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 (2005 - 2007)

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 ::

Go to bottom of the page

# 00548 :  'The non-Brethren stand'
Brother George P Koshy wrote thusly in response to: Assembly Distinctives:- Uphold or Uproot? Reply by : George P. Koshy 25/3/2005 8:19:27.
(I do not wish to torpedo that topic and there a forced to start a new one.)


[My non-Brethren stand is the direct result of Dr. A.P. Mathew's communications that where privately given. Then I was just trying to understand about Assembly principles. I did not understand them very well and argued to be a sectarian and a Brethren. With a smile he said, "you will understand this truth later. Then, I am sure you will not be a Brethren." He was correct.]

Henceforth there are two communications between us on that link, which is not repeated here.

I am just continuing further with these questions, and may it be know to all that this is not to defend the Brethren assembly beliefs, and therefore please do not post the defense for brethren assembly beliefs. This posting is just to know what this distinction (the no-Brethren stand) Br. George P Koshy is referring to, that Dr. Mathew taught him.

AO

Post by : spectator  View Profile    since : 30 Mar 2005


Reply by : spectator   View Profile   Since : 30 Mar 2005 2:49:16 PM Close
Dear Br. George P Koshy,

Yes I understand, I did not use an exact quote of your writing. Definitely it is my oversight. And you have well explained it as a difference in level of communication. Let us not please nit-pick and squabble on how it came about. I am here, listening and willing to understand what you mean. But I might need more clarification and explanation. What I tried to reveal to you was that I know that Dr. Mathew was an active, teaching member of a BRETHREN ASSEMBLY. (I think he was an elder of that assembly too. My information may be inaccurate about the eldership.)

Therefore I am again intrigued and if I may invoke the liberty and freedom on this forum in knowing what his teaching is, and if I may evoke you to please explain that in simple terms: what did he mean when Dr. Mathew said to you which you translated as “You will understand this truth later, Then, I am sure you will not be a Brethren.”?

I want you to understand:
a) I am not here to defend the name ‘Brethren.’
b) I am not against the name ‘Brethren.’
c) I am not against the group of believers commonly called the Brethren.
d) I have no special interest, at present, in defending ‘the name’ ‘Brethren’ these groups of people have been called by others or taken themselves.

But I want to understand: Why should one “not be a Brethren”.

Best regards,

AO.

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

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 31 Mar 2005 2:17:28 PM Close
Dear 'spectator,'

Mine is not just a non-Brethren stand. It is a stand not to divide the Assembly, the body and bride of Christ, as being built by the Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, it may be construed as a non-Brethren stand.

What I learned from Dr. A.P. Mathew were through personal communications over a period of few years. Certain things are imbedded firmly in my mind and I remember them often. Others come to memory, as occassion occcur.

To discuss what I learned through personal communications, I should know who you are? That include your real name, where you were brought-up, etc. Are you willing to give those information? If not, I cannot get into a discussion on personal communications of the past between others and myself. I have already provided a lot of personal information about myself. I am willing to continue to provide whatever I can, if you will provide information regarding you, on this forum.

What Dr. A.P. Mathew communicated to me resulted in my understanding of the Assembly as I wrote in "Assembly - The Body and Bride of Christ." Especially, in the last section. I hope you will read that. You may find the answer to your question.

The final result is, I am not a Brethren. I will not and should not throw away a relationship (My Lord called me and included me in one of His brethren, a non-commutative relationship) that my Lord extended to me personally for a name, Brethren, before men in this world.

(Note: This is only a minor observation. When you write by the pen-name 'spectator,' there is a contradiction of intent. A spectator is a passive observer of things. In the cyberspace, a spectator lurks in the shadows and observe what is happening. But you are an active participant and not a passive spectator. In the world of sports, when a spectator gets into the game as a player or participants then chaos and tumult will result. I am only pointing out the contradictory nature of names that we take to hide our identity.)

Shalom malekim!!!

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

Reply by : brownsugar   View Profile   Since : 31 Mar 2005 2:18:41 PM Close
(1cor1) rebukes sectrianism. The PB is a sect.
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : spectator   View Profile   Since : 1 Apr 2005 10:33:29 AM Close
Dear brother George P Koshy,

I am deeply disappointed that you did not take an initiative to respond to my earnest desire to know your 'stand'. You managed to totally circumvent the real answer. At least a few on this forum showed an interest in finding out where you stood, when you say you are not Brethren. It could have been profitable to all.

I see that you rephrased your position on the “non-Brethren stand”. Now I am to understand that it is only a “construed non-Brethren stand.” As you can see I quoted you verbatim.

Now, with regard to your revealing of what you learned from a Dr. A. P. Mathew, I am not interested in knowing anything personal about you or anyone else on an open forum. If you learned anything that is doctrinal, AND THAT YOU BELIEVE THAT IS TRUE AND SCRIPTURAL, then I don’t see the logical reason in not releasing it. You yourself have identified the source. You also revealed the doctrinal subject. All I was interested in was the scriptural reason. As we are all logical and reasonable people, I hope you see my point. So far you have made more than 750 posting on this forum. Why not a few more?

You come across several times over this forum and post that you are not Brethren, and as if “being Brethren” (taking the name or belonging to the Brethren Assembly/Chapel/Hall) is Anathema. Then, may I ask again, why not post the reasons for such belief? I am sure we all attend some where for congregational worship. The place you go, now, they have a name, don’t they?

