Matthew 28:1

GE:
Re: Dr Walter,
“Luke 23:54 it is used in the figurative sense as it was just before 6 pm when Jesus was buried and the Sabbath EVENING - period of darkness was coming upon them and yet Luke says the Sabbath "drew on" (epiphosko) meaning the Sabbath day was coming upon them - the sundown period - was coming upon them.”

GE:
DHK, you asked why it is important when I said it is tremendously important to note
“that this particular ‘stage’ of day-time has BEGUN, and did not END”, and that “It was “In / On the Sabbath late, Sabbath’s MID-afternoon”, with the REST of the afternoon – three solid hours of it – REMAINING before end of day, sunset”.

Well here is, why! Here is just what I anticipated!
Because, says DW — just as I said he would —
“Luke 23:54…is used in the figurative sense as it was just before 6 pm when Jesus was buried and the Sabbath EVENING - period of darkness was coming upon them and yet Luke says the Sabbath "drew on" (epiphosko) meaning the Sabbath day was coming upon them - the sundown period - was coming upon them”— which ‘conclusion’ of his DW of course applies to Mt28:1.

(I’m not now referring to DW’s observation ‘epiphoskoh’ in “Luke 23:54…is used in the figurative sense”. I have already shown how meaningless and contradictory remark that was.) I’m referring to my perception of the tendency people presume the time of day indicated with ‘epiphohskoh’ is ‘sundown’ right at the periphery of the day and that therefore the Resurrection must have occurred on the First Day.

This is exactly what Dr Walter is doing, guising, “(epiphosko) Luke 23:54…is used in the figurative sense as it was just before 6 pm when Jesus was buried and the Sabbath EVENING - period of darkness was coming upon them and yet Luke says the Sabbath "drew on" (epiphosko) meaning the Sabbath day was coming upon them - the sundown period - was coming upon them”.

Now all this harangue of DW’s is turned upon himself, in that to say that “tehi epiphohskousehi’ in Matthew or Luke has the “sense”
of “....before 6 pm”,
of “when Jesus was buried”,
of “the Sabbath EVENING - period of darkness was coming”,
of “drew on”,
of “meaning the Sabbath day was coming …. the sundown period - was coming” —
…. means but that it was “....before 6 pm” = “towards the First Day”;
means but that Jesus was both buried and resurrected, BEFORE “the EVENING”,
means but, BEFORE the next “day”,
means but BEFORE the after-“sundown period”, and
means but that “the EVENING”, the next “day”, the after-“sundown period”,
was yet, and was still, “coming”— and was still, and was yet, NOT yet or already, “upon them”!

All this means but that neither Matthew or Luke said, or meant, or made innuendo, that on the Friday Preparation “the Sabbath”, or on the Sabbath the First Day of the week, was in fact “upon them”— which to assert is open disclaiming of these Scriptures.

There now you and everyone can see, DHK, ‘WHY’ it was so important to keep reckoning of the TRUTH that this particular ‘stage’ of day-time INDICATED WITH ‘epiphohskohi’- “MID-AFTERNOON”, had BEGUN, and did not END, and that “It was IN / ON the Sabbath late, Sabbath’s MID-AFTERNOON”, with the REST of the afternoon – three solid hours of it – REMAINING before end of day sunset, and NOT, with “the EVENING”, or the next “day”, or the after-“sundown period”, “upon them”!

That ‘tehi epiphohskousehi’ in Matthew or ‘epephohsken’ in Luke means “the EVENING”, or the next “day”, or the after-“sundown period”, is “upon” someone, is a fallacy.

But, how ironic for the Sunday-resurrectionist is it, the nearest his contention “the Greek term epiphosko” means Sunday MORNING (before “the fourth watch 3-4 am”), could get the Resurrection to Sunday “early (proii)” before “the fourth watch 3-4 am”, was – ostensibly – “before 6 pm” or “sundown period”. Nine— in reality 12 to 15 hours, off target!

