false prophets and staying in truth

[BlaznFattyz]

As many people are aware, many have claimed and are claiming dates of biblical events and have changed those dates, their doctrine has been changed then changed again, their principals have changed and then changed again. however one thing stays true forever and that is the word of the lord jesus christ. be careful of those that claim christianity but try to lead others astray with false teachings. the bible shows that you can watch out for these things:

Deuteronomy
19And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. 20But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.

21And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?

22When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.


1 Timothy 6:3-5
3If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; 4He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

5Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.



please post any experiences or thoughts on the subject. thank you.

 

[Ghaniel]

They are all good warnings. I am alert to the possibility of false teaching and false prophecy, and even false faith. More than that I cannot say.

 

[Quahom1]

As many people are aware, many have claimed and are claiming dates of biblical events and have changed those dates, their doctrine has been changed then changed again, their principals have changed and then changed again. however one thing stays true forever and that is the word of the lord jesus christ. be careful of those that claim christianity but try to lead others astray with false teachings. the bible shows that you can watch out for these things:

Deuteronomy
19And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. 20But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.

21And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?

22When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.


1 Timothy 6:3-5
3If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; 4He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

5Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.



please post any experiences or thoughts on the subject. thank you.

Gnosticism is one of the oldest of Christian ways of faith, but today it is considered a cult, or false. Catholicism is just as old, and a majority of the Christians of the world today, yet it is considered a cult and false. Coptic Christians are as old, and are thought of as adhering closest to the early Apostolic Christians, yet is an obscure and minor denomiation of Christianity today. Luther "founded" protestantism, but that is only 600 years old, and all other denominations of any significance are younger than that. In short, mainstream Christians are neither mainstream, nor the majority.

As each "denomination" has risen, less and less of the original church teachings are presented to the faithful. More "chapters" have been removed or modified from the "Bible". As time goes on, the younger denominations have declared the older denominations, "old fashioned", non enlightened, ignorant, or false...kind of like teenagers against fuddy duddy parents, don't you think? The Older faiths don't know what they are talking about, and are full of superstition. The younger faiths have all the answers...they know it all.

Now the interesting thing is that the younger the denomination, the more energy and zest/drive they have. And the more brazen and brash they seem to be in their declarations, and the more judgemental they seem to be of everyone else...

Bottom line is no one has "cornered the market" on Christ.

However, I submit that the elder churches are perhaps closer to the truth than the younger churches realize, or are willing to admit.

That is usually the way it works in life in general...what do you think?

v/r

Q

 

[aged hippy]

Gnosticism is one of the oldest of Christian ways of faith, but today it is considered a cult, or false. Catholicism is just as old, and a majority of the Christians of the world today, yet it is considered a cult and false. Coptic Christians are as old, and are thought of as adhering closest to the early Apostolic Christians, yet is an obscure and minor denomiation of Christianity today. Luther "founded" protestantism, but that is only 600 years old, and all other denominations of any significance are younger than that. In short, mainstream Christians are neither mainstream, nor the majority.

As each "denomination" has risen, less and less of the original church teachings are presented to the faithful. More "chapters" have been removed or modified from the "Bible". As time goes on, the younger denominations have declared the older denominations, "old fashioned", non enlightened, ignorant, or false...kind of like teenagers against fuddy duddy parents, don't you think? The Older faiths don't know what they are talking about, and are full of superstition. The younger faiths have all the answers...they know it all.

Now the interesting thing is that the younger the denomination, the more energy and zest/drive they have. And the more brazen and brash they seem to be in their declarations, and the more judgemental they seem to be of everyone else...

Bottom line is no one has "cornered the market" on Christ.

However, I submit that the elder churches are perhaps closer to the truth than the younger churches realize, or are willing to admit.

That is usually the way it works in life in general...what do you think?

I most certainly agree with those sentiments.
It's a shame that we can't ignore all the man-made interpretations and dogma which have accumulated over the last 2000 or more years and simply do as the Christ asked us - love one another.

