Mark Sanguinetti

Really Garth? You mean a good Calvinist like Cynic is not suppose to associate with that which is Roman Catholic? Then why is he such a staunch apologist for Roman Catholic originated doctrine? Sounds like a closet Roman Catholic faithful to me. Hey Cynic, will you be quoting from the Nicean Creed anytime soon. Because ChattyKathy has a question about God's mommy, Mary. Is this the written work that covers that? I seem to have misplaced my copy. Or should we look to another written work?

What happened to the Private Messaging? There was a few that I was participating in. They are all gone now.

Cynic what language are you writing here? Because your words read like a form of religious legalese. Quit beating around the bush. If you have something to say come out with it man. Cynic I remind you that this is the Trinity thread. Thou mayest freely speak the Trinitarian gospel here. Speak it like many good Roman Catholics that have gone before you. Speak it forth because the religiously anointed one, the Pope himself, has said that you could. The good pontiff has straightened the path that you may follow it. He, along with his forefathers, have called you and others of the masses since the fourth century when he captured the political heart of the Christian/Pagan Church. So speak it forth Cynic my good man. Speak it forth like only you on Grease Spot Caf?an. And glory be to not only Jesus, but God’s mommy Mary. For out of her womb came God himself and this truly makes her God’s mommy. For this we are thankful and blessed for ever and at least a day. Amen!

Nice post above Jerry. Well thought out and communicated and it shows that you actually read your bible. As for Cynic and his last post. Huh? Cynic inspite of your posturing here. Since the word Trinity is indeed not found in our bibles would that not place the burden of proof for its existence on your shoulders and not vice versa? Perhaps your argument would be better served by quoting from the now religiously famous Nicean Creed or from another of the works of your forefathers from the 4th century until now? What, that is not part of the biblical canon of scripture? Never mind.

Yes Johniam. They changed the ball. Before the 1920s it was softer and much harder to hit for distance. After this time they tightened the seams and the central core making it harder and more compact. The result was greater flight. Of course, all teams used the same ball. Ruth was clearly the most powerful hitter and took advantage of this before others were able to. However, other powerful hitters followed his lead including fellow New York Yankee Lou Gehrig.

Adding a bit to Steve's post above on Dispensationalism. For people that pride themselves on doing word studies, CES leaders apparently do not believe the results of the one below. Below is the foundational word study for CES for their view of Dispensationalism. Yes, as you probably know that would be for the Greek word "Oikonomia". In the Way denomination and now with CES oikonomia is taught as a period of time. As you will plainly see when looking at the actual scriptural usages of this word and the noun form oikonomos, this word is not a period of time. It means Stewardship or Steward. Here is every New Testament usage with preceeding Thayer's lexical definition. NT:3622 oikonomia, oikonomias, hee the management of a household or of household affairs; specifically, the management, oversight, administration, of others' property; the office of a manager or overseer, stewardship: Luke 16:2-4 (from Thayer's Greek Lexicon, Electronic Database. Copyright © 2000 by Biblesoft) Luke 16:2-4 2 And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? give an account of thy "stewardship"; for thou mayest be no longer steward. 3 Then the "steward" said within himself, What shall I do? for my lord taketh away from me the "stewardship": I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed. 4 I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of the "stewardship", they may receive me into their houses. KJV Luke 16:8 8 And the lord commended the unjust "steward", because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light. KJV 1 Cor 9:17 17 For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, "a dispensation" of the gospel is committed unto me. KJV Eph 1:10 10 That in the "dispensation" of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: KJV Eph 3:2 2 If ye have heard of the "dispensation" of the grace of God which is given me to youward: KJV Col 1:25 25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the "dispensation" of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; KJV Titus 1:7 7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the "steward" of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; KJV NT:3623 (noun form of oikonomia) oikonomos, oikonomou, ho the manager of a household or of household affairs; especially a steward, manager, superintendent Luke 12:42 (from Thayer's Greek Lexicon, Electronic Database. Copyright © 2000 by Biblesoft) Luke 12:42 42 And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise "steward", whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season? KJV Luke 16:1 16:1 And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had "a steward"; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods. KJV Rom 16:23 23 Gaius mine host, and of the whole church, saluteth you. Erastus the "chamberlain" of the city saluteth you, and Quartus a brother. KJV 1 Cor 4:1 4:1 Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and "stewards" of the mysteries of God. KJV 1 Cor 4:2 2 Moreover it is required in "stewards", that a man be found faithful. KJV Gal 4:2 2 But is under tutors and "governors" until the time appointed of the father. KJV 1 Peter 4:10 10 As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good "stewards" of the manifold grace of God. KJV