 

GE:
Sorry, DHK, I cannot understand myself, that people always get the impression I'm putting up a fight, while I honestly don't. I have been struggling with this now for as long as I have been communicating with FELLOW Christians as a brother in Christ. I refuse to even communicate with non-believers no matter how humanitarian they may appear to be. We just do not have that common ground on which to stand. You might have noticed that I contribute but little on the established foundations of the Christian Faith on Baptist Board, for two reasons,

First, that these foundations are so thoroughly established and expounded upon by men of integrity and true greatness, my contribution might only detract from the excellent defense of the Faith they have given us.

Second, that I am fully occupied with what I consider is more in the field of what I believe is my calling. It is not because I am one track minded; it is because this aspect of the Christian Faith --- as seen in these threads --- I consider as my job.

Now this is resented most by my Brethren in the Faith, that I speak out on the Sabbath-Sunday issue in the Church from a common platform, the platform of the believing Christian man, and more, from a Reformed Protestant believer's standpoint. Man, I am intolerable to most if not all BECAUSE OF IT.

Anyway, To answer your question I shall retort with a counter-question --- as I usually do --- Are you a legalist? For it is only the legalist that requires, yea, demand, a direct Commandment before he will acknowledge God's Authority in any matter. I have said it countless of times, DHK, Christ is become the Christian's sole Law. And if we see the Sabbath through the life of Christ and The Body of Christ's Own, we have seen all possible Christian Law. Moreover if we see it in the Resurrection of Christ from the dead, we shall be without excuse!

But then on top of it all, God disposed that we as Christians DO find the Sabbath Commandment as it were re-enacted in the New Testament. And that also I have shown over and over on also this forum, BaptistBoard.

Then lastly, I have always believed the Christian believes the WHOLE Bible for God's Word, and that the Old Testament : is SINCE JESUS CHRIST : as valid as ever for the People of God. No wonder therefore that when _inter alia_ the writer of Hebrews wants to make this very point, he quotes from the Old Testament on the same plane and Authority as the Word of Jesus Christ in chapter 4.

Therefore, kindly consider that I am trying to stay with the subject, and cannot now and on this thread, go into your question further.


If I were a ‘Bible-skeptic’ or and atheist I today would have been respected and famous because of my critique on Christian Sunday observance; now that I am a fellow-believer I am ignored and laughed at up the sleeve.

 

GE:
If this is so --- and I believe you it is --- then Dr A.T. Robertson deserves the more respect and acknowledgement for having taken stand directly the opposite of his mentor's.


However, I’m very sorry, but I very much doubt your interpretation of Broadus, Dr Walter! Again you do not give the statement by Broadus in full quote or in "the overall context ". I think it says more or less the opposite of what you are contending, Dr Walter. I shall not be surprised in the least if Broadus meant the first clause of his statement “the gates would be closed at sunset” as representing the meaning of “the term epiphosko”— in contradistinction to the concept contained in the second clause of his statement, “and opened at dawn”.

I may be wrong of course. I shall wait for your bringing us his full statement, please, to see….

 

Gerhard Ebersoehn
To answer your question I shall retort with a counter-question --- as I usually do --- Are you a legalist? For it is only the legalist that requires, yea, demand, a direct Commandment before he will acknowledge God's Authority in any matter.

DHK:
No I am not a legalist. A legalist would require worship on a certain day, such as the Judaizers in Paul's day did. They were the trouble-makers for Paul. They demanded that the Gentile believers kept the law, which would include worshiping on the Sabbath. They were the legalists.

GE:
It is the legalist who judges his fellow Christian who “would require worship on a certain day”. You altogether missed Paul’s whole point, DHK. Paul CONDONED the “worship on a certain day”. You do exactly what Paul did NOT condone. You act the Law yourselves and judge believers’ regard (for whatever reasons) for one day above another day.

