Nazarene Space

Clear Truth: What Do You Mean... "Church"?

The Clear Truth Radio Show

(Week of April 17th)

"What Do You Mean... 'Church'?"

Views: 790

Comment by will brinson: ferguson on November 14, 2011 at 11:07am

 

Solomon, how does lucifer not correspond to the morning star? You just said that the dictionary definitions are acceptable. And lucifer is defined as the morning star. If Yahu-Shuah said he was the Morning Star then why would it be problematic to use Lucifer (as it also is defined as morning star) for a translation in Revelation chapter 22 verse16? I do not see a problem just because past translater used it as a translation for heylel. The word lucifer can be used as a translation in either verse (Yesha-Yahu 14:12 and Revelation 22:16). Yes lucifer would also be a perfectly good translation to be used in Revelation 2:28, so that Yahu-Shuah would give them that overcome unto the end lucifer (a.k.a.. - the morning star). There was even a prophet and kindsman to Sha'ul named Lucius (Acts 13:1). The term lucifer has gotten a bad wrap by ignorant folks not understanding that it was being used as an adjective, not a name, in the book of Yesha-Yahu. And people because they think it was a name of Sawtawn refuse to understand that it is synonomus with the phrase morning star. Well people' ignorance or stupidity, whichever the case may be, (even though Yahuwah will give them over to their dulussions) does not mean that the conclussions they draw are right.  Again heylel and lucifer are both defined as the morning star and Yahu-Shauh said that He is the Morning Star, so I find no problem useing either of the three to describe my Saviour.  

 

And as for the word christian the Scriptures never use this term to describe believers. It is use once by king Agrippa as a derogatory term yes, and once by Kafe to say if any true believer suffer under this term that they should rejoice, and then in Acts 11:26 that they were first spoken of as christians in Antioch (keep in mind that Sha'ul had great opposition here and was even driven out for a time [see: 2Timotheos 3:11]). This city of Antioch was originally pagan as could be, and the Yahu-Deem sought to persicute the Believers big time sturring up the people against the Believers, to the point that they got the people to stone Sha'ul close to the point of death (see: Acts 14:19). The Believers were being percicuted and derogatorily called christians by the pagans and Yahu-Dish priest which neither believed in Yahu-Shuah as The Anointed One. Believers were not describing themselves as christian, so I do not see where you think that Believrs were discribed as christians. Yes they were spoken ill of by this term but that does not mean that the term acuratly describes them as such. But Solomon if you want to call yourself a christian go right ahead on, but that does not mean that any believer of the first century ever referred to The Body of Moshiach as christian. As a matter of FACT what would Yahu-Shuah do/did? Well the Body of Moshiach was never called christians until Sha'ul preachered the Good News in Antioch so we know that Yahu-Shuah did not ever call anyone by such a term. So ask yourself why not? And should true believers call themselves by what the pagan peole of Antioch dub them or by what Yahu-Shuah and His decipels call them? Again the true believers were suferring great persicution in Antioch and where dub,derogatorily, christians there, and Kafe told them that if they suffer under this term rejoice (He did not tell them to call themselves by the term).  

Comment by will brinson: ferguson on November 14, 2011 at 11:51am

To say that Yahu-Shuah was never spoken of as Lucifer is the same as saying that He was never described as Christ either. If Christ is a translation for Moshiach (i.e. - The Anointed One), then Lucifer is a perfectly acceptable translation for Morning Star and can be used so in translations of the Scriptures without being blasphemous. Keep in mind that the term lucifer was never the name of Sawtawn. Beelzebub for sure, and perhaps Livyahthan and Azazal, but not Heylel. And again just because the Latin word lucifer was used as a translation for heylel in the Book of Yesha-Yahu does not mean that it can not later be use as a descent translation for the phrase Morning Star in the Book of Revelations, as the metaphorical definition of lucifer is Morning Star! 

Comment by will brinson: ferguson on November 14, 2011 at 12:04pm

So even if Yahu-Shauh is never called Ha Heylel (which could still be used as a descent translation in Revelation 22:16) the term Lucifer can be used as a translation in Revelation 22:16 with no problems (other than that of any ignorant religious peerson or their stupid false teachers [I've referred to the false teaches as stupid because if they have studied in order to teach ergo then they should have known]).

Comment by will brinson: ferguson on November 19, 2011 at 10:47am

Solomon(?) the problem with your theology is that it has nothing to do with using perfectly good translations, your idealology trys to use good reasoning for bad renderings. Church is not a perfectly good translation, it is a replacement! And the title Christ has nothing to do with the derogatory term christian(s).   

 

Oh and I did present you with proof  (see above dictionary references [sorry my cut and paste is not working or I would have spelled it all out for you]). If you take the time to research the references I provided above you would realalize that you have been ranting upon an obsurd and ridiculous point of veiw. Pull your head out of the sand! Look up the references I provided (the e-Sword Bible Study Program has these resources if you do not already have them).