According to the webmasters who own this website: I quote “ … IS AIMED TO ENCOURAGE THE PEOPLE OF GOD EVERYWHERE COMMONLY CALLED " THE BRETHREN ". end quote.

Further this forum allows interested parties to use alias (pseudonym). Therefore those of you who brag about your names, please stop it. If they wanted to have the names, they would have designed the web site with those restrictions.

I am not encouraging the abusers OR EVEN THOSE WHO RESPOND TO THEM. The Site owners should be doing the clean up.

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

Reply by : spectator   View Profile   Since : 1 Apr 2005 12:23:20 PM Close
Dear Br. Koshy,

One further clarification of my pen-name which is not needed, but I will grant you the privilege. I chose that name ‘Spectator’ deliberately. After reading through hundreds even thousands of postings, before I joined, I decide that not much point in contributing actively. When the contributors and even ‘challengers’ don’t like what they read, these postings have become out of control, sometimes unchristian and chaotic. Why, I thought, meddle in the middle to muddle.

But a spectator also once in a while can encourage, or shout ‘foul’ from the side lines, don’t you agree, my brother?

As you may have noticed, I started only one thread before this one and have ‘shouted’ from the sidelines, mostly to call out the injustice, less than a score times!

Cheers,
AO

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

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 1 Apr 2005 3:00:45 PM Close
Dear 'spectator,'

This forum also do not allow any one to pusue after personal information on others. You are in violation of that policy.

As a matter of fact, I hav already answered a good part of your inquiry through my previous postings. You must read my postings on "Assembly - The Body and Bride of Christ." There my position is unequivocally stated. I also stated my position on the last posting.

I have not read any one else asking any question on what you are interested in. If any one is, then they must provide corresponding personal information about them on this forum. Then I will answer further.

You have counted the number of postings that I made on this forum. Good! You took some time. Why don't you take some time to provide some facts about yourself? Parallel to what you want to learn about me. Let us start with your real name and the assembly that you were associated with in India. There may be some more, if you are willing. I am willing to have a meaningful dialog with any, if they will provide similar information about them as demanded of me and should precede mine. This is to make sure that they will folow through. In the past, I was deceived by some on personal information on this forum.

About being called "Brethren," I did not say anything derogatory about it, or against it. What I said was, "I am not a Brethren." That is true. Do you know what is meant by 'construed?' You made a point on what I wrote, "construed as non-Brethren." One of the meanings of the word 'construe' is, "To use syntactically."

I wait to hear about your real name and other relevant and pertaining information. This is a pre-requisite to provide further personal information about me.

Shalom malekim!!!

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

Reply by : spectator   View Profile   Since : 2 Apr 2005 9:16:11 AM Close
Dear Br. Koshy,

Now you have twisted the whole dialogue and made it even more disappointing. So I see that it is useless to ask you for what you believe on this ‘stand’ and somewhat brag about. So let’s drop it. I don’t need to know.

May I tell you that my intent is not to argue with you, but to know your scriptural reason for it. It is like you being an elder/teacher explaining why you took a certain position or belief. Is that so difficult? Did I attack you in any way?

OK, you are pointing me to some lengthy discourse, from which I am to infer why you came to such conclusion why you don’t want to be called a ‘Brethren’. I am having great difficulty doing that. Meaning; deciphering your writing to construe your current position. It’s true, what you stated some days ago; we have a communication problem!

But please, don’t misconstrue what I have been asking you for all along. Never have I asked for or have been after anyone’s personal or identity information on this forum, like a few of you brothers have bee doing. And you should not be either. It is really not polite to do so. Like I have already explained, this forum allows alias. What part of that is not understood by you my brother?

While we all construe and misconstrue each others writing, may I ask? What do you so far construe it to be, what it is that I am requesting you?

Cheers,
AO

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

Reply by : pb   View Profile   Since : 2 Apr 2005 12:58:35 PM Close
Pardon me, Spectator/AO

I have been carefully reading your concern about brother Dr. AP Mathew, a well known teacher, editor and leader among the brethren in the yester years. It is unthinkable that Dr. Mathew would have said what GPK is quoting (as GPK himself said that what was told him was in Malayalam while probably GPK himself was a teenager). I think Dr. Mathew was promoted to glory in 1974 or 1975. It is most likely that GPK left for his "Bible College" education at least a decade before that. So what GPK heard and what APM said could have been totally different or totally misconstrude. Any way, I think the contention is that APM was never a denominationalist, as all our forefathers. Many of our present day teachers and many of us are also not denominationalists. We are popularly known as brethren. Some use brethren with a capital "B" for various reasons.

I think there are some who have known bro. APM personally on this forum. I heard someone who talked about Trivandrum and Kunnukuzhi assembly some time back in some other thread. Dr. APM was an ardent brethren man and a great but simple soul among the brethren in India and in Kerala.

Having said all of this, I would like to warn you that you AO will not reach any where with GPK in your dialogue. Remember he said in another thread that he was not kb. Then I asked him to clarify as to why he was keen on defending kb when attacked by others. He never answered and said he would even defend jacobites, marthomites etc. This is the way some people argue. They argue for the sake of arguments. They will not answer your queries.

My enquiries reveal that GPK was born in a kb family. He was baptized in a kb assembly, at Kunnukuzhi, Trivandrum. He has been in fellowship with the brethren wherever he went in USA (Philadelphia, Indiana, Michigan etc.). But ifyou ask, he will keep argue that he is not kb. Yet he will defend the kb as he defends the jacobites.

