New Testament Church Proliferation Digest


Spreading the Gospel via House Churches



NT Church Proliferation Digest Wednesday, August 14 2002 Volume 02 : Number 140
Re: [NTCP] What are apostles?
Re: [NTCP] What are apostles?
RE: [NTCP] What are apostles?
[NTCP] RE:trins and unis
Re: [NTCP] What are apostles?
Re: [NTCP] What are apostles?
Re: [NTCP] What are apostles?
Re: [NTCP] Getting aquuainted
Re: [NTCP] Getting aquainted
[NTCP] Reply to Dr.D.L.Koti and Vannessa. Unis and Trinis

Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 08:40:00 +0200
From: "Deborah" <deborah.millier * juccampus>
Subject: Re: [NTCP] What are apostles?

Link H. wrote:

> The Twelve probably got their title 'apostles'
> the day Jesus sent them out on a journey to
> teach in towns and villages.

Perhaps it might be helpful in this discussion to recall that when the
12 (and others) received the title "Apostles" it was likely not spoken to
them or about them in the Greek language. But rather Hebrew, ... or
possibly Aramaic. They were after all in Israel. We have received inspired
Greek translations/interpretations of their appolations. If this be the
case then we have some parallels in then-contemporary Jewish literature of
those called SHLIKHIM (Heb. "sent out ones") who were sent in the name of a
rabbi, government official, organization, etc. and who acted as the
spokespersons for their related parties. They had freedom to be
creative/innovative if need be, in the spirit of their sender(s), and often
spoke in the 1st person (of the sender!!!) when relaying a message or
answering questions. To insult a SHLIAKH (singular of the above) was a
direct affront to his/her sender as much as a good deed done to him/her
because of his/her affiliation with the sender was taken personally by the
latter-- an idea reminescent of something I once read (Mat. 10:40-42).

MICHAEL
Jerusalem


------- <><><> -------


Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 08:40:55 +0200
From: "Deborah" <deborah.millier * juccampus>
Subject: Re: [NTCP] What are apostles?

If I sound a little behind in the discussion, it's because I am. Just
returned from a month and a half on the road. Despite the tensions here,
it's good to be sitting in my Jerusalem apartment typing "atcha".

John White wrote:

> On the other hand, consider James. While
> the evidence is not conclusive, an argument
> can be made that he was an apostle (1 Cor.
> 9:5). As far as we know, he never left Jerusalem.
> It is hard to imagine that he didn't plant and
> "father" churches in that city. He was likely
> a "sent one". He just wasn't sent very far.

Before reading your informed and relevant comments, I came across this
verse in my regular devotion time. It jumped out at me. Now maybe I know
why. Please note what I highlight:

"Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained
with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the OTHER apostles except James,
the Lord's brother" (Gal. 1:8, 9, emphasis mine).

The jury is in. James (does everyone know his name was really Jacob?
That's what it says in the Greek [IAKOBOS] and in non-english versions. It
would seem a certain king just wanted his name in the Bible!), the Lord's
brother, was indeed an apostle. On par with Peter et al. The evidence is
conclusive. The rest of your comments about Jacob (aka James) aptly apply,
John.

> And, we haven't even started talking about
> women apostles! (My understanding is that
> 70-80% of the church planters in China are
> women.)

I shared with you (John) some of my findings in Rom. 16, but I'll lay
this before the group just as a teaser. In verse 7 of the same chapter
we're introduced to a Jewish couple-- probably a man and wife like Priscilla
and Aquila. They were relatives (Gk. SOUNGENAIS) of Paul, or at the least
from the same people group (see 16:11 and also Rom. 9:3 for the same word,
though inflected slightly differently). Andronicus is certainly a Greek
male name and Junia is probably a female name, since the male name of that r
oot is known from various sources to be "Junius". Either way, these workers
were either known to the Apostles or known *as* apostles. The Greek can be
interpreted either way, ... and that makes it rather fun to consider the
possibilities, doesn't it?

MICHAEL
Jerusalem


------- <><><> -------


Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 07:06:18 -0400
From: "Richard Wright" <wright47 * sc.rr>
Subject: RE: [NTCP] What are apostles?

MICHAEL,

That element, fun, is so often missing when Christians discuss the
scriptures together. Taking a word or phrase and pursuing its various
"possibilities" is what leads to discovery.

