keep My commandments." (John 14:15) ...

"He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him." (John 14:21) ...

Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me." (John 14:23-24) ...

"If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love. ... You are My friends if you do whatever I command you." (John 15:9-14)
True love will follow Jesus' words. If we do not obey His commandments, then we do not love Him; therefore, it is impossible to separate the commands from the heart, or spiritual things, as you have suggested. If we do not keep Jesus' command to keep the Lord's Supper with Him in the kingdom (Matthew 26:29; Mark 9:1; 14:25; Luke 22:15-19), then we do not love Him.

In addition to this explanation of "importance", I would like to further understand why you disregard Jesus' command, which is both implied and stated directly in the above passages. Please recall, if you throw out "do this in remembrance of me", I will want to know why you did not throw out everything else that is missing from your "old manuscript". Also, I will want to know why the translators of all the major versions of the Bible thought the textual evidence supported including it. Moreover, I still would like for you to explain Jesus' promise to partake this feast with them in the kingdom, noting the ongoing, durative tense of the verb.

- Can Paul, or any inspired apostle be trusted?

Regarding your second fundamental argument, I believe the Bible does teach a view of inspiration that puts the epistles on a level with the gospels.

(Just because someone does something that Jesus did not do, does not make that person greater than Jesus. Even Jesus foretold that those who followed would perform miracles greater than He performed (John 14:12). Does that necessarily mean that they were equal to Jesus or greater than Jesus in all points? Clearly not, but yet they did something beyond what Jesus did; therefore, is it unreasonable to believe that someone could speak on a level with Jesus? The key is recognizing that in both cases, they did not perform miracles or reveal truth without God's power. They did not do it apart from Christ, but through Christ.)

Jesus Himself foretold that His apostles would stand in His place uttering His words. Therefore, to deny the words of His apostles is to deny Jesus:
John wrote:"Remember the word that I said to you, 'A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you. If they kept My word, they will keep yours also. ... But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me. And you also will bear witness, because you have been with Me from the beginning." (John 15:20-27)
These apostles and prophets did not speak on their own, but by the Holy Spirit (John 14:15-18; 25-26; 15:26-27; 16:7-15; Matthew 10:17-27). They were not left to their own memory but were reminded by the Holy Spirit (John 14:26). Jesus foretold that His apostles would have "binding" and "loosening" authority. Whatever they "bound" in the kingdom would be something that had already been bound in heaven (Matthew 16:19; 18:18). They would not do so on their own authority, but on the authority of heaven. Moreover, Jesus said that He did not tell them everything, while He was on the earth. Some things were to be revealed after He left by the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; 16:12-15). Consequently, much like as in miracles, Jesus foretold that knowledge would increase beyond what was available while He walked on the earth. These people cannot displace Jesus, because they were moved and powered by Him. Such a concept does not challenge Jesus' greatness, but rather acknowledges it. This brings glory to Him, rather than detracting from it. Again, to reject the apostles, including Paul, is to reject Christ.

To garner from this that Paul and Peter replaced Jesus is to miss the point. They are part of Jesus and stand for Him. They are His ambassadors, "ones sent" in His stead (literal meaning of "apostle"; II Corinthians 5:20; Ephesians 6:20). If one separates them from Christ, then he is not listening to Christ. To reject them, is to reject Christ. After all, did Jesus pen the gospels Himself? How can you trust the gospel accounts, if you don't trust those who wrote them?

Now regarding "degrees of inspiration", you referenced Jews, who acknowledged this, but these Jews, the Sadducees, who placed greater emphasis in Pentateuch, also denied the resurrection and angels (Matthew 22:23-33). Such people seem to be a reference of discredit, rather than support, especially since they were the most materialistic, carnal, political, and liberal sect of the Jews.

Contrariwise, Jesus Himself acknowledged all of the OT as a unit. By doing so He acknowledged all of them, placing all of them on the same level as "Scriptures" from God (Luke 24:44-45; Matthew 23:33-36 - Abel first prophet, Zechariah last prophet of OT). Once when He quoted from the Psalms, He called it part of "the law" (John 10:34-35). Jesus never differentiated parts of the OT, but quoted from many different books. Can you show me any Scriptural basis for your differentiation between degrees of inspiration?

It appears you claim that Paul was either lying or deceived, when he wrote his epistles. At best, you think he was partially inspired. My questions are, "What Scriptural proof can you give for such a model?" and "What divining rod will you use to determine what is inspired?" With such a view, it seems impossible to avoid being a subjective critic and interpreter of Scripture. As you have already noted,
email wrote:"For me, what Jesus said is more important than what Paul proclaimed."
Why? We would not have anything that Jesus said, if it were not for the inspiration of His apostles. If you cannot trust Paul, then you cannot trust the gospels, which were written by Paul's fellow apostles. As I said previously, it seems that you have put yourself in a seat reserved not for mortals.

- Answers to miscellaneous, secondary points

Regarding, Paul's "walk with the Lord", it seems that this logic is inconsistent with your previous logic: If spiritual things triumphs over carnal things, then which is greater, a carnal walk with the Lord or a spiritual walk with the Lord? If spiritual things are so much greater, then why is it essential for Paul to have physical contact with the Lord? What did he not derive spiritually, which could only have been derived through carnal contact?

Regarding the number of Paul's quotations, how many times does Peter quote Jesus in his epistles and sermons? Such questions better illuminate their topic rather than their credibility. Remember according to Jesus, He did not say everything that was to be said (John 14:26; 16:12-15).

Regarding Paul's background, Jesus' apostles consisted of fisherman, tax collectors, zealots, and other variegated backgrounds. If Jesus can reform these men, can He not reform Paul? Or, is Paul's background overriding the power of the Holy Spirit, while writing under inspiration? Is such a view of inspiration consistent with Scripture?

Regarding placing the epistles before the gospels, I do not do this. They appear a seamless garment to me, perfectly unified and whole, neither contradicting the other. "God cannot lie" (Titus 1:2).

Regarding, the incident between Peter and Paul, please keep in mind that Peter later acknowledged that Paul's writings were "Scripture", indicating their divine inspiration (II Peter 3:15-17). Although one cannot know the mind of the Holy Spirit without Him revealing it, it appears that every one caved under pressure, along with Peter (Galatians 2:11-27). Only Paul stood firm. I'm guessing that the Holy Spirit used Paul, because he was the only one clinging to the Spirit at that moment. Regardless, the choice of which vessel has no bearing. The facts that a vessel was chosen and used and that the revelation now belongs to us are all that matter.

