Can CoC be considered Christian?

2 John 1:10-11 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

Jesus had not left the context of false teachers in Mat.7:20 as evidenced by verses 22,23.

Here in 2John 1:10,11 the fruit is doctrine. If they bring wrong doctrine (like JW doctrine) don't even allow them into your house.

Read the book of Jude. The entire book speaks about the fruit of false teachers, and describes that fruit in very vivid terms.

Jude 1:12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;

Jude 1:13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

 

I do not see "fruit" in either the KJV or ASV of 2 John.

Yes; the false teachers are as valueless as trees without fruit. If "fruit" refers to "doctrine" then the false teachers are `without doctrine' but in reality they have false doctrine.

This provides no evidence that "fruit" at Matthew 7:20 refers to "doctrine" and that the translation "deeds" (NBV) is invalid.

I am aware of no translator who would allege Greek underlying "fruit" could be idiomatically translated "doctrine" -- not one. I am aware of none that alleges that Greek underlying "fruit" should be idiomatically translated "doctrine" instead of "deeds" or similar. I quoted one translation that translated Greek underlying ASV "fruit" idiomatically "deeds" (NBV), and there are others that translated similarly.

I said "You find me multiple biblical scholars who know Greek well enough to translate who will corroborate your idea as possible, and I will take your innovation more seriously."

So, where is it? If you do not have it, please simply say so or quietly drop it. I will not press you on it.

 

MATT WADE:

Still would like to hear why you think this.

 

Matthew 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Matthew 7:20 arage apo twn karpwn autwn epignwsesqe autouV

--fruit is its only meaning
--The word does not mean works. Therefore the context determines the meaning.

Matthew 7:22-23 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
--This verse brings to mind men like "Benny Hinn."
Their "works" are based on their false doctrine. Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees--the false doctrine of the Pharisees.
The prophesied in His name--that is they taught. They led them astray. There wonderful works were a sign that their so-called "doctrines" were of God. We know false teachers because of their doctrine. That is the same way that we know them today. When a JW comes to my door I know them because of their doctrine. The same is true for a Mormon. When I do door-to-door evangelism I know people by their doctrine whether they are saved, simply lost sinners, or actual false teachers that deliberately lead others astray. I know them by their fruits (false doctrine). There are many sincere well-meaning people in this world--people that visit the sick, help their neighbors when in need, go the extra mile for others, etc. Many of them may be caring, loving false teachers. That is not the fruit that we know them by.
My own father is a devout Roman Catholic. His righteous style of living would put most Christians to shame. We know people by their fruit (doctrine) which sends people to hell--and the RCC doctrine does.

 

You still have not provided it.

The Greek underlying "fruit" in the ASV of Matthew 7:20 should idiomatically be translated "deeds" (NBV) or similar -- unless you can find me multiple biblical scholars who can translate who will substantiate your new idea.

The idea that you are in a position to second-guess Bible translators and assert a meaning for a Greek term that flies in the face of their work is not realistic.

 

I don't compare myself to Bible translators. I have taken some Greek.

In English when a person says "apple" we know what they mean. The word is basic.
"Karpos" also is a very basic word with just one meaning. It means "fruit." It is something one learns in first year Greek, basic Greek vocabulary. It does not mean works "ergos" and its many other synonyms. The words for deeds and works, have a number of synonyms. But fruit is fruit. It cannot be translated deeds. If a translator is translating the word "fruit" as deeds or works, then he is not translating, he is using dynamic equivalency or paraphrasing, which means that he is giving his interpretation of the text rather than translating the text. Thus the reader is being misled as to what the true meaning is.
We are the ones that are commanded "to study to show ourselves approved unto God." But if the translator has already corrupted the text by putting his own ideas into his own translation, one cannot carry out God's command properly. Fruit means fruit and nothing else.
What fruit means in the context is for the reader to determine.
Maybe that particular fruit means figs, apples, prunes; or maybe it means doctrine, or possibly works. It is for the reader to determine through the context what the word means, not for the translator to bungle the job for you. parkos simply means fruit! To translate it any other way is wrong.

Context and other supporting Scripture demonstrates that in this passage the fruit spoken of is doctrine, in particular false doctrine. We know false teachers because of the false doctrine that they propagate.

 

About whether or not the NBV translation of "deeds" is a valid translation at Matthew 7:20,

Here is the reply, with emphasis mine:

DHK: I do not want to argue with you anymore about this.

You have made a pretty strong accusation here against at least one Bible translator, and Bible translators who have translated the text similarly -- and have admitted your lack of qualifications to do so. It looks like you are getting angry, and I know what often follows when you do.

Fact is, they are Bible translators whose background and training in Greek was sufficient for them to get on translation boards, and have their work published by major companies.

You are not alleging that we are growing literal fruits out of our bodies more than anyone else would allege. To my knowledge, no one, including you, alleges that "fruit" means that we grow apples, oranges, grapes, or some similar thing out of our bodies.