Dick
Phil.3:12-14


------- <><><> -------


Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 09:07:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: Vanessa DiDomenico <van3hijos * yahoo>
Subject: [NTCP] RE:trins and unis

- --- Keith Smith <castillofuerte * airtel> wrote:
> It depends who your asking Vanesa.
>
> If your asking me,I take a fairly standard Trinitarian line that Jesus
> is God. God is one and indivisible.

OK, first thing I note here is that I had the terms turned around: I
thought Trinitarians divide God into 3, while Unitarians believe in Jesus,
God, and Hole Spirit as one. I see from your explanation this is not how
it is.

What would you call Jehova's Witnesses, who believe that Jesus is a
created 'angel', Michael, I think?

I still can't stop thinking of a proton or neutron: made up of 3 quarks
(which rarely exist on their own) but are ONE particle. One might say that
Jesus on earth was a quark separated from its particle for a second (in
God's time scale), which happens sometimes in physics, too. There are also
quarks that exist alone, such as photons, all created perhaps when God
said 'let there be light'. And all others are variations of this one. So,
in fact, we see all different things while they are all the same. In fact,
even elements, seeming to be different, are all the same thing: a bunch of
protons in the middle, and electrons flying around them. We may see things
as different, but that is because our vision is very limited.

Maybe someday God will let us know all this, in heaven. Meanwhile,
sometimes it is better to say, I don't know than to argue and separate
over these matters.

Love in Christ to all,
Vanessa from Venezuela


------- <><><> -------


Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 14:53:11 EDT
From: JAMESRUTZ * cs
Subject: Re: [NTCP] What are apostles?

Michael,

Good to have you back on board! I was afraid you'd been knocked out of
commission by some terrorist group or something.

Yes, Junia was a lady apostle. The name as given in the text is
sexually ambivalent, but the early fathers all understood her to be a woman.
In fact, I read somewhere that it was the 13th century before anyone even
thought to call her a man!

Best,

Jim Rutz
Colorado Springs


------- <><><> -------


Date: 13 Aug 2002 17:15:43 -0400
From: Mike Sangrey <msangrey * BlueFeltHat>
Subject: Re: [NTCP] What are apostles?

I've been wanting to respond on this thread. I've skimmed some messages
so I might have missed something. I'm sorry if I repeat something.

On Tue, 2002-08-13 at 02:40, Deborah wrote:
> Link H. wrote:
>
> > The Twelve probably got their title 'apostles'
> > the day Jesus sent them out on a journey to
> > teach in towns and villages.
>
> Perhaps it might be helpful in this discussion to recall that when the
> 12 (and others) received the title "Apostles" it was likely not spoken to
> them or about them in the Greek language. But rather Hebrew, ... or
> possibly Aramaic. They were after all in Israel. We have received inspired
> Greek translations/interpretations of their appolations. If this be the
> case then we have some parallels in then-contemporary Jewish literature of
> those called SHLIKHIM (Heb. "sent out ones") who were sent in the name of a
> rabbi, government official, organization, etc. and who acted as the
> spokespersons for their related parties. They had freedom to be
> creative/innovative if need be, in the spirit of their sender(s), and often
> spoke in the 1st person (of the sender!!!) when relaying a message or
> answering questions. To insult a SHLIAKH (singular of the above) was a
> direct affront to his/her sender as much as a good deed done to him/her
> because of his/her affiliation with the sender was taken personally by the
> latter-- an idea reminescent of something I once read (Mat. 10:40-42).

This was the point I wanted to make about the Greek word APOSTOLOS and
the related verb. I also want to point out that APOSTOLOS--from the
Greek perspective, not Hebrew--was a rather normal word that referred to
the person who was sent with a task. PEMPW, a semantically related verb,
is used in the NT somewhat interchangeably with APOSTOLLEW. The point
is that these `send' words were somewhat common vocabulary. Kinda like
our word...ummmm...send. So we don't want to make it into something
more than it is.

Now, however, I think a careful study of the usage in the NT brings out
the idea that in several cases APOSTOLOS referred to someone "who was as
the man himself." In other words, it's just as you say above--the
person represented someone else while that person was performing the
task given to them by that someone else. In the U.S. we have this thing
called "power of attorney." That is very similar to what you describe
above.