Regarding Peter's sin, inspiration does not imply that the speaker was perfect in all things. In fact, it does not even imply full understanding. The prophets frequently revealed things that they did not understand fully at the time (I Peter 1:10-12; II Peter 1:19-21; compare Acts 2:38 to Acts 10:17, 34-48; 11:1-18). Word for word inspiration, which the apostles claimed, was essential to ensuring that God's message was revealed as God intended (I Corinthians 2:11-16).

Keep in mind that the recipients of letters had people with spiritual gifts who would confirm letters as being genuine and of divine origin (I John 2:18-27; Acts 15:22-32; I Thessalonians 5:19-22). They were instructed to test all "spirits", who speak through people, to confirm their source (I John 4:1). Our Bible is additionally sealed with their testimony. To deny the inspiration of those writings is to deny the testimony of those who had spiritual gifts, were contemporaries with the apostles, and number in the hundreds and thousands. It is hard to deny such witnesses using current conjecture.

I look forward to hearing from you again. May God bless us with humble, honest, truth-loving hearts.
Last edited by m273p15c on Fri Jan 05, 2007 1:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
email
Non-Member
Posts: 2994
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: ether
Contact:

Post by email » Sun Dec 21, 2003 10:26 am

Thank you for your early response. My system is still having problem. Therefore, delays are unavoidable from my side!

Fundamentally, I believe Jesus elevated God fearing people from a lower plane of activity of “ rigid ritualistic rigour” to a higher plane of “ supreme spiritual vigour!”We have the privilege of being above the Law by having the responsibility of observing the spirit of the Law which is more difficult than observing the letter of the Law! When we have been taken to such a height, coming down to a lower level of a ritual observance, I believe, was not the intention of Jesus! Therefore, I believe, communion was not ordained by Jesus because this contradicts John 4:23 & 24.

I believe in one True Living God. Bible is the basis for understanding the will of God and the ways of God. Bible is not God but only helps us in orienting ourselves towards God! It is a pointer towards God. It contains the inspired writings of Prophets and Apostles who had their own limitations. But what was written may be altered, added or deleted: this is the case with many copies of books. Each verse requires the help of the Holy Spirit for proper interpretation and understanding. If you hold Bible, which may be altered and manipulated in various translations, as infallible, it may mean that God can be altered too and is available for manipulation by mortals like us! Living God cannot be represented and restricted by inanimate scrolls of paper! There was no need for Jesus to send the Holy Spirit for testifying the Truth if we can simply depend on the Scripture that are available! Peter is right in writing that Paul wrote his epistles based on the wisdom given to him. To what extent his wisdom was perfect will have to be decided by the Holy Spirit that is guiding all of us. In this context, Guthrie comments that “the other scriptures can be argued, with equal success, as counting Paul’s writings included in, or excluded from, Scripture” (“ New Bible Commentary” III Ed by D. Guthrie, J.A.Motyer Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester, England 1970) He also comments that Matthew 26:29/Luke22: 16 probably refers to the Messianic banquet rather than to the church’s observance of the Lord’s Supper (page 920 Luke Gospel)

Inspired writings of the Prophets and Apostles have been elevated to the status of sacred scriptures only after their deaths by their followers. The very same followers would not have listened to the same prophets when they were alive! (Matthew 23:37) Catholic Bible contains certain books that are considered Apocrypha by Protestants! Probably Paul himself would not have thought of having his personal letter of Philemon included in the canon!

Christianity became highly politicized with the powerful influence of Emperor Constantine! Nicene Creed replaced Apostle Creed as if indicating that the teachings of Apostles are being replaced by the thoughts of a pagan king! Many writings were destroyed that did not conform to the thinking of a section of people during his reign.

Paul never gave another chance to Mark during his second missionary journey. Probably he would have forgiven him if only he had learnt the depth of love Jesus preached and practiced that was made known to his apostles during His earthly ministry! He realizes this only later! (II Timothy 4:11).

Sharing of the property and meals were the predominant factors in the Jerusalem Church after the Pentecost. Paul came in contact with the apostles after several years through Barnabas. His early ministry was confined to Damascus and probably Arabia. Therefore, communion ritual was perhaps the solution revealed to him for the problems in gentile churches! Normally Revelation to the Prophets means something that is not made known to others earlier. Regarding the claim of Paul, this is an incident that has already occurred and we have witnesses who do not testify the commandment: “do this in remembrance of me.” All the Gospels were penned after the Corinthian Letter, and no one endorses the phrase. If it is that important as claimed practically by everybody now, the phrase would have found a place in the all the Gospels. Paul certainly exhibits his Pharisee’s traits like dominance, self-proclamations, boasting and egoism that can be apparently seen in the book of Acts and in his epistles. Despite his saintliness and missionary zeal, the “thorn in the flesh” tormented him under the influence of a messenger of Satan!

I believe that it is our responsibility with the help of the Holy Spirit and prayer to interpret and understand the word of God so that we are always on the side of God with the available books of the Bible. (Proverbs 2:2 to 11) Manifold attributes of our Gracious God do not end with 66 books of the Bible. They only form the foundation of our faith for us to build a strong structure that does not contradict the very nature of God.

I sincerely believe that you will continue to maintain communication with me so that God will bless us for the diligence we are showing to come to the knowledge of the Truth! Excuse me if you find my writings very crude since I am not well versed in English!

WISH YOU A VERY MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY NEW YEAR!!

