KeralaBrethren.net
New User? Register Today!
Registered Users, LOGIN
What we believe (Eng) What we believe (Mal) About Us Contact Us
Forums Home General Forum Youth Forum Sisters Forum Archives (2005-2007) Archives (2001-2004)
Listing of Brides Listing of Grooms
Assemblies in Kerala Evangelists in India Instituitions in India
Christian Albums Christian Songs
Audio Sermons Bible Wallpapers Brethren Links KB History (Eng) KB History (Mal)

K E R A L A  B R E T H R E N
General Forum

Forums Home ::
This Message Forum is to discuss spiritual topics only. Please avoid personal or assembly matters.
Let us use this facility for our spiritual enrichment and for bringing glory to our Lord almighty.
Webmasters reserve the right to delete any topic or posting partly or completely from this forum.
View Topics :: :: Post new topic


Keralabrethren.net: General Forum: Single cup or multiple cups for the Lord's Supper?

Post Reply
Go to bottom of the page

# 02428 :  Single cup or multiple cups for the Lord's Supper?

 

I was thinking about writing on this subject for several months. As always, time is a precious commodity [not that I always use it so wisely; I do admit I waste quite a bit] and buckling down to write something is not always easy. I have seen discussions via Facebook and other electronic media concerning this subject. As I was gathering material I ran into few articles on the internet. Some appeared to be very biblical and similar to my own understanding about it. So, I am using a short cut. I will reproduce an article which summarizes the teachings on it. It is found in https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/203-do-the-scriptures-authorize-multiple-cups.
 
The words are of the author, Wayne Jackson who I do not know or remember hearing him before. But the idea and the logical development of the theme are biblical. So, here is that article. If you have further questions about the idea and the general teaching presented here I will be glad to expand on it. [It is possible that this subject had been discussed here in the past. But I do not recall writing anything about this subject.] 
 
 “Why do so many churches use a plurality of ‘cups’ in administering the Lord’s supper, when the Scriptures appear to authorize just one, ‘a cup’?”
 
There are some Christians who firmly believe that the use of more than one container, in the observing of the communion supper, is a violation of divine law. Sincere though these folks are, their approach to the Scriptures in this regard is flawed.
When the New Testament speaks of the “cup,” in the observing of the communion, it is not the literal container that is under consideration; rather, it is the contents, i.e., the fruit of the vine, that is in view. This is evident from the following factors.
 
(1) There is a common figure of speech in the Bible called metonymy. The term means “a change in name.” This figure is employed when one thing stands for another. One form of metonymy is where the container is put for its contents. This means that even though the container is mentioned, only the contents are actually under consideration.
 
For example, the Scriptures affirm that Noah prepared an ark "to the saving of his “house” (Heb. 11:7). Here “house,” a container, stands for the “family” that dwelt therein. In another well-known passage, Jesus affirmed that God “so loved the world” that he gave his Son for it (Jn. 3:16). It is not this “world,” material globe, that is in view; rather, the people of the earth are the object of divine love.
 
This is metonymy. There is clear evidence that this is the sort of usage that is employed with reference to the communion “cup.”
 
Note the synonymous terms set forth in the following passage:
 
“And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins. But I say unto you, I shall not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom” (Mt. 26:27-29).
 
It is quite obvious that the “fruit of the vine” is the “this,” which is the “it,” which, in fact, is the “cup.” Underline these various terms and the connection between them will be quite apparent.
 
(2) That the “cup” is not the container is even more vividly depicted in Luke’s record. He states that Jesus “received a cup, and when he had given thanks, he said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves . . .” (Lk. 22:17). The Greek word for “divide” is diamerizo, which means to “divide up” or to “separate into parts” (cf. Mt. 27:35).
 
Were the disciples to divide a container? Of course not. They were to divide the fruit of the vine, which, incidentally, most likely was facilitated by multiple containers. Frederic Godet noted: “The distribution (diamerisate) may have taken place in two ways, either by each drinking from the common cup, or by their all emptying the wine of that cup into their own. The Greek term would suit better this second view” (A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1879, Vol. II, p. 289).
 
(3) That the term “cup” is not to be pressed as a container is evident from Paul’s use of the term in one of his epistles. During the apostle’s three and one-half year residence in Ephesus (Acts 19:1ff), he penned a letter to the saints in Corinth, across the Aegean Sea some 250 miles to the west. Therein he said: “The cup [singular] of blessing which we [plural] bless . . .” (1 Cor. 10:16).
 
Note the terms “cup” and “we.” It is obvious that “cup” cannot refer to a container, as evidenced by the fact that Paul in Ephesus, and his brethren at Corinth, were sharing (note the “we”) the same “cup,” i.e., a common substance (fruit of the vine), which reflects a spiritual idea, namely the blood of Christ, not a common container.
 
(4) Moreover, in the context just cited, just as Paul uses “cup” figuratively, so also does he employ the term “table” symbolically (1 Cor. 10:21). It is no more logical to press the idea that “cup,” i.e., container, has some mystical meaning, than it is to insist that “table” has a spiritual significance.
 
In conclusion, a reasonable interpretation of the scriptural data relative to the Lord’s Supper would indicate that the use of multiple containers in the distribution of the fruit of the vine is an optional expediency which may be employed at the discretion of the worshippers. It accommodates the larger crowds of today’s church. It certainly facilitates disease control (the dangers of which were unknown in earlier times).
 
To create division within the body of Christ over the issue of how many containers are used in the distribution of the fruit of the vine is, therefore, an error of serious import.
 
Tom Johns/ Wayne Jackson.
Post by : tomj  View Profile    since : 14 Jan 2013


Reply by : svarg   View Profile   Since : 14 Jan 2013 7:47:44 PM Close

In the assembly I go we use individual small cups. Is it wrong?

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : svarg   View Profile   Since : 14 Jan 2013 7:49:12 PM Close

Is it wrong to use original wine or use grape use instead? We used to have church wine. Now we are using grape juice instead.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : tomj   View Profile   Since : 14 Jan 2013 9:27:38 PM Close

 

Svarg,
 
Answer to your first question – The answer is given in the article. Let me reiterate. It is biblical to use one cup and share the content among the worshippers. Also, it is biblical to use multiple [cluster cups or 2-10 or more cups] because the ‘cup’ mentioned in the Bible stands for its content and not the physical cup. It is explained in the article.
 
Those who drink of the common cup must not think that it is more biblical to do so. If they do, they simply do not understand the meaning of the ‘cup.’ It is displeasing to the Lord to go through a ritual thinking that the ‘cup’ has some special significance. Some people think drinking from the same cup signify greater unity among the body of believers. Let us be real; ask yourself the question; when was the last time you felt any closer to another believer just because you drank from the same cup? If there was bitterness against a believer, drinking from the same cup is not the biblical remedy. There is nothing magical or supernatural about it. The way to resolve an issue is resolve it biblically [Matt 18:15-19] and elsewhere.
 
Answer to your second question – The bible addresses it as the ‘fruit of the vine.’ Whether that juice is non-fermented; which is known as grape juice or fermented juice, which is known as wine may not be of any significance. The significance is in knowing what that stands for; the blood of Jesus Christ.
 
Since grape juice, if it stayed as grape juice, in the Middle Eastern environment of heat and humidity would go bad very quickly. So, in the NT times they converted the juice to wine as a way of preserving it. If the grape juice is left in the hot weather wild yeast will start working in it turning the sugar into alcohol. So it is likely that what the Lord had served at the upper room was wine. Even if it were to be just the juice, the matter of importance is not what it was, but what it stood for. So, when we drink of it, as juice or as wine, just think of its significance and the message it carries.
 
Tom Johns
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 4 Feb 2013 4:46:15 PM Close

 

Dear brother Tom Johns,
 
I waited to see how this subject is discussed on the forum. If has not gone too far. I would like to make a few statements and they are directly not on the subject, but on how the subject is explained by Wayne Jackson, as you indicated.
 
He has rightly written that the subject of interest is not the cup itself, but what is in it. However, when it is liquid, then it is customary to say to divide it after giving the cup to others. It is understood that the division is not about dividing the cup but what is in it. This is different from that which is solid, a bread. No further explanations are needed.
 
In your posting, there is a quotation from somewhere and it is, “Why do so many churches use a plurality of ‘cups’ in administering the Lord’s supper, when the Scriptures appear to authorize just one, ‘a cup’?”” I believe that you were quoting this from the writings of Wayne Jackson. In the above quote, there is a mention of ‘one cup,’ or “a cup.” That may be because in Greek, the noun used is singular and not plural. Therefore, the literal interpretation may tend to be in favor of ‘one cup.’ Wayne Jackson should have concentrated his explanation on this aspect rather than on the content. If he could show that grammatically this ‘a cup’ could be interpreted as ‘many cups,’ then that will be helpful.
 
The subject is not about what is in the cup, but about the cup itself; is that one or many? In the posting of 14 Jan 2013, the grammatical struggle of Wayne Jackson did not meet the required expectations.  Personally, I have sympathy with those who try to justify the use of many cups because of their fear of spreading of germs.
 
Shalom Malekim!!!
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : tomj   View Profile   Since : 5 Feb 2013 2:05:24 PM Close

 

Dear brother Koshy,
It is true that the ‘cup’ is used as singular. From Luke 22 and 1 Cor. 11 we can see that the ‘cup’ stands for the blood of Jesus Christ and His blood alone. That gives the unique picture of the singular ‘cup.’ Based on this biblical truth -
The practical question we have here is how that applies when it comes to the Lord’s Supper. I’d like to see your practical considerations & suggestions here.
Would you say the congregation should drink from one [single] container / cup without dividing into any smaller cups?
If the main container can be further divided into smaller containers, how many such containers should be allowed?
Please add any additional instructions that you see from the scriptures that might help our understanding.
Tom Johns
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 5 Feb 2013 3:42:48 PM Close

 

Dear brother Tom Johns,
 
You asked for practical considerations and suggestions on this subject. When I consider the Word of God, I have difficulty to talk about ‘practical’ considerations. That is my personal difficulty. Whenever I say ‘practical,’ then there is an implication that I want to limit what is in the Word of God to what I consider as I want to do or obey. This problem of mine shows my difficulty that could force me to abandon certain aspects while holding certain others. Usually, I shy away from any practical suggestions. I wish I could live with the principle that all Scripture is given by the inspiration of God for the man of God to be fully, not partially, fitted for all good works. I believe that the word ‘practical’ provides opportunities for partial fitting of the man of God. I usually get into trouble, even among the Christians with whom I fellowship, and that is on the word ‘practical.’ They love to use that term all the time.
 
Having wrote the above; let me go into the subject, briefly. In the Gospels we read about the institution of the Lord’s Supper and it was on the night in which He was betrayed. In Acts 2:42-47 we read how the Lord’s Supper was practiced by the early years of the Assembly under the teaching of the apostles. In Acts 20 along with 1 Corinthians 16 we read about the day of observation as a minimum requirement. In 1 Corinthians 10 and 11 we learn the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper.
 
On that Day of Pentecost 3,000 souls were added to the Assembly. “They persevered in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles, in breaking of bread and prayers. … and breaking of bread in the house, they received their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, …”  Because of the later phrase, it is generally taught that the “breaking of bread” in Acts 2:46 is in connection with eating food at home. Is that true? In Acts 12 we read that many were gathered together at the house of Mary to pray. Does this mean that the “prayer” mentioned in Acts 2:42 was in houses? I leave it for the answer to be the guide to interpret the expression, “breaking of bread.”
 