So please do not waste your time and effort arguing with people who are so "cotton picken".

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

Reply by : pb   View Profile   Since : 2 Apr 2005 1:17:00 PM Close
Further about Dr. AP Mathew:

He died as a kb, was buried at the cemetary of the brthren at Paruthipara, Trivandrum. As the time of his departure, he was a member and an elder at Pattom brethren assembly. All his books have been donated to the brethren assembly, Pattom, where I am told it is still kept and used by the members.

Pardon me, Spectator/AO for intruding into this thread which you started. I felt pain when some of our people are so argumentative, silly and for the sake of winning arguments, they flatly lie. When GPK is saying repeatedly that he is not a Brethren, he is either (1) picking his arugment on the capital or small letter b/B or (2)flatly lying the fact that he is not a Brethren. For such cotton picken people, the answer is what Paul said in I Cor. 11:16.

Let the Lord be the judge. Please be careful not to get entangeld with people like GPK, because it will end up in an argument and he will always want to win. Let him win always. Let him use any tactics including lies to win.

I am told by some of his old time EU friends who are still in Trivandrum that he used to go around and pick up arugments with a lot of people at that time also. So this is historical.

But what I want to say is that let the people who are not happy and praising the Lord that they belong to an assembly (B/b), let them not defend the kb.

This completes my comments on GPK's argument and tactics to Spectator/AO.

My comments are addressed to Spectator/AO as I do not have his e-mail i.d.

Dear Spectator/AO, if you want to communicate with me personally, please use the i.d. <thebees31@rediffmail.com>

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

Reply by : spectator   View Profile   Since : 3 Apr 2005 5:38:15 PM Close
Dear Br. PB,

I appreciate your observations about Br. George P Koshy (respectfully referred to as GPK hereafter on this link).

I think you also have observed that occasionally GPK goes into an off note and does not seem to connect to the conversation. I do not want to be judgmental about this and I have been trying to steer this back to what I am really after in this conversation.

Frankly I have not desired to know about GPK’s personal information at anytime. I have already made that clear to him over and over. What I am having great difficulty grasping now is that, what part of this conversation I am having with him is understood by him as me asking him for his personal info.

This conversation absolutely has nothing to do with Dr. A. P Mathew either. Only solid fact I am after is the teaching that is clearly understood by GPK that he strongly believes, and if that is something not understood by most of the Brethren or those seeking to know what it is, then it is worth discussing and understanding if he will share it in simple terms.

More later.

Cheers.

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

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 4 Apr 2005 3:10:35 PM Close
Dear 'spectator' and 'pb,' -- Part 1

It is interesting to read from ‘spectator’ and ‘pb’ about their knowledge about Dr. A.P. Mathew and me. Both of them hide behind the policy on using pseudonym on this forum, while violating a policy about posting personal information, especially about me. Is using the derogatory terms, used against the blacks in USA, on me a sign of sincerity of asking questions and/or edifying the believers? This was done by ‘pb’ and the term he used repeatedly was, “cotton picken.’ (May be, ‘cotton pickin’ is a better usage?) If ‘spectator’ wants to join him, because he is a good ally in his crusade against me, that shows his intent in starting this thread. The combination of “could be Plymouth Brethren” and a spectator who is an active player running with the ball while claiming he is only shouting “foul” is a good combination.

The last sentence of the first posting of this thread written by ‘spectator,’ dated 30/3/2005, is, “This posting is just to know what this distinction (the no-Brethren stand) Br. George P. Koshy is referring to, that Dr. Mathew taught him.” In the next posting on 1/4/2005, written by ‘spectator’ reads, “If you learned anything that is doctrinal, AND THAT YOU BELIEVE THAT IS TRUE AND SCRIPTURAL, then don’t see the logical reason in not releasing it.” On 30/3/2005 he wanted to know what Dr. Mathew taught and on 1/4/2005 he wanted to know what is scriptural. I wrote what I learned from the scriptures in “Assembly - the Body and Bride of Christ.” You had time to count the number of postings I did on this forum, but did not have time to read them. What is the point in asking me to post more, if you don’t want to read? If you are interested in the summary of what I wrote, then it is, “I AM NOT A BRETHREN,” ands it is with a capital ‘B.’ (You may know that it is customary to start a name with capital letters and when it comes to relationships, verbs, etc. non-capital letters are used, unless it is the beginning of a sentence.)

(To be cont. Part 2)

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

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 4 Apr 2005 3:12:36 PM Close
Dear 'spectator' and 'pb,' - Part 2

On 30/3/2005 ‘spectator’ also wrote, “Let us not please nit-pick and squabble on how it came about. I am here, listening and willing to understand what you mean.” On 1/4/2005 ‘spectator’ wrote, “Therefore those of you who brag about your names, please stop.” On the same posting, ‘spectator’ also wrote, “I see that you rephrased your position on the ‘non-Brethren stand’. Now I am to understand that it is only a ‘construed non-Brethren stand.’ As you can see I quoted you verbatim.” Let me ask ‘spectator,’ what do you claim this behavior of yours is, if not ‘nit-picking?’