Nicely written Johniam. I recall Mark McGwire publicly saying that he used a dietary supplement to help build up his muscles during his record home run year. He even endorsed it and may have gotten promotional money for this. This supplement was legal, at least at this time, for major league baseball. However, I heard that this dietary supplement was illegal for use by players of the National Football League. Quite a paradox. A body building supplement that was illegal for the behemoths of the NFL, but O.K. for major league baseball players. And this one McGwire swore by and said helped him build size and strength. As for Jose Canseco. A newspaper writer in the 1980s wrote an article stating that Jose was using steroids. Jose Canseco then denied it and the story eventually blew away. So what does Jose do now that he is retired? He braggs about his steroid use during his entire career that he previously had denied and then implicates other major league ballplayers also as users. I guess he will say most anything to save face, protect his career or sell a book depending on the season. However, he better forget about ever being considered for the major league baseball hall of fame. As for Barry Bonds, I have a friend who is a local San Francisco Bay Area major league baseball scout. A conversation I had with him one time discussed the use of steroids among major league ball players. Barry Bonds he said absolutely was a user.

Yea, I figure I saved a few bucks. No hockey means me no spend money on hockey tickets. As poor as I have been lately that is a good thing. Instead I bought a few books on E-bay that I can learn biblical Greek from. Aren't I a good boy? Or as an old girl friend used to tell me. I was a good boy. When I was asleep.

So you say that it is necessary, but not really in the bible. Does that mean the apostles who were an eye witness to Jesus' resurrection did not really know Jesus as well as the people from the 4th century who never met the man? Or does that mean Paul and the apostles really did not get it right and needed extra doctrine?

Def with regard to your post dated February 09, 2005 12:44 which I just saw. I was hoping you would find someone who was fluent in biblical Greek. Although his definition is not bad it does not offer any reasons why he has listed what he has, either from contextual usages or from an understanding of Koine Greek. Why is the Webster's dictionary more definite as to this word's meaning? I looked up the word eon. The complete definition is as follows: eon n. [< Greek aion, an age] an extremely long, indefinite period of time You and your bible scholar should look this up some time.

Happy Birthday Radar. Thanks for all your love and support. Your college bro, Mark

I have decided I am going to send my posts on oikonomia with a bit of editing and additional material to John Schoenheit via e-mail. I really do want their ministry to offer good biblical teaching. And frankly if I did not care I would not even bother to send him this. Tzaia asked for an example of unbiblical teaching and I have produced it. I am sorry about her negative experiences and wish her the best. I think she also does care about CES' practices and wants to help them. That is all I have to say. If someone wants to start another dispensational thread I will participate, but we did have one already not to long ago.

I am not a partner of CES. However, I do know some of the things that they teach. I am not trying to discredit their teaching ministry with my above post. And frankly if I had a little more time I would write John S. and John L. directly and give them some of my views. I have done this in the past with their teaching on personal prophecy. In fact, I wrote them a number of times on this subject and talked to John Schoenheit a few times about this face to face. I like John and think he is a good bible student and teacher, but he definitely has a group think mentality about him with CES. This means he is very slow to change teachings unless he gets the approval of the other top CES people. I think that would be Mark G. and John L. Even if this would simply mean eliminating teachings that are not biblical such as their view on dispensationalism. Really, it would not hurt them to just not teach this. They have plenty of other material that they can teach that is biblically based. But some how with dispensationalism they have the same mind set with this doctrine that a trinitarian has with the trinity. It appears that some how they think that it is like a stack of cards, that if they lose this doctrine that some how other teachings will have less effect or fall apart. Actually, I think just the opposite is true. If they would simply not teach material that was unsupported from the scriptures this would gain them credibility with their other teachings that they have that are scripturally supported. Look at it this way. How can they one night tell someone not to teach the trinity because it is not in the bible then turn around the next night and teach people dispensationalism based on "oikonomia" being a period of time? I know they are much smarter than this.