In His love forever,
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

Post by m273p15c » Mon Jan 05, 2004 9:00 pm

I believe that your primary arguments have been answered from the Scripture by showing that Paul directly states that he received the command from the Lord (I Corinthians 11:23), the kingdom began at Pentecost (Mark 9:1; Acts 1:3-8; 2:1-4), Jesus promised to partake the supper with His saints in the kingdom (Matthew 26:29), and that obedience to commands, including rituals do not reduce, much less eliminate spirituality (Matthew 22:36-40; John 14:15,21-24; 15:9-14). However, rather than continue that line of reasoning, I would like to back up and consider a more fundamental point. To do so, I would ask you to please consider this question:

Do you believe that Jesus was crucified and resurrected? Why or why not?

thank you.
Last edited by m273p15c on Fri Jan 05, 2007 1:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
email
Non-Member
Posts: 2994
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: ether
Contact:

Post by email » Tue Jan 06, 2004 8:28 pm

I certainly believe that Jesus Christ was crucified and resurrected on the third day! His crucifixion and later resurrection signify a lot of things to me. The following are the points that come to my mind whenever I think about them:

What a painful thing for us to comprehend the fact that God the Father did not spare His own Son clearly giving proof of His holiness and unbiased attribute! The worst thing that many people dread is death. Even Peter denied the Lord when he faced the threat of capture that might have led to his death. Therefore, the greatest desire of a mortal person is to conquer death. Only Jesus Christ conquered death! Hence, through Him we have ultimate victory over death! I believe that God through Jesus taught us many things before His crucifixion. Whenever I am embarrassed, humiliated or insulted Mark 15: 15 to 32 come to mind reminding me that what I suffer is nothing compared to what the Supreme Son of God suffered. That thinking helps me to maintain a sense of balance and helps me to face life with courage and without shame. I also believe that God is telling us that we should not worry even when the worst things happen in our life because Jesus has overcome the world! (John 16:33) Only Jesus was the perfect lamb acceptable to Holy God for our atonement thereby putting an end to ritualistic animal offerings once for all. We are all born sinners, so no other sacrifice will match the sacrifice of Jesus for forgiveness.

Without resurrection there is no Christianity! Jesus would have been like any other prophet if He had died eventually! He is the resurrection and the life for all of us! The first amazing thing His apostles proclaimed was His resurrection! (Acts: 2:32). For me Easter Sunday is more important than Good Friday. It is said that crucifixion day is called Good Friday because we have a hopeful Easter Sunday coming up! Without resurrection there is no hope for us! Without that there is no second coming and no place for us in heaven and, consequently, no everlasting life!

It is said that the conception of Jesus was supernatural and His birth natural; similarly, His death natural but His resurrection supernatural! I think all spiritually matured people believe in virgin birth and final resurrection along with the miracles He performed.

I, believe, the points stated above answers your fundamental question, and I look forward to continue our communication on things that are spiritual in nature.

In His love,
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

Post by m273p15c » Wed Jan 07, 2004 9:12 am

How do you KNOW Jesus existed, was crucified, and resurrected? How do you know if the story is true or just a myth, evolving through time?

May God draw us nearer to Him.
Last edited by m273p15c on Fri Jan 05, 2007 1:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
email
Non-Member
Posts: 2994
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: ether
Contact:

Post by email » Fri Jan 09, 2004 8:31 pm

m273p15c wrote:How do you KNOW Jesus existed, was crucified, and resurrected? How do you know if the story is true or just a myth, evolving through time
There are many aspects that are to be considered, I believe, to arrive at the answer to your question. At the outset one has to believe the existence of God who upholds the truth. But what is truth? This is the same question that Pilate asked! (John 18:38) Probably he was not aware of the fact that he did come to a truthful conclusion by saying that he did not find any guilt with Jesus. (Verse 38) But what about the stand taken by the Chief Priest and other Jews? Were they right in demanding crucifixion of Jesus? Of course, they had there own reasons and accusations? Which side should we take? Should we take side with the majority of people or agree with one person by name Pilate? Do we have the plumb line? (Amos 7:7&8) Any sensitive or righteous man will be in a dilemma on what should be done in many such situations they may face in their daily life. Leo Tolstoy has a written a philosophical book titled ‘ What shall we do then?’ He was a sincere truth seeker, but was excommunicated by the Orthodox Church because he questioned the blind beliefs of the Church. What should be our response to certain problems in life? What yardstick we require to assess complications that confronts us? How are we expected to behave on certain issues?

Let us consider one example: Matthew 6:1 to 7. Should we accept Jesus’ advice or go by the world standard? Which is trustworthy? Which action is on the side of the truth? Which is God’s will? Can we trust Jesus? Who was Jesus? What was He like? What did He stand for? What was His life? Was He accumulating wealth in the guise of religion? All these are answered in the Gospels. As a part of my search to seek the truth I have read many religious books of Hinduism, (I was a Hindu earlier before accepting Jesus as my Lord and Savior) Buddhism, Islam, Jainism and Bahai faith. Nowhere I could find words that can match the Sermon on the Mount! Incidence you find in John 8: 1 to 11 and Luke 23:34, to cite only a few, are unique in themselves! They cannot be the inventions of the writers of the books since they were not highly educated and scholarly but only simple folks! Even Jesus was not highly educated in a worldly sense! Unless He had the words of His God in His mouth, He could not have spoken like that! He preached renouncement (Matthew19: 21 to 24) and practiced the same! (Matthew 8:20) He says by the fruits you would know the prophet. Can we not taste the divine fruits He gave us in the Gospels? Albert Einstein once said that people, after some time might doubt, that a person like Mahatma Gandhi ever walked on this earth, and, similarly, I will not be surprised if certain people doubt whether Jesus ever existed! Only negligent percentage of people doubt the existence of Jesus, but large number of people is against Christians and Christianity because of the compromise-life they lead compared to the teachings of Jesus. Jesus preaching is easy to understand but difficult to practice! The critics go to the point of saying, sarcastically, that there was only one true Christian and that he died on the cross two thousand years ago!

Then comes my personal experience. Eventhough I do not give much importance to this, yet He has appeared to me with His apostles in my dreams! More than anything else He has answered many of my prayers. I have experienced the power over spirits through the strength supplied by Him though He says we need not be proud about such a spiritual power. (Luke 10:20) What is our ultimate desire? Is it not the Revelation 7:16&17? Our God is faithful and will never forsake us. I personally feel His presence all the time and at all places.

It is the immoral and unprincipled people, who lack any kind of ethical values, who do not believe in the preaching of Jesus. They may also doubt the life of Jesus on this earth. However, non-believers have no hope. They have death breathing on their necks all the time. Those who look for justice, impartiality, fairness, righteousness, holiness and goodness will seek and hear Jesus (John 10:26 to 29)! You do not find in any other religion a person who can match Jesus in terms of authority, love, miracles, supreme sacrifice, preaching, practice and dislike for hypocrisy and worldly matters! It seems Peter the Great of Russia sent emissaries to different parts of the world to find out the best religion that could be adopted in his country. Emissaries after their visit and study recommended Christianity, which was encouraged by him in his country later!