So, how does this play out: this Hebrew background and the rather
common Greek word which appears to translate the Hebrew word? You have
a group of people apostled (if you will) by Jesus. They were given a
specific task and represented him. They were given the authority of
Jesus AS IT RELATED SPECIFICALLY to the task they were given. Thus you
have the incident of Peter and Ananias and Sapphira. You also have Paul
in 2 Cor. 13:2-4 which appears all the world to me to be Paul saying,
"You don't want me to come over there!" You also have incidents of
miracles in Acts which showed they had the authority of Jesus (again, AS
IT RELATED to their specific task). In these cases you have specific
people wielding the authority to Jesus to get the task of Jesus done.

But, I note you also have churches apostling people. Is that Jesus
sending? No, it's a specific body of believers. What authority do they
have? Well, they have authority to carry out the task
Jesus...ummm...sent churches to do. And we can talk about what that
task was, but, in a nutshell, it appears to me to have to do with
evangelizing and reproducing other churches. The point I'm making is I
think we should, and the use of the words in the NT encourage to, keep
the authority of the 12 distinct from the authority of others who were
also sent with the authority of the sender and a task.

BTW, you also have others sending people to do certain things. The
Jewish leaders sent (APOSTELLW) people to Jesus to ask him certain
questions. Were they Apostles? No, not really, that's just a use of
the word. The explanations of "What is an apostle" needs to take all
these usages into account.

So, when you talk about an apostle, you must ALSO answer two other
questions: Who is doing the sending? And, what is the task they are
responsible to get done? Is it plant a church, or get a loaf of bread
for Mom? The word APOSTOLOS can be used in THAT span of contexts. In
other words, we can talk about the activity of an apostle today. Or,
more specifically: the three aspects of apostleship:
1. The fact that the person is sent
2. The sent one having the authority of the sender
3. The task, that is, the responsibility, the sent one has been
given.

I think it would be helpful for the sender and sendee <smile> to have a
significant discussion which defines both the authority and
responsibility, but also clearly relates the two. That establishes an
accountability relationship, too. And that's a good thing.

BTW, talking about who the sender is and that the person being sent has
the authority of the sender forces to the surface the whole question of
whether that authority rests in the elders or in the church. I
personally think it rests in the body of people. And that establishes
the task, authority, and accountability relationships. There's a bunch
of related issues here which, given the way people view the church
today, complicates how this works. But, that's where I'm at right now.

Lastly, the "signs of apostles" has been mentioned (cf 12:12). I'd like
to observe a couple of things.

One, the list types of signs in 12:12: SHMEIOIS TE KAI TERASIN KAI
DUNAMESIN can't refer to "little stuff" (note the quotes). TERASIN, for
example, generally refers to things like turning the moon blue. It
usually refers to a sign in the sky used to predict impending events (cf
Acts 2:19). Things which when done bring the response that this person
is a god. In other words, I think we need to be careful claiming to be
an apostle of Jesus because we've healed someone or simply predicted the
future. These gifts (healing and prediction) were active in the NT
times and they didn't necessarily mean the person was an apostle of
Jesus. I'm not minimizing the benefit or the reality of these signs
today. Nor am I even seeking to minimize the benefit of a person who
can minster more freely given their gifts. Praise the Lord! What I'm
saying is since my understanding (if it's true) of "apostle of Jesus
Christ" means the person has the authority of Jesus to do the task
they've been given, we need to get a clear definition of who actually
did the sending and what the task is. I doubt anyone here is going to
claim to have had a face-to-face encounter with Jesus. If they can,
then they can prove it. And that is NOT to minimize the benefit of a
group of believers sending someone to do a very important and difficult
task.

Secondly, the context of 2 Cor. 12:12 struck me as quite instructive.
In fact, it was so startling to me that I wondered if Paul was being
ironic in 12:12. Read chapters 10 through 12:11--the whole chunk, in
one sitting. Note how he starts the section. Might THIS attitude be
the REAL sign of a person sent by God? Read 11:22 up to the middle of
vs 23 where it says, "Are they servants of Christ...I am more." Then
pause and reflect on Paul's "bragging." He sounds like he's pretty
tough stuff. And then continue reading. Not exactly what one would
brag about, huh? Beaten, prisoned, famished, disliked, naked, and all
of that while being overwhelmed by the needs of the bride of his Lord.
He even goes so far as to say, in a somewhat hidden way, "I've been to
the third heaven, but I've been given this mark (this sign!!!) that
marks me as a man who would quickly become conceited if it weren't for
this goad. That's the type of conceited fool I am deep down inside!!!"