In the face of competent Bible translators, from which you exclude yourself, you claim that it means "doctrine" and that Bible translators corrupt the text when they understand it as "deeds" or similar and not literal "fruit." This is pretty wild to me.

From the day I read that passage until just this last week, I have seen it solely understood to mean things we do. You are the first person I have ever encountered who has alleged that it did not.

The choice you place before me: competent translators, or you who admits lacking such qualifications? I am sorry, DHK, but you are not going to convince me to accept your innovation. Let us agree to disagree and move on.

 

Hi Thinkingstuff: I am sorry for the delay. I have been distracted.

The Churches of Christ have no universal teaching of the Holy Spirit. It depends on where you are at -- and in many places, you better be sure you have their view on it.

Some teach that the Holy Spirit is at work in all settings assisting Christians to live faithfully. Others insist that He does nothing except use the text of Scripture to influence Christians.

Some believe in the traditional Trinity and would call it that.

Others believe in a Godhead where God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit all exist -- hence, not modalism. They would not call it the Trinity.

I have encountered no sign of modalism in the Churches of Christ.

Does that help?

 

Do you worship Bible translations, and/or their translators? I know that there are some KJVO people that might go that far. I didn't know that you might be one of them. Are you willing to admit that there may be mistakes in your revered translation?

I really didn't think I would have to do this. I thought that you could take my word.

Gill is a prominent Baptist theologian who is the author of the above quote.
There are many more quotes that I can give you if you so desire. But, really, you can do your own homework if you just study a bit.

 

DHK: Your quote did not provide what I called on you for: a theologian is not a Greek scholar competent enough to translate. You still have not provided one to corroborate your inventive idea; in fact, this theologian did not either. Further, I saw Chaldaic letters, not Greek. Matthew 7 was written in Greek.

I doubt that matters in light of your comment here:

Yep; you were getting angry. You have started on the next step: you have turned nasty and just spouted off something wild.

I am done arguing with you about Matthew 7.

 

I'm not angry. See the folly of your position. It is the same as a radical KJVO. "My position is right because my translation is right." (i.e. it is inspired and infallible--without error). This is how you come across. You give no room for the possibility of error in your translation, even though the word means "fruit" and has no other translation but fruit. One does not have to be a Greek scholar to know that. A basic knowledge of Greek can tell you that.

Let me give you another example (I have studied five languages).
pomme de terre means potato in French. It has no other meaning. If you want to give it a figurative meaning that is up to you. But the word means potato.

You are trying to give the word "fruit" a figurative meaning. It has one meaning--fruit. Why are you trying to change the meaning to fit your own theology. That is dishonest.

 

Huh? That is nuts.

No more false accusations or personal attacks.

You have not been convincing, and I have told you I am done arguing with you about this. I have asked you to drop this more than once.

I did not start this exchange with you; you posted to me. I was not convinced by you. That I have not been convinced by you does not mean that I deserve to be treated like this.

Enough of the `extracurricular activity,' please.

You are a moderator; please hold yourself to standards befitting one.

 

And many are wrong.
[/quote]
Translations are made by fallible men that make mistakes.

karpos is a Greek word that means fruit. It is used 66 times in the NT. In the the KJV it is translated "fruit" each and every time.
The translation you referred to did not translate the word but used dynamic equivalency to the extent as to what he thought the word should mean. That is bias on the part of a translator. It is wrong.

 

I thought the CoC was cultic because it believed you had to be baptized to be saved and that you had to be a member of the Coc as no other churches are valid.

I could be wrong but that's the story I get.

 

That is pretty much the gist of it.

 

Mark 16:16 (New American Standard Bible)

16 He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.

Christ said one must be baptized in order to be saved.

Matt.16:18
18"I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

Christ said He would build His church, not a bunch on denomination, divided over issues that He did not authorize.

Romans 16:16
All the churches of Christ greet you.

 

JSM17: I was raised an Independent Fundamental Baptist...about 6 years ago an adult Sunday school class my wife and I attended did a study called "Why I'm a Baptist"...to make a long story short, it was revealed to the class, some knew and some didn't, that our type of Church was the NT Church...that we weren't "Protestant", but was forced "underground" by the Catholic Church, and we all got our copy of "The Trail of Blood" by Carroll.

For me, as much as I REALLY wanted this to be true, the class presented more questions than answers. I needed something more concrete than the Trail of Blood as evidence, and sadly none could be found. Without even knowing who the Early Church Fathers were, I needed primary sources, just as the Apostles wrote their Epistles, I knew there had to be some record of men who knew the Apostles and when I went asking these hard questions, I got the same 'ol Romaphobic answer.

Of course, the above was just the start, I also began questioning the multitude of Protestant Denominations.

So yourself, as a Church of Christ member, what evidence do you have to prove that your Church is the NT Church of the Apostles?

In XC
-