Mark Sanguinetti

Regarding the NOT service oriented teaching of so called "personal prophecy" I found the information and am now remembering my opposition to this doctrinal and especially practical error. What this was about was to lord over God's heritage. It was not for service to followers of Jesus Christ. They were using  this so called new doctrine to form a new hierarchy of leadership with more money to be received. This was not only used by CES, but used by the following 

Quote

I personally have a prophet that I go to for my personal prophecies and I am always happy to get them. His name is Jeremy Lopez and the donation that you need to make for your personal prophecy is $40 US.

Here is the link that shows this. https://personal-prophecy-today.com/

Here is a link to an article which explains the problem that I saw about 15 or 20 years ago, but did not remember the details of. So called personal prophecy was being used for political mixed with religious power and authority. John's wife I think saw the problem with this and tried to correct them, but was obstructed. http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/rec