Now THAT'S an apostle! I've heard, and said it myself, the term
`broken' used to describe a mature Christian. I've wondered if
`dismantled' wouldn't be better. One who Jesus has taken apart so the
pieces are scattered all over the floor and then He puts them back
together again. He (or she) won't be one of the 12; but if someone like
that comes with a message from Jesus, I'll listen. Well...Lord help
me...I'll listen.

Mike Sangrey
msangrey * BlueFeltHat
Landisburg, Pa.
"The first one last wins."
"A net of highly cohesive details reveals the truth."


------- <><><> -------


Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 23:55:00 -0400
From: "Linkh * bigfoot" <Linkh * worldnet.att>
Subject: Re: [NTCP] What are apostles?

Michael Millier wrote in regard to Romans 16:7,

Andronicus is certainly a Greek
> male name and Junia is probably a female name, since the male name of that
r
> oot is known from various sources to be "Junius". Either way, these
workers
> were either known to the Apostles or known *as* apostles. The Greek can
be
> interpreted either way, ... and that makes it rather fun to consider the
> possibilities, doesn't it?

Romans 16:7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my
fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ
before me.

I asked a retired Greek professor ('Bearded Bill' of Asheville) about this
via email. He seemed to think it was ambigous in Greek. It certainly is in
English.

Were Andronichus and Junia non-apostles whom the apostles considered
noteworthy? Or were they notable apostles among the apostles?
James Rutz wrote,

> Yes, Junia was a lady apostle. The name as given in the text is
> sexually ambivalent, but the early fathers all understood her to be a
woman.
> In fact, I read somewhere that it was the 13th century before anyone even
> thought to call her a man!

I would ask you to cite your source, but then I would have to cite mine for
what I am about to say, but I can't. :)

I read something in an Internet discussion that said that in the 3rd or 4rth
century, someone translated "Junia" into a Latin manuscript using a
masculine form, but that the Greek for 'Junia' was a feminine word, which
would be used to refer to a woman.

Link Hudson


------- <><><> -------


Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 00:11:17 -0400
From: "Linkh * bigfoot" <Linkh * worldnet.att>
Subject: Re: [NTCP] Getting aquuainted

To all,

On Trinitarianism v. Unitarianism-- I have always heard 'Unitarian' used to
refer to those who believe in one god, but who deny that Christ is divine.
In the US, there is a Unitarian Universalist church made up of people who do
not believe in the divinity of Christ. If I'm not mistaken, they deny that
Christ is the Son of God. I still can't figure out why these people even
bother to go to church.

A minority of Pentecostals are Oneness Pentecostals, who believe that Jesus
is the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Most Pentecostals claim to be
Trinitarians.

Modalism is the belief that there is one God who manifests Himself as the
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Arianism was the name for the belief that Christ is the Son of God, but is
not divine-- or something along those lines. Arianism was a big contraversy
in the early centuries of Christianity.

Daniel Koti wrote,
> For a rational explanation we quote
> God as Water with three Physical forms like water,steam and Ice but the
same
> component
> Also one person like myself ..I am husband to my wife,father to my child
and
> son to my parents ...three distinct forms of existance but same person..
> Do they sound weak in the logic of understanding trinity ?
> Please comment

What you describe seems to be Modalism, not Trinitarianism. Trinitarians
believe in three Persons. Modalists believe in one Person with three
titles.

I had a late-night discussion one night with Michael Millier in which he
gave an interesting explanation of the Trinity. He explained the concept of
'Logos' to the Greek mind, expounded on the Jewish concept of 'logos' in the
writings of Philo, a first century Jew. He tied this in with John's usage
in John 1:1, which starts the same as Genesis 1:1.

Genesis mentions the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. In the beginning
GOD...and the SPIRIT... and God SAID, Let there be light. (Said---> Word.
Compare with John 1's discussion of the life being the light of men.)