In 1 Corinthians 10 we read about the doctrine regarding the Lord’s Table. It shows the oneness of the body of Christ, the Assembly. As being one body, there is one bread and one cup to eat and drink at the Lord’s Supper. The one body is not in need of drinking from more than one cup. However, when a person drinks wine, water, and coffee or tea in dining, they are served in different containers. Please consider that we are discussing about ‘one bread’ and ‘one cup.’ This ‘one bread’ and ‘one cup’ shows the unity of the one body. The world also practiced this unity by having a single cup, the demon’s cup, that is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 10. 
 
In 1 Corinthians 11 we read about another aspect of the Lord’s Supper. In 1 Corinthians 11:18 we read about all the members of the local assembly is to gather together in one place to break bread. This aspect of the Lord’s Supper makes us to interpret Acts 2:47 strictly related to eating food, as they did in Corinth. But if we take Acts 2 along with 12 and 1 Corinthians 10 and 11, then we could realize that the requirement of ONE BREAD and ONE CUP was maintained in Jerusalem by gathering in the houses, when the members were large, more than 3,000 in number. In Jerusalem, they divided the members into smaller groups to meet at different houses to break bread and prayer. That is the scriptural tradition, as stated by the beloved physician. While they gathered in houses they also ate food, if any wants to interpret Acts 2:47 that way. From the scriptures, it becomes clear that our gathering to break bread could be as big as that can be accommodated by the size of the ONE BREAD and ONE CUP. This also helps us to understand our Lord’s saying in Luke 12:32, when He called us “Little Flock.”
 
The definition of the ‘local assembly’ could be defined by the assigned geographical boundaries to gather. But all those who are in that geographical location must gather at the same place to break bread (1 Corinthians 11). In our times, the meaning of ‘local assembly’ has changed. When we read about the saints in Corinth were meeting in one place to break bread, then that is about those saints living in Corinth.  Presently, the ‘local assembly’ is those who meet in a hall, chapel, or room in a locality. Their residency need not be limited to that locality. We also live in a time of mega-churches. The first question that is usually asked of me is about the size of the assembly that I go to. We have changed. The Scriptural tradition is that they came together to break bread and they had ‘one bread’ and ‘one cup.’ We are not told that as a doctrine, but as a tradition. Therefore, if anyone is in fear of transmitting contagious diseases using one cup, then I have sympathy with them. If they desire to wipe the cup before passing, I have sympathy with them. The size of the bread and the cup makes the decision on the number of the assembled saints. When we are considering about what is practical, we are thinking about the number of people as the predominant subject that decides the size of the bread and the cup. The Scriptural principle is about the spiritual meaning of ‘one bread’ and ‘one cup’ to meet the significance of the ‘one body’ that was broken and the ‘one blood’ that was shed for us by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
 
I hope that this will be helpful.
 
Shalom Malekim!!!
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : tomj   View Profile   Since : 5 Feb 2013 4:56:21 PM Close

 

Dear brother Koshy,
Thank you for your response. Your explanation is very scriptural and I cannot disagree to it. I still like to get an answer so that I can share with others when I am confronted with such a question. After all we live in this world and we fellowship with the saints in this world. We are making practical decisions almost every second of our waking hours. Those decisions are to be guided by scriptural principles but at some point in time those decisions become ‘practical decisions.’ Perhaps we can call it ‘scriptural applications.’
I am painting a picture here. I am elder of an assembly where there were only 30 people participating in the Lord’s Supper. We used a single cup and we passed it around and participated from the same cup or single cup. Two weeks ago, our neighboring assembly which had about 175 people participating at the LS had their building went into flames [caught fire] and they plan to join us for the Lord’s Supper.
So, starting next Sunday we will have about 200 people participating from the Lord’s Supper. As a group of elders we have to make a decision how to facilitate passing the cup at the Lord’s Supper. I am seeking your counsel as a personal friend and a fellow brother in Christ whose scriptural counsel I value. What should I suggest? [I am not forcing you to give your counsel. But I would appreciate if I could get your counsel.]
Tom Johns
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : moses2006   View Profile   Since : 6 Feb 2013 2:28:43 AM Close

(re-posted with minor edits)

Dear Tom,

I know you value Mr. Koshy's input (I also do, sometimes), but please allow me to point out a few things where I differ from him:

1. The use of Greek word "mikros" in Luke 12:32 is by no means meant by the Lord to indicate that His church must be "little" in size. There are several other verses where we see this word used to indicate "stature" or "position". For example the Lord said, "and whoever gives one of these little ones only a cup of cold water in the name of a disciple, assuredly, I say to you, he shall by no means lose his reward." (Matt 10:42). Here the use of "mikros" means "one of the least". Also He said "whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea." (Matt 18:6). In this verse, the word "mikros" meant "small in age".

So, we have to interpret by context (as you of course know). In Luke 12:32, contextual interpretation would indicate that "mikros" means "little strength" or "fragile". If we read from v22 to v32, He talks about fragile creatures that the Almighty God supports - ravens, lillies and grass. He compared these fragile things against Solomon specifically and in a larger context, all "nations of the world". So, it is quite clear that in v32, the same meaning has to be applied to "mikros" as we see is in the delicate nature of ravens, lillies, grass and "flocks". The church of the Lord is a fragile entity - He compared us to sheep amidst wolves and as doves (Matt 10:16). That is why He said, "Do not fear...", becasue being fragile, with little strength in a wicked world lends itself to fear, but we have the Father's benevolence in our favour.

By no means does "mikros" in Like 12:32 mean that the local church should be "little" in size. In the early church, as 1000s of people were added, they did practise the Lord's Supper from home to home, but that is not because of Luke 12:32 - its because they did not have the space or infrastructure to meet together as 1000s of people. To say that a local church should be as little as can be so as to be able to share in a single loaf of bread, is bizzare and unscriptural.

2. There are only TWO elements to the Lord's Table, not three or four - The Bread and The Fruit of the Vine (or wine). The plate that holds the bread and the container that holds the Fruit of the Vine (or wine) is not an active element of the Lord's Supper, any more than the "table" or the "upper room". These two elements are what we partake from, not the plate or the container. We can have as many plates as we want and as many cups as we want - so long as we all divide and partake from one consecrated entity of bread and one consecrated entity of wine. A large church may buy several loaves of bread and consecrate it as one bread to divide to 100s of partakers. Several bottles of wine may be consolidated as one container of wine for 100s of partakers. Such practises are absolutely scriptural and any attempt to force binding rules into the freedom we have in the Lord is unscriptural legalism.

If the cup (or container) had some significance, then in 1 Cor 11:27, Paul would have mentioned it. He did not, stating with clarity - "Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." Notice how in the latter part of the verse, he stresses the contents of the "cup of the Lord" as important and representing the 'blood of the Lord". Therefore it is contents of the cup that matter, not the cup (or the plate) that matters.

 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 6 Feb 2013 2:11:06 PM Close

 

Dear brother Tom Johns,
 
The question you asked is the responsibility of the elders or the overseers that the Holy Spirit appoints for the administration of a local assembly. Your scenario is interesting and could be a probable event. I should not be giving a program of conduct for anyone to introduce into his assembly on this subject. The reason is that it is not a scriptural doctrinal issue, but of a scriptural tradition or principle. It should be left to the elders or overseers. They should prayerfully consider the matter and come to a decision. Since there are two assemblies involved, the elders or overseers from both assemblies should make that decision, if they want to meet together in one place, of temporarily doing till the erection of a new building.
 
I do not like to think about a scenario that is not historical, especially when it is about the conduct of an assembly. Therefore I would like to change your scenario to another one of a sudden influx of believers to break bread. This is a historical scenario. That is what we read in Acts 2. Before the Day of Pentecost, the number of disciples at Jerusalem could have been over 500. They did not break bread till that day. We do not read that in the Bible. On the Day of Pentecost, their number was increased to over 3, 500. The Holy Spirit guided the apostles to observe the breaking of bread and they broke bread in houses.
  
To meet the scriptural tradition of ‘one bread’ and ‘one cup,’ there may be some limitations. It is easy to make a larger bread to accommodate even 500 people. However, it may not be that easy to come with a container to hold the wine for that many people. In my mind, 200 would be the number that comes to bring the difficulty of having ‘one cup.’ If the number is large to come with a container to hold the wine, then it is good for the believers to meet temporarily in two or three places to keep the scriptural tradition. In your scenario, there are only 200 people. They could use a container that is big enough to hold the wine. You may find it difficult to pass this large container around. To conform to the scriptural principle or tradition of ‘one cup,’ you may do it as many assemblies do, even in India. They could give thanks for the ‘one bread’ and ‘one cup,’ as they do now. There may not be much problem of breaking the bread and passing it after giving thanks for it. When it comes to the ‘one cup,’ we could give thanks as usual and after that the cup could be divided into separate smaller cups and pass it around, may be even refill them from the initial container for which the thanks were given, when they are almost empty.
 
One may ask. What is the difference between many cups and what is in the above paragraph? The difference is that the ‘giving thanks’ was before dividing or sharing. At the institution of the Lord’s Supper, Lord Jesus Christ gave thanks and asked them to divide the cup among themselves. Therefore, if the division of the cup is done after giving thanks, then that will be aptly following the scriptural principle or tradition better than giving thanks for many cups and passing them around. In the later, the wine is divided before giving thanks and in the former it was divided after giving thanks. The former follows closer the initial way it was instituted than the later. The importance is in giving thanks for the bread that represents the one body that was broken for us and the one blood that was shed for us. That one body and one blood are of the Lord Jesus Christ. Lord Jesus Christ gave thanks before He broke the bread. He also gave thanks for the cup before giving it to the disciples to share. The order of giving thanks and dividing to share is also important to keep a scriptural tradition. In the use of many cups, this order is violated by dividing the wine before giving thanks. If we violate that order, then we may not be doing what we think we are doing.
 
Shalom Malekim!!!
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : moses2006   View Profile   Since : 6 Feb 2013 4:29:33 PM Close

Dear Mr. Koshy,

1. Quote "The reason is that it is not a scriptural doctrinal issue, but of a scriptural tradition or principle."

This contradicts your opinion on 4 Feb 2013 4:46:15 PM "In the above quote, there is a mention of ‘one cup,’ or “a cup.” That may be because in Greek, the noun used is singular and not plural. Therefore, the literal interpretation may tend to be in favor of ‘one cup.’ Wayne Jackson should have concentrated his explanation on this aspect rather than on the content. If he could show that grammatically this ‘a cup’ could be interpreted as ‘many cups,’ then that will be helpful."

If you are only advocating a 'principle' without a proper doctrinal backing, why are you asking Wayne Jackson to concentrate on the grammar of the use of "cup"?

 

2. Quote, "At the institution of the Lord’s Supper, Lord Jesus Christ gave thanks and asked them to divide the cup among themselves. Therefore, if the division of the cup is done after giving thanks, then that will be aptly following the scriptural principle or tradition better than giving thanks for many cups and passing them around."

Are you saying that using several cups is acceptable scriptural principle or practice, if the elder (or someone else) has said thanks, before dividing into several cups?