With regard to teaching doctrine that is not biblical. CES makes a big deal about not teaching the Trinity because this word is not in the bible. O.K. I can see their point of view on this. However, they also teach something that is not biblical. They teach an unbiblical usage of the word translated in the King James Version as dispensation or "oikonomia" in the Greek. They teach that this is a period of time. It is not. If you check the usages of this word and look up a lexical definition (see the Thayer's below) you will see that this means stewardship. So why does CES teach the Trinity because it is not biblical, yet teach an unbiblical usage of the word oikonomia? Perhaps they too have their traditions of men that have been passed down from their forefathers. Just like many denominational churches teach the Trinity because this has been passed down from their forefathers from the 4th century. NT:3622 oikonomia, oikonomias, hee the management of a household or of household affairs; specifically, the management, oversight, administration, of others' property; the office of a manager or overseer, stewardship: Luke 16:2-4 (from Thayer's Greek Lexicon, Electronic Database. Copyright © 2000 by Biblesoft)

Does that mean John Lynn reads this forum? Hey John if you are out there. I invite you to read my posts in the Biblical Universalism thread also in Doctrinal here. Not that you will agree or disagree immediately mind you. You might need to first read and then weigh the material for a few days. Nonetheless, isn't it more rewarding to learn new things from the bible rather than having to constantly work on damage control? Didn't we get enough of that in the Way Denomination?

Wow Evan, that is quite an adventure. I have never been to Africa, but my mother and sister have been to South Africa. They really liked the people. And teaching through an interpreter can be quite a spiritually edifying experience. I have done this a few times with someone translating into Spanish. It makes you slow down and really collect and weigh your thoughts and words. The last time I recall was quite an experience for me. I spoke and then while the person was translating the next words of my teaching came to mind. After the person was finished translating I would again speak the words that just came to mind. The person would translate again and while this was occuring more words and thoughts came to mind. It was very orderly one phrase after the next spoken in English and then translated. It had to have been the work of the Spirit. And yes I saw your photos today on the Photo section of this site. Thanks for posting them. I hope you have a great time and stay safe.

Thanks again for posting Tzaia. Do you have any tips to share for web sites getting to the top of search engines?

Hmm, Tanzania? Never heard of that country. I had to look it up on the Internet. It looks to be below Kenya in East Africa. What were you doing there Evan?

I have gone to some Presbyterian functions myself. My experience is that they are less fundamentalist than other denominations. When I say fundamentalist I mean having set doctrinal views that a group holds to without compromise. I think the Presbyterians are perhaps less doctrinally dogmatic than other denominations. Hence, by their nature, they are more likely to see and consider differing views. With regard to Orthodoxy, which is defined as conforming to the usual beliefs or established doctrines. This is a nice way of saying religious "group think". I made a mistake when I was in the Way denomination of accepting certain doctrines without checking them for myself through the lense of my bible, reason and gift of holy spirit. Why would I want to return to that with CES or with a fundamentalist denomination? I won't accept any religious groups word as doctrine unless I see if for myself. And I especially would not teach something as God's Word unless I saw it for myself and was willing to rework the subject material from time to time. But then my goals are different than those of a denomination. My goal is for my doctrinal understanding to be as pure as possible. If this means making major or minor changes and not blindly following the status quo then so be it. And yes I am also a strong believer in fruit and by this I do not mean numbers in ones denomination. I mean fruit of the spirit love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control evident in ones life. I strongly believe in Jesus' words with regard to whether our doctrine will be truthful and Godly or corrupt and full of error. If one has good fruit like Jesus and Paul preached I will bet you that their doctrine will turn out good for the most part. I will also bet you that if a group or people evidence bad fruit that their doctrine will end up smelling like a garbage dump. Matthew 7:15-20 15 "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. NIV Thanks for your posts Tzaia.

Hello Roy: I hope all is well with you. In this case I would agree with Def. Yes, Paul likely spoke a few languages and could have written the epistles in Hebrew, Latin or Greek. However, the Greek culture during the first century was very dominant. Greek was clearly the #1 spoken language as English is today. In fact, the Greek language and culture may have been even more dominant in the first century than English is in today's 21st century world. Because of this Paul likely originally wrote the New Testament epistles in Greek. However, soon after they were translated into other languages.