It appears Thomas Jefferson, the 3rd President of United States, had a personal copy of the Bible in which he had deleted the supernatural incidents recorded there! Well! If you do not believe in resurrection, then you will not be resurrected when Christ returns! If you do not believe in miracles performed by Jesus, you will have no miracles happening in your life! Are we are not looking forward to the ultimate gift of everlasting life? Before that all other things are worthless!

Jesus by His preaching and practice turned the world upside down! (John 13:5, 15, Luke 22:26, etc.) He discarded the worldly and brought in the divine message of love from His Holy Father in heaven.

I do not know whether this answers your question in toto, but this is the best I can do. No one can see God and live but only experience His attributes. In fact, there can be no end when it comes to witnessing for Jesus!

In His love
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

Post by m273p15c » Fri Jan 09, 2004 10:08 pm

As you know, many religious people profess that a similar experience (visions, dreams, answered prayers) is the proof of their conversion and direction from God. However, many of these religious groups are in direct contradiction to each other. They can't all be right. God does not lie, nor does He create chaos (Titus 1:2; I Corinthians 14:33, 36-38, 40). Therefore, how do you know your visions are truly from God? Do you doubt the sincerity of all who disagree with you and yet profess similar confirmation?

How do you know that you did not experience something similar to the experiences related in Jeremiah 23:16-32; 29:8-9 and Ezekiel 13:1-6?

I am involved in a weekly Bible study during lunch at work. Oddly, one of the attendants is a Muslim, although he was originally a Christian. He says the reason that he became a Muslim is because the words of the Koran touched his heart in a way that could not be matched by any other book that he read from Christianity, Buddhism, or Hinduism. How is his basis for faith any different in fundamental, foundational principle than yours? BTW, he also says he has had many visions, dreams, and answered prayers confirming his new found faith in Mohammad.

In contrast to this, how did Jesus answer the questions of His attackers? What was the basis of His answers?

Additionally, what was the witness that Jesus offered as the proof to His origin?

May God bless us with humble, truth seeking hearts.
Last edited by m273p15c on Fri Jan 05, 2007 1:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
email
Non-Member
Posts: 2994
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: ether
Contact:

Post by email » Tue Jan 13, 2004 1:36 am

Thank you very much for your letter, and, I think, your reference to Jeremiah 23:16-32, 29:8,9 and Ezekiel 13:1-6 with regard to my dreams, are not applicable because I am not trying to prophesy any thing but only have a feeling of blessings, that is all. I also had mentioned that I do not give much importance to such dreams! As a matter of fact, Paul appeared to me in one of my dreams with tears in his eyes, and he was weeping and was pleading with me that he has not distorted truth in his epistles! That reminded me of 2Corinthians 2:4 and Philippians 3:18. I could understand the magnitude and the intensity of his zeal and persuasion, and the method he employed during his missionary period. In spite of this, I always try to understand his epistles without losing focus on Jesus!

When I think of God, I think of the following attributes: Holy, Spirit and Truth, Having No Shape and Form, Righteous, Just, Unbiased, Not a Respecter of person, Almighty, Omniscient, Omnipresent, No beginning and No end, No death, Faithful, Compassionate, Love, Forgiving, Hates sin, wickedness and hypocrisy, etc. to remember a few. So, I always interpret all verses in a way that they conform to the above attributes. Any interpretation that conflicts with the above attributes would mean that we are trying to mend God to suit our convenience and thinking!

Regarding miracles and curing of diseases in other religions and beliefs, it is true that such things are possible. Please remember not only Aaron’s rod became a serpent so did the staff of other court magicians! But, of course, Aaron’s staff swallowed other staffs proving that no other god can stand before our God. Our God is God of gods! One can become rich and powerful with Satan’s wages. (Matthew 4:8&9) Jesus expelled demons. Sorcerers and exorcists also do the same thing. The main thing for we believers is everlasting life! Miracles, healing the sickness, etc. are only secondary and incidental in our lives. Do we adore the attributes of Satan or evil spirits? Do we prefer a possible cure with the help of Satan’s followers? I personally prefer not! His grace is more than sufficient for us! (2 Corinthians 12:9) Speaking of my personal experience, I had a chronic ailment, and I was offered a positive cure with the help of a Hindu god. I refused that medicine because I did not want to take refuge in another god. I only thought that if my Savior wills He can cure if not He will continue to use me, despite my sickness and limitations, for His glorification! Of course, I was relieved of that problem later without the help of another god but with the grace of our God!

You know I have read Koran and consider Mohammed as a prophet. Koran is very much similar to our Old Testament. What I did not like in the teachings of Mohammed is his intolerance towards idol worshippers. He goes to the extent of urging his followers to eliminate them. This sets against the love propounded by Jesus even to enemies. I think Mohammed brought the idol worshippers of his time to a higher level, which may be roughly compared to the level of Jews. God may reveal Jesus’ way to them in His own time.

I am from Hinduism; therefore, I know quite a few things of beliefs and practices. One of the disturbing factors is that Hindu saints are more righteous than gods themselves! So what can you expect from such gods who quarrel themselves and kill one another!

In Buddhism, Gouthama Buddha never preached the existence of god! Only his followers have elevated him to the status of god after his death! I am not prepared to accept a religion that is void of God eventhough Buddha has preached a lot good things, and I admire him as a great and compassionate man!

It is necessary that we worship a true living God! Miracles, healing and other benefits may be there in other form of religions but they are inconsequential from highest spiritual point of view. We do not find a perfect teacher like Jesus anywhere.

It is true that Jesus answered his accusers using scripture. Accusers were quoting the scriptures, and we see Satan also doing the same (Matthew 4:6). These situations clearly indicate how scriptures can be interpreted to one’s own advantage. The letter of the Law bound the Jews, and it required the presence of Jesus to explain the spirit of the Law to set them free. As a matter of fact, Paul quotes the sayings of Greeks to win souls to the Lord (Acts 17:28), and also uses a strategy of being with them depending on the situation (1 Corinthians 9:20 & 21).