 

[wil]

However, I submit that the elder churches are perhaps closer to the truth than the younger churches realize, or are willing to admit.

That is usually the way it works in life in general...what do you think?

How are we defining elder churches v. younger churches?

Is this churches/thought pre and post reformation?

pre/post nicene and canon?

pre/post new age?

 

[Thomas]

Bottom line is no one has "cornered the market" on Christ.

Does not that statement require qualification?

Does not "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:19) imply that the authority (and responsibility) for the teachings 'in his name' has been given to some?

Thomas

 

[Ghaniel]

Gnosticism is one of the oldest of Christian ways of faith, but today it is considered a cult, or false. Catholicism is just as old, and a majority of the Christians of the world today, yet it is considered a cult and false. Coptic Christians are as old, and are thought of as adhering closest to the early Apostolic Christians, yet is an obscure and minor denomiation of Christianity today. Luther "founded" protestantism, but that is only 600 years old, and all other denominations of any significance are younger than that. In short, mainstream Christians are neither mainstream, nor the majority.

By whom and on what basis is Catholicism considered false?

As each "denomination" has risen, less and less of the original church teachings are presented to the faithful.

That's something I hadn't thought of. Why does this happen do you think?
I think that many churches base their teaching so many texts outside the Bible that they confuse and subjectify the Bible. They distort the Bible to support their own ends and select passages of the Bible that suits their presuppositions.

Yet, from what I have read of Protestant, Catholics, Orthodox theology and the smaller branches, I am not sure which to distinguish as false. Catholics seem to think, or are taught to think, their interpretations of the Bible are self-evident and that they have a coherent understanding of the Bible. Yet I find that in conversations with Catholics, they have a lot of misconceptions about things. And these misconceptions are primarily based on texts that have been written by popes and other clergy-men that they claim is part of their tradition. And they make the tradition part of their faith.

Many Protestants believe in 'sola fide' for instance - that one is saved by faith alone. And this is false. And the Mormons have Joseph Smith who allegedly was visited by the angel Moroni who gave him inscriptions and symbols on golden plates that Smith translated into the Book of Mormons. Lots of odd things in that book that are far from Biblical. God had a father and his father had a father again, Jesus was born a woman. And polygamy was legitimate according to the Bible.

I don't think so sirrrr!! There is truly less of God's true teaching in each denomination.

I have found that the only thing I can cleave to is the Bible alone.

What do you think?

More "chapters" have been removed or modified from the "Bible". As time goes on, the younger denominations have declared the older denominations, "old fashioned", non enlightened, ignorant, or false...kind of like teenagers against fuddy duddy parents, don't you think? The Older faiths don't know what they are talking about, and are full of superstition. The younger faiths have all the answers...they know it all.

That is true too. I experience that younger denominations are more liberal, not so precise in their definitions and don't take all of God's teaching as seriously. I see this when I read about Protestant theology, but also younger branches like the Pentecostal movement. Perhaps this has to do with the liberalisation and individualisation of our time?

 

[InChristAlways]

I most certainly agree with those sentiments.
It's a shame that we can't ignore all the man-made interpretations and dogma which have accumulated over the last 2000 or more years and simply do as the Christ asked us - love one another.

Good post AH. This site agrees with you:

http://www.awitness.org/lostmess/daniel.html

"...............This is really embarrassing stuff, and the church has been 'apologizing' for it ever since. I offer it for your examination to make the point that those churches should have been more critical, and that by swallowing a false prophecy they became false prophets themselves, which proves the point conclusively. Of course, there is an 'apology' for all this. What they meant to say was 'the generation that sees all these things will not pass away...'

.......As a final point I have to ask how, after those early churches embarrassed everyone by reading Daniel in an uncritical way and being gullible about the Bible, and prophecy in particular, you really have to wonder why any other modern church would want to do the same thing, repeat the same mistake, and embarrass themselves in the same way as those early churches did. It turns out that there are certain things you can learn by not taking the Bible literally all the time, and this lesson is certainly one of them.