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : tomj   View Profile   Since : 6 Feb 2013 8:22:29 PM Close

 

Dear brother Koshy,
I appreciate you replying to my question. Since you mentioned that these decisions are to be made collectively by the elders it is my prayer that the assemblies that struggle with this issue would do so. I am also in agreement to your suggestion that it must be left to the elders. Just in case any such person struggling with such a decision, may I present my stand on this subject. This will be different from what you have presented.
When I study the NT and its overall teachings I find it pressing the believers to be led by the Spirit and discourage following any particular tradition. I take it to heart the passage we see in 2 Cor. 3:6 “the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.” I sense a deeper exhortation to the NT believers not be hung up on certain patterns.
If we insist on praying / blessing the cup before poured into separate containers or cups, we might be giving undue attention to the external conformity. If we insist on having large bread to signify the message of the body of Christ, then again we might be giving more importance to the external conformity. The most important message of the Lord’s Supper is that it is done as a memorial. “Do this in remembrance of Me.” It should proclaim the Lord’s death on the cross for our sins until His return. As often as we do this, it brings back our memories and enables us to meditate on Him. I consider the message more significant than the method.
We all believe that no change happens to the juice/ wine or the bread based on our prayer or blessing, whether prayed while it was one loaf or made into smaller or remained in one container or multiple containers. We thank God for the bread and the cup for what they signify. Even when the bread is broken in India or USA, it signifies the same body – the body of the same Jesus Christ.
In 1 Cor. 10:16 we read, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?” Paul is writing this to the Corinthians, but he is partaking of the fruit of the vine at a different place. Still Paul considers it as ‘the cup of blessing’ which we bless. If individual congregation has its own cup and considered part of the ‘cup’ I do not see the need for observing external conformity by praying before pouring into smaller containers or making sure any large congregation using one large loaf in order to be scriptural. Such insistence on the ‘letter’ could reduce its significance from a spiritual exercise to an external conformity.
Tom Johns
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 8 Feb 2013 3:52:50 PM Close

 

Dear brother Tom Johns,
 
I do not know, how we could say that the one loaf and the cup in 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 are about observing it in another place. Apostle Paul wrote about the Lord’s Table in that portion. The Corinthians had a habit of partaking at the Lord’s Table in the one loaf and cup and then they would go and sit with the demon worshippers to partake of the demon’s cup. That is what Apostle Paul brought to their attention in the 16th chapter. Then he asked them to be the followers of Christ as he is (11:1). After that, he told them about the significance of the headship of Christ and how that should be demonstrated in the assembly gathering. Then he provided the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper when they come at the Lord’s Table that was discussed in the previous chapter.
 
I see the historical beginning of the Lord’s Supper at the Lord’s Table in the Gospels. I see the traditional observation of the Lord’s Supper in Acts. I learn about the doctrine of the Lord’s Table and Lord’s Supper in the epistles. Lord’s Supper is an act of remembrance. We bring to our memory the death of the Lord that took place at Calvary, but we are not at Calvary, we are at His table, the Lord’s Table, and we are eating the Lord’s Supper. When the doctrine is given, there is no mention about having many cups or single cup. However, the singular word is used for the cup, as we read in the Gospels. In 1 Corinthians 11, we read about giving thanks for the loaf, before it was broken. When it comes to the cup, it is written, “in like manner.” It is about how that was done by the Lord Jesus Christ. I believe that if I follow the scriptural tradition, then I will be less prone to go wrong. Therefore, I wrote what I wrote about giving thanks before dividing the cup. The historical institution and the scriptural tradition is that the breaking of the bread preceded the sharing of the cup, as we read in the Bible. We also read about giving thanks before breaking the bread and sharing the cup.
 
Let me reproduce what I wrote on this subject in Suviseshakan during the early part of the last decade. That was published in twelve parts series and it was mostly on the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. I wrote, “The word ‘cup’ speaks not of the vessel, but of its content. The content is the wine that came as the result of bruising the grape, the fruit of the vine. Both the bread and the cup contain bruised grain and the juice of the crushed grape. The bruising is common to both and speaks about the divine judgment borne by the one whom we remember. There is a significant difference between the bread and the cup we partake. The bread contains that which was actually crushed and bruised, but in the cup we have the result of the crushing and bruising. In partaking the bread we eat the bruised grain, but in the cup we do not drink the bruised grape. The fruit of the vine has to be bruised first to get the content of the cup. In the cup we have the resulting juice to drink. The bread speaks to us about the actual judgment that our Lord born for us. The cup speaks about what flows forth unhindered as the result of that judgment.”
 
“In Matthew 26:27 we read, “And having taken the cup and given thanks, he gave it to them saying, Drink ye all of it.” That is, each and every one who is His disciple must drink of the result of the bruising of the grape. There is no excuse for not partaking in the Lord’s Supper. The bread precedes the cup to show the death of the Lord as the bruising of His body. The cup follows the bread to remind us that we are brought into a new covenantal relationship as the result of the bruising of His body. Our Lord was bruised first and died afterwards. “He was bruised for our iniquity” (Is. 53:5). “He was taken from oppression and from judgment” (Is. 53:8). In Hebrews 9:27 we read about man’s condition as, “It is the portion of man once to die, and after this judgment.” Our Lord did not die as a regular man. He died as the Lamb of God, a sinless and perfect man. In our Lord’s case the judgment preceded His death. The righteous judgment of God was the cup He drank. When He completely drank of the cup, He uttered the victor’s cry of triumph, “It is finished.” Then He laid his head on his chest and committed His spirit to the Father’s hand and expired. The judgment was first, and then the death. The death was the result of the judgment; it was not a natural death. If it was a natural death, then the judgment should follow. On Calvary, the death followed the judgment of God on the Holy and Innocent One of God. As our substitute, He was judged first and then He died as its result. Those who are redeemed of the blood of the Lamb are not to be judged again. This is the beauty of the eternal salvation. This is the meaning of the Lord’s Supper. Therefore, we are asked to partake the bread first and then the cup. Those who take them together are not remembering the death of the Lord, but they are remembering the Lord before His death, as He walked on this earth. If the blood is in the body, then it is not separated from the body or it is not shed. Then there is no redemption (Heb. 9:12). The power of redemption is the shed blood of the Lamb of God, and not the blood in the body. Those who see the bread and the cup do not partake on His judgment and death. When we partake them separately, after giving thanks to them separately, we are remembering the one who was judged for our iniquity and died as the result of that judgment.”
 
I hope that I will not be continuing on this thread, because I have written what I read. Of course, there could be exemptions.
 
Shalom Malekim!!!
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 8 Feb 2013 3:53:52 PM Close

 

Dear ‘moses2006,’
 
I wonder about your intent of making your first posting on 6 Feb 2013, on this thread. You wrote about ‘mikros’ six times in that posting. However, the Greek word μικρος (MIKROS) or μικρως (MIKROS) are not in Luke 12:32. Where did you get this word with that spelling? Of course, you did not get it from the Greek text. I would like to know about its source. However, the Greek word μικρος (MIKROS) appears in Luke 19:3 and it is about Zacchaeus. Let me assure you that it was not about his strength.
 
You interpreted the “Little Flock” to mean ‘fragile’ in nature. You wrote, “The church of the Lord is a fragile entity.” How do you think that such a fragile entity is so strong that the gates of hell could not prevail against it? The Assembly is “Little Flock” or “Small Flock.’ A flock is little or small in strength, when it is little or small in numbers, compared to the sheep in the two folds from which the sheep are led out to make the flock. Did Lord Jesus Christ talk about ‘Little Flock’ gathering to His name and He is in the midst of them? The required quorum is two or three, but the strength is the presence of the ‘Lord of lords and King of kings’ in their midst as the ‘Lamb of God.’ He sends His disciples like sheep among the wolves, but His presence is with them. He told that the sheep do not have to be in fear of the wolves, because they are made strong by the presence of the ‘Lion of Judah.’ We read about the mega-churches in Revelation 2 and 3. Christ said that they think that they are strong, but He sees them as dead. Dead people have no strength. Living people have strength. The Churches that thought that they do not have strength were told that He has made the provisions for them, even to keep the door open. He is the strength of the Assembly. Before God, the strength is not in numbers. Before men, according to men, the strength is in numbers. In Revelation 2 and 3, Lord Jesus Christ told the assemblies that keeping His word should be their strength and their strength should not be in numbers. He had special blessings to those who hear and are overcomers. Do not forget, ‘He that is in you is stronger than he that is in this world.’ We are His “Little Flock.”
 
Your #2 is nothing but your justification by ramification. You may be recounting what you learned from your SDA teachers. That is understandable.
 
Again your SDA teaching is evident, when you wrote, “If the cup (or container) had some significance, then in 1 Cor 11:27, Paul would have mentioned it.” You denied the fact, as SDA do in many things, that apostle Paul mentioned about the “cup” (singular) in connection with the observation of the Lord’s Table by the saints at Corinth. Apostle Paul mentioned about the Lord’s Table, Lord’s Supper, one loaf, and cup in his epistle to the saints at Corinth, and that is already mentioned on this thread. However, you are questioning the Scriptures. Similar denial were made before, when you tried to establish your idea of Apostle Paul burying the law. You did this when you tried to establish that you do not know whose prayers God will hear; the prayers of righteous or the prayers of those who deny the deity of Christ. You did the same by writing that eighty verses in the Bible on a subject has no relationship to that subject, but your additions should be accepted as the final words. Let me stop with these three witnesses.   
 
On 6 Jan 2013, you made a second posting and asked, “If you are only advocating a 'principle' without a proper doctrinal backing, why are you asking Wayne Jackson to concentrate on the grammar of the use of "cup"?” You are ignorant on the difference between tradition and doctrine.   Once you understand that difference, then you will realize that your question is nothing but an excuse to write about what you do not know. What I wrote on 4 and 6 Jan 2013 are sufficient to communicate what I wanted to communicate. They do not contradict. If they do, then you should explain.
 
You asked, “Are you saying that using several cups is acceptable scriptural principle or practice, if the elder (or someone else) has said thanks, before dividing into several cups?” Where did I say this, or how did you come to this conclusion? The portion you quoted does not support your assertion.
 
Shalom Malekim!!!
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : moses2006   View Profile   Since : 10 Feb 2013 1:13:13 AM Close

Dear Mr. Koshy,

1. Do you have any scriptural support to say that in a local church/assembly all believers MUST partake of ONLY ONE LOAF OF BREAD and MUST partake of ONLY ONE CUP OF FRUIT OF THE VINE? Can you also explain how the first church/assembly in Jerusalem with members exceeding 3000 people partook of ONE BREAD and ONE CUP?

2. Do you have any scriptural support to say that in Luke 12:32, 'little flock" is representing the "local church/assembly" and the number of believers in each church/assembly must be "little" in size?

3. What is your definition of "mega church"? Where does scripture define 'mega church"? Where is the scriptural evidence that the churches in Rev 2 and 3 are "mega churches"?

4. Can you point out the specific verses in Rev 2 and 3 where "Lord Jesus Christ told the assemblies that keeping His word should be their strength and their strength should not be in numbers" (your quote)?

Also, you do not know me personally. What physical evidence you have that I (who am a kerala brethren all my life) have learned from "SDA teachers"? Which "SDA teacher" am I learning from? Do you know this SDA teacher who is teaching me?

 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : Varghese   View Profile   Since : 10 Feb 2013 7:59:48 PM Close

Dear Bro. Koshy,

I have been following your postings for years and I appreciate your deep knowledge of the Scriptures and your contribution on this forum. Your passion to defend the Scriptural teachings is appreciated.

I also appreciate Bro. Moses’ (and also Bro. Tom’s) contributions and they have both expressed much grace and maturity in their writings. They are able to carry on discussions with mutual respect and Christian love.

For you to suggest that “Bro. Moses may be recounting what he learned from his SDA teachers” is truly sad and absurd. This is another example of your lack of grace/humility in how you respond. In all due fairness, Bro. Moses is sound in his writings and exhibit maturity & grace. There is no need to malign someone who opposes your views. Others have given up discussing with you over the years. Maybe, you do not enjoy a different perspective of the same truth that you and I so much value. Bro. Tom has exhibited such grace and maturity in how he handles those who disagree with his Scriptural interpretations. Maybe, it is time that you also start doing the same. Maybe, it is time that you start to see Bro. Moses as a brother in the Lord and address him so (as you address Bro. Tom).

There are many who read these postings and whether we admit or so, some postings (including yours) though it has great scriptural points, it shames our Lord. Our writings silently portray who we are. In the end, all the extended writings have no value if readers dismiss us for the way we carry ourselves. We cannot force our teachings on anyone and we cannot certainly say that we know all. We must defend the truth with grace & humility. But we must also agree to disagree on trivial tangents. We must learn to give an ear to what others are saying and not take the "my way or the highway" approach.