Through out ‘spectator’s’ postings on this forum, he complains that I did not answer his questions, while ‘spectator’ does not answer mine. If ‘spectator’s’ questions were to understand about my understanding from the scriptures all he has to do is to read, and this he refuses to do. I also gave a summarized answer in the first and fifth paragraphs of my posting on 31/3/2005. If ‘spectator’ is sincere in asking the question, he would have accepted my answer. Instead, ‘spectator’ still demands an answer from me that will suit his fancy. I gave my answer. I will not change. If you want to know further as you stated on your posting on 30/3/2005, you must provide information about you on this forum.

(To be cont. Part 3)

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

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 4 Apr 2005 3:13:51 PM Close
Dear 'spectator' and 'pb,' - Part 3

‘spectator’ claims that he is like a spectator shouting ‘foul’ from the sideline or bleachers. Oh1 No! ‘spectator’ you are running with the ball and is an active player, while pretending that you are a passive spectator. Before you started this thread you even attributed a sentence to me. Let me refresh your memory. When I wrote, “With a smile he (Dr. A.P. Mathew) said, ‘You will understand this truth later. Then, I am sure you will not be a Brethren;” you wrote, “I am very intrigued in knowing why Dr. A.P. Mathew, …, ‘do not take the name Brethren? …” This was on your 25/3/2005 posting on another thread. When I asked about its authenticity, you said that it was a mistake. This kind of mistakes, when repeated, is not shouting ‘foul’ from the bleachers, but this is fouling a participant by a spectator by entering into the playing field. In addition to that, you are now contradicting your statement of 30/3/2005 in another one of 1/4/2005. It appears that ‘spectator’ is not only running with the ball, but also changing the goal post with the help of others to claim that he scored.

I didn’t misconstrue or misunderstand what you wrote or asked. When asked about the details of personal communications between two people at a later time by a third party, it is an intrusion into the privacy aspect of personal and private communications and/or conversations. In public teaching, we generally are cautious. In private conversation, we are not teaching, but we are expressing our thoughts to each other in complete confidence in the other without any reservation. Of course, it is true only if we trust each other. Hiding behind a pseudonym and asking me to reveal certain details of those moments do not indicate trust from your part or require any trust from mine. Those who are afraid of themselves are unethically challenging me.

(To be cont. Part 4)

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

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 4 Apr 2005 3:15:43 PM Close
Dear 'spectator' and 'pb,' - Part 4

Knowing a few things about me ‘pb’ started his confrontation on another thread. When I asked about his identity, he refused to do so. Instead, ‘pb’ wrote that his pseudonym could stand for Plymouth Brethren. Well, it could also stand for, “pure-brethren” (I am not saying that ‘pb’ and ‘pure-brethren’ are the same), “pork barrel” (An American expression for preferred spending that are incorporated into the US budget), and so on.

About ‘pb’s’ statement on my history with EU: ** Now I know that I am a historical man! ** I did not go around picking fight with SCM (Students Christian Movement) or others as you stated. If you have witnesses to the contrary, then mention their names along with yours. You are accusing me of things as if they are true. If they are true, then let us discuss as Christians by naming the witnesses and the accuser along with the accusations. It was they, SCM operatives, who came to infiltrate the EU according to their resolution of 1957 or 58 to destroy the EU’s witness in the Indian campuses. In order to accomplish that goal, even the Marthoma priest came and told one of the VPs of UESI or EU that they will recognize EU at Trivandrum, if EU will remove George P. Koshy from the leadership. Of course, it was refused on the spot. Later, two Marthomites and a Brethren went to Dr. A.P. Mathew, on a Thursday, with the same request. Their mission was concerning my refusal, as General Secretary of EU at Trivandrum (later known as Fellowship of Evangelical Students – Trivandrum, or FEST), to have joint activities with SCM. They were told that if he (George P. Koshy) said certain things without consulting Dr. A.P. Mathew, even then it would be so. Dr. A.P. Mathew had such a confidence in me. I knew him more than any of you. He knew me more than any one on this forum. (If his son or daughter is on this forum, I did not know him as a father.)

(To be cont. Part 5)

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

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 4 Apr 2005 3:17:17 PM Close
Dear 'spectator' and 'pb,' - Part 5

...Dr. A.P. Mathew narrated this ‘history’ on the following Saturday about the visit of the three men to his house. He knew me as an uncompromising person on the scriptural truth that I knew, or what I agreed upon as a member of that organization, EU.

NOW, LET ME GIVE YOU SOMETHING TO SATISFY YOUR HEARTS’ DESIRE AND CONTENTION: Do you know that he spanked be publicly in the assembly, figuratively speaking, about one of my over zealous actions? In that ministry, after breaking of the bread, he stated that my contention was scriptural, but the time of its presentation was inappropriate. That made it grossly in error and should not be tolerated. (He did not mention me by name, but every one knew that I was the object. I was the only zealous Brethren, there, at that time! Well! Now I am not a Brethren!! What a coincidence!!!) It was not-so-pleasant for me for about one-and-a-half hours, as I went home. Then the Holy Spirit, who was within me, asked me to tell Him what was scripturally wrong with what I heard from Dr. A.P. Mathew? It was not what Dr. A.P. Mathew spoke, but the question was about ‘what I heard?’ I replied, “Nothing!” The next question was, “If you answered, ‘Nothing,’ then what are you complaining about?” That was the end of my not-so-pleasant feeling and my appreciation to Dr. A.P. Mathew grew. The last time when I met him, I was the one who spoke at the ministry meeting after the breaking of the bread. After I spoke from Genesis 1, he came with his hands stretched out and grabbed me and said, “That was really good. Keep it up. Don’t compromise.” (He said that in English.) These are the two last ministries we heard from each other. You don’t know Dr. A.P. Mathew as I know him.