Please let me know the verse you are thinking on the proof of Jesus’ origin. The verses for me are: John 1:1 & 14

In His devotion
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

Post by m273p15c » Tue Jan 13, 2004 9:42 pm

As you noted, Jesus often began His responses with "It is written...", or "How do you read?" He always went back to the text of Scripture (Matthew 4:4-10; 11:10; 12:3; 21:13, 16; 22:31; 26:24, 31; Mark 7:6; 9:13; 12:26; 13:14; Luke 10:26; 24:26; John 6:45; 8:17; 10:34). He trusted it to the very word, saying that not one jot or tittle (the smallest strokes of the Hebrew alphabet) would pass away (Matthew 5:18 - see also John 10:34-36 and I Peter 1:22-25). He trusted it to the very word.

Jesus understood the need to have some witness to His origin. He offered a witness, which no other can match:
John wrote:"If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true. There is another who bears witness of Me, and I know that the witness which He witnesses of Me is true. "You have sent to John, and he has borne witness to the truth. Yet I do not receive testimony from man, but I say these things that you may be saved. He was the burning and shining lamp, and you were willing for a time to rejoice in his light. But I have a greater witness than John's; for the works which the Father has given Me to finish -- the very works that I do -- bear witness of Me, that the Father has sent Me. And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form. But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe. You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me." (John 5:31-39)
Jesus gave 4 witnesses:
  1. Himself (see also John 8:13-18)
  2. John the Baptist
  3. The miracles (see also John 10:24-25; Hebrews 2:1-4)
  4. The Scriptures (unfailing, fulfilled prophecy - II Peter 1:16-21)
No other prophet can claim this. These things constitute an undeniable amount of evidence, but yet, we rely on the Bible to convey all of this information.

The textual evidence for the Bible is overwhelming. No other book has the sheer number of copies going so far back - within 50 years of the original! And, they all agree up to a very small portion, and we know those few cases. One textual scholar said that all of the passages under any debate could be contained on one page of the Bible! No honest scholar would debate the rest. The charge that Scripture has been corrupted cannot be sustained.

The Bible is not God, but it is our link to God. Without it, how would we know who Christ is, or what He said?

This leads me to my last new question for today, "Who said that the Holy Spirit helps us interpret the Scripture today?" Although you said that you did not put much emphasis in your personal dreams and visions, they seem to hold some sway on your mind. If they do not, why did you mention them? Although you have not used these visions to foretell the future, I think the application of Jeremiah 23:16-32; 29:8-9 and Ezekiel 13:1-6 can still be made if you think the visions are from God. Did you learn anything from them? Did they have any message from God? The question of personal application is, "Am I seeing things in my dreams that originate from my own heart?" "How can I KNOW they are from God?"

This, I believe, is the fundamental issue. If we are not united on how to determine right from wrong, then what is the point of discussing anything further?

In the late 1800's many German scholars began a "higher-criticism" of the Bible. They began with the presumption that there are no miracles and that there were no inspired men, because they did not believe God acts upon our world. They set out to explain the Bible through human means. These "scholars" tore the Bible into many pieces, dismissing many pieces, simply because it disagreed with their presumptions. They introduced a liberality of interpretation that had not existed since the death of Christ. What they did not realize is that by destroying the Bible, they also destroyed Jesus, heaven, love, and God. Of course, they did not really destroy these things, but they denied them. What they did not realize is that we do not have the position of sitting in judgment of the Bible; rather, it sits in the place of judgment, judging us, because it is God's Word (John 12:44-50).

May I speak frankly? I fear that you are walking down the path they followed, maybe not in exact detail, but in essence, you seem to be doing the same thing. Unless you can show me a promise of the Holy Spirit guiding us through this filtering process, I do not see how you can avoid their error.

With love.
Last edited by m273p15c on Fri Jan 05, 2007 1:57 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
email
Non-Member
Posts: 2994
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: ether
Contact:

Post by email » Sat Jan 17, 2004 11:04 am

When we see the quotations from the Old in the New Testament Books, we notice that they are prefixed with words like, “It is written,” or “Isaiah wrote,” or “scripture says,” etc., but in the Book of Hebrews we find the Old Testament verses quoted as being directly uttered by either God Himself or by the Holy Spirit! Do you notice any subtle difference in this? Why did neither Jesus nor any other apostles quote something like you find in Hebrews? Some believe that Paul wrote this book, but I do not think so. What is your thinking on this?

I believe that we have only touched the tip of the iceberg of truth and need a lot of spade work to fathom the depth to reach at gold and silver! Therefore, I urge you to be a part of that work. To begin with, why is that a few people are very keen on observing the communion thinking that they are keeping the commandment of Jesus while they do not seem to give a serious thought to the direct commandment of Jesus told in Matthew 19:21? Is it because the former is harmless and convenient to observe whereas the latter is extremely difficult, requiring renunciation of the highest degree? Which is spiritually more edifying? Next, how many who claim that they have been called for the ministry adhere to Luke 14:26 & 27? What about Matthew19: 12? Where do we stand in terms of these commandments and the will of Jesus? Do we acknowledge our limitations in following Jesus or simply settle for a compromise and be complacent?

I understand that Roman Catholics believe quite a few things based on writings, which are considered apocryphal by the Protestants; and at the same time they do not consider the Bible as the final authority. They also do not give that much importance to the Bible as Protestants do! For them, I think, tradition is more important than the books of the Bible.They seem to argue that a few mortal men who were prone to err in their thinking established the canon. So, who is right here?

I understand that whatever we read or hear is basically interpreted by us. One same single line read by many will be understood in different ways that may differ in meaning meant by the person who wrote that line! This may be due to lack of understanding or difficulty in grammar or different interpretation or type of education of the writer and the reader, or the type of preparation in the language used depending on whether it is native or foreign. This becomes much more complicated when we are dealing with translations. Much more complex when we are dealing with translation of writings that is old by centuries! That is why, I believe, we need the help of the Holy Spirit to guide us to the Truth as we read the verses in the Bible (John 14:26; 16:13) Otherwise, it simply becomes our own understanding. No wonder we have so many denominations, cults, sects, besides Catholic and Orthodox groups! A word in a language may mean different to different people in different places, and it may signify different meaning in different periods! Some of the meanings of certain words used during olden times cannot be realized now! We do not know the original pronunciation of Jehovah!