If we take the time to figure out what others think of us as a person, you will be surprised!

I hope you would take my humble words in Christian love.

God Bless!

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : appachan   View Profile   Since : 11 Feb 2013 3:23:29 AM Close

 Bro Varghese,

i could not agree with your sentiments more, i second it rather, i was quite shocked at GPK's post on this thread as i have very high regard for his teaching and the Lord has indeed blessed him with insightful knowledge on  various subjects.I just hope he was having a bad day, as it is was quite unusual. the topic of this thread is very important and i hope the discussion can continue on that alone.

I hope he sincerely takes your advice.

 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 14 Feb 2013 4:43:45 PM Close

 

Dear ‘varghese,’
 
It is interesting to see your writing again. In the past you have occasionally contributed, and most of the times they were finding faults with me. I do not remember that you writing about the faults of others. Is there a double standard?
 
You find fault with me in writing that ‘moses2006’ has some training by SDA teachers. He told me about his SDA teachers.
 
Shalom Malekim!!!
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 14 Feb 2013 6:29:28 PM Close

 

Dear ‘moses2006,’
 
In my previous posting I asked you to tell me about your source on ‘mikros.’ You brought that Greek word into this discussion and I asked where did you find that? I cannot find that in Luke 12:32. You have not replied, but asked me to answer a few questions. Could you answer mine? However, I will answer yours, hoping that you will answer mine.
 
To help you in answering my question on ‘mikros,’ allow me to reproduce what I wrote before, “I wonder about your intent of making your first posting on 6 Feb 2013, on this thread. You wrote about ‘mikros’ six times in that posting. However, the Greek word μικρος (MIKROS) or μικρως (MIKROS) are not in Luke 12:32. Where did you get this word with that spelling? Of course, you did not get it from the Greek text. I would like to know about its source. However, the Greek word μικρος (MIKROS) appears in Luke 19:3 and it is about Zacchaeus. Let me assure you that it was not about his strength.”
 
Now to your questions:
 
You asked, “1. Do you have any scriptural support to say that in a local church/assembly all believers MUST partake of ONLY ONE LOAF OF BREAD and MUST partake of ONLY ONE CUP OF FRUIT OF THE VINE? Can you also explain how the first church/assembly in Jerusalem with members exceeding 3000 people partook of ONE BREAD and ONE CUP?”  This is already answered. You should know the difference between a scriptural doctrine and a scriptural tradition. If that is what you are trying to understand, them that is a different question. Please clarify.
 
You asked, “2. Do you have any scriptural support to say that in Luke 12:32, 'little flock" is representing the "local church/assembly" and the number of believers in each church/assembly must be "little" in size?” The ‘Little Flock” are the disciples, the followers, of Christ. That will be clear from Luke 12 and John 10. The second part of your question tells about your ignorance about the expression ‘little flock.’ The number of believers gathering to the name of Lord Jesus Christ could be as small as two or three.
 
You asked, “3. What is your definition of "mega church"? Where does scripture define 'mega church"? Where is the scriptural evidence that the churches in Rev 2 and 3 are "mega churches"?” The ‘mega church’ is what is the commonly used term in our time. If you are ignorant about this, you should refer to your source to find the difference between ‘mega’ and ‘mikros.’ If you read Revelation 2 & 3, then you could see the similarities between the current day mega-churches and certain churches listed there. That is what I referred to in my posting.
 
You wrote, “4. Can you point out the specific verses in Rev 2 and 3 where "Lord Jesus Christ told the assemblies that keeping His word should be their strength and their strength should not be in numbers" (your quote)?” You asked for a specific verse that made me to write what I wrote. Please read the section on the Assembly at Philadelphia.
 
You wrote, “Also, you do not know me personally. What physical evidence you have that I (who am a kerala brethren all my life) have learned from "SDA teachers"? Which "SDA teacher" am I learning from? Do you know this SDA teacher who is teaching me?” This is what I know about ‘moses2006.’ What I know about you is from what you told me. I know that ‘moses2006’ is a pseudonym.   You told me that you have a KB background of more than two generations. You told me that you are trained by SDA. You told me that you do not know whose prayers God will hear. You told me that your ignorance should be my guide to accept the prayers of those who deny the deity of Christ. Did I write that you are currently under the training of SDA teachers? I am sure that I did not. If you have any doubt, you should read what I wrote before.
 
Could you answer my 14 questions and also other questions that I place before 10 Feb 2013 on this thread? I did answer yours. If you refuse, then I will leave this here as it is.
 
Shalom Malekim!!!
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : moses2006   View Profile   Since : 14 Feb 2013 10:02:20 PM Close

Dear Mr. Koshy,

Quote "You told me that you are trained by SDA." and "You find fault with me in writing that ‘moses2006’ has some training by SDA teachers. He told me about his SDA teachers."

Before we continue this discussion, I would like to know when or in which post or thread, did I tell you that I have been trained by SDA or SDA teachers in scriptural matters, either in the past or sometime in the present?

 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 15 Feb 2013 2:21:55 PM Close

Dear 'moses2006,'

Before I write any more about what you told me, let me ask you a pertaining question, because you asked, "...did I tell you that I have been trained by SDA or SDA teachers in scriptural matters, either in the past or sometime in the present?"  My question to you is: did I write that you were "trained by SDA teachers in scriptural matters?"

Shalom Malekim!!!

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : moses2006   View Profile   Since : 15 Feb 2013 5:05:37 PM Close

Dear Mr. Koshy,

You said "Your #2 is nothing but your justification by ramification. You may be recounting what you learned from your SDA teachers. That is understandable."

My "#2" was stating that the Bread and the Fruit of the Vine are the only two elements of the Lord's Supper. I also said that in a large church several loaves of bread and several bottles of wine may be consecrated as one bread and one cup. You said that all this is recounting of what I learned from SDA teachers and you find that understandable.

Then you said, "Again your SDA teaching is evident, when you wrote, “If the cup (or container) had some significance, then in 1 Cor 11:27, Paul would have mentioned it.” You denied the fact, as SDA do in many things, that apostle Paul mentioned about the “cup” (singular) in connection with the observation of the Lord’s Table by the saints at Corinth."

Here you allege that I denied the singular "cup" as evidence of my SDA teaching.

In the two above quoted cases, are you disputing that the alleged SDA training I received was in scriptural matters?

 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 18 Feb 2013 3:47:01 PM Close

 

Dear ‘moses2006,’
 
Which #2 are you writing about? There are two #2 from 6 Feb 2013 and 10 Feb 2013. If it is from 6 Feb 2013, then I gave you an answer to it, especially why I considered that your writing was influenced by SDA teaching. Let me quote what I wrote, “Again your SDA teaching is evident, when you wrote, “If the cup (or container) had some significance, then in 1 Cor 11:27, Paul would have mentioned it.”  You denied the fact, as SDA do in many things, that Apostle Paul mentioned about the “cup” (singular) in connection with the observation of the Lord’s Table by the saints at Corinth. Apostle Paul mentioned about the Lord’s Table, Lord’s Supper, one loaf, and cup in his epistle to the saints at Corinth, and that is already mentioned on this thread. However, you are questioning the Scriptures.  Similar denial were made before, when you tried to establish your idea of Apostle Paul burying the law. You did this when you tried to establish that you do not know whose prayers God will hear; the prayers of righteous or the prayers of those who deny the deity of Christ. You did the same by writing that eighty verses in the Bible on a subject have no relationship to that subject, but your additions should be accepted as the final words. Let me stop with these three witnesses.”
 
I thought that I was clear when I wrote “You denied the fact, as your SDA teaching is evident, …”   Let me explain it once more. SDA trains their pupils to modify, change, add, and deny what is written in the Scriptures to show an appearance of wisdom in what they write. The wisdom I am referring to is ‘spiritual wisdom.’ This show of wisdom is by changing the words to even brushing aside verses that are pertaining to the subject of discussion. You also exhibit the same show of wisdom. In the present subject, you wrote, “If the cup (or container) had some significance, then in 1 Cor 11:27, Paul would have mentioned it.” I mentioned that apostle Paul mentioned about “one loaf” and “the cup” in 1 Corinthians. Your show of wisdom is that Apostle Paul did not write about one bread and one cup in 1 Corinthians 11:27. That is what your above quoted statement communicated to me. Let me ask, why do you insist that Apostle Paul has to write about it in 1 Corinthians 11:27?  Please answer. After that, you may try to answer the following question. You should answer it only after you read 1 Corinthians 11:27. Do you read about “this bread” and “this cup” in that verse? If you do, then why the bread and the cup are not mentioned as “these,” but as “this?” I ask this, because Apostle Paul has already written about it before in the previous and present chapters. Your writing followed the strategy of SDA. Your rhetorical question implies that the “one loaf” and “the bread” are not in the Scriptures. Let me say, “Again your SDA teaching is evident, …” When a person writes or says that something is evident, then that is to convey the idea that the evidence is there. I read “the bread” and “the cup,” or “this bread” and “this cup,” in 1 Corinthians 11:27. I do not read about ‘the breads’ and ‘the cups.’  I do not read about ‘these breads’ and ‘these cups’ either. Could you justify your statement? I have already reproduced it on this paragraph? I hope that you will not hide behind your quick writing English style. 
 
Yes, I wrote about the training that you received from SDA and its evidences in what you write. It appears that you are engaged in a will-worship that has the appearance of wisdom from this world. There is no humility before God. Since I did not write that you are ‘trained by SDA teachers in scriptural matters,’ could you rephrase your question? Let me repeat my question, a second time, that I posted last week, “Before I write any more about what you told me, let me ask you a pertaining question, because you asked, "...did I tell you that I have been trained by SDA or SDA teachers in scriptural matters, either in the past or sometime in the present?"  My question to you is: did I write that you were "trained by SDA teachers in scriptural matters?"
 
I am also repeating my question on ‘mikros’ for the third time. On the first two times you ignored it. Such ignoring of questions by one who is well versed with quick writing English style itself is an evidence of his training under SDA, sometime in his life. You are good in that. The following is what I wrote before on ‘mikros,’ “In my previous posting, I asked you to tell me about your source on ‘mikros.’ You brought that Greek word into this discussion and I asked where did you find that? I cannot find that in Luke 12:32. You have not replied, but asked me to answer a few questions. Could you answer mine? However, I will answer yours, hoping that you will answer mine.”
 
“To help you in answering my question on ‘mikros,’ allow me to reproduce what I wrote before, “I wonder about your intent of making your first posting on 6 Feb 2013, on this thread.  You wrote about ‘mikros’ six times in that posting. However, the Greek word μικρος (MIKROS) or μικρως (MIKROS) are not in Luke 12:32. Where did you get this word with that spelling? Of course, you did not get it from the Greek text. I would like to know about its source. However, the Greek word μικρος (MIKROS) appears in Luke 19:3 and it is about Zacchaeus. Let me assure you that it was not about his strength.””
Could you answer my question about your source on ‘mikros?’
 
In another thread, I asked a number of questions, and you did not answer that either. On this thread you do not answer my questions, but have no shortness in firing away questions towards me to answer. That is the chief SDA strategy.
 
Please remember that you told me about your SDA training.
 
Shalom Malekim!!!
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : moses2006   View Profile   Since : 18 Feb 2013 4:05:21 PM Close

Dear Mr. Koshy,

As I said, I would like to continue this discussion only if clarify when or where I told you about SDA training? So far, other than make this allegation you have not proved anything.

Quote "Please remember that you told me about your SDA training."

Again I ask - when did I tell you that I got SDA training?

 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : moses2006   View Profile   Since : 18 Feb 2013 10:08:11 PM Close

Dear Mr. Koshy,

I expect an answer from you on the question above. But I can answer your question on mikros.