 

Put the term haylel to the side for now as it does not matter wherther lucifer was or is for that matter a translation of heylel, lucifer' simple meaning may be lightbearer yet it was widely used in the 4th century as an epithit for the planet Venus which is well know to be the symble of The Morning Star. There is no getting around this, the fact that lucifer is synonomous for morning star, and visie versie.

 

Solomon(?) a blind idiot can see this clearly, what is your problem? Can you not admit when you were/are wrong? Must you obsess on your reluctence to accept truth? Not only was the principle that I outlined sound, but so is the proof that I presented as well as my point. I have assumed nothing other than that I was conversing with a sound minded individual. I can see that I should not assume so lightly, as you consistantly deny truth while trying to use it at the same time to propogate falsehoods.  

 

Who ever you realy are - REPENT!!!

 

Here I must ask, why do you hide behind such a pious picture of king Solomon? Surely you can not think that you carry the wisdom that he had. By the way is your name Solomon or are you hiding behind his name as well? Just who is this pretending  to have such wisdom beyond all others?

Comment by will brinson: ferguson on November 20, 2011 at 5:30pm

 

Well, I see you are trying to side step the current issues again. I do not know how you precieved that I said anything that would cause you to feel the need to obsecievely reiterate anything about the term christ. What I did say was forget about the term heylel and focus on lucifer and the fact that it was widely used as an epithit for Venus and is therefore synonomous with the epithit Morning Star. Which means Lucifer and Morning Star are literally interchangiable terms.

 

The quote you drug up was from the past not present. But your obseceive rant begs the question, "did anyone ever say that christ was not a good translation?" Why do you feel a need to harp on this seeming uncontested statement you've rehashed more than I care to count?   Was this ever an issue upon this thread? I can not remeber if anyone other than you brought up the term christ to start with. Perhaps my mind has slipped trying to keep up with your going in circles, but I assure you that as far as I'm concerned it matters not one bit coming or going in the first place if anyone wants to use christ as a translation. I will say that I personaly do not care to speak Greek as my first language is English, and if I am going to put forth effort to learn another languge it sure isn't going to be Greek. I think if I were to take on a nother language it would be Hebrew and then perhaps Aramaic. I see Greek as a usesless dead language, not worth the breath it takes to verberate it' babarren utterens. But as I said have at it - if that be your desire. Durrr .........

 

 

 

Anyway it is finally nice to see that you found your way to agree with the reason this thread was started to begin with, that being that church never was nor never will be a correct translation anywhere with in the Scriptures!!! Nine pages later, ohe vey.

Comment by will brinson: ferguson on November 22, 2011 at 4:57am

Solomon, this thread has gone on for close to a year and over ten pages long now, so much of the early quotes I will have easily forgotten, my bad (mind that is). Anyway it is good to see that you agree with something.

 

As for where you said - "one must use better arguments (assuming one's goal is to convince, rather than to just communicate)" - I would have to say that perhaps it would be good to take some of your own medicine as it would seem that your method has not been convincing in it'self.

 

Now if you where to ask me just what style of conversing I think would work best I would have to say try copying Jame' style and you would most likely do much better at convincing others. And if you can not agree - perhaps different strokes for different folk

Comment by will brinson: ferguson on November 26, 2011 at 5:05am

 

Solomon, you said:

"I have some questions ... ... ... would appreciate answers, when evr you feel like it."

QUESTION #1) asked and answered - repeditive - wnat ansewr go back and reread past postings.

QUESTION # 2) asked and ansewred - repeditive - want answer go back and reread past postings.

QUESTION#3) ansewr -Acts 22:8

STATEMENT  [posing as QUESTION #4]) As far as an official tile goes - I prefer: "the Body of The Anointed One", "Follower of The Way", or "Assembly/Congregation of Yahuwah". I am not from Nazereth nor Galilee, yet I must say that I do follow in The Way of THE NAZARENE, and would incourage everyone to do so as well.

 

Now as for some of your other statements:

"or maybe you have not been given the eyes to see ..."

I have no problem seeing the way or what you've tried to teach here.

(as for my opinion please read past postings)

 

"I think convencing other at the expence of truth is worthless"

Hypocrite, why do you point at the speck in your brother' eye while ignoring the log in your own !!!

 

"You must convince them of the truth or nothing is accomplished"

ergo - DURRR !!!

 

Solomon, I'll ask you nicely - pretty please save your HOOPLA for those whom want to hear it, as for I, personally, care not for your rantings.

 

Have a nice day ...

 

P.S. - In case you did not get the gest of my opinion on this subject instead of asking me the same questions over and over, please, go back and reread the previous posts until you can catchup to what it is that I have - already - said.

Comment by will brinson: ferguson on November 26, 2011 at 5:29am

 

Solomon (if that is who you really are?),

in line with - here are a few questions I would like for you to answer when you find the time -

Here I must ask,

 

A) why do you hide behind such a pious picture of king Solomon?

 

B) By the way is your name Solomon or are you hiding behind his as well?

Comment

You need to be a member of Nazarene Space to add comments!

Join Nazarene Space

 

 

 

















 

LINKS

 

 

 

 

Badge

Loading…

© 2019   Created by James Trimm.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service