Winterfire 2010

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Ananias called Saul "Brother Saul" before Saul was baptized or received the Holy Ghost. Was he lying?

Acts 9:17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.
Acts 9:18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.

I believe that Ananias spoke to Saul, in that fashion, in order to show him that he had heard from God and that Saul was being, shortly, accepted in the NT church. A calming of fear for Saul's part, so to speak. Ananias did tell Saul that the Lord appeared to him and the instructions given. He wasn't calling him brother because he accepted him as a Pharisee.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Ananias called Saul "Brother Saul" before Saul was baptized or received the Holy Ghost. Was he lying?

Acts 9:17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.
Acts 9:18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.

They were both Jews according to the flesh which made them brothers (sons of Abraham).

Rom 9:3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:

[TroubleMaker]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Every person's experience should start with a pursuit of God--not a pursuit of religion. And if and when they do go to church, that pursuit should be encouraged and enhanced by what is taught and practiced there--not laid down in exchange for the church teachings.



I've answered your questions as clearly as I know how, and there aren't any more answers to be had.

I consider anyone who has devoted their life to following the teachings of Christ to be a devout Christian. The truths found in God's Word are the most important ones anyone will ever discover. I don't see how those two statements are contradictory. Sorry to disappoint!

So let's look at this from another direction and I'll just ask a direct yes/no question: Are the "One-God, Jesus' name baptism, tongues, three-step for salvation" doctrines meaningful to you?

And I didn't say anything about "pursuing religion". I've never been interested in religion. I'm talking about pursuing God through the channel of the local church. I'm talking about "Bob", who's life is in chaos, who decides to attend church, the next day. What makes your church the better place, doctrinally?

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Brother David

One conundrum that was faced over the centuries was that the word "person" (persona) has evolved over time. When the word was coined into Latin by Tertullian he was using an old Etruscan word for the theater mask.

"Per" means "to go forth from" and "Sona" is still our root word for "sound" and "sonic." It referred to the "voice" of the actor that was being transmitted through the mask's aperture. The mask was where the "sound" (sona) went forth from (per). One actor often assumed all of the roles in an ancient play, they switched masks (or persona) to indicate the change in role.

So, by the time this word was "written in stone" as the "required" understanding for the nature of God - it had already begun to mutate as human languages continually evolved. It took on the meaning of an individual's "face."

At one time a "Oneness" believer could have embraced the concept of "Persons" easily. In time, as the language changed however it took on an increasingly tri-theistic connotation.

But, the Trinitarian (perhaps now a conceptual tri-theist in all but name) could say that "This is what the church has always said...!" and still be technically correct, at least in Latin.

I have a question about Tertullian. Since you and Prax both are so Adament that he meant mask by person, what did he mean when he used the word Being?

EDIT: Here is the quote I was referring to

Now, from this one passage of the epistle of the inspired apostle, we have been already able to show that the Father and the Son are two separate Persons, not only by the mention of their separate names as Father and the Son, but also by the fact that He who delivered up the kingdom, and He to whom it is delivered up—and in like manner, He who subjected (all things), and He to whom they were subjected—must necessarily be two different Beings.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.ix.iv.html

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

They were both Jews according to the flesh which made them brothers (sons of Abraham).

Rom 9:3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:

Good point. I always considered him calling Saul brother for more than the kinsmen relation. Mainly because the NT refers to us in that way - "if you see your brother have need", "that no man go and defraud his brother...", etc.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I believe that Ananias spoke to Saul, in that fashion, in order to show him that he had heard from God and that Saul was being, shortly, accepted in the NT church. A calming of fear for Saul's part, so to speak. Ananias did tell Saul that the Lord appeared to him and the instructions given. He wasn't calling him brother because he accepted him as a Pharisee.

I understand, but Will implied that calling a person "brother" who wasn't necessarily of the same faith was lying. And to be fair about the passage, we don't actually know what Ananias' motives were--we only know what he did.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Good point. I always considered him calling Saul brother for more than the kinsmen relation. Mainly because the NT refers to us in that way - "if you see your brother have need", "that no man go and defraud his brother...", etc.

Which begs the question: Why are we so exclusive with the title then?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I understand, but Will implied that calling a person "brother" who wasn't necessarily of the same faith was lying. And to be fair about the passage, we don't actually know what Ananias' motives were--we only know what he did.

Well, there is only one Lord, one faith and one baptism. Are we afraid to admit that? I wouldn't consider it lying, but God seems to be very - all the way from the Garden of Eden - very precise on his plans and timing. So, is everyone our brother? I don't think, in all honestly, I could say that I think they are.

Well, the scripture does bear out that Ananias received advanced direction from God - that Saul would see and be filled with His Spirit. That makes Saul his brother - by faith - before it happened.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Which begs the question: Why are we so exclusive with the title then?

Remember when you made this post? I've been thinking about it a lot. This was from the LS hair thread.

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

P.S. One of the things that was discussed and questioned on the FCF was whether or not the passage was even applicable to the modern church world. I can credit Bro. Epley with helping me settle that issue with this one scripture:

I Corinthians 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

I noticed that when people don't view I Cor 11 in the way that you explained it, they normally walk away from the necessity of the Holy Ghost for salvation, only for power. Which doesn't really make sense, IMO, but that is what I see. And believing that speaking in tongues is not the ONLY evidence that you received His Spirit.

I see God saying:

"It is expedient for you that I go away: if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you." John 16:7

"...tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high. (Luke 24:49)

"...having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he that shed forth this, which ye now see and hear." (Acts 2:33)

"...Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." (Romans 8:9)

"Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?" (Gal 3:3)

So, who would God be speaking to when he said, "denying the power thereof, from such turn away" and "depart from me, I never knew you."?

He is talking to someone who thinks they have truth, but they really don't.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Well, there is only one Lord, one faith and one baptism. Are we afraid to admit that? I wouldn't consider it lying, but God seems to be very - all the way from the Garden of Eden - very precise on his plans and timing. So, is everyone our brother? I don't think, in all honestly, I could say that I think they are.

Anyone who believes Jesus is God is a believer, and anyone trying to follow the teachings of Christ would be a disciple. "Brother" seems to be a relatively loose term that would embody that--I don't agree that we can only use that term toward other Apostolics who have accepted our doctrine. I use it out of respect for any other Christian who wants the title to be used, or who hasn't given me permission to use their given name.

If a trinitarian introduces himself as "Brother Smith", then "Brother Smith" is definitely what I will call him. What good would there be in insisting on calling him "Mr. Smith?" What point would that make? I know Apostolics who would most certainly make that a visible point of distinction, and I see that as unnecessary and disrespectful. If a nun introduced herself as "Sister Mary" for that matter, then that is how I would address her. To some extent, it's just courtesy. As a term of endearment for other believers, I extend that to any believer (who wants the title).

Well, the scripture does bear out that Ananias received advanced direction from God - that Saul would see and be filled with His Spirit. That makes Saul his brother - by faith - before it happened.

Sure. That's a good theory. The fact remains, Ananias called Saul "brother" prior to his baptism and infilling with the Holy Ghost.