As I had mentioned earlier, I do not attach much importance to my dreams. As a matter of fact, you may the second person with whom I have shared my personal experience in a span of twenty five years of fellowship with Jesus. After Paul appeared, I read all his epistles in my native language once again, thinking that it would help me understand his epistles better. There ends the matter as far as I am concerned. Of course, I realized how important I am – eventhough I consider myself insignificant – in the loving eyes of God who responded to what was going on in my heart! (Matthew 6:26)

I do not think that I can be compared to German scholars! I have not torn any Bibles! Incidentally, I have six English versions along with two versions in my native language. One of the main concerns of me in knowing the truth is that I should not become one like a clergy man who was asked to pray by the President - for what I do not know - before dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki! We have seen priests praying for Serbs before they start horrible ethnic cleansing in Bosnia! If we do not have the truth, we my approve Spanish Inquisition, Jews’ Holocaust, Children used during crusades, burning people, who disagree with us, on the stakes and many such atrocities!

Truth will not be revealed to us that easily; it certainly requires lot of work from our side with our heart and mind prepared without any preconceived notions of many (Matthew 7:13 & 14)! May God bless us as we continue to seek His will and His ways!

In His love
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

Post by m273p15c » Tue Feb 03, 2004 10:44 pm

You mentioned John 14:26; 16:13 as evidence for the Spirit guiding us today. Was that promise specific to all saints, or just the apostles? Please examine the context closely. In addition to containing commandments, which could only be observed by the apostles (John 15:27), John 14-16 also contains numerous immediate, personal references to the apostles (John 14:1-11, 15-18, 19-20, 22, 25-31; 15:3, 15, 26-27; 16:1-7, 12-22, 29-33). Additionally, it contains other promises, which were uniquely fulfilled in the first century (John 14:12-14; 16:23-27).

Even if it is a universal promise, does this passage really offer proof to inspired interpretation? What are the specifics of the promise? Did the Lord promise that the Spirit would reveal, instruct, and remind (John 14:26; 15:26; 16:12-15)? Or, did He promise that the Spirit would help them understand the truth that was right in front of them, already delivered and confirmed? In other words, did Christ promise that the Spirit would reveal truth, or interpret truth already revealed and accessible?

Finally, Jesus did mention us in His reference to those who would follow the apostles. However, He specifically noted these saints as "those who believe in Me through their word" (John 17:20). Why would we need to believe "through their word", if we are going to be given the Holy Spirit just like them?

Beside conflicting with the immediate context of John 14-17, the remainder of Scripture denies the possibility of continued miraculous guidance by the Holy Spirit. It was foretold that the miraculous gifts of the Spirit would come to an end, once revelation of the gospel was completed (I Corinthians 13:8-13; James 1:25; Jude 1:3; Zechariah 13:1-5). Furthermore, if spiritual gifts were bestowed through the laying on of apostles' hands (Acts 8:4-17; Acts 8:14-20; Acts 19:1-6; Romans 1:9-11; II Timothy 1:6), then how would this gift be bestowed today, since all the apostles are long dead?

How did Paul say that the Ephesians could understand the truth (Ephesians 3:3-5)? Why can we not do the same (II Timothy 2:15; 3:16-17)? Why is the four witnesses that Jesus offered, which I discussed earlier, not sufficient?

...

I apologize for the long delay. I have been sick, and we have been very busy with the local work.

You will notice that I did not address your note in its entirety. I believe it would not be beneficial to address all of these issues, if we cannot agree on the basis of determining truth. Once we agree on this point, then I would be glad to discuss all of your other topics.

May God bless us to understand His Will.
Last edited by m273p15c on Fri Jan 05, 2007 1:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
email
Non-Member
Posts: 2994
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: ether
Contact:

Post by email » Wed Feb 11, 2004 3:10 am

I am sorry to hear that you were not well for some time. I hope that you are in pink of health now!

You have raised extremely vital questions with regard to the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the nature of our Living God! I believe that all utterances of Jesus are universal in nature (except a few under obvious situations), and it was His intention that whatever He spoke to His apostles and others are meant to be conveyed on to others. Otherwise, there was no need to write the gospels because what ever Jesus wanted to convey to the apostles was done during His earthly ministry. With the same logic, all epistles of the New Testament and many other books of the Old Testament are not applicable to us because they were written for specific groups and people. If so, Bible simply can become either, at best, a history or, at worst, a mythology! Do we not believe in the Living God? Is not Jesus with His Father? Is not the Holy Spirit guiding us and inspiring us if we allow and pray to Him to do so? Any belief other than this would mean, for me, that Jesus was never resurrected and our God is just a God of the dead! Evangelical work would have come to an end with the passing away of the apostles. Paul’s work becomes unauthorized!

Many sermons and preaching are done with reference to Old Testament books. Is it not the interpretation that is being used there to compare the situation of our times with that of the old? We have numerous versions of the Bible. How do we accept which version is reflecting the truth unless we are guided by the Holy Spirit? For instance, John3: 3 is translated as “…. born again…” in almost all versions; of course, some versions do indicate in the foot note that it could also be translated as “born from above.” To me, the latter has more spiritual significance than the former because it links our attempts to the heaven above, and it implies the requirement of the mercy and blessing of the God for seeing His kingdom! (That is, ‘born again’ would imply mainly our attempt and responsibility to reach that status whereas ‘born from above’ would imply not only our attempt and responsibility but also mercy and blessings from above (heaven)! Probably, Jesus meant this way only!)

If we assume that the truth has been revealed, is accessible and confirmed, and it is in front of us, why then so many sects and groups amongst us? With that kind of an understanding, we are concluding indirectly that the Holy Spirit was not required at all even for the apostles! Why so many denominations? Why so many cults? Who are on the right path: Catholics or Protestants or Orthodox? I think all these divisions are due to different interpretations of the verses in the bible and other writings and due to the age-old traditions.

Just as apostles laid their hands, even now such gestures are adopted in ordaining the ministers and also to indicate the passing on the spiritual authority. Such practices are considered, as a matter of fact, by secular courts (Law courts of the countries) to recognize the succession of the authority eventhough I do not hold any importance to such methods, and at same time I do not think there is any spiritual aspect in this. This is well answered by the question of Jesus with regard to the authority of John the Baptist!