I found the transliterated word in Luke 12:32 - ὴ φοβοῦ, τὸ μικρὸν ποίμνιον, ὅτι εὐδόκησεν ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν δοῦναι ὑμῖν τὴν βασιλείαν.

 

 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 19 Feb 2013 7:29:50 PM Close

 

 

Dear ‘moses2006,’
 
You wrote on 18 Feb 2013, “Again I ask - when did I tell you that I got SDA training?” You are not asking me “again,” but you are asking me for the first time, this question. Before, what you did was that you tried subtly to make me agree to something that I did not do.  It took you more than one attempt from my part to correct yourself in asking me the question as it should have been. I am not like you. I take ownership of what I write, while you do not. Therefore, in the light that you changed your question to what it should have been, I will give you the answer to your question: “… - when did I tell you that I got SDA training?” You told me that on 31 August 2010.
 
Thank you for your posting of 18 Feb 2013 telling that you found the verse. Let me make one thing clear, I was not asking about Luke 12:32. I was asking about your source that the Greek word ‘mikros’ is in Luke 12:32. Could you tell me which word is ‘mikros’ in that verse? You may say that it is the first, second, third, or even the last. I still do not see the Greek word ‘mikros’ as you produced the verse in Greek. The Greek word ‘mikros’ (μικρος) consists of the Greek letters in the order: ‘MU’ followed by ‘IOTA’ followed by ‘KAPPA’ followed by ‘RHO’ followed by ‘OMEKRON’ followed by ‘SIGMA.’ I do not see any word with those spelling in what you wrote in Greek. I still need to know your source to justify your ‘mikros’ statement. In your Greek quotation, the first word should have been ‘μη’ and not ‘η.’
 
In Matthew 5:18, Lord Jesus Christ told that even a letter or a projection of the letters of the Scriptures should not be changed and in Luke 10:26 it is written that we should read what is written as it is written. That is why I am asking you about the Greek word ‘mikros’ in Luke 12:32, as you insist. I cannot see that word in that verse, even after you reproduce the verse in Greek. Therefore, I consider that what you wrote last week was from another source. Your current source is in opposition to what you wrote on 6 Feb 2013.  The infallibility, inerrancy, and immutability of the Word of God demands that we read the Word of God as it is written. That is when we could tell the Enemy, “It is written …,” or “It is also written…” Where is ‘mikros’ (μικρος) written in the Bible? I gave you one of the references from the Gospel of Luke and that was in a Christian spirit. Let me quote that once again, “To help you in answering my question on ‘mikros,’ allow me to reproduce what I wrote before, “I wonder about your intent of making your first posting on 6 Feb 2013, on this thread. You wrote about ‘mikros’ six times in that posting. However, the Greek word μικρος (MIKROS) or μικρως (MIKROS) are not in Luke 12:32. Where did you get this word with that spelling? Of course, you did not get it from the Greek text. I would like to know about its source. However, the Greek word μικρος (MIKROS) appears in Luke 19:3 and it is about Zacchaeus.  Let me assure you that it was not about his strength.””
 
Shalom Malekim!!!
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : moses2006   View Profile   Since : 19 Feb 2013 10:27:13 PM Close

Dear Mr. Koshy,

Thanks for telling me the date on which I told you that I got SDA training. One more question - can you also tell me on which thread I told you that I got SDA training? (Only reason I ask, is so I can go back and look at the thread, so I can see what I said to you).

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : moses2006   View Profile   Since : 20 Feb 2013 12:47:33 AM Close

Dear Mr. Koshy,

I said the transliterated word is found in Luke 12:32. It is the strong's number G3398 and you will see it transliterated as 'mikros'. My source is biblestudytools.com and (since I am not a greek scholar) I assumed they had it correct.

You are correct about ‘μη’ and not ‘η'. That was a typo on my part - thanks for pointing it out.

 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 21 Feb 2013 7:27:06 PM Close

 

Dear ‘moses2006,’
 
Strong’s number ‘G3398’ does not say that ‘mikros’ (μικρος) is the word that is used in Luke 12:32. It only indicates that a word derived from ‘mikros’ (μικρος) is used in Luke 12:32. Your dependency on the cyberspace to establish what is not in the Scriptures is beyond my understanding. You did not answer my question with respect to which word in your Greek verse is spelled with ‘mikros’ (μικρος). Why don’t you answer that before asking me your ‘next question?’ Let us do this as in a dialog.
 
One of the questions that you are trying to avoid is on your contention that the Assembly or the Ekklesia that Christ builds is a feeble flock. You wrote on 6 Feb 2013, “The church of the Lord is a fragile entity.” To this I wrote, “You interpreted the “Little Flock” to mean ‘fragile’ in nature. … How do you think that such a fragile entity is so strong that the gates of hell could not prevail against it?”  I also provided a few synopsis from the Scriptures that contradict your statement that the Ekklesia that Christ builds (the Church) being a feeble entity. You have not answered this, but you expect me to answer your question that you posted about 10 days after I asked you the above question.
 
We should go through each and every question that was asked and you did not answer, before I answer your question of 19 Feb 2013. That includes the 14 questions on another thread. Let us make this exercise a dialog between two people of equal status, where both are obliged to answer the other without exception. Once we accomplish answering all the questions in civility, then I will answer your question of 19 Feb 2013. When I say ‘in civility,’ that implies that you should not make your quick writing English style as an excuse in not replying. Then you will read the answer on what you told me on 31 August 2010 about your training under SDA teachers.
 
Shalom Malekim!!!
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : moses2006   View Profile   Since : 21 Feb 2013 8:13:54 PM Close

Dear Mr. Koshy,

If you are interested in civility, then have the personal honor, rectitude and decency to first substantiate the denigrating aspersion you cast on me, when you said, that I have been trained by SDA. Other readers have posted grave concerns over your remark.

In the interest of civility (which I seriously doubt you have), please indicate which thread on which that I said that I was trained by SDA, on 31 Aug 2010? I already told you on that continued discussion with you rests on your clarifying this question.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : Varghese   View Profile   Since : 23 Feb 2013 7:57:59 PM Close

Dear Bro. Koshy,

[Quote]It is interesting to see your writing again. [/Quote

Thank you.

[Quote]In the past you have occasionally contributed, and most of the times they were finding faults with me.[/Quote]

I am not sure what prompted you to state so.  Please go thru my previous postings and let me know if that is still the case.  Examples with date/time and thread title will help.  If you are unable to come up with examples, then I may conclude that your allegation is baseless and without merit, overshooting the runway, so to speak.  On the other hand, if you felt my contributions in the past were about “finding faults about you” (as you put it), maybe the Spirit of God was trying to convict you of something.  Yes, I used to contribute much more in the past but the sad plights of today’s discussions have kept me away.

[Quote]I do not remember that you writing about the faults of others. Is there a double standard? [/Quote]

No double standard here. Since you have taken the role of teaching the Scriptures here in an extensive way, you are being held at a higher standard.  Such accountability is required not just from you but me and others who wish to be active in this forum.  I hope you will take my comments of Feb 10, 2013 to heart.  Again, that is your choice whether to heed to it or not.

Leaders are asked to be role models.  Leaders are called for service.  We are asked to serve.  Apostle Paul wrote to his readers to imitate him (1 Corin 4:16).  Paul exemplified Christ.  If we can channel half the energy used in teaching and imposing our interpretations on others, to that to exemplify Christ in our lives, what a blessing will that be!

God Bless!

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : moses2006   View Profile   Since : 24 Feb 2013 5:45:01 PM Close

Dear Bro Varghese,

Your few words have always had an edifying impact on me. Wish we all wrote with the same grace that is evident in your writing. If possible, please contribute to the discussions on this forum. Not everybody can impart grace and edification, and especially, those with excellence of knowledge. Often, a few words properly spoken (or, written) with grace is far better than the graceless verboseness of the learned.

Thank you for every post where you have encouraged the users to be more Christ like.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : mithun2   View Profile   Since : 25 Feb 2013 8:09:08 AM Close

 Dear moses2006,

 
#02065 :  Is the place of worship important for Sunday Service?". 
 
I am not sure whether this is the thread that GPK refers or not, however I couldn't find any other posting from you dated on 31 Aug 2010.
 
*******************************************************************************************************************************
 
Reply by : moses2006      Since : 31 Aug 2010 18:49:52
 
Dear Mr. Koshy,
 
Blame my quick writing once again - I wrote "house of thieves" when I should have written "den of thieves". The Lord used this expression and is recorded in Mk 11:17 and Luke 19:46. Would you like me to restate my entire post replacing "house of thieves" with "den of thieves"?
 
Your questions on the temple are a diversion and have no merit to the issue at hand. Instead, you should consider the passage where you are quoted - i.e YOUR criteria for why a church building must not be located in an SDA building. I did not say that I disagree with you. I just need you to apply YOUR criteria to the temple and clarify if using the same criteria, was the temple appropriate venue for the first church. Hope you will clarify. This was your criteria:
 
"The appearance of compromise on the deity of Christ is to be avoided. If we buy a property, including building, then they do not have any more influence over us in using the place. On the other hand, if we use their place rented or shared, then there may be some appearance of inappropriate compromise on doctrinal matters. We should look for another place. That is why the Christians, in the first few centuries, met in catacombs. We should not be influenced by those who deny the deity of Christ, when they say that they share the building, elsewhere. They are not our standard."
 
For your information, I am not an SDA member. As a child I attended an SDA school in Kerala for LKG and UKG. Other than that, I have no connection whatsoever with the SDA. For the last 4 generations, we are kerala brethren. I know that even you cannot claim that!! After ditching the brethren community, after coming to USA, you accusing me of being SDA sounds shallow and funny. Is that the best you can do?
 
*******************************************************************************************************************************
 
 
 

 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : johnwilliams   View Profile   Since : 28 Feb 2013 9:56:32 PM Close

oh look that... this discussion turned into the usual circus after a few posts by the usual suspect about what you said he said what I said when I said about what I said where did I say what you said I said that.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 4 Mar 2013 7:07:44 PM Close

 

Dear ‘varghese,’
 
You asked me to take your comments of Feb 10, 2013 to heart. There is a double standard in your posting. Let me use the latest posting as an example. You wrote, If we can channel half the energy used in teaching and imposing our interpretations on others, to that to exemplify Christ in our lives, what a blessing will that be! I agree that if we try not to override the Word of God with our ideas, opinions, interpretations, etc. will be a blessing to all. What would you say when certain person is changing the Word of God with his own words that are generated from his own opinions, ideas, interpretations that supersede the Word of God? I encourage all to read the Word of God as it is written and not as we would like to read it. In the past ‘moses2006’ has changed the Word of God according to what he wants. On this thread, he wrote that the church of the Lord is a fragile entity. Do you know what that ‘fragile entity’ is according to ‘moses2006?’ According to ‘moses2006,’ that fragile entity is the Body of Christ, which is also the Bride of Christ, which is also the Body that is joined to its glorified Head in heaven, and which is also built by Christ with living stones. How could any say that such an organism is a fragile entity? I have not heard anything from you on such a statement of degradation of Christ’s work, when that was made by ‘moses2006.’   May be you consider that ‘moses2006’ was exemplifying Christ in his life? He is here as a teacher who imposes his ideas by changing the words in verses of his choice and also writing that the work of Christ is a ‘fragile entity.’ However, you find fault with me for telling him that his SDA training is showing through in his writings. He told me on this Forum that he was taught by SDA. Are you following 1 Corinthians 4:16, which you cited? Apostle Paul repeatedly asked his readers to be his followers as he is of Christ. Do you know that Apostle Paul wrote about Hymenaeus and Alexander? Please read my reply to ‘moses2006,’ if you want to know what he is doing on this Forum.
 