Throughout the Gospels and New Testament the Sabbath Day happened to be ‘required’ for the corporate worship of the Church. You judge the Sabbath _DAY_ incompatible with the life of the Church. What Paul found incompatible with the life of the Church in Romans 14 was the judging spirit against the People’s freedom to regard certain days.

Paul judged incompatible with the Christian confession and life of the Church,
first, legalists’ judging of others; and,
on par, legalists’ regard for the “food and drink” associated with the observance of certain days, as were it— the “food and drink …… the kingdom of God”.

“The trouble-makers for Paul” were these legalists; not the freemen in Jesus Christ. The legalists demanded that the Gentile believers do not keep the law of Christian love and regard for and tolerance of one another.

The Christian ‘worshiping on the Sabbath’ was no issue and in this issue, was irrelevant. Legalists, force ‘worshiping on the Sabbath’ into the issue. Forcing the Sabbath into the Romans 14 ‘issue’ is the definition of legalism and forcing the Sabbath into the Romans 14 ‘issue’ defines the protagonists of the idea as the legalists they are.

GE:
I have said it countless of times, DHK, Christ is become the Christian's sole Law.


DHK:
“Christ did not become our law. It does not say that. Rather it says that Christ fulfilled the law.”

GE:
You beat about the bush. If Christ did not become our Law, then what is the Christians’, Law? The Ten Commandments? Yes, for when we are become the transgressors of it. But while we have peace with God— “For HE, is our Peace”, we have the “Law of Eternal Life” even Jesus Christ for our Law.

A Christian is not the lawless; “lawlessness is sin”— the Word of God defines sin. To have “Christ our righteousness” is to have Christ our “Law that is able to give life”.

GE:
And if we see the Sabbath through the life of Christ and The Body of Christ's Own, we have seen all possible Christian Law. Moreover if we see it in the Resurrection of Christ from the dead, we shall be without excuse!


DHK:
“The only way that we see the Sabbath through Christ is figuratively.”

GE:
Do you see the Law ‘only figuratively through Christ’?

Are you a Jesus revolutionist? Do you see Christ’s resurrection “only figuratively”? I know you don’t. I know you believe and you “say Christ came in the flesh” from the dead and from the grave, ‘literally’. (Or you aren’t a Christian at all but “is antichrist”.) Therefore there is no basis on which to aver the DAY of Christ’s resurrection, “Sabbath’s” Mt28:1 was not ‘literally’ “mid-afternoon” as well when Christ rose from the dead, and “gave them rest … so that therefore indeed there remains for the People of God keeping of the Sabbath Day.”

The only way the New Testament sees the Sabbath is through the availing of “Jesus”, who “had given them rest”— ‘literally’ through resurrection from the dead and the grave, “Sabbath’s” --- as God willed it, executed, and “perfected”, “FINISHED” HIS will from “before the foundation of the world” and WITH the foundation of the world in Christ and through Christ.

 

DHK:
“We are to enter into His rest. He is our Sabbath. He gives us rest. We are commanded to enter into His rest, and that is not a day. It is because of His death and Resurrection that we can have this rest in Him.”

GE:
Truly “We are to enter into His rest”; but not because “He is our Sabbath”, but because “He gives us rest” and because “He is our … rest”.

And yes, hear yourself saying it: “We are commanded to enter into His rest, and that is not a day.” “NOT A DAY”— NOT “our Sabbath”! Remember your own way to explain your belief about baptism, DHK! With the only difference the Sabbath is not an Apostolic prerogative but the direct injunction through the act and example of Christ by having risen “Sabbath’s”— thus having “fulfilled the law” of the “Sabbath” for the Body of Christ’s Own the Church of all time and times— not ‘figuratively’, but ‘literally’. I say again, as ‘literal’ as his Resurrection was ‘literal’. You cannot make the one ‘figurative’ and the other ‘literal’.

