Posted on 04/10/2017 6:40:46 PM PDT by fishtank
Evangelical Apologist Hank Hanegraaff Converts to Eastern Orthodoxy
Posted by: Rob Bowman
On Palm Sunday, April 9, 2017, Hank Hanegraaff formally joined the Orthodox Church. Since 1989 Hanegraaff has been the President of the Christian Research Institute (CRI) and (since ca. 1992) the host of CRI’s Bible Answer Man radio program.[1] Hank, his wife Kathy, and two of their twelve children were inducted by a sacramental rite called chrismation into the Orthodox faith at St. Nektarios Greek Orthodox Church in Charlotte, North Carolina, near where CRI is based. In chrismation, a baptized individual is anointed with oil in order to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.[2]
(Excerpt) Read more at religiousresearcher.org ...
Hey, there’s nothing like assembling random verses of Scripture and putting them together in a format that makes it look like they are all one passage and saying something God never said.
No profit, control, or job security in that.
But you are when you post different passages of Scripture together as if they are from one passage and then hide the references in tiny print at the end so that no one can read it without a magnifying glass.
It gives the impression that Scripture is saying something it does not say and that is deceitful.
Those of us well versed in Scripture can see what's happening but those not familiar with it will be led astray into false teaching.
Poor Mary and Joseph. What a terrible marriage that would be to be trapped in.
But then again, I think they enjoyed their marriage very much, if you get the hint.
Yes, I get the hint. The stork had nothing to do with bringing Mary and Joseph's other children. I presume they had kids the same way we do. Do you think that makes me guilty of the sin of presumption again? 😱 Oh, the horrors of it all.
Imagine how well they could have kept in contact with the apostles, if they had high speed Internet. Mary could have face booked Peter with new doctrinal changes so much quicker that way. 😀😆😄
I presume you are pleased with your current assumptions?
Why DON’T you trust the VERY WORDS OF MARY?
|
Color coding explanation:
Added stuff... Changed stuff... Rearranged stuff... Removed stuff...
*(UNDERLINED stuff is the DISTRACTING reference on every tenth word or so that infuses LDS 'scripture' online.)
|
--Mormon_Dude(Hail Joseph!!)
I'll do the presumin around here Bubba Louie. 😃 I am pleased with my assumptions, but not the assumption of Mary. That didn't happen.
Why DON’T you trust the VERY WORDS OF MARY?
You mean like when she told Joseph "roll over, and go back to sleep you 90 year old goat?" You mean THOSE words? 😂 I am using my IPhone 6, to post here on FR, so I don't have my Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, on it, to look up ALL of Mary's words. 😄
But it is presumptuous to read too much into this vignette. But that's what a lot of modern readers do, presuming that the marriage was going to be just some riotous feast, with people already three sheets to the wind.
My belief is that this wedding, the occasion of the first miracle inaugurating His public ministry, is to be taken seriously and studied very closely for its content as related to the prophetic aspects.
Was it to be a type of which the Heavenly Marriage of the Lamb would be the antitype?
Who is utterly convinced that the event was even planned to employ wine at all?
Would Jesus make and offer alcoholic wine either here or at the Remembrance Supper?
There are a lot of issues to consider, but my inclination is not to follow it up on this thread, where it would be way off topic. I am deeply interested in this passage, but not in trying to comprehend the scope by addressing it in bits and pieces.
I've already got further into it than I want, but thanks for offering your observations and conjectures.
Why don't you ponder on this for a while?
********
Php. 3:2-3 AV
"Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision. p
For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit,
and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh." ------
From Vincent's "Word Studies"
Dogs
Revised Version, correctly, the dogs, referring to a well-known party--the Judaizers. These were nominally Christians who accepted Jesus as the Messiah, but as the Savior of Israel only. They insisted that Christ's kingdom could be entered only through the gate of Judaism. Only circumcised converts were fully accepted by God. They appeared quite early in the history of the Church, and are those referred to in Acts 15:1. Paul was the object of their special hatred and abuse. They challenged his birth, his authority, and his motives. "'Paul must be destroyed,' was as truly their watchword as the cry for the destruction of Carthage had been of old to the Roman senator" (Stanley, "Sermons and Lectures on the Apostolic Age"). These are referred to in Php. 1:16; and the whole passage in the present chapter, from Php. 3:3 to Php. 3:11, is worthy of study, being full of incidental hints lurking in single words, and not always apparent in our versions; hints which, while they illustrate the main point of the discussion, are also aimed at the assertions of the Judaizers. Dogs was a term of reproach among both Greeks and Jews. Homer uses it of both women and men, implying shamelessness in the one, and recklessness in the other. Thus Helen: "Brother-in-law of me, a mischief devising dog" ("Iliad," vi., 344). Teucer of Hector: "I cannot hit this raging dog" ("Iliad," viii., 298). Dr. Thomson says of the dogs in oriental towns: “They lie about the streets in such numbers as to render it difficult and often dangerous to pick one's way over and amongst them -- a lean, hungry, and sinister brood. They have no owners, but upon some principle known only to themselves, they combine into gangs, each of which assumes jurisdiction over a particular street; and they attack with the utmost ferocity all canine intruders into their territory. In those contests, and especially during the night, they keep up an incessant barking and howling, such as is rarely heard in any European city. The imprecations of David upon his enemies derive their significance, therefore, from this reference to one of the most odious of oriental annoyances” (“Land and Book,” Central palestine and Phoenicia, 593). See Ps. 59:6; Ps. 22:16. Being unclean animals, dogs were used to denote what was unholy or profane. So Mt. 7:6; Rev. 22:15. The Israelites are forbidden in Deuteronomy to bring the price of a dog into the house of God for any vow: Deu. 23:18. The Gentiles of the Christian era were denominated "dogs" by the Jews, see Mat. 15:26. Paul here retorts upon them their own epithet.