So Def, do you really know some biblical scholars? In my thinking, I would have to associate a New Testament biblical scholar with someone that knows New Testament Koine Greek. Although I am sure there are good bible teachers that don't know Greek. If you know someone ask them about Greek words Aion, Strong's #165 and Aionios, Strong's #166. The usages for 165 indicate that this word means "age". As I have previously noted a number of these usages clearly show this word to indicate a long period of time with both a beginning and an ending. It also talks about future ages and in the book of Revelation gives usages translated "ever (aion) and ever (aion)". This I would think means "age and age" because how can you have two eternities? Isn't one eternity sufficient? This would also indicate to me that there is more than one age. One writer that I have quoted from noted five distinct ages. "Ever and ever" from the book of Revelation or "age and age" can also indicate both the 1000 year millenial kingdom age and the final age of the New Heaven and earth. With regard to the Greek word Aionios, Strong's number 166, the usages are not quite as clear. However, many people say that Aionios is simply the adjective form of the noun Aioon. In this case if Aion means age, then Aionios would mean agelasting or age-abiding. In looking at the usages I can see this to be a strong possibility. However, it would be nice to get the opinion of someone that knows biblical Koine Greek. Thanks again for starting this thread and happy hunting.

Def, I would rather look at the evidence. Wouldn't you? Besides with your conspiracy theory, you may be igoring much spiritual darkness during the middle ages. Or are you in favor of bringing back indulgences in order to get to heaven? Or should we start another crusade and kill a bunch of non-believers in the name of Christ? Are you now implying that the King James Version is a perfect version of God's Word? I think we better instead return to biblical work. And one more thing. I offer no new light on this subject. I am just one taking the time to read and then explain what is already written in the various biblical texts.

Hi Mike: No, the political forum is crazy enough as it is. I was just curious.

Mike: Are you a Republican?