So, it is absolutely true what you say, “It is because of His death and Resurrection that we can have this rest in Him.” JUST AS TRUE it follows, is it to learn from God’s act and living example through Jesus Christ “It is because of His death and Resurrection that we can have this rest in Him”, that it serves unto our LAW: “THAT THEREFORE, there remains valid keeping of the Sabbath Day for the People of God.” For us, the Christians.

Nothing about all this is ‘figurative’ any more; Christ who had fulfilled the figure, fulfilled the Law and fulfilled it literally and therefore, thereby and therein, became our Law in it fullest grandeur in the reality of his own Being.

“His Name is Innermost Sanctuary” of the full fellowship (Schilder) of God the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, having “RESTED-UP”, “Sabbath’s”! Cf. Is57:15 and Ex31:17. In both Scriptures it is the one and same event of “The Truth of Thy Salvation … in an acceptable day o God, in the MULTITUDE OF THY MERCIES!” Ps69:13. In both Scriptures it is Jesus’ “prayer” answered both ‘figuratively’ and ‘literally’.


GE:
But then on top of it all, God disposed that we as Christians DO find the Sabbath Commandment as it were re-enacted in the New Testament. And that also I have shown over and over on also this forum, BaptistBoard.


DHK:
“And this is where I challenge you. Show me from Scripture where there is any command for the believer to keep the Sabbath. I don't believe you can. There is no such command. Where is the Sabbath Command, as you call it.”

GE:
Just above, shown.
And there are many more Commands audible to the ear that God “dug”, as the Psalmist says.

But let’s let go a bit….
Do you agree to Isaiah being called the Gospel in the Old Testament? Why therefore could Is58 not be ‘interpreted’ as a prophecy of Jesus Christ? I believe that is the prophecy’s FIRST meaning and application in no way secondary. See God’s Sabbath Commandment in there? See Jesus “delight in the Sabbath” in there? BUT NOT HIS RESURRECTION IN THERE? Astonishing!

And so I could go on illustrating with thoroughly NEW Testament Scriptures from the Old.

Then we find THESE Scriptures in the New Testament “fulfilled” by Christ especially in and with and through his resurrection from the dead, but DHK can’t see the Sabbath Commandment repeated in the New Testament? Amazing!

Will you admit the Genesis story in essence is the Gospel of Jesus Christ “fulfilled” under the New Covenant of Grace? Will you admit the same as pertains the Exodus story of the LORD’S Passover? Or the redemption from the idolatrous tyranny under queen Athalia— on the Sabbath Day? Or the cleansing of the Sanctuary during the reign of Jehoiada from “the filth Agas brought into the temple”, “finished”, on the Sabbath Day? “Behold, the King’s Son shall reign, as the LORD hath said of the Son* of David! And this is the thing that YE … in the HOUSE of God (the Church) … shall do … entering on the SABBATH…”? Are these not New Testament Scriptures “fulfilled” by Christ in his Resurrection?

If not, what for then were the Gospels ever written full of Sabbath’s events and stories by a Church half a century after the events and stories? But DHK does not see a Sabbath-Command because he insists on his own sort of ‘command’ which is that of the Jewish scribes and leaders, ‘engraved in stone’ ‘in letters’— and that, in the NEW Testament?! To me, it sounds much like the Seventh-day Adventists think and argue….


GE:
Then lastly, I have always believed the Christian believes the WHOLE Bible for God's Word, and that the Old Testament : is SINCE JESUS CHRIST : as valid as ever for the People of God.



DHK:
“Are you consistent with the law then?”

GE:
Found in Christ, Yes! (DHK: “Are you reborn?”)

DHK:
“Do you keep the Levitical diet?”

GE:
Through Christ, I did. (Christ: “My meat is to the will of my Father.”)

DHK:
“Do you wear only one type of clothing--not wearing divers clothing.”

GE:
Clothed with the righteousness of Jesus Christ, I do; and wear the only clothing of righteousness which is “of God”, “without the Law”. Ro3:21.