Anyway, Michael can explain this a lot better than I can. Maybe we could
talk him into sharing his explanation. Michael, do you have anything
already on file you could post?

Link Hudson


------- <><><> -------


Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 00:38:10 -0400
From: jferris <jferris154 * mac>
Subject: Re: [NTCP] Getting aquainted

Linkh * bigfoot wrote:

>To all,
>
>On Trinitarianism v. Unitarianism-- I have always heard 'Unitarian' used to
>refer to those who believe in one god, but who deny that Christ is divine.
>In the US, there is a Unitarian Universalist church made up of people who do
>not believe in the divinity of Christ. If I'm not mistaken, they deny that
>Christ is the Son of God. I still can't figure out why these people even
>bother to go to church.
>
Dear Link,

A few years ago now, I came to the conclusion that "Unitarians" are
athiests that just can't break the church habit.

>A minority of Pentecostals are Oneness Pentecostals, who believe that Jesus
>is the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Most Pentecostals claim to be
>Trinitarians.
>
>Modalism is the belief that there is one God who manifests Himself as the
>Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
>
>Arianism was the name for the belief that Christ is the Son of God, but is
>not divine-- or something along those lines. Arianism was a big contraversy
>in the early centuries of Christianity.
>
>Daniel Koti wrote,
>
>>For a rational explanation we quote
>>God as Water with three Physical forms like water,steam and Ice but the
>>
>same
>
>>component
>>Also one person like myself ..I am husband to my wife,father to my child
>>
>and
>
>>son to my parents ...three distinct forms of existance but same person..
>>Do they sound weak in the logic of understanding trinity ?
>>Please comment
>>
>
>What you describe seems to be Modalism, not Trinitarianism. Trinitarians
>believe in three Persons. Modalists believe in one Person with three
>titles.
>
>I had a late-night discussion one night with Michael Millier in which he
>gave an interesting explanation of the Trinity. He explained the concept of
>'Logos' to the Greek mind, expounded on the Jewish concept of 'logos' in the
>writings of Philo, a first century Jew. He tied this in with John's usage
>in John 1:1, which starts the same as Genesis 1:1.
>
>Genesis mentions the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. In the beginning
>GOD...and the SPIRIT... and God SAID, Let there be light. (Said---> Word.
>Compare with John 1's discussion of the life being the light of men.)
>
Like I said, it's difficult to get into this subject without becoming
borderline heretical.

Yours in Christ,

Jay


------- <><><> -------


Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 07:51:34 +0200
From: "Keith Smith" <castillofuerte * airtel>
Subject: [NTCP] Reply to Dr.D.L.Koti and Vannessa. Unis and Trinis

Hi Guys,
I can't remember who it was on the list, who said something about not being
able to explain the trinity without committing a heresy or five, but I enter
this area trembling. Which of us can dare to try to explain the mystery of
our God. He is unknowable, and yet each of us has the possibility to
intimately know Him. I have studied and written on theology for over 25
years and yet have to declare that often in our relationship I am no more
than a stumbling child. We try to use our simple human logic to explain our
wonderful (He causes wonder), awesome (we stand in awe of Him), knowable,
unknowable God, and wonder why there are so many different opinions about
Him. Any thing that I say in this letter is not definitive, it is my opinion
at this time, and may change as understand more of Him whom I love.

The most authoritive statement on the trinity, I believe is found in the
creed of Athanasius (293-373 A.D.), who taught against the Unitarian
heresies that arose in the early church. It goes as follows:-
The Creed
(1) Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold
the catholic faith; (2) Which faith except every one do keep whole and
undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
(3) And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and
Trinity in Unity; (4) Neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the
substance. (5) For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son,
and another of the Holy Spirit. (6) But the Godhead of the Father, of the
Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty
co-eternal. (7) Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy
Spirit. (8) The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Spirit
uncreate. (9) The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, the
Holy Spirit incomprehensible. (10) The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and
the Holy Spirit eternal. (11) And yet they are not three eternals, but one
uncreated and one incomprehensible. (13) So likewise the Father is almighty,
the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty; (14) And yet they are not
three almighties, but one almighty. (15) So the Father is God, the Son is
God, and the Holy Spirit is God; (16) And yet they are not three Gods, but
one God. (17) So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy
Spirit Lord; (20) So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say: There
are three Gods or three Lords. (21) The Father is made of none, neither
created nor begotten. (23) The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son;
neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. (24) So there is
one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not
three Holy Spirits. (25) And in this Trinity none is afore, or after
another; none is greater, or less than another. (26) But the whole three
persons are co-eternal, and co-equal. (27) So that in all things, as
aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be
worshipped. (28) He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the
Trinity.