(To be cont. Part 6)

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

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 4 Apr 2005 3:50:05 PM Close
Dear 'spectator' and 'pb,' - Part 6

Well ‘pb,’ I consider the hairline differences from the scriptures as serious errors. God told Adam “not to eat” about the fruit, but Eve added about touching it. To you it may be a hairline difference and insignificant. (I use this only as an example and not indicating that you said or wrote such a justification.) To me, it is adding to the word of God and is a serious error.

I wonder why people provide personal information about others (in this case about me, especially by ‘pb’) while not giving the same about themselves. Is this what Bro. Varghese exhorted the participants on the first week of 2005? They may have a lot to hide!! I suppose!!!

Shalom malekim!!!

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

Reply by : Varghese   View Profile   Since : 4 Apr 2005 4:29:29 PM Close
I am restating what I posted on Jan 4th 2005:

[QUOTE]
To All Posters:

Please refrain from writings that do not promote spiritual advancement. I applaud everyone's interest in posting but please maintain a level of maturity, reverence and holiness as you embark upon replying to postings or start a new posting. Let us not hijack this discussion forum and convert it into one of the 1000s of unhealthy forums on the NET. Our aim must be to please the Lord Jesus in all that we state. Our persona & character do come out in what we post and so, let us desire to gain respect from others in how we post. If what we post reflects who we are and if our postings do not promote a healthy spiritual outlook, maybe it is time that we examine who we are, what we stand for and refrain from postings until then.

A humble request . . .

God Bless!

[END OF QUOTE]

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

Reply by : spectator   View Profile   Since : 5 Apr 2005 11:41:11 AM Close
Dear Br. Koshy,

It has become obvious to me that you have no intention of explaining your own statements. I cannot demand a reply and only request you to provide one, as I have. So far you have refused to do so. However, I requested them on the basis that it is a common courtesy in general forums to provide clarification/amplification/illumination to points that are not clear.

You made a lot of accusations about me regarding seeking personal information. May I point out that it is untrue. If you or anyone one on this forum can unequivocally prove that, I will be the first one to offer my apologies.

Secondly your behavior overall in my view is unchristian. Where are the patience and gentleness and love and all that we are to exhibit displayed? Why are you so ‘cross’ all the time? You spent lengthy and numerous frames in your attempts to prove other points yet refused explain article 27-C. What a shame. Are you the one to model a Christian teacher?

Thirdly you accused I have not read your postings you referred to. Was it not after reading them I asked you to amplify it further?

About your statements about the pen-names, it is an insult to the hundreds of people who are on this forum using pseudonym. Using pseudonym is in corroboration to the policy of THIS web site. When you spent your money and your rules to set-up your website you and along with a few who are howling with you, (one or two used alias in the past) may make other demands. So once again, may I request you to just get over it.

I will just ignore other petty arguments you brought forth for the sake of my own dignity.
I will pursue my inquires on this elsewhere.

Cheers.

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

Reply by : spectator   View Profile   Since : 19 Sep 2007 1:22:04 PM Close
Here is the background for the new posting by ‘George P. Koshy’.

(# 01388 : MY REPLY TO ‘SPECTATOR’S’ CATEGORICAL CHALLENGE)

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

Reply by : trds   View Profile   Since : 19 Sep 2007 5:50:20 PM Close
Quite interesting. I was searching if 'Spectator' asked for personal information of Dr. Koshy.

Brethren, I beseech you, be as I am; for I am as ye are: ye have not injured me at all. (Galatians 4:12 KJV)

What was Apostle Paul saying when he wrote, “Brethren...” in the above verse?

Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, (Philippians 3:13 KJV)

What was Apostle Paul saying when he wrote, “Brethren...” in the above verse?

Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample. (Philippians 3:17 KJV)

What was Apostle Paul saying when he wrote, “Brethren...” in the above verse?

Brethren, pray for us. (1 Thessalonians 5:25 KJV)
What was Apostle Paul saying when wrote, "Brethren..." in the above verse?.

Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; (James 5:19 KJV)

What was Apostle Paul saying when wrote, "Brethren..." in the above verse?

Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning. (1 John 2:7 KJV)

What was Apostle Paul saying when he wrote, “Brethren...” in the above verse?

I thought of writing my views on the shortest verse in the list above.

Brethren, pray for us. (1 Thessalonians 5:25 KJV)
Apostle Paul made this request often to pray for him because he was a man, like any one of us, with passions, liable to fall to temptations, exposed to dangers. He felt the need of prayers trusting that those prayers will help him work better for his Master. He was not calling for prayers from Plymouth Brethren (Open or Exclusive) but from his fellow believers, whom he referred to as, "Brethren", with Upper case, "B".

Hope that resolves unnecessary skirmishes.

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

Reply by : kurienjohn   View Profile   Since : 20 Sep 2007 1:03:30 AM Close
I find this extremely amusing.
How arrogance comes to the fore especially among those who think they know the doctrine perfectly on this forum. How easily and swiftly they call others "unchristian"!!!!
Well, I have experienced such insults on this forum at GPK's hands and the hands of many others. It is but fitting that now someone like Spectator should call GPK "unchristian" in turn!
How the wheel of dharma turns! "As ye sow so ye shall reap".
John Kurien
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : mom23   View Profile   Since : 20 Sep 2007 9:16:11 AM Close
Dear Bro.John,
Please my dear sir, accept this as a humble request as I know I may not be old or mature enough to give you a point to ponder on.
But as a believer, dear sir, you should not be finding this "extremely amusing" !!