DHK, the trouble with you is you are ‘figurative’ when you should regard the Law ‘literally’, and ‘literal’ when you should regard the Law ‘figuratively’.

DHK:
“When keeping the Sabbath do you travel within a Sabbath day's distance 5/8 of a mile and no more.”

GE:
In Christ I travel across the heights of the earth on the Sabbath Day, and am exalted to above every name that is named at the right hand of God in heavenly places ON THE SABBATH DAY for eternity.

DHK:
“Do you prepare all your food the day before and do absolutely no cooking on the Sabbath, not even to make a cup of coffee or tea?”

GE:
“Because Christ triumphed in it” (having been raised from the dead) and I “having been co-raised with Him”, the Word tells me, “THEREFORE do not you let yourselves be judged with regard to eating and drinking, whether of occasional month’s or of perpetual Sabbaths’ Feast … holding the Head, Christ … having nourishment ministered, growing with the growth of God. … If ye be dead with Christ … Christ is all in all … put on therefore … BOWLS OF MERCIES … let the peace of God rule in your HEART … and the WORD of Christ dwell IN YOU, RICHLY.” Christ shall be my food and drink, all ready and prepared and ‘decadent’ so “rich”, for me as for his Body the Church, prepared and served specifically as according to the Old Testament Law, on the Sabbath Day!

 

DHK:
“Do you really keep the Sabbath as it should be kept?”

GE:
I sincerely regret I do not. I hope in that new day to, though.

GE:
No wonder therefore that when _inter alia_ the writer of Hebrews wants to make this very point, he quotes from the Old Testament on the same plane and Authority as the Word of Jesus Christ in chapter 4.


DHK:
“He makes a parallel between the OT and the NT. He gives no command to keep the Sabbath.”

GE:
Exactly, my friend in Christ; exactly!

DHK:
“Whether the resurrection happened on the Sabbath or the first day of the week (Sunday), as the Bible says it did …”

GE:
… which is of course the real point “challenged” here on this thread, for everyone to read and observe for himself and his own conscience.

DHK:
“Whether the resurrection happened on the Sabbath or the first day of the week (Sunday) …… should make no difference.”

GE:
Then why enter into debate over it? It does make a difference, the difference between obedience and disobedience to God’s Law.

DHK:
“There is still no command to worship on the Sabbath, or any other day for that matter.”

GE:
DHK is headstrong. He thinks it’s a matter of his own choice, see.

DHK:
“Whether the resurrection happened on the Sabbath or the first day of the week (Sunday) …… should make no difference. There is still no command to worship on the Sabbath, or any other day for that matter. The early disciples did it in commemoration of the Resurrection…”

GE:
Why would “the early disciples … commemorate …the Resurrection” if it “should make no difference”? You must be consistent DHK. It did make a difference, and that was why the early disciples commemorated the Resurrection on the specific day of the week on which the resurrection actually occurred. And that constituted to the disciples the LAW which commands the day of the commemoration of Jesus’ resurrection should be observed and kept holy. That in itself; that in itself which DHK closes his eyes for to see. And that’s why the Church today has tried to change the total perception of which day of the week the Resurrection occurred upon. (Through mass miss-information, inter alia by miss-translation of the Scriptures…… like……) that
“the early disciples …… believed the first day of the week” was the day on which “the resurrection happened”.

DHK:
“That is made clear in Acts 20:7 where it says the first day of the week, in opposition to "Sabbath."

GE:
Which only shows how clever you can steer away from the actual issue. And which claim I often on this Board have proved untrue.

GE:
If I were a ‘Bible-skeptic’ or and atheist I today would have been respected and famous because of my critique on Christian Sunday observance; now that I am a fellow-believer I am ignored and laughed at up the sleeve.


DHK:
We are commanded not to think too highly of ourselves.

GE:
This is what others think or might think of me; not I of myself. And it is not thinking high of; it is thinking very low of me.

In any case, we are commanded “not to think above what is written”.