(29) Furthermore is it necessary to everlasting salvation than he also
believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. (30) For the right
faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of
God, is God and man. (31) God of the substance of the Father, begotten
before the worlds; and man of the substance of His mother, born in the
world. (32) Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human
flesh subsisting. (33) Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and
inferior to the Father as touching His manhood. (34) Who, although He is God
and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ. (35) One, not by conversion of
the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the manhood into God. (36) One
altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. (37) For
as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
(38) Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the
third day from the dead; (39) He ascended into heaven, He sitteth on the
right hand of the Father, God Almighty; (40) From thence He shall come to
judge the living and the dead. (41) At whose coming all men shall rise again
with their bodies; (42) And shall give account of their own works. (43) And
they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have
done evil into everlasting fire.
(44) This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he
cannot be saved.

Well. What can I say after that?

Dr Koti asked:
Do the Unitarians believe God is one but Jesus is the disguise of God as
human being or Jesus as a distinct personality within the Godhead?. Could
you
clarify on this.
Well, my understanding, having talked to many Unitarians, is that they would
NOT see Jesus as having a distinct personality within the Godhead.
Dr Koti said
For a rational explanation we quote
God as Water with three Physical forms like water, steam and Ice but the
same
component
I have a slight problem with this illustration as it doesn't really allow
for the coexistence of the three forms at the same time. But as far as it
goes it is useful
Dr.Koti said
Also one person like myself ..I am husband to my wife, father to my child
and
son to my parents ...three distinct forms of existence but same person..
Do they sound weak in the logic of understanding trinity ?
This for me is a bit clearer as it is relational, But no human illustration
is 100%, But I like the above.
Vanessa wrote
OK, first thing I note here is that I had the terms turned around: I
thought Trinitarians divide God into 3, while Unitarians believe in Jesus,
God, and Hole Spirit as one. I see from your explanation this is not how
it is.

One of the most difficult ideas to understand is that something can be 3 and
yet indivisibly one at the same time. This is how this three God's lie
started. And lie it is. The church has never taught three Gods, but one.
However, when Christians get hold of a "truth" they like to use it to attack
other Christians. So the early Unitarians beat the church over the head with
the 3 God's lie.

Vanessa Wrote
What would you call Jehovah's Witnesses, who believe that Jesus is a
created 'angel', Michael, I think?

A misguided Unitarian cult, founded and continued by false prophets living
in downtown Brooklyn.

Vanessa Wrote
I still can't stop thinking of a proton or neutron: made up of 3 quarks
(which rarely exist on their own) but are ONE particle. One might say that
Jesus on earth was a quark separated from its particle for a second (in
God's time scale), which happens sometimes in physics, too. There are also
quarks that exist alone, such as photons, all created perhaps when God
said 'let there be light'. And all others are variations of this one. So,
in fact, we see all different things while they are all the same. In fact,
even elements, seeming to be different, are all the same thing: a bunch of
protons in the middle, and electrons flying around them. We may see things
as different, but that is because our vision is very limited.

We have to be careful with the above illustration, but I believe it to be
most helpful. I am not a physicist, but my understanding is that all sub
atomic particles are made from quarks, infinitesimally small particles of
pure light, that have an existence of milliseconds and thus need to be
constantly renewed. To be this then speaks of the immanence of God, that he
is forever coming. That He is light and in Him there is no darkness at all.
Any illustration is limited, but this one begins to fill my mind.

Vanessa wrote
Maybe someday God will let us know all this, in heaven. Meanwhile,
sometimes it is better to say, I don't know than to argue and separate
over these matters.

Amen Sis, Amen.

Love and blessings to you all,
Especially the saints in India and Venezuela
Keith in Spain.


End of New Testament Church Planting Digest V2 #140

< Previous Digest Next Digest >


house church eldership servanthood lord's day lord's supper world missions