I do not think that the miraculous spiritual gifts of the Holy Spirit are no longer available. As I understand, I do not see any confirmation of this in the verses you have quoted: I Corinthians 13:8-13;James 1:25; Jude 1:3 and Zechariah 13:1-5. On the contrary Jesus promised the presence of the Spirit forever (John 14:16). It would mean that the unchanging attributes of the Spirit would continue always as it was before.

I am still having problem with my system thereby causing undue delays in my replies. May God help us to discern the truth!

Please take care and with regards,

In His love
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

Post by m273p15c » Tue Mar 16, 2004 12:23 am

I apologize for the extremely delayed response. Shortly after I sent you the last note, my son got sick again. Once he was well, I had a lot of work piled up that was related to the local church. I did receive your first e-mail, but I have been so busy that I have not had the time to devote to a worthy response. I hope you have not forgotten the topic of our correspondence. :-)

I believe you misunderstood my original statement of pointing out that much of John 14-17 was addressed to the apostles. You stated that all of Jesus utterances were universal in nature, except a few obvious situations. However, by noting the exceptions, you proved that you cannot accurately interpret Scripture, if you consistently apply your principle. That alone discredits it, but with that being said, I'd like to explore this concept in more detail:

It is true that none of the Bible was written directly to us. Most of it was addressed to people who died almost 2000 years ago. It is truly a mistake to say that none of it applies, because it does not have our name in the address; however, it is an equal mistake to go to the other extreme and say that it all applies. You said there are exceptions, but by what standard do you determine the exceptions? How do you prevent the standard from being one of convenience? I greatly fear binding the subjective standard of man wherever God has revealed His mind.

We must put everything together that God has said on certain subject. This is the reason for examining passages, such as Acts 8; I Corinthians 13; Jude 1; etc.

Additionally, statements must be considered in their context. For example:
Luke wrote:"On that very day some Pharisees came, saying to Him, Get out and depart from here, for Herod wants to kill You.' And He said to them, 'Go, tell that fox, "Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I shall be perfected."'" (Luke 13:31-32)
I'm sure you will immediately note this is an obvious exception, but how did you arrive at that conclusion? Jesus gave the command to find Herod and convey Jesus' detailed message. Is that command applicable to us? It is a direct command, but we understand it was not meant for us. How? It was addressed to wicked, hypocritical Pharisees. Herod is long dead. And, Jesus has long since been perfected. It is impossible to keep, and it was not addressed to people like us. However, there are still many lessons to be learned that could be applied to us, such as: Don't try to scare away teachers of truth. It does not change the truthfulness of the message, even if they stop preaching. Wicked people must be confronted and evidence of the truth should be provided to them, just as to the humble. Whenever I find myself in situations where I'm confronted with wicked people, who seek to intimidate me, I will remember and apply this lesson. If I find myself doing such wicked things, then I pray I will remember the other half of the lesson and repent. Regardless, the direct command is ignored, because it does not apply to me.

Many commands are given in the Bible that are specific to people, like "Go, wash in the pool of Siloam" (John 9:7). However, the command does not apply directly to me. Some promises were also given that do not directly apply to me, like "I will make you a great nation; I will bless you and make your name great; And you shall be a blessing" (Genesis 12:2). As you see, not every promise, even good promises, found in the Bible must apply to me. I must consider the context, including the people addressed. If applying to me the promise of John 14-17 conflicts with other Scripture, then that should be our first clue that it was not intended for me.

Additionally, please consider, if all instructions were given to all alike, then what is the difference between apostles, elders, deacons, evangelists, and saints? If all are to do the same things, given the same responsibilities, commanded the same role, then why are so many positions given that are identical (Ephesians 4:11; I Corinthians 12:28-31)? Maybe not every given instruction applies to everybody?

With that in mind, please reconsider my points from the last correspondence, quoted here:
m273p15c wrote:You mentioned John 14:26; 16:13 as evidence for the Spirit guiding us today. Was that promise specific to all saints, or just the apostles? Please examine the context closely. In addition to containing commandments, which could only be observed by the apostles (John 15:27), John 14-16 also contains numerous immediate, personal references to the apostles (John 14:1-11, 15-18, 19-20, 22, 25-31; 15:3, 15, 26-27; 16:1-7, 12-22, 29-33). Additionally, it contains other promises, which were uniquely fulfilled in the first century (John 14:12-14; 16:23-27).

Even if it is a universal promise, does this passage really offer proof to inspired interpretation? What are the specifics of the promise? Did the Lord promise that the Spirit would reveal, instruct, and remind (John 14:26; 15:26; 16:12-15)? Or, did He promise that the Spirit would help them understand the truth that was right in front of them, already delivered and confirmed? In other words, did Christ promise that the Spirit would reveal truth, or interpret truth already revealed and accessible?

Finally, Jesus did mention us in His reference to those who would follow the apostles. However, He specifically noted these saints as "those who believe in Me through their word" (John 17:20). Why would we need to believe "through their word", if we are going to be given the Holy Spirit just like them?

Beside conflicting with the immediate context of John 14-17, the remainder of Scripture denies the possibility of continued miraculous guidance by the Holy Spirit. It was foretold that the miraculous gifts of the Spirit would come to an end, once revelation of the gospel was completed (I Corinthians 13:8-13; James 1:25; Jude 1:3; Zechariah 13:1-5). Furthermore, if spiritual gifts were bestowed through the laying on of apostles' hands (Acts 8:4-17; Acts 8:14-20; Acts 19:1-6; Romans 1:9-11; II Timothy 1:6), then how would this gift be bestowed today, since all the apostles are long dead?