I cannot give you the references for you to look-up in which you wrote to show your double standards. I firmly acknowledge my inability on this. It is only because you did not write any. You were silent, when I was called “hot gas.” You were silent, when I was called “Cobra Koshy.” You were silent, when I was called a person with “fangs” showing. However, you are not silent when I wrote that what ‘moses2006’ is showing what he learned from his SDA teachers. He, ‘moses2006,’ was educated by SDA teachers and that is a fact. Your silence and your keyboard pronouncements show a double standard.
 
Shalom Malekim!!!  
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 4 Mar 2013 7:18:41 PM Close

 

Part 1/3
Dear ‘moses2006,’
 
I wrote, in the past, “… You may be recounting what you learned from your SDA teachers. That is understandable… Again your SDA teaching is evident,…”   To this ‘varghese’ wrote in support of you. I replied to ‘varghese,’ “In the past you have occasionally contributed, and most of the times they were finding faults with me. I do not remember that you writing about the faults of others. Is there a double standard?”  He has shown a double standard.
 
Now let me address what you are doing on this Forum. I am not addressing what you wrote personally against me, using certain terms and expressions. I will be concentrating on what you wrote about my God and His word. To make it contextual, I should write briefly about the tactics of SDA against God and His word. When asked about scriptural support for a SDA member to say that Adam observed Sabbath in the Garden of Eden, I was told by him that it is in Genesis 2:1-3. If Genesis 2:1-3 tell that Adam observed Sabbath, then the SDA under their prophetess Ellen G. White is teaching that God is Adam. SDA questions the divinity, not just the deity, of God, through such teachings. I have previously written that the SDA denies the deity of Christ. Let me say now that they deny the divinity of God, because that is how Genesis 2:1-3 is used to establish the Sabbath in the Garden of Eden and observed by Adam. The same SDA member wrote that he learned about the Truth, “Truth” in upper case, from Satan. I learned from the Scriptures that Satan’s original name was Lucifer. I also know that the Sabellian heresy of the second or the third century was that the Son and Lucifer were siblings; one good and the other evil. In their show of supremacy, the evil one prevailed. That evil one is Lucifer, who is also known as Satan and the Devil. When he wrote “Truth” in uppercase, he was writing about the Son, Lord Jesus Christ, who told us that He is the Truth, the Way, and the Life. However, the SDA member wrote that he learned about the “Truth” from Satan, Lucifer. When I pointed this to the SDA member, he disappeared for a time, as Satan did when the Son told him that only God should be worshipped. When the SDA member came back and made postings on this Forum, he wrote that the prophets and apostles of God whom God inspired to give the Scriptures to man are the prophets and apostles of Lucifer. I have pointed that out to him more than once and he has not answered. What was your response to these heretical pronouncements? Nothing! You are not happy when I wrote that SDA denies the deity of Christ. What was the strategy of the SDA member on questions posed to him? His strategy was not to address the question and quote the Scriptures out-of-context. He refused to explain, using his own words, what he wrote. He was prolific in changing the Word of God and insisting on it. That SDA member was well trained not only in his childhood days, but also in his adulthood.
 
What about you? You told me that you were trained by SDA teachers. You also told me that you are a fourth generation Kerala Brethren. That implies that a third generation Kerala Brethren gave his approval for his child to be trained by SDA. That was done after the third generation Kerala Brethren read Proverbs 22:6, “Train up a child in the way he should go; and when he is old, he will not depart from it.” The Word of God does not say that if a child is trained in the way he should go, he will be saved when he is old. It only states that the child will not depart from the way in which he is trained. You were allowed to be trained by SDA teachers at the age in which you should have been trained in the way in which you should be walking. I see a lot of similarities between the SDA member who is a member of this Forum and you, especially in your postings. Let me provide a few examples and they are all related to God, the Son, the Holy Spirit, and the Word of God. I am not providing any example in which you made personal attacks using derogatory remarks on me or others. I willingly suffer those. Do you know the reason? You may not. Let me tell you about my reason why I do not react as you think I should. In my earlier days when that happened to me at Thiruvandapuram, I met the eyes of my Lord who was standing being accused by false witnesses, the high priest, and many religious leaders. He looked at me. It was a great and memorable look. It told me the following. First, “I prayed for you.” Then, it also told me that the spiting on His face, the puffed up face that was so marred because they buffeted Him and pulled the hairs off, the crown of thorns on His head, the purple robe he wore, the scepter He held, etc., all were for me. Finally, that look told me that why I should suffer so little when it is dished out to me by men who have no respect for Him or His words. When my Lord Jesus Christ looked at Peter, He was telling me all those good and beautiful encouragements. I thanked Him then and I rarely get upset when those who do not respect my Lord dish out personal insults to me. However, that is impossible for me to do, when the same men disrespect my Lord and change His revealed will and mind in the Scriptures.
 
Having said these let me show your actions of disrespect towards my Lord and His words. We will start from this thread.
 
(To be continued, Part 2/3)
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 4 Mar 2013 7:19:43 PM Close

 

Part 2/3
Dear ‘moses2006,’
 
1.      You wrote, “The church of the Lord is a fragile entity.” I wrote how far away you are on this from the Scriptures, before. The significance of changing the word “little flock” to “fragile entity,” as you did, should not be overlooked. When you wrote about the Greek word ‘mikros,’ you made it clear that you are dealing with doctrine and not just an impulse of the moment of your ‘quick writing English style.’ Therefore, I would like to bring to your attention about the use of the Greek word μικρος (MIKROS) along with μικρον (MIKRON) and other forms of that word. I decided to consider the second Greek word, because it is what is used in the verse where we read about “little flock.”
 
Matthew 10:42 -- μικρων (MIKRON) – translated as ‘little ones.’
Matthew 11:11 – μικροτερος (MIKROTEROS) – translated as ‘least.’
Matthew 13:32 – μικροτερον (MIKROTERON) – translated as ‘least.’
Matthew 18:6 -- μικρων (MIKRON) – translated as ‘little ones.’
Matthew 18:10 -- μικρων (MIKRON) – translated as ‘little ones.’
Matthew 18:14 -- μικρων (MIKRON) – translated as ‘little ones.’
Matthew 26:39 -- μικρον (MIKRON) – translated as ‘little.’
Matthew 26:73 -- μικρον (MIKRON) – translated as ‘little.’
Mark 4:31 – μικροτερος (MIKROTEROS) – translated as ‘less than.’
Mark 9:42 -- μικρων (MIKRON) – translated as ‘little ones.’
Mark 15:40 -- μικρου (MIKROU) – translated as ‘less.’
Mark 14:35 -- μικρον (MIKRON) – translated as ‘little.’
Mark 14:70 -- μικρον (MIKRON) – translated as ‘little.’
Luke 7:28 -- μικροτερος (MIKROTEROS) – translated as ‘least.’
Luke 9:48 -- μικροτερος (MIKROTEROS) – translated as ‘least.’
Luke 12:32 -- μικρον (MIKRON) – translated as ‘little.’
Luke 17:2 -- μικρων (MIKRON) – translated as ‘little ones.’
Luke 19:3 -- μικρος (MIKROS) – translated as ‘little.’
John 7:33 – μικρον (MIKRON) – translated as ‘little.’
John 12:35 -- μικρον (MIKRON) – translated as ‘little.’
John 13:33 -- μικρον (MIKRON) – translated as ‘little.’
John 14:19 -- μικρον (MIKRON) – translated as ‘little.’
John 16:16 -- μικρον (MIKRON) – translated as ‘little.’
John 16:17 -- μικρον (MIKRON) – translated as ‘little.’
John 16:18 -- μικρον (MIKRON) – translated as ‘little.’
John 16:19 -- μικρον (MIKRON) – translated as ‘little.’
Acts 8:10 -- μικρου (MIKROU) – translated as ‘least.’
Acts 26:22 -- μικρω (MIKRO) – translated as ‘small.’
1 Corinthians 5:6 -- μικρα (MIKRA) – translated as ‘little.’
2 Corinthians 11:1 -- μικρον (MIKRON) – translated as ‘little.’
2 Corinthians 11:16 -- μικρον (MIKRON) – translated as ‘little.’
Galatians 5:9 -- μικρα (MIKRA) – translated as ‘little.’
Hebrews 8:11 -- μικρου (MIKROU) – translated as ‘least.’
Hebrews 10:37 -- μικρον (MIKRON) – translated as ‘little.’
James 3:5 -- μικρου (MIKROU) – translated as ‘little.’
Revelation 3:8 -- μικραν (MIKRAN) – translated as ‘little.’
Revelation 6:11 -- μικρον (MIKRON) – translated as ‘little.’
Revelation 11:18 -- μικροις (MIKROIS) – translated as ‘small.’
Revelation 13:16 -- μικρους (MIKROUS) – translated as ‘small.’
Revelation 19:5 -- μικροι (MIKROI) – translated as ‘small.’
Revelation 19:18 -- μικρων (MIKRON) – translated as ‘small.’
Revelation 20:3 --   μικρον (MIKRON) – translated as ‘little.’
Revelation 20:12 -- μικρους (MIKROUS) – translated as ‘small.’
 
I have given you the list of verses in which the various forms of the Greek word μικρος (MIKROS) appears. If I missed any or made an error, I apologize.  The word μικρος (MIKROS), in that spelling, appears only once in this list. However, its different variations are in the Scriptures. The most prevalent is μικρον (MIKRON), and that is what is in Luke 12:32.   The basic word changes it’s spelling because of tense, gender, singular or plural, etc. A concordance will not specify such differences. You may have to refer to some other tools, such as a book that deals with grammar or even a lexicon. Could you tell me from these verses how did you come to the conclusion that “little” in Luke 12:32 should be changed to ‘fragile?’ I am asking about your deduction and not inference. Inference almost always leads to error.
 
When you wrote that, you were emphatic that the Church of the Lord is a fragile entity. I wrote that the Church (Ekklesia = called out, or Assembly) is not a weakling for you to write that it is a “fragile entity.” It is built with living stones by the Eternal Son. It is the Body of Christ. That Body of Christ is on this earth and is connected to its glorified Head in heavens. It is the Bride of Christ. Gates of hell will not prevail on, against, or over it. Your statement, “The church of the Lord is a fragile entity,” has the flavor of SDA teaching. You wrote that not in ignorance, but to tell brother Tom Johns how wrong I was about the “Little Flock,” that was mentioned by my Lord in Luke 12:32 to His disciples. My Lord’s statement was a statement of teaching (doctrine) given as a revelation by the Son. Yours was a statement of teaching, which was evil in its concept and intent. Do you know what is meant by “fragile?” The English speaking people use that word to convey the idea of being: easily damaged or broken; frail; tenuous; or flimsy. The Church of the Lord is none of these for you to write, “The church of the Lord is a fragile entity.” You should read the Scriptures before you start to make such derogatory expression about the works of Jesus Christ, my Lord. It only shows that you have difficulty in accepting the lordship of Jesus Christ. It will be easy to accept His lordship, if you could surrender your will before God in all humility. You just overruled what He said about the Ekklesia that He builds, as written in Matthew 16:18. Your statement about the Church of the Lord being a fragile entity denies many truths that are taught in the Scriptures about it. You denied the scriptural truth concerning the Church of the Lord. Using your interpretation, you were trying to teach:
i.                    The gates of hell could overcome the Church of the Lord;
ii.                  The Eternal Son was not telling the truth about the Church He is building;
iii.                The Church of the Lord is not made with living stones;
iv.                The Church of the Lord is not the Bride that He will present to the Father without spot and wrinkle;
v.                  The Church of the Lord is not the Body that is connected to its glorified Head, which is in heaven;
vi.                The Church of the Lord is fragile to be destroyed or broken like a glass;
vii.              The Bride as shown in Revelation is not the Church of the Lord. Let me remind you that in Revelation the Bride is seen as the city made of pure gold descending from heaven to the new earth, with the Lamb being the Lamp and Lord God Almighty is its temple. Such a city of pure gold is not fragile to be perishable or broken, as you claim that to be.
 