Sir, obviously these are also fellow brothers who are having some communication issues....instead of being amused, shouldn't you, maybe, commit this to our Lord in prayer humbly, for the Lord to guide them in whatever He feels is best for them.
It is more difficult to do that, I know, especially when we have an axe to grind too. I myself have felt that too, but it would definetly show a spirit of having more faith in Him and His mysterious ways to others. It is just a thought....Do take care.

Judy.

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

Reply by : spectator   View Profile   Since : 20 Sep 2007 10:48:37 AM Close
Dear trds,

Thanks for your response. We are not attempting to have a skirmish. I genuinely wanted to know then what is the distinction between the ‘Brethren’ and ‘brethren’, George P. Koshy was referring to. I think between then and now and all the other references on this subject I have a pretty good idea, what this may be about.

Dear Johnkurian,

You are right. I stand reprimanded by you. I should not have called my brother in Christ unchristian in whatever context I may have used it, though the term in the dictionary definition means "Not in accord with the spirit or principles of Christianity". If you or anyone else understood it differently my apologies.

I do not want you or any of the readers on this forum to have a misunderstanding about a brother whom I hold in high respect. We may have difference of opinion but it should not understood of us as hostile.

Dear Mom23,

Yes, we need to grieve on what is happening and pray for each other and for all to have better respect of the forum and the communication made here. It is nothing to be amused at or about.

Thanks.

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

Reply by : trds   View Profile   Since : 20 Sep 2007 10:49:40 AM Close
Dear 'Spectator',

Thanks for your note to me. I think there is nothing wrong to take advises from the ones, who are younger to us. You know, recently my brother-in-law was at my place and told me that I am gaining weight. He advised to me to buy a tread mill and walk on it. I took his advise. (Just lighter moments, please)

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

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 20 Sep 2007 12:16:41 PM Close
Dear 'spectator,'

You did ask for personal information. the five quotes I took from this thread are examples of it. If it is not, why are you insisting on knowing it?

I have already explained the difference between "Brethren" and "brethren." If you do not understand it, I will write it again. "brethren" is a name given by man. On the contrary, "brethren" is a relationship that the risen Lord mentioned about His disciples and to them was the good news of His resurrection was proclaimed, first. I chrerish this Lord given relationship, while many others cherish the man given name.

Shalom Malekim!!!

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

Reply by : trds   View Profile   Since : 20 Sep 2007 12:35:07 PM Close
Dear George P. Koshy,

This is what you just wrote:

"Dear 'spectator,'

You did ask for personal information. the five quotes I took from this thread are examples of it. If it is not, why are you insisting on knowing it?

I have already explained the difference between "Brethren" and "brethren." If you do not understand it, I will write it again. "brethren" is a name given by man. On the contrary, "brethren" is a relationship that the risen Lord mentioned about His disciples and to them was the good news of His resurrection was proclaimed, first. I chrerish this Lord given relationship, while many others cherish the man given name.

Shalom Malekim!!! "

What a grave mistake you are making and yet you keep defending yourself. " If you do not understand it, I will write it again. "brethren" is a name given by man."

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

Reply by : spectator   View Profile   Since : 20 Sep 2007 12:45:38 PM Close
Dear 'George P Koshy'

First you quoted several authors and wanted me to identify them. Now you attributed their authorship to me. You did not even identify the threads from which you took these quotes. My request to you was “please show my inquiry into your personal information with reference to the context”. You failed to do so.

I charge that it is your responsibility to make references to the quotes with thread ID, Poster's name and date of postings. That is the accepted practice anywhere, including this Forum.

I am not afraid to claim authorship to anything I have written here. But please be kind enough to quote it showing its context. If you do not, I will be forced to quote the entire postings or even the entire thread, so that the readers would know the background.

Dear brother (or Brother) I am not here to fight you. I respect you as a knowledgeable person in the Scripture. I appreciate most of your expositions. But your knowledge is wasted away by your apparent unkind and unloving nature. I don't think it is too late for you to change your attitude and be much more useful for the Lord and to propagate a better testimony on this forum. Please take this suggestion to your kind consideration.

As I said before, I see that we get nowhere and please leave involving my name in your writings in unwarranted context and I shall refrain from having to prove differently.

May God richly bless you in your ministry of biblical exposition and may that be useful and fruitful in the lives of thousands or more.

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

Reply by : trds   View Profile   Since : 20 Sep 2007 2:27:25 PM Close
If such a great differentiation is to be made between "Brethren" and "brethren" there should be really something that I need to learn, but all that I could learn is that there was no such differentiation, in either Apostle Paul calling his brethren as "Brethren", or Dr.George P. Koshy calling himself as 'not a Brethren'. I guess Dr. George P. Koshy heard Dr. A.P. Matthew wrong. Is it a fight against Christians who have separated themselves as "Brethren"? Are "Brethren" not 'brethren' in the sense it is referred to by Dr. George P. Koshy? We are to follow what is in the Scripture is it not? Then, why Dr. A.P. Matthew's suggestion needs to be taken as right? The Bible calls the brethren associated with Apostle Paul, as "Brethren". They were all 'brethren', yet Paul called them as "Brethren". Why is this mess on differentiation of upper case and lower case?