 

[wil]

Seems to me that many of the youngest denominations often called non-denominational or alternative are returning to the bible, and studying bible interpretation, the societal relationships of the day, looking more closely at what Jesus said and taught and revisiting the greek and aramaic.

What is being taken out is 100-1700 years of pomp and circumstance. The conventions and histories of 'the church' are being replaced as it is they that have distorted the information over the years, no?

 

[Ghaniel]

Does not "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:19) imply that the authority (and responsibility) for the teachings 'in his name' has been given to some?

To whom has it been given? There was a case in Swedish congregation(in a town called Knutby) where the pastor had manipulated a female member to kill his wife and another woman. He exploited her sexually and convinced her that this was necessary for him for some reason. He had for many years announced another female member to be the Bride of Christ. Which we all know is wrong: The Bride of Christ is an image the people who belong to God. This pastor had manipulated the whole congregation. Fortunately, many members have resigned and discovered how profoundly they have been fooled.

My sister experienced that the pastor of a congregation that she frequented manipulated the members to give money to the congregation. It turned out that the pastor and his wife spent the money on themselves! But on the outside, they seemed like one of the most God-fearing couple you couldd ever meet!

Such examples should make on alert. I spend time scrutinizing church leaders and I've discovered that it has saved me of a lot of trouble. The problem is finding the one who does not teach falsely. If he/she says something that contradicts the Bible or sounds odd/activates a strange gut feeling, I check the Bible.

Many people teach in 'His name', but under their perfect facade they have bad intentions. They commit incest, adultery(had a case in the congregation I used to go to!), they manipulate, beat their spouses and children and lie.

Be cautious!

2 Peter 2:1-3

1But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. 3In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.

 

[Quahom1]

Bottom line is no one has "cornered the market" on Christ.

Does not that statement require qualification?

Does not "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:19) imply that the authority (and responsibility) for the teachings 'in his name' has been given to some?

Thomas

The qualification I offer is this, The Head engineer, satisfied with the blueprints He drew up for the perfect "house", key coded and signed his design. Then He gave the prints to His "apprentices" with the instructions to copy them exactly, and left for other business.

But the apprentices, thought they could improve on the master's design, so the copies they made had changes, and as they became masters, their apprentices charged with copying the blueprints thought they could improve on the masters' designs, so they added their changes...

Today, we all call the blueprints those of the Head Engineer's design, but, we are each reading from our own copies of copies of copies...so who has the correct design of the "perfect house"?

v/r

Q

 

[Ghaniel]

Good post AH. This site agrees with you:

http://www.awitness.org/lostmess/daniel.html

The person who wrote this claims to have seen UFOs.

I know it's important to consult different translations and I am considering to learn Hellenistic Greek and Hebrew to learn what the original biblical texts say.

But this person sounds a bit odd... Perhaps there is false prophecy in the OT, but I will have to scrutinize the prophetic books before I can get back to that.

 

[Quahom1]

Seems to me that many of the youngest denominations often called non-denominational or alternative are returning to the bible, and studying bible interpretation, the societal relationships of the day, looking more closely at what Jesus said and taught and revisiting the greek and aramaic.

What is being taken out is 100-1700 years of pomp and circumstance. The conventions and histories of 'the church' are being replaced as it is they that have distorted the information over the years, no?

I presume you have personal witness to the last two millenia of human history, or you have concrete evidence to this pomp and circumstance.

Or perhaps you are judging past history, based upon your current history...

If we wish to understand the biblia in its purest and un-contaminated form, then like a friend of mine of the jewish persuasion wisely pointed out, we must learn Hebrew, Latin and greek fluently, then read the original manuscripts and scrolls. We must also become accomplished historians of the past 3000 years, and immerse oursleves in the lives and cultures of the past, in order to truly understand them and where they were coming from.

v/r

Q

 

[Ghaniel]

Today, we all call the blueprints those of the Head Engineer's design, but, we are each reading from our own copies of copies of copies...so who has the correct design of the "perfect house"?