From these it becomes clear that you have certain belief in SDA’s annihilation theory. If that is not the case, then you are rewording the writings of Mrs. Ellen G. White. She said that the church in which she was the prophetess consists of the rejected people when Christ came and took the saints with Him in 1844. Of course, that rejected people are fragile, in its true sense. However, Christ did not come in 1844 as she and her mentor prophesied. The true Church of the Lord is still being built by the Lord as He promised and is as strong as its Head that is glorified in heaven, before whom all the knee should bow.  That glorified Head of the Church is the Man Christ Jesus.
 
Before I write about three other occasions in which you wrote against what is written in the Scriptures, I would like to point another aspect of what you wrote, “The church of the Lord is a fragile entity.”   Let me show you how you were recounting what you learned from your SDA teachers. Mrs. Ellen G. White taught that her church, SDA, is made up of those who were left behind by the Lord when He came and took all who were His in 1844. If that is true, then her church is made up of those who are not His. When Israel behaved as they were not the people of Jehovah, He told Jeremiah to write that they are like broken cisterns that they hewed out of stone. He also told them that those stone cisterns were broken cisterns and cannot hold water. On the other hand, the Son told that there is living waters gushing out the bellies of His people. The Ekklesia (the Assembly or Church) that Christ builds is not a broken cistern. It has living water that is gushing out of it. It holds water on the Rock. One of the meanings of the word ‘fragile’ is ‘broken.’ You wrote that the Church of the Lord is a broken church. If it is, it is like that that is made up of left behind people. You are wrong, when you are recounting what you learned from your SDA teachers.
 
(To be continued, Part 3/3)
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 4 Mar 2013 7:20:31 PM Close

 

Part 3/3
Dear ‘moses2006,’
 
1.      In an earlier thread, you wrote that Apostle Paul was engaged in burying the Law. When asked about verses to support such a statement, you provided Romans 10:4 with a change. That change was that you replaced the word “end” with ‘bury.’ When your error was pointed out to you, then your reply was that you could make that change using your ‘quick writing English style.’ No one with any kind of ability or style could change the words in the Scriptures that are revealed to man through the Son. The Son taught about the inspiration, immutability, and inerrancy of the Scriptures as they are originally given in Matthew 5:18. He also told the lawyer of the Law that he should make it a habit to read what is in the Law as it is written and not as he would like to interpret them. We read that in Luke 10:26. Your ‘quick writing English style’ excuse is another show of the appendages from your SDA training that you received as a child. This act of changing the words in Romans 10:4 to establish your interpretations without any respect to the Word of God. Such continual declamatory statements are in parallel to the tendency shown by a certain SDA member on this Forum.
 
2.      Another example is how you insisted to change the order or direction of an instruction in the Scriptures. When I pointed out from the Third Epistle of John, “Greet the friends by name,” as written to Gaius, you made it an argument about the friends greeting Gaius by name. The order and direction of the words and the greeting were changed by you to establish your idea. It showed your willingness to override the Word of God by the use of your will. That behavior follows closly to SDA member’s lack of reverence to God and His word.
 
3.      A few years ago, when I placed a prayer request and a SDA member wrote that he will be praying. I refused his prayer on the basis that he denies the deity of Christ. To that you picked up a fight and insisted that I should accept his offer to pray, because you were ignorant about whose prayers God will hear. My position was that I requested prayers from my brethren who are given to me by the Lord. Your position was that your ignorance should be my guideline. Let me tell you that the Word of God is my guide and guideline. The Scriptures are the final authority for my faith and conduct. To you your ignorance is your guide and guideline, at least when it comes to praying for each other. You have not searched the Scriptures, but follow the SDA teaching and accept prayers from any as of equal acceptance by God. However, it is written in the Scriptures, “… The fervent supplication of the righteous man has much power.” (James 5:16) It is also written in the Scriptures, “And let him avoid evil, and do good; let him seek peace and pursue it; because the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous, and His ears towards their supplications; but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil.” (1 Peter 3:11-12)  It is written in the Scriptures that the ears of God are open to the prayers of the righteous; that is, of those who are called righteous in the Son. To you, your ignorance should be made as the rule of conduct for all. You are far away from the Scriptures on this too.
 
Let me stop with these four witnesses, to show you how you are exhibiting what you were trained at your childhood by SDA teachers.
 
When you wrote all these and more, you made sure that no one will know that you are the one who write them. You achieved it by using a pseudonym and you admitted that indirectly. You asked me how bad it will be if my wife, children, relatives, friends, etc. to know what I write. That question was mute even before you thought about it to ask me, because I write using my name. You were admitting the reason why you use a pseudonym and not your name. Let me amuse you with what happened recently. In the recent family get together, one of my children began to say about certain scenario from his life. When he completed the explanation of the problem at hand, I told about an inevitable fact. I told that if he stands for the truth, then there will be an opposition that is greater than he could imagine. As soon as I was at that point in my reply, I heard many voices, including my wife’s, saying the same words in the same order. It was, “When did that stop you from standing for the truth you know?” We all look at each other and laughed. Then I heard my children say gleefully, “Weee… knowww… the answerrrrr!!” My concern is that if I do not tell the truth as I know, using my name, what my Lord would say. I am less concerned about what men will say according to the world’s standards. I see many heroes of faith standing around me to encourage me saying, “If I could do that, you could do that better!” I see Elijah standing alone asking those who halted between two opinions about their refusal to be with Jehovah. I also see him crying to Jehovah about His loneliness. But He elected to be with Jehovah. By using a pseudonym you are avoiding openness and transparency. That may have its advantages. One of them is that you could make statements opposing what the Lord Jesus Christ taught, without fear of being identified by your family, friends, and fellow believers.
 
You should remember that Church of the Lord is a living organism that is built by the Son and not by man, and it is not a place of traffic without restriction. No one has the authority to defile it by human reasoning and willful alteration of the Scriptures. Those who are engaged in trafficking and altering the words are also eager to judge others who disagree with them. They are judging all others, including Jesus Christ, my Lord. They directly and indirectly deny the authority of the Word of God. In the four examples from your writings, SDA theology becomes visible. It is an ology that cast out God and enthrones man, as it depends on human will and its authority. That ology is not the doctrine of the eternal God that is given through the eternal Son by the inspiration of the eternal Holy Spirit. You are asking others to wear the man-made armor, instead of the armor of God. Changing the Word of God is a sin against the Holy Spirit. It may not be the denial of the Most high, but is surely the denial of the divinity of the Most High. Even Satan will not dare to do that to the Most High, but he uses men to be his shield bearers to deny the divinity of the Most High. No man has the authority to decide what the Word of God should be.
 
The four examples may be pushed aside as being non-consequential by some. However, they are very significant and the words that we use to explain the Word of God are to be carefully selected. We explain what God provided using human languages and also using words that are purified like silver, seven times in the furnace of the earth. There are many words that He did not select in providing His words to us. From Hebrew, He selected less than 9,000 words. From Greek, He selected less than 6,000 words, when there were about 100,000 available. The words that He did not select should not be used to replace the words that He selected. If we do, then we are telling God that we know better than He does about His own thoughts that He expressed for man to know. That is why He inspired Apostle Paul to write in 1 Corinthians 2:11, “For who of men has known the things of a man except the spirit of man which is in him? Thus also the things of God knows no one except the Spirit of God.” You have no right to change the words in the revealed Word of God. The four examples are your own witnesses against you, and they indubitably tell that you are engaged in altering the Word of God. The Holy Spirit has already selected the human words when He inspired the holy apostles and prophets to write the Scriptures. You should not change them. About this act of the Holy Spirit and the obedience of the prophets to His authority are stated by Peter in 1 Peter 1:10-11. How the revelation of the will and mind of God to man through the Son is stated in 2 Corinthians 2:17 and Hebrews 1:1-2.
 
If you are a believer, as you claim to be, it is time for you to change the appendages of your childhood training you received from SDA and embrace the teachings of Christ as written in the Scriptures. Your first action should be to accept the inspiration, immutability, and inerrancy of the Word of God (Matthew 5:16). Your second action should be to learn to read what is written in the Scriptures as written (Luke 10:26).
 
Shalom Malekim!!!
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : moses2006   View Profile   Since : 6 Mar 2013 12:52:52 PM Close

Dear 'keralabrethren.net' readers,

Mr. Koshy has posted 4 examples that, according to him, indicates that I am an SDA trained person.

Many or most of you have been reading my postings since 2006. Does anybody else, other than Mr. Koshy, honestly think that I am an SDA trained person? If so, please post your opinion, with perhaps, some examples of what I wrote to support the SDA training.

Jesus said, "..every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses" (Matt 18:16 NIV)

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 6 Mar 2013 2:11:08 PM Close

Dear 'moses2006,'

You wrote about your training by SDA on 31 August 2010.  The four examples are only the manifestation or the after effect of that training that you received in your childhood.  That is what we read in Proverbs 22:6.

Shalom Malekim!!!

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : mithun2   View Profile   Since : 7 Mar 2013 2:38:17 AM Close

 Dear brother moses2006,

I have been following your writings on this forum for the past many years.  None of the examples given above are satisfactory for me to believe that you are a SDA trained person.  Please continue to write for His honour and glory.   "My brethren, count it all joy when you fall into various trials"  James 1:2

 I know several great personalities as well as good believers who were taught by SDA teachers, Catholic teachers, Hindu proffesors,  Aethists in their schools and universities. 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : moses2006   View Profile   Since : 7 Mar 2013 2:15:54 PM Close

Dear Bro. 'mithun2'

Thank you for your encouraging comments. Yes, my parents send me to an SDA primary school, when I was a toddler, just for kindergarden, since that was the only English medium school in close by. We moved from the area afterwards, so from my 1st standard, I was schooled in private school. The only thing I remember from those "SDA school" days are running around as a kid. I don't think this episode hardly qualifies me to be called as "trained by the SDA". As you said, most of us have been to schools and colleges where all manner of teachers taught us.

Only a viciously vindictive and cruelly mean person will twist my words and call it "training by the SDA". Not satisfied with that, such a person, also attack my parents. Just think the trouble I am going through for openly sharing a small part of my childhood - and this person always berates us for not revealing more of our personal lives on this forum. WELL THIS IS THE REASON, WHY I CHOOSE TO INTERACT IN THIS FORUM WITH A PSEUDONYM. Its because of mean "sharks" that navigate these forums, who are actively involved in charater assasination of anyone who dare oppose them, fueled by carnal and unChrist-like rage. 

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : Varghese   View Profile   Since : 10 Mar 2013 4:14:22 AM Close

Dear Bro. Moses,

As stated earlier, I appreciate your contributions on this site.  Please continue to write.  I would also strongly encourage you to avoid discussions that are deemed spiritually unprofitable.  May the Lord continue to use you for His glory.

God Bless!