 

GE:

PMH, it was I - GE - who used those 'names'.

You would have read somewhere on this thread I said I only respect the religion of the Christian man (or words to the effect). That means I do NOT respect any 'religion' per se. I won't even say 'any OTHER religion than the Christian Faith' because that might sound like I sort the Christian Faith under all 'religion'. I shall deride and insult as hard as I can, any and all 'religion' because I am a Christian in the world we are living in this day.

Now what makes a person a Christian for me – do with it what you like; it's none of my business – what makes a person a Christian is that he believes in his heart and confess with his mouth that Jesus Christ is God, was God, and shall be God for ever as the Father is God and as the Holy Spirit is God. (Like Athanasius' Confession confesses.) In other words, what makes a person a Christian is that he believes the 'Trinity' and the worship of God Tri-Une makes of someone a Christian and a Believer, first and foremost.

Then whenever someone boasts he is a Christian Believer but DENIES Jesus is God HE IS A LIAR AND NO DIFFERENT THAN ISLAM, and Arius the first false Christian who started the heresy. Mohammed did not begin this thing about 'Allah', Arius did! Mohammed only gave the god of Arius, the name of 'Allah'.

The Church of God group of sects today carried on with Arius' heresy, and what is more unfortunate, is, they also are carrying on his legalist and perverse Seventh Day Sabbath belief.

Most unfortunate however, is that this same perverse Sabbath-doctrine of Arius and the COG 'Mob' as I call them, was taken over by certainly the monopoly-holding 'Church' on the Seventh Day Sabbath, the Seventh-day Adventists who say they are Jews (as John explained them in Revelation) but are not Jews— the 'Nicolaitanes' “which thing God HATES”! What a PERFECT definition of the Seventh-day Adventist 'Church'; absolutely fitting!

 

GE:

Alright; there may be thousands of them. I have found as many exponents of the ‘three days and three nights’, as many sects among them. I have had to do with them MANY times as can be seen in MANY debates between myself and them, and I have not found any who believe the Eternal Divinity of Jesus Christ. The Armstrongites have their die-hards, and their belief about Jesus' Divinity differs from the newer sects in that they believed and still believe Jesus BECAME God, just like the saved will BECOME God. They speak of the 'God-family' that one day will include all the saved.

Some shoot-offs may have rejected this Armstrong viewpoint; but I still have to find a 'church' of them that believes Jesus' eternal Divinity ('Deity'). Also the lot who maintain their weird view about the three days and three nights equals 72 hours and a Wednesday Crucifixion, are very strong on Jesus' inferior and subjected, human status. I am every day in conflict with them in South Africa on several Afrikaans forums, and assure you, the conflict is not nice.

Please note that I do NOT enter into debate with these people or anyone else about God's Being, ever! And that precisely is what these people find MOST INSULTING about me. And I, so PREFER it, thanks.

 

GE:
The group refers to itself on the internet with the letters 'cog' in just about every webpage of theirs, and there are plenty! They are strong on the internet.

They have become very subtle with their denial of Jesus' Divinity because they are clever enough to have seen how their agenda repels any sane Christian. (I am also speaking from personal experience.) Be warned if you care about the Divinity of our Lord Jesus! They have not given in, in the least; they are DENIERS of God, the God of the Christian. And they are just another name for Islam with one difference, that they insult the Seventh Day Sabbath of the LORD your God in chorus with the Jews rather than with Islam through the veneration of the Sixth Day of the week.

 

As many variations on the 'three days'-theme, 'Yehashua'-variations do they have, and more. As many a-divine arguments as spellings of Jesus' Name. In a word, their teaching is so confused and corrupt it cannot be explained by anyone of them, what by someone outside. But they all come down to Jesus is not God as the Father is God. They also deny the Holy Spirirt is a Person of the God-Head, God, the Father, the Son AND the Holy Spirit.