Scary thought. I'm not sure. I usually check different translations. But copies of copies of copies... Scary! I really need to learn the languages of the Bible!!

...we must learn Hebrew, Latin and greek fluently, then read the original manuscripts and scrolls. We must also become accomplished historians of the past 3000 years, and immerse oursleves in the lives and cultures of the past, in order to truly understand them and where they were coming from.

Have you done that? Has your Jewish friend helped you to understand the Bible better? *waiting in apprehension*

 

[Thomas]

"Read no history: nothing but biography, for that is life without theory."
Benjamin Disraeli

 

[Ghaniel]

"Read no history: nothing but biography, for that is life without theory."
Benjamin Disraeli

I caaan agree. But history can anyhow affirm events in the Bible. And some understanding of history and culture is necessary to understand St Paul's seemingly condescending attitude towards women for instance.

What do you say is the biography, the Bible alone?

 

[InChristAlways]

Good post AH. This site agrees with you:

http://www.awitness.org/lostmess/daniel.html

"...............This is really embarrassing stuff, and the church has been 'apologizing' for it ever since. I offer it for your examination to make the point that those churches should have been more critical, and that by swallowing a false prophecy they became false prophets themselves, which proves the point conclusively. Of course, there is an 'apology' for all this. What they meant to say was 'the generation that sees all these things will not pass away...'

.......As a final point I have to ask how, after those early churches embarrassed everyone by reading Daniel in an uncritical way and being gullible about the Bible, and prophecy in particular, you really have to wonder why any other modern church would want to do the same thing, repeat the same mistake, and embarrass themselves in the same way as those early churches did. It turns out that there are certain things you can learn by not taking the Bible literally all the time, and this lesson is certainly one of them.

Seems to me that many of the youngest denominations often called non-denominational or alternative are returning to the bible, and studying bible interpretation, the societal relationships of the day, looking more closely at what Jesus said and taught and revisiting the greek and aramaic.

What is being taken out is 100-1700 years of pomp and circumstance. The conventions and histories of 'the church' are being replaced as it is they that have distorted the information over the years, no?

Actually, that site, regardless of his other "shortcomings" [UFO's for instance], is dead on, as the Bible nowhere shows 2 "end of the Worlds", and in this, I agree. I have talked with some christians that say Daniel 12/Ezekiel 38/39 happen TWICE!!!. [Reve 19/20 for example]
Steve

You see if you read Daniel's prophecy it states that 'an anointed prince' would be swept away and then the one who killed him would 'enter a seven year covenant' and practice all sorts of abominations, and, as it states in an even more jarring and incongruous fashion, 'the end of the world would come swiftly like a flood.' All this is rather 'jarring' to read, and does leave a person scratching their heads, wondering what is wrong with this picture. A doctrine of the 'revived Roman empire' was then concocted, and at the time this happens, the clock will start ticking again and that last bit of prophecy will finally be fulfilled. This might explain chapter nine, if you choose to accept such nimble interpretation, but another excuse would have to be cooked up for chapters 10 to 12, for it is self evident that in this source (written in the second century in response to Antiochus IV) the world did not end immediately after Antiochus despoiled Jerusalem and the temple, Michael was not outraged enough to promptly end the world. This 'clock' must have 'stopped ticking' as well, awaiting the awakening and the rise of the 'revived Selucid Greek empire' at which time it will finally be fulfilled. This would, of course, require ending the world twice (once to Revive the Romans and thus salvage chapter 9, and a second go at it to revive the Greeks and salvage chapter 12. Whether or not we can all tolerate suffering through two ends of the world is a good question, but this would be required to salvage the doctrine of 'Biblical inerrancy.'

 

[lunamoth]

Seems to me that many of the youngest denominations often called non-denominational or alternative are returning to the bible, and studying bible interpretation, the societal relationships of the day, looking more closely at what Jesus said and taught and revisiting the greek and aramaic.