Evil workers
Compare deceitful workers, 2Cor. 11:13.
Concision (κατατομήν)
Only here in the New Testament. The kindred verb occurs in the Septuagint only, of mutilations forbidden by the Mosaic law. See Lev. 1:5. The noun here is a play upon περιτομή circumcision. It means mutilation. Paul bitterly characterizes those who were not of the true circumcision (Rom. 2:28, Rom. 2:29; Col. 2:11; Eph. 2:11) as merely mutilated. Compare Gal. 5:12, where he uses ἀποκόπτειν to cut off, of those who would impose circumcision upon the Christian converts: “I would they would cut themselves off who trouble you;” that is, not merely circumcise, but mutilate themselves like the priests of Cybele.
=======
Simon Peter himself found it quite difficult to let go of Jewish practices in favoring some of the Hebrew visitors to Antioch of Syria, where he had installed himself, and from history, apparently hard to dislodge. When he came, Paul found him pulling back from the true gospel of separating from Jewishnes neither required nor desired, and called Peter out for it.
You might find Peter stressing priesthood in the church, whereas Paul's only interest was in the Eternal High Priest, the Messia and Lord Jesus, to whom one could go directly through the Spirit.
It is my suspicion that the difference between the Pauline doctrine and that presumed originating from Peter is that which still exists today between your approach to understanding God's Will and mine.
Are you correcting me in what I said? When I said Hellenized Jews, that's what I meant. Oner example is Saul of Tarsus, born to a Jewish family in a Greek-speking Roman colony. According to some people, Paul quoted the Septuagint in his teachings. Paul was a Hellenized Jew. And I do know what Hellas means, and who a Hellen (Hellayn) is. Are you aware that the three magoi came from Anatolia, not Babylon?
.
No, Paul was not a “helenized Jew.”
Helenized Jews (if any really existed after the Macabee revolt - doubtful) didn’t spend the first 20 years of their lives apprenticed to Gamaliel.
These foolish statements shame this forum.
.
You just have to decode it. I used to have one of those secret rings from the Rice Krispies box.
.
Nicolaitanism rules almost the entire Christian faith today.
Scant few churches are free of nicolaitanism.
Eusebius was himself a super-nicolaitan.
.
.
>> “I suspect that Mary wasn’t even hinting at a miracle.” <<
Yeshua has been exceptionally precocious all of his life, and simple miracles abounded.
But this was a special miracle, in that is ser the pattern for all of his subsequent miracles:
It demolished the Pharisees’ false law (takanot) of “The Washing of the Hands.”
Yeshua made the wine in the Pharisees’ ceremonial hand washing pots.
Each miracle thereafter demolished one of the Pharisees’ takanot.
.
Paul was a Roman citizen whose home culture was people who spoke the common business and social language of the day: Koine Greek. Paul was a Hellenized Jew, and quoted the Septuagint or something like it into the Bible.
Please do not correct me. You don't have enough learning to do it. Nor enough Biblical theology or Biblical expertise, either. So, please don't bother me anymore, or take up my time. I'm old enough to know that every week I have going forward is precious, and unless you are serious about becoming a disciple of the Christ of the Bible, you have no more claim on my time.
Tempus fugit, buddy, and your freeloading on it is done.
.
You need constant correction.
Paul was taken from Tarsus as a toddler, by his mother, a devout, non-Helenic Jew, and placed with Gamaliel.
Paul never quoted the LXX, he learned to read from Hebrew scrolls under Gamaliel.
The LXX pollution came when his epistles were translated into Greek by others, years after he wrote them.
.
No mention of it any where in Scripture.
What are your sources for those claims?
A lot?
What percentage?
Could we not say, "some", "few", "most", or any other vague numerical descriptor here?
For that matter; why say "modern"?
Looking between the lines to try to find some obscure theological 'truth' that's been somehow missed is how various cults run off the tracks (a 'vague' reference to the 'Narrow Way').
What wrong with 'assuming' that is it what it is: a normal, typical, Jewish wedding.
Matthew 24:37-39
37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Mark 7:26-27
26. The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter.
27. "First let the children eat all they want," he told her, "for it is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.