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 18 Mar 2013 5:37:18 PM Close

 

Dear ‘moses2006,’
 
Sharks Are Misunderstood Creatures
 
It was interesting to read your posting of 7 Mar 2013. You wrote about your running around as a kid in the SDA School and added, “…THIS IS THE REASON, WHY I CHOOSE TO INTERACT IN THIS FORUM WITH A PSEUDONYM. Its because of mean "sharks" that navigate these forums, who are actively involved in charater assasination of anyone who dare oppose them, fueled by carnal and unChrist-like rage.” When your posting appeared, one of your supporters was so delighted and asked you for more posting of such sort. May be you are encouraged to make more statements that are imbedded with ‘sharks’ attack. Your statement in upper case appears to be borrowed from ‘sathyasnehi.’ He wrote that a member of this forum told him not to use his real name because of similar reason. You admitted that you were trained by SDA teachers, and it was at the age in which a child should be trained in the way in which he should walk (Proverbs 22:6).  I have already shown you that you are using the SDA strategies that are employed by another SDA member. The strategies contain:
  1. Make a statement about what is not in the Bible as if in the Bible and when asked for its justification from the Bible, write something that is not an answer, but appears to be an answer.
  2. If you do not want to give any answer, try to ignore the question. That is what you tried to do more than three times about μικρος (MIKROS).
  3. Change the words in the Word of God to establish what is not written in the Scriptures.
  4. Refuse to read what is written in the Scriptures as they are written, but as you prefer to match with your interpretations.
  5. By #3 and #4, the SDA member admits that he does not believe in the inspiration, infallibility, and immutability of the Word of God; though he may be assertive about having that in his faith.
 
I wrote that your SDA training is manifested in your actions that correspond to the five items above. You indicated in another thread that you used pseudonym to escape detection by your family. Now you write that it is because of the “sharks.” Which one of your explanations is true? By this time, you should know that your excuse in bold letters, as quoted above, is not true. Whether one uses pseudonym or not, when the writing is to lead others away from the Scriptures, that will be pointed out with a request to justify the interpretation from the Scriptures.
 
You wrote about “… mean "sharks" that navigate these forums, ….” When you wrote that expression, was it done in ‘Christ-like’ mindset that is “fueled by carnal and unChrist-like rage?”  I hope that you will not hide behind your quick writing English style. Your expression showed your ignorance about sharks. Those who studied that creature have written that it is one of the most misunderstood creatures, and ill-informed men are waging a dishonest war against it. Have you ever heard about a shark attacking a human in the human habitat, the land? I have not. However, I have heard a lot of stories how humans invaded the habitat of sharks with the intent to kill them. They enter the shark habitat, the ocean, with the intent to kill or enslave them for their entertainments, if not to sell the carcasses to make some money. They go into the shark habitats with nets, spears, shark-hooks, etc. While they do this, they make themselves to be well protected and may even have breathing apparatus to survive. They look a sort of aliens from outer habitats. They kill the sharks in large numbers, not to eat, but to sell. On the other hand, sharks attack their invaders, in defense, who invaded their habitat like illegal aliens from a different planet. In turn, the illegal aliens cry foul. The aggressors who invaded the habitat of the sharks are engaged in a process to eliminate that creature from the face of the earth; while accusing the sharks for defending their habitat.
 
Humans kill the sharks with manufactured weapons of mass and individual destruction; some of them may even use IED, intermittent explosive devices. As the invaders are involved in the destruction of sharks, the sharks try to defend their habitat using their natural defensive system. They do not attack the attackers with manufactured weapons of any order. They use only their body parts to defend their habitat. The sharks do not invade the habitat of the invaders, in return. Yet who get the blame? The one who is defending its habitat are blamed for defending themselves. Who is doing this blaming? The blaming is done by the invaders who are behaving like illegal aliens. These invaders were and are trying to kill the creature that lives in their habitat without encroaching into the invaders habitat. The invaders even make the defense of the habitat by the sharks as an excuse to kill and maim them. The aggressors blame the victims! The “sharks” have no intention to invade the habitat of the invaders, or they do not have any intention to make any false accusation against the accusers, either.
 
Your remarks stand next to the “fang” remark of ‘asdpoilkj’ and the “Cobra Koshy” remark of ‘kristine,’ a.k.a. ‘kristianjude.’ Who made the remark that I am full of ‘hot gas,’ to which I replied with the scientific fact of electron gas? Who has the ‘unChrist-like rage?’ The one who makes the “shark” pronouncement or the one who ask you to obey Matthew 5:18 and Luke 10:26? I rejoice in the Lord, because He told me that I should expect such actions from those who find fault with Him. He also told me that those who do such things do not read the Scriptures as they are written by the inspiration of God.
 
Shalom Malekim!!!
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 18 Mar 2013 5:38:42 PM Close

 

Dear ‘moses2006,’
 
This is in response to your posting of 7 Mar 2013. You wrote about, “... charater assasination of anyone who dare oppose them, fueled by carnal and unChrist-like rage.” Once I showed you about your unchristian rage and the attempt on character assassination by explaining about electron gas. If you do not remember that, let us not search for it, because you have exemplified your attempt to character assassination rooted in “unChrist-like rage” and “sharks” on 07 Mar 2013. After reading your posting, one of your admirers asked you to continue to write such things for his enjoyment. Let me address your ‘character assassination’ using the above two terms.
 
As human beings, our thoughts are according to our earthly wisdom and understanding. We mold our thinking accordingly. We learn from those things from our childhood and those that are around us. We learn them in succession as we grow. Our thought process is established while we are very young, at the age of three to five, kindergarten age. In our later years, we learn to relate the information we gather from the Word of God and mix them with that we have already gathered from the world. We do this knowingly or unknowingly, consciously or unconsciously. This action follows a logical path that we learned from the world’s educational system, which of course is fallible by all means. Using all our mental abilities we try to strain and purify what we read and this include both secular and spiritual matters. We forget that our mental faculties are formed out of this earth that is already stained with sin. Using this sin stained mental faculties we form our teachings, forgetting that we are dealing with the infallible-immutable-inspired (God-breathed) words of God. Ignoring this truth about God’s word, we call what we fashioned using our earthy wisdom in our sin-corrupted mind to be heavenly. If any reminds us about the importance of the Word of God, then we find excuses to justify our teachings that are formed out of our sin stained mental faculties that used the fallible logic of this world to form it. We impugn the God’s words are the revelation of His mind and will. We impugn that the Scriptures and immutable, inerrant, and inspired by God (Matthew 5:18) and we should read what is written as they are written (Luke 10:26). The ideas about heaven without the authority of the divine revelations are only things of the dust of this earth, however colorfully painted that may be with the wisdom of man. You may claim that you believe in the immutability, inerrancy, and the inspiration of the Word of God. Let me assure you that you do not believe in any of them. You have demonstrated your lack of belief, when you changed “end” to ‘burry,’ “little” to mean ‘fragile,’ etc. With our actions, you showed that you consider that the Word of God is mutable, erroneous or fallible, and not inspired by God. Your actions against the Word of God do not match with your claim.
 
We should always remember that man invents many ways to worship God and then blames God for not accepting that worship. That is Cain’s syndrome. God told Cain that if he could worship Him as he knows, then that should be done without any deviation. Then only God will accept his worship. What did Cain do? He banished, killed to be exact, his brother from the earth so that Abel will not continue to worship God according to His desires. Cain might have thought that without Abel to worship, God had no choice but to accept that of his. God demands and require that our actions should be in accordance with the revelation of His mind and will. Our actions should not convey the idea that God is an idea that is conceived by man and man has the authority to change what are written in the Scriptures. It is the Sovereign who decides how His subjects are to behave. The subjects have no say in the manner in which they act and live. We are not discussing about a democratic society. We are discussing about our position before the eternal, almighty, immutable God, who is the Creator and Sustainer of all things by the word of His power. People’s power and democracy has no place before God. Before God, there is only one power, God’s power. God’s words should not be changed by any man for any reason.
 
We should not remove the truth that is given by God in His word. If we do, then it will be similar to a man flying a jumbo jet in the open sky without a compass or a rudder. Without the compass or the Global Positioning System (GPS) he does not have any knowledge about the direction of his going. He is ignorant about his position in terms of longitude, latitude, and altitude. All he knows is that he is going in the direction of the nose-cone of the plane. He has no rudder to change the course. He is able to withstand the forces of nature to certain extent as long as he has some fuel and the plane is functioning properly. He is at the mercy of variables in the forces of nature, such as wind, the force of gravity, etc. He is a sport of the nature. It drives him into the fierce urge of demon worship, even to change the Word of God to please the imaginations of his fallible mind. He is filled with fear of mountain ranges that may be hidden in the clouds. One may ask; why did this man try to fly this plane? Instead, the question should be; how did he begin his flight in a plane without a guidance system and rudder? The answer is simple. Satan plays with man’s intellect when man tries to play with God’s word.
 
You wrote that you are a fourth generation Kerala Brethren. I do not think that the first generation Kerala Brethren, you great grandfather, would have changed the Scriptures as you did. He wanted to obey the Word of God as they are written. He read the Scriptures fully acknowledging its authority as they are immutable, infallible, because they were inspired by God, when they were originally given. He feared God. What about you, the fourth generation? You have no conscious to change the Word of God. Who instilled that in your mind at a time when your mind should be trained? Your answer should be that it was by the SDA teachers, when you were in the kindergarten. They did not train you in their doctrines, because a child may comprehend them. However, they could train the child’s mind with strategies to challenge God. When you make a change in the word of God, then you are questioning God’s sovereignty to select the word He used when He inspired His servants to write them. I am the only one who is trying to make this known to you. There are few others who are encouraging you to continue in your folly.
 
A few years ago, I came across a passage in a ‘Brethren’ publications. I do not know whether he is a ‘Brethren’ or not.  The ‘Kerala Brethren’ is a sub-set of the “Brethren.’ I have no idea about this author as to his nationality. It reads, “… Someone who has the Word in his heart as the enabler of his faith, should more properly ask "What does the Bible say about this issue?" or even better, "Why does the Bible say this or that?" When a heart of faith poses such a question, the Holy Spirit is given the opportunity needed to give a proper answer to the WHAT and the WHY. Word/Phrase searches and multiple languages cannot give the answer, that the Holy Spirit impresses in the heart. The Spirit (of truth) was given to us, so He can guide us into "all truth" (Joh 16:13)”
 
“We have a tradition of challenging each other with this question - "Where does it say that in the Bible?". Some very good Bible teachers use this to defend and attack others. My appeal is that we ask each other better questions that anticipate a Spirit guided response - one that leaves room for the Holy Spirit to work in us. Some people are given the gift of wisdom to understand the mysteries of the Word of God. …”  There are sentences that indicate the justification of modifying the revealed Scriptures. Therefore, I doubt that this author is not a real ‘Brethren.’ I came to this conclusion because he is even opposed to the ‘Word Study’ to understand how particular Hebrew or Greek words were used as the Scriptures were originally given and established in heaven (Matthew 5:18; Luke 10:26: 2 Timothy 3:16). I think that the author is a liberal man who does not accept the immutability, infallibility, and the inspiration of the Scriptures, but is actively engaged to influence other Christians to lead them away from God. Do you think that there is justification in my thinking? This is a simple question, please answer. Your answer will shed some light on your mindset.
 
Shalom Malekim!!!
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : mithun2   View Profile   Since : 19 Mar 2013 3:15:11 AM Close

 Dear brother moses2006,

I wonder why you "copied & pasted" an old posting irrelavent to this discussion topic (Lord's table whether to use  cup or cups) here.  Purpose of discussion should be His glory and His glory alone.   Move away from all other topics and irrelavant discussions.

Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. (I cor 10:31).  

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : moses2006   View Profile   Since : 21 Mar 2013 2:28:40 AM Close

Dear  bro mithun2, thanks for your note. I agree with your advice and have deleted the post regarding Mr Koshy's memoirs of his friend's wife from 1980. I posted that so users can see for themselves, how he observes things (even that of his own friend's wife) and is not inhibited from attacking them in a public forum. However, my post was not relevant to the immediate discussion on this thread, as you rightly pointed out and so, I have deleted that post.

Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page


Post reply Here

please login to continue..

Registered Users, Login below:

Username Password
Problem Login?

New User? Register Now

Forgot User Name or Password? Click Here

Go to top of the page

All times are GMT -5 Hours
Forums Home ::



HOME
Back to Top