I as a contributor, did not find any evidence in the postings made by "Spectator" that he was asking for personal information of Dr. George P. Koshy. I do not want to engage in discussion with George P. Koshy nor do I want his personal information. It is irrelevant for me.

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

Reply by : kurienjohn   View Profile   Since : 21 Sep 2007 5:46:02 AM Close
Dear Mom23 and Spectator
Don't you get sometimes amused when you see your children quarreling? You see their childishness. Of course you smile and then in the night you kneel beside their beds and pray for them.
Indeed, that is the right way. When I said I was amused, I did not mean that I was indulging in some "devilish glee". I was just amused in the sense I described above; at the childish quarreling.
And yes, Spectator, one must be careful about calling someone "unchristian". I have been at that dirty end of the stick often here, so I have grown a thick skin to such taunts. But I wonder how someone who is sensitive will respond; will he not be hurt in his tender heart?
I think there is much to learn in all this if we take it all to the Lord in prayer as Sis Judy has suggested.
John Kurien
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : George P. Koshy   View Profile   Since : 21 Sep 2007 7:27:00 AM Close
Dear 'trds,'

Could you provide verses to support your statement, "The Bible calls the brethren associated with Apostle Paul, as 'Brethren'?"

Shalom Malekim!!!

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

Reply by : trds   View Profile   Since : 21 Sep 2007 7:39:28 AM Close
Dear Bro. Koshy,

I have quoted few verses earlier on 19 Sep 2007 5:50:20 PM

In addition to that, let me quote whole chapter of Philippians 3

1Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to you, to me indeed is not grievous, but for you it is safe.

2Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.

3For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

4Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:

5Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;

6Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

7But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.

8Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,

9And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

10That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;

11If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.

12Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.

13Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,

14I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

contd..2

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

Reply by : trds   View Profile   Since : 21 Sep 2007 7:40:06 AM Close
(2)
15Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.

16Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing.

17Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample.

18(For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ:

19Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.)

20For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:

21Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

Hope I can stand corrected if I wrong.

God bless

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

Reply by : kbr   View Profile   Since : 22 Sep 2007 2:44:27 AM Close
Good work, trds. This is called word by word study of the Word of God. Now this may have to be changed to letter by letter and case by case (Upper & Lower).
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : tinka   View Profile   Since : 1 Oct 2007 8:31:36 AM Close
Dear brethren,

I was away from this site for some time, seeing so much of quarrelling, and undesirable posts of some.
Well I agree with bro George, not that after I read his posts, or was I influenced by him. But I understand his point perfectly, and I would like to tell those who still seemed a bit confused.
You people know loads more about the Scripture and all the Scripture verses, filling all these pages, even if it’s mis-quoting the verses, or not understanding that the point doesn’t stand.
I’m not getting all the Scriptural reffernce, but would try to provide, if you ask for it.
Well, the Scripture teaches against denominationalism. And hence taking a name (given by men) to segregate ourselves (instead of letting our stand for the word of God prove it) is I think a form of denominations. Let me elaborate, suppose when I see the names of different assemblies, taking a hypothetical example (I don’t know if any such assembly exists or not-its not pointing to any), Zion Brethren Assembly.
See what we are doing. We are labelling “Brethren Assembly” people. Do we need to label it Brethren Assembly to say that we follow the doctrines of the Scriptures- or follow the N.T. pattern, or should our stand show it?
The Lord called us His brethren. Our relationship to each other is that: we are all brethrens. Just quoting scripture verses where the word brethren come in capitals doesn’t show that we are to call ourselves as “Brethrens”!
I don’t know how much I’ve been able to communicate my message, but I pray that we brethren may be united in our doctrinal stand and follow the Scriptuiral teachings, and not boast ourselves as Brethrens, labelling thus.
Sincerely in Christ,
Tinka

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

Reply by : trds   View Profile   Since : 1 Oct 2007 10:00:34 AM Close
I for one understand very clearly what 'brethren' and 'Brethren' means. When we write a caption/title, we do not write as 'brethren' but we write, "Brethren'. Similarly the first alphabet in a sentence starts with upper case. That does not mean 'Brethren' means a denomination. Apostle Paul called his brethren as 'brethren' and also as 'Brethren'. What was the difference? He did not make it a point to say that it was a denomination that his co-workers, or he belonged to, but it was just that "B" was the first alphabet in a word of a sentence. I also think that many, who read the posts understand this difference. In this world when we are answering a person where do we go for worship, if we give answer like, 'I am not a "Brethren" but I am a 'brethren', he will think we are mad.
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : johnwilliams   View Profile   Since : 1 Oct 2007 12:39:16 PM Close
Dear Tinka,

>>I was away from this site for some time.

As you mentioned, you missed a lot of posts in their chrnological order to understand what is going on. Otherwise you would like everyone else would know the petty reasons for the sad state of affairs in this forum.

The commonly known Brethren / brethren is not a denomination. It was a common name given by nonbelievers observing the fellowship between believers of independant assemblies to identify them.

It was obvious to many here that there was a lot of ingenius play of words going on.