Here is another study. Again the link is at the end. AION AND AIONIOS Let us next consider the true meaning of the words "aion" and aionios.*1 These are the originals of the terms rendered by our translators "everlasting," "for ever and ever:" and on this translations, so misleading, a vast portion of the popular dogma of endless torment is built up. I say, without hesitation, misleading and incorrect; for aion means "an age," a limited period, whether long or short, though often of indefinite length; and the adjective aionios means "of the age," "age-long," "aeonian," and never "everlasting" (of its own proper force), it is true that it may be applied as an epithet to things that rae endless, but the idea of endlessness in all such cases comes not from the epithet, but only because it is inherent in the object to which the epithet is applied, as in the case of God. Much has been written on the import of the aeonian (eternal) life. Altogether to exclude, (with MAURICE) the notion of time seems impracticable, and opposed to the general usage of the New Testament (and of the Septuagint). But while this is so, we may fully recognise that the phrase "eternal life" (aeonian life) does at times pass into a region above time, a region wholly moral and spiritual. Thus, in S. John, the aeonian life (eternal life), of which he speaks, is a life not measured by duration, but a life in the unseen, life in God. Thus, e.g., God's commandment is life eternal. -- John 12:50. To know Him is life eternal, -- John. 17:3, and Christ is the eternal life. -- I John 1:2; 5:20. Admitting, then, the usual reference of aionios to time, we note in the word a tendency to rise above this idea, to denote quality, rather than quantity, to indicate the true, the spiritual, in opposition to the unreal, or the earthly. In this sense the eternal is now and here. Thus "eternal" punishment is one thing, and "everlasting" punishment a very different thing, and so it is that our Revisers have substituted for "everlasting" the word "eternal" in every passage in the New Testament, where aionios is the original word. Further, if we take the term strictly, eternal punishment is impossible, for the "eternal" in strictness has no beginning. Again, a point of great importance is this, that it would have been impossible for the Jews, as it is impossible for us, to accept Christ, except by assigning a limited -- nay, a very limited duration -- to those Mosaic ordinances which were said in the Old Testament to be "for ever," to be "everlasting" (aeonian). Every line of the New Testament, nay, the very existence of Christianity is thus in fact a proof of the limited sense of aionios in Scripture. Our Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, our Holy Communion, every prayer uttered in a Christian Church, or in our homes, in the name of the Lord Jesus: our hopes of being "for ever with the Lord" -- these contain one and all in an affirmation most real, though tacit, of the temporary sense of aionios. As a further illustration of the meaning of aion and aionios, let me point out that in the Greek version of the Old Testament (the Septuagint)--in common use among the Jews in Our Lord's time, from which He and the Apostles usually quoted, and whose authority, therefore, should be decisive on this point -- these terms are repeatedly applied to things that have long ceased to exist. Thus the AARONIC priesthood is said to be "everlasting," Num. 25:13. The land of Canaan is given as an "everlasting" possession, and "for ever," Gen. 17:8, and 13:15. In Deut. 23:3, "for ever" is distinctly made an equivalent to "even to the tenth generation." In Lam. 5:19, "for ever and ever" is the equivalent of from "generation to generation." The inhabitants of Palestine are to be bondsmen "for ever," Lev. 25:46. In Num. 18:19, the heave offerings of the holy things are a covenant "for ever." CALEB obtains his inheritance "for ever," Josh. 14:9. And DAVID'S seed is to endure "for ever," his throne "for ever," his house "for ever;" nay, the passover is to endure "for ever;" and in Isaiah 32:14, the forts and towers shall be "dens for ever, until the spirit be poured upon us." So in Jude 7, Sodom and Gomorrah are said to be suffering the vengeance of eternal (aeonian) fire, i.e., their temporal overthrow by fire, for they have a definite promise of final restoration. -- Ez. 16:55. And Christ's kingdom is to last "for ever," yet we are distinctly told that this very kingdom is to end. -- I Cor. 15:24. Indeed, quotation might be added to quotation, both from the Bible and from early*2 authors, to prove this limited meaning of aion and its derivatives; but enough has probably been said to prove that it is wholly impossible, and indeed absurd, to contend that any idea of endless duration is necessarily or commonly implied by either aion or aionios. Further, if this translation of aionios as "eternal," in the sense of endless, be correct, aion must mean eternity, i.e., endless duration. But so to render it would reduce Scripture to an absurdity. In the first place, you would have over and over again to talk of the "eternities." We can comprehend what "eternity" is, but what are the "eternities?" You cannot have more than one eternity. Let me state the dilemma clearly. Aion either means endless duration as its necessary, or at least its ordinary significance, or it does not. If it does, the following difficulties at once arise; 1 -- How, if it mean an endless period, can aion have a plural? 2 -- How came such phrases to be used as those repeatedly occurring in Scripture, where aion is added to aion, if aion is of itself infinite? 3 -- How come such phrases as for the "aion" or aions and BEYOND? -- ton aiona kai ep aiona kai eti: eis tous aionas kai eti. -- See (Sept.) Ex. 15:18; Dan. 12:3; Micah 4:5. 4 -- How is it that we repeatedly read of the end of the aion? -- Matt. 13:39,40,49; 24:3; 28:20; I Cor. 10:11; Heb. 9:26. 5 -- Finally, if aion be infinite, why is it applied over and over to what is strictly finite? e.g., Mark 4:19; Acts 3:21; Rom. 12:2; I Cor. 1:20, 2:20, 2:6, 3:18, 10:11, etc. But if an aion be not definite, what right have we to render the adjective aionios (which depends for its meaning on aion) by the terms "eternal" (when used as the equivalent of "endless") and "everlasting?" Indeed our translators have really done further hurt to those who can only read their English Bible. They have, wholly obscured a very important doctrine, that of "the ages." This when fully understood throws a flood of light on the plan of redemption, and the method of the divine working. In these repeated instances [of the different combinations of the terms aion and aionios in the Greek] there must be some definite purpose in the use of these peculiar terms; and we must deeply regret the unfairness and inconsistency which in the case of aion mars and renders unfair our versions. Thus it would be interesting to ask on what principle our Revisers have in one brief epistle employed FIVE different words (or phrases) to translate this one word, aion, e.g., Eph. i. 21; ii. 2,7; iii. 11, 21, e.g., "world," "course," "age," "eternal," "for ever." Such are the devious ways of our teachers, and our translators. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *1"The word by itself, whether adjective or substantive, never means endless." -- Canon FARRAR. "The conception of eternity, in the Semitic languages, is that of a long duration and series of ages." -- Rev J. S. BLUNT -- Dictionary of Theology. "'Tis notoriously known," says Bishop Rust, "that the Jews, whether writing in Hebrew or Greek, do by olam (the Hebrew word corresponding to aion), and aion mean any remarkable period and duration, whether it be of life, or dispensation, or polity." "The word aion is never used in Scripture, or anywhere else, in the sense of endlessness (vulgarly called eternity, it always meant, both in Scripture and out, a period of time; else how could it have a plural -- how could you talk of the aeons and aeons of aeons as the Scripture does? -- C. KINGSLEY. So the secular games, celebrated every century were called "eternal" by the Greeks. -- See HUET, Orig. ii. pg. 162. *2Thus JOSEPHUS calls "aeonian," the temple of Herod, which was actually destroyed when he wrote. PHILO never uses aionios of endless duration. http://www.heavendwellers.com/aion_and_aionios.html