But if you want to see how ugly things can get, check this conversation here on BB, http://www.biblestudents.co.za/docs/html/Days%20of%20Crucifixion%20and%20Resurrection%20Finch.htm

 

Paul R. Finch's last lines to me were these,

"Your entire case is so weak, it should be dismissed and entered into the realm of fiction. It has no basis in fact, grammar, historical precedent, nor just plain logic. To believe such a scenario doesn't take spiritual insight, nor expert grammar, but just plain gullibility. As I said before, its like the story of the Emperor's new clothes. Is the fabric real, or is it just wishful thinking? Personally, I see right through it.

Quoting Gerhard: "To say “the word "JESUS" should be translated Joshua”, would mean to rob THIS “Jesus Christ to whom be glory for ever” of both his rest and glory. Josua did NOT give the People of God, the rest that is God’s. For “his rest” is God’s “glory”, and God’s glory is “his rest”. God’s Glory is the Son “As He hath OBTAINED a more excellent NAME by inheritance.” God declared Christ Son and Inheritor, “Thou art my Son, THIS DAY (when He raised Him from the dead) have I begotten Thee.” 1:4-6."

This entire post is like listening to a mad man, someone on drugs. It is total psycho-babel in the extreme. After reading Gerhard, one still never knows what he really thinks. But here's the bottom line. The context is about Joshua leading the Israelites into Canaan and the fact the he did not give them the spiritual rest back then, because if he did, then why should we look forward to a millennial rest in the future? Therefore, there does remain a sabbatismos for the people of God in the future, the millennial Sabbath that is to come.

Now, If Gerhard is saying that Jesus (a name that was given to him at his birth [Luke 1:31], who came into existence in the time of Ceasar Augustus [Luke 2:1]) lead the Israelites into the promised land back in Joshua's day, then there is nothing here for me to discuss any further. A pre-existing Jesus is a doctrine of demons and I will not have any part of it!"


I did not answer, or shall.

 

GE:
PHM, don't be fooled, young man! Am I right you're still young? I am sure you are still very young, because you do not distinguish the subtlety in the quote above.

You will not see that they say that Jesus is God, or that the Holy Spirit is a person in and of the God-Head the Trinity, God, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Now place before ANY of these people the straight and simple question, Is Jesus God? You will get no answer or some vague evasion of the question.

Place before these people the Confession of Athanasius, and they will get red with anger, and will wipe that Confession from the table. To them it is blasphemy. Is Athanasius' Confession the Truth for you PHM?, then I shall rejoice with you in Christ our Lord and, GOD! But they, will throw you out of their congregation if you already got in, and will slam the door in your face if you have not.

I once visited an assembly of theirs; they did not know who I was, asked a casual question or two which directly had bearing on the 'issue' of Jesus' Divinity. When the 'pastor' began his 'sermon', he said, I prepared my sermon for today .... (I don't remember what it was) but because we have our visitor for the first time today, I shall speak on the being of our Lord Jesus Christ at this time. He then proceeded with about a two hour long reading from a standard 'study' of theirs, the whole thing their DENIAL of Jesus' Divinity. Text upon text upon text .... I had to be polite, but till this day blame myself for having been too cowardly to leave there and then.

They say, "We believe in one God, the Father, eternally existing, who is a Spirit, a personal Being of supreme intelligence, knowledge, love, justice, power and authority." They mean, Only the Father is God and the Almighty; neither the Son or the Holy Spirit is.

They say, "We believe in one God, the Father .... He, through Jesus Christ, is the Creator ..." They mean The Father only is the Creator, not the Son; the Son was only the Mediator through whom the Father created.

They say, "Christ, .... who is the Word and who has eternally existed." They mean, 'the Word' pre-existed; not Jesus Christ.

And so on.


Now I invite ANY of these people under whatever 'name' of a church they may be known or prefer to be known, to deny what I am saying here about them --- PMH, let them know what I am telling you here; let them come tell me I am lying about them. Please do!