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

Reply by : kurienjohn   View Profile   Since : 3 Oct 2007 12:36:20 AM Close
The interesting thing in the history of Christendom is that many times people have begun by being just simple "brethren" but then in the end they have had to become "Brethren" and had to become denominationalists in spite of their best intentions. The Brethen fulfil all the criteria of a denomination or a sect in the 21st century, however much they feel embarassed by that very development.
But that is the way of all flesh.
John Kurien
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : lemuelraj   View Profile   Since : 3 Oct 2007 4:19:35 AM Close
All the members of the body of Christ are "brethren." This includes ALL SAVED individuals among the Catholics, Pentecostals, Prysbetarians, Assemblies of God, Plymouth Brethren, Kerala Brethren, Indian Brethren, Baptists, Methodists, etc. All saved individuals since Acts 2 until the rapture are members of the body of Christ, and are BRETHREN, because God is their Father.

Using the name "brethren" or "Brethren" (with capital B) to ANY group of people TO THE EXCLUSION of other saved individuals within the body of Christ is SECTARIANISM. Sectarianism is sin. If you say "they are Baptists, and we are brethren" then you are sectarian.

This does not however mean that we all should now get together and fellowship together. Scripture teaches clear seperation FROM THE BRETHREN who walk disorderly. 2Thess 3:6 Now we command you, BRETHREN, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves FROM EVERY BROTHER that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

So all Christians are brethren. And among the brethren, there are only TWO groups - those who walk orderly, and those who walk DISORDERLY. We must depart from every brother who walks disorderly. That is the plain truth of the Bible about the "brethren". I know not if unbelievers gave the name brethren, but I can surely tell that Holy Scriptures gave ALL OF US the name BRETHREN. The so-called "Brethren Assemblies" CANNOT claim that only THEY are brethren, and the remaining are baptists, pentecostals etc. This is SIN, the sin of sectarianism.

In Christ Jesus,
Moses LemuelRaj

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

Reply by : tinka   View Profile   Since : 3 Oct 2007 4:22:55 AM Close
I understand the fuss, but yet I disagree with the habit of labelling ourselves as "Brethrens", in short form of reffering to those who are in fellowship in "Brethren Assemblies".
However it wouldn't be worthwhile to fuss,in context to writting the word brethren, in caps. or in small, as its a relationship between all born again beleievers, irrespective of which local assembly or church they go to. However, its true that I wouldn't like to have fellowship with those, whom I don't have same doctrinal stand, which is based upon the word of God.
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : lemuelraj   View Profile   Since : 3 Oct 2007 5:13:47 AM Close
All the "Brethren Assemblies" are NOT uniform in their doctrine. There are post-tribbers, partial rapturists, sympathizers of gibberish speakers, folks who hold limited atonement, amillenialists and preterists. Do you know that preterists think that the Lord has already come in AD70 as per His words in Matthew 24, and that we are waiting for the rapture after which the eternity follows (without millennium). You have all kinds of doctrinally depraved individuals and elders within the so-called "Brethren Assemblies" which are listed in the address book.

Unfortunately, it is commonly assumed that ALL "Brethren Assemlies" are doctrinally sound and walk as per the word of God. That is simply not true. There are many brethren among the "assemblies" who walk disorderly (doctrinally).

In Christ Jesus
Moses LemuelRaj

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

Reply by : kurienjohn   View Profile   Since : 3 Oct 2007 5:21:15 AM Close
<<<All the members of the body of Christ are "brethren." This includes ALL SAVED individuals among the Catholics, Pentecostals, Prysbetarians, Assemblies of God, Plymouth Brethren, Kerala Brethren, Indian Brethren, Baptists, Methodists, etc. All saved individuals since Acts 2 until the rapture are members of the body of Christ, and are BRETHREN, because God is their Father. Using the name "brethren" or "Brethren" (with capital B) to ANY group of people TO THE EXCLUSION of other saved individuals within the body of Christ is SECTARIANISM. Sectarianism is sin. If you say "they are Baptists, and we are brethren" then you are sectarian.>>>>
AMEN. AMEN. AMEN.
<<<All the "Brethren Assemblies" are NOT uniform in their doctrine. There are post-tribbers, partial rapturists, sympathizers of gibberish speakers, folks who hold limited atonement, amillenialists and preterists. Do you know that preterists think that the Lord has already come in AD70 as per His words in Matthew 24, and that we are waiting for the rapture after which the eternity follows (without millennium). You have all kinds of doctrinally depraved individuals and elders within the so-called "Brethren Assemblies" which are listed in the address book. Unfortunately, it is commonly assumed that ALL "Brethren Assemlies" are doctrinally sound and walk as per the word of God. That is simply not true.>>
AMEN. AMEN AMEN.
John Kurien
Go to top of the page
Go to bottom of the page

Reply by : mom23   View Profile   Since : 3 Oct 2007 10:46:30 AM Close
Bro. Moses,

Thank you bro....You are so right !!!

Judy.

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

Reply by : tinka   View Profile   Since : 16 Oct 2007 3:13:25 AM Close

You know I was going through this site:
http://www.johndarby.org/difficulties/index.html
and this portion really struck my cord. On reading this portion I was reminded of the confusion brought by some,in this site.
This is truely a non-brethren stand. May the Lord help us to be His instruments, filled with love.
"The rank and file were simple, godly Christians rejoicing in their liberty from what they regarded as sectarian bondage, and were, generally speaking, ardent gospelers going out into the streets and public places, as well as in their rented halls and chapels, to carry the glad tidings of a known salvation received by faith and evidenced by the love of the Spirit. That Satan hates this we may be sure and so he sought to destroy the testimony by sowing discord among brethren. "

sincerely in Christ,
Tinka

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



Go to top of the page

All times are GMT -5 Hours
Forums Home ::
© 2018 Sansnet.com



HOME