How did Paul say that the Ephesians could understand the truth (Ephesians 3:3-5)? Why can we not do the same (II Timothy 2:15; 3:16-17)? Why is the four witnesses that Jesus offered, which I discussed earlier, not sufficient?
There are many points here that you did not answer. However, you raised some additional arguments that I'd like to consider now:
email wrote:If we assume that the truth has been revealed, is accessible and confirmed, and it is in front of us, why then so many sects and groups amongst us? With that kind of an understanding, we are concluding indirectly that the Holy Spirit was not required at all even for the apostles! Why so many denominations? Why so many cults?
I'm surprised you mentioned this, because I believe this to be strong evidence against modern day miraculous signs and revelation. If there all these people claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit, but yet, they are in absolute chaos and disagreement, then that proves their message does not originate with God. God does not lie (Titus 1:2), and He's not a God of chaos (I Corinthians 14:33); therefore, He cannot be behind all of these messages. Maybe one of them is telling the truth, so how will we know if someone is speaking by God's direct inspiration?
  • Agree with apostolic revelation - "If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord" (I Corinthians 14:37)
  • Confirm Message with Indisputable Miraculous Signs - "How shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him, God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will?" (Hebrews 2:3-4)
If someone claims to have the same power that was given to the apostles, then they should also be able to work the same miraculous signs of an apostle on demand (II Corinthians 12:12). If they cannot demonstrate that part of the promise, then how can we have any confidence that they received the rest of the promise of direct revelation?
email wrote:With that kind of an understanding, we are concluding indirectly that the Holy Spirit was not required at all even for the apostles!
The apostles and prophets delivered the truth, which we can now read and understand (Ephesians 3:3-5; II Timothy 2:15; 3:16-17). It was by inspiration that they delivered this truth. They could not read, study, and understand what was not yet delivered. I fear these kinds of statements demonstrate you are moving too quickly through my notes. I believe if you had thought this through, you would have either thought better of me, or better of this kind of logic. I pray these notes are seriously considered, as I consider yours with the utmost of sincerity and care. Please take this not as a rebuke, but as a brotherly concern.
email wrote:I do not think that the miraculous spiritual gifts of the Holy Spirit are no longer available. As I understand, I do not see any confirmation of this in the verses you have quoted: I Corinthians 13:8-13;James 1:25; Jude 1:3 and Zechariah 13:1-5. On the contrary Jesus promised the presence of the Spirit forever (John 14:16). It would mean that the unchanging attributes of the Spirit would continue always as it was before.
You are assuming from John 14:16 that the Holy Spirit would not change how He interacted with the saints. Nowhere does Jesus promise that the Spirit would be with us forever AND always do the same things in the same way. Let's look at the referenced passages a little more closely:

In I Corinthians 13:8, Paul specifically says that the miraculous gifts will come to an end:
Paul wrote:"Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away."

These things are meant to come to an end. They were not intended to last forever. When was this end to come?

"For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away." (I Corinthians 13:9-10)
Whenever the "perfect" comes, then these partial things will be done away. What is the perfect? Well, it's not a person, because "which" refers to a thing not a person, so it can't refer to Jesus. Also, the word for "perfect" means "complete, whole, or mature". It's antonym is the word for "part", used in this same passage. "Part" and "perfect", or "whole, mature" are always of the same substance when used together. Whatever the "part" is, the "perfect" is the same type of thing, but completed! Again, what is the part?
Paul wrote:"But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part." (I Corinthians 13:8-9)
These people walked in the light of partial revelation. Whether obtained through prophecies, tongues, or directly inspired knowledge, the revelation received was only in part. It was not yet complete. When was it completed?
James wrote:"But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does." (James 1:25)
James recognizes the "law of the liberty" as "perfect". However, by the writing of James' letter, it was still not completely recorded, although it was a system that was perfect, which only needed to be completely revealed. When did that occur?
Jude wrote:"Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints." (Jude 1:3)
Notice that Jude says the faith, had been "once for all delivered to the saints." By this time, the delivery of the perfect faith to the saints was past tense. The perfect had come! One of the last books of the Bible, Jude was part of the closing door on direct inspiration. Once the word had been completely revealed and confirmed, there was no more need for miracles, any more than there was ongoing need for Christ to be continually crucified and resurrected for all to see.

Paul alludes to their weakness in the closing verses of I Corinthians 13:
Paul wrote:"But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away. When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known." (I Corinthians 13:10-12)
The Bible contains all that we need to know to see ourselves just as God sees us. (Notice that Paul uses the same illustration that James used in James 1:23-25.) Just as the scaffolding for a large building is torn down after the building is completed, and just as a grown man puts away childish toys after he's grown, so did God put away the miraculous signs that were used to support the church in its infancy. With revelation finally delivered and confirmed, miracles only held the people back. The first century church was eventually weaned off of miracles as an infant is weaned off his mother's milk. The Old Testament wanderings of Israel are proof to the outcome of a generation that is always in need of miracles.

Please note that this end of miracles was to occur before the end of time. Paul states:
Paul wrote:"And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love." (I Corinthians 13:13)
These miraculous things were coming to a close, but in contrast "faith, hope, and love" were continuing to abide. These 3 things were to abide past the miracles, the childish things. However, faith and hope will end when Jesus comes, faith becomes sight, and hope becomes reality. If these things were to abide past miracles, and they end when Jesus comes, then they must end before Jesus returns.

Zechariah also prophesied of this:
Zechariah wrote:"It shall come to pass that if anyone still prophesies, then his father and mother who begot him will say to him, 'You shall not live, because you have spoken lies in the name of the LORD.' And his father and mother who begot him shall thrust him through when he prophesies. And it shall be in that day that every prophet will be ashamed of his vision when he prophesies; they will not wear a robe of coarse hair to deceive." (Zechariah 13:3-4)
Please note this was to happen during the "day of the Lord", which included:
Zechariah wrote:"And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn. In that day there shall be a great mourning in Jerusalem, like the mourning at Hadad Rimmon in the plain of Megiddo." (Zechariah 12:10-11)
This prophecy foretold of the Messianic reign, but it also told of the end of prophecy, which would come to pass at its close, along with the destruction of Jerusalem and saving of the saints. This was something that occurred a long time ago!

I hope this explanation of these verses will be helpful.

Additionally, the ability to work miracles was generally conferred through the laying on of apostle's hands (Acts 8:4-17; Acts 8:14-20; Acts 19:1-6; Romans 1:9-11; II Timothy 1:6). Without any apostles left, how could this happen today? If you are thinking of baptism of the Holy Spirit, please examine the article on our web-site entitled, "Which Baptism?". I believes this argument is refuted there.

I realize that I have given you a lot for you to "chew on". I do not expect you to respond immediately. In fact, I would be disappointed if you did. Please take your time pondering these things, closely examining the Scriptures. I believe the long answer to our correspondence is contained herein.

Thanks again for your much appreciated patience in both wading through this text and patiently awaiting its arrival.

May God bless us unto the truth.

Post Reply