This may be true, but do they also consider who put together the cannon that they are now interpreting? I would suggest that the context of tradition, all that man-made dogma you seem to disdain, would be important for interpreting and understanding the Bible. From my admittedly simplistic view, the tradition enriches our understanding and experience of the Bible immensely.

What is being taken out is 100-1700 years of pomp and circumstance. The conventions and histories of 'the church' are being replaced as it is they that have distorted the information over the years, no?

No. While I am far from a believer in the infallibility of the Pope or any human being, I do believe that the Holy Spirit directs the overall movement and progress of the universal Church, and also including those rituals at the heart of Christian faith and worship, baptism and the eucharist.

What do you advocate replacing? On what basis? What do you consider unnecessary pomp and circumstance?

I believe that the Body of Christ can have unity without uniformity, either of doctrine or rituals, but for this to happen I think we need greater respect for those who understand and worship differently. This respect is needed from those "older" churches to the young denominations and non-denominations, but it also requires respect from the Bible-based/Evengelical/New Thought groups toward the mainstream Christians. Too often I see people deriding Catholocism, Orthodox churches, Anglicanism, and the large mainstream protestant churches, saying that because they are associated with "The Establishment," the members are sheep and the leaders are only power-hungry and let's throw the whole baby out with the bathwater, return to basics. Well, those basics came from the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, whether you like to admit it or not.

Have injustices and atrocities occurred in the "old, traditional" Church? You bet, because the Church is made up of fallen fallible people and it only takes a few rotten apples to spoil a barrel. But the Spirit works in spite of our failings and weaknesses. Mercy and forgiveness are the heart of Christianity. And I think the Spirit is working fervently in the younger denominations and non-denoms too--the Body has many parts. But don't try to say that there are not pitfalls in those churches. Without the guidance of tradition I think a lot of those little churches are in danger of becoming personality cults and doing a lot of damage to their congregations, and going down unproductive if not dangerous paths. No one/no church is immune from corruption.

So, instead of all calling each other cults and accusing each other of missing the Truth or following false prophets or whatever, I think we all agree it's better to understand each other and look for that common ground we all have in Christ. Aged Hippy did get it right that the bottom line is to love each other as Christ loves us. Insulting and demonizing others because they value tradition (aka collective wisdom) is just as harmful as any other injury done by doctrinal divisions.

peace,
lunamoth

 

[Quahom1]

Scary thought. I'm not sure. I usually check different translations. But copies of copies of copies... Scary! I really need to learn the languages of the Bible!!



Have you done that? Has your Jewish friend helped you to understand the Bible better? *waiting in apprehension*

He says I am a "work in progress". Eh sometimes that means one step forward and two steps back...

Seriously, I have a much greater appreciation of the intricacies and richness of Scripture. And I dearly wish I would have started much sooner (about 40 years sooner).

Also, reading from right to left gives me one hell of a headache...

v/r

Q

 

[InChristAlways]

He says I am a "work in progress". Eh sometimes that means one step forward and two steps back...

Seriously, I have a much greater appreciation of the intricacies and richness of Scripture. And I dearly wish I would have started much sooner (about 40 years sooner).

Also, reading from right to left gives me one hell of a headache...

v/r

Q

I use these 2 sites 24 hours a day and you might give them a try.

http://www.scripture4all.org/index.htm [hebrew/greek/english interlinear.

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm [multi translations with Greek/English interlinear and lexicon on bottom for indidivual verses] It even has Young' LT and Rotherhams!!!

http://www.awitness.org/lostmess/daniel.html

As I have noticed while comparing translations of different verses in the Bible, even the most literal translations can suddenly depart from literalism, perhaps visit the Greek Septuagint and abandon the Hebrew translation for a single verse, whenever some highly cherished doctrine might be threatened by a truly literal translation. Rule of thumb : you should never, ever rely exclusively on one single translation.

)