Waimahia

Hi tah, Thanks for your reply. I understand you sincerely believe that there are thousands of Anglicans who love and serve Christ. If He is truly their Lord and Master, they will obey Him. He instructs them what to do, "Come out from among them...." (II Cor 6: 14 - 18 & Rev 18:4) These Anglicans who claim to follow Christ had better quit the Anglican/Episcopal Church fast. If they do not, well, He warns us what will happen if we continue to associate with a rotten system; we will "receive of her plagues." This system which ordains queers and women as clergy (amongst its many other sins) is simply not of God. It is of men, and when Christ returns it will be utterly destroyed, as will every institution of men. Believe me I am trying to be moderate of speech. The prayers of the saints rise as sweet incense to God. Please realise though that (not just) the Anglican/Episcopal Church is a great, foul stench to God. It has NOTHING to do with God and those who claim to follow Christ had better get out now. With brotherly concern, Waimahia

To answer your first quesition, not mixing meat and mix was based on an obscure commandment in Deut. 14 and Lev. 11 about not boiling a kid in its mother's milk. As to the second question. The Torah commands the children of Israel not to mix linen and wool. I do not know the reason behind that commandment. I think a likely reason for not mixing wool and linen ie animal and vegetable fibres of widely different characteristics was that it made an inferior fabric. An unscrupulous merchant could defraud the unsuspecting by padding out a quality fibre with a cheap one. Boiling a kid in its mother's milk was probaby a fertility rite of the pagan nations in the area and God's people were to avoid the practices of pagans. The Israelites, to guarantee this never happened, separated milk and meat. They were trying to obey God but went beyond what God actually required. Regards, Waimahia

Uhmmm? Are you just making this up as you go? Let's have some scriptural support. BTW do you even know what a soul is? Answer with scriptural support please.

I have found the Microsoft Word spelling and grammar feature very helpful. Yes, many people like to abuse Microsoft but it does ease communication with many wonderful features. It can be a great help to write a document in Word, allow the spell-checker to correct mistakes and then copy and paste the document into another application.

If you will kindly actually read the whole of Matt 10: 5 - 42 you will see that Christ told them to preach MUCH MORE than just that the Kingdom of Heaven is near. It included that we had to confess Christ before men and losing our life for His sake. The total message Christ preached was the Gospel of the Kingdom of God (compare Mark 1: 14 - 15 & Matt 10: 7). Christ sent his disciples to preach the SAME GOSPEL he preached. And He did this before He told them that He would die for our sins. Are you intentionally blind to the fact that Christ's sacrifice and the reconciliation that can be obtained through it is, nevertheless, only part (A MAJOR PART. YES) of the gospel He preached in His sojourn and that he later sent His disciples to preach to the whole world? Why try to dispute about what is breathtakingly obvious? The full gospel is not encompassed only within the message about Christ's death and reconciliation possible through it. We are agreed on that, aren't we? Waimahia

St Worm wrote, "The gospel is the truth that Christ came in the form of a man to fulfill for us that which we could not and took our sin and punishment upon Himself. That is the gospel or good news." That is part of the gospel though the whole gospel is actually much more than that. Christ preached the gospel Mark 1:14 - 15 He sent the disciples out to preach the same gospel Matt 10 et al and this was BEFORE He told them anything about his death and sacrifice. Matt 16: 20 - 28 Paul continued preaching this same gospel Acts 28: 30 - 31 The full gospel is the Gospel of the Kingdom of God and it includes the wonderful news that Christ died for our sins and is returning to rule his kingdom with his saints. Waimahia

Burgers, that in reality don't look anything like the picture on the wall

I think there is a Pentecostal group that has usurped the name. But I am talking about the Church of God which was founded by Christ and ministered to by the Apostles and whose early history is recounted in Acts. My posting actually was clear on this point, wasn't it Kittylover? It's not a matter to be debated. Kind regards, Waimahia

"Now, there are anal-retentive types who would say that MY denomination is not Protestant, but the reality is, if you are a Christian, but not Roman Catholic, you are a Protestant, regardless of what affiliation you may have." Marnie Balderdash!! There is a church on earth today which precedes the Roman Catholics and can trace its line from Christ and the Apostles and has NOTHING to do with Roman Catholicism and its daughters. It is the Church of God which you read about in the New Testament. Acts tells its early history and the Epistles are actual letters of the Apostles to some of its congregations and leaders. It is neither Roman Catholic nor Protestant. Waimahia

Waimahia = Why am I here Now any of you who have a slight inkling of the Maori language will know that's not the real translation.

Hi Smalcald, I have NEVER denied that Jesus is God. there are two personages in the Godhead; God the Father and God the Son. This was clearly the belief of those Apostles who started their epistles with the then-common formulaic greetings in the name of their God. You will in five minutes of Bible study note that they DO NOT include the Holy Spirit as part of the God in which they were sending their letters. What an insult to the Holy Spirit if it is actually part of the Godhead. I notice that people do not actually ever address that simple point. Similarly they never address the abominable, murderous way in which the trinity heresy came to be part of Roman Catholic doctrine as clearly taught in any decent church history which has no axe to grind on the matter. Most trinitarians dance their way around these clear issues and some, like St Worm, resort to personal insult. Kia Ora, Waimahia

You seem to have little in common with Christians in your view of the Trinity but much in common with Mohammed. No, St Worm, My view of the so-called trinity has commonality with Paul, Peter, James and John. I refer anyone to check those epistles which have formulaic greetings. These clearly show that they did not accept that the Holy Spirit was part of the Godhead they worshipped. I have never heard a trinitarian explain away this fact. I also invite anyone to study the history of how the trinity doctrine came to be accepted by the Catholic Church (suggest 11th Edition of Britannica as a good starting point). Just get familiar with the history of the trinity doctrine and ask, "Is this of God's revelation?" Waimahia

St Worm wrote, "What training have you had in interpretating the Bible? More than St Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and every other credible church father who embraced the biblical Trinity?" The problem we have accepting the trinity is because of those church fathers who never did embrace or teach the trinity but who only spoke of God the Father and God the Son and never stated that the Holy Spirit was the third person in the Godhead. I am speaking of Paul, Peter, John, James etc. Just study the formulaic introduction to the epistles and you will see that these true "church fathers" obviously did not consider the Holy Spirit to be a part of the Godhead in the now classical sense. BTW Martin Luther; a Christian?! This the man who urged the slaughter of peasants and the telling of "strong lies" and rejected the book written by Our Lord's own brother. Gimme a break. Waimahia

Hi again Iryssa, Because of time pressure I have put together the briefest explanation over what Matt 28:19 means. We ALL admit don't we that it does not literally state that the Holy Spirit is the third person in the Godhead? Matt 28:19 needs to be considered in the light of all scripture not just be read as "Ah, the trinity!" Actually, there has been considerable controversy over whether the Matthew 28:19 command by Christ is authentic Scripture or an insertion by translators who were trinitarian like I John 5:7. Many who believe in a triune God use this as a proof-text that God, indeed, is a trinity. Extensive research has been done to trace back to the earliest Bible manuscripts, and, although there is still some doubt, the verse appears to be authentic. But does this mean God is a trinity? No, it does not! How can we explain this Scripture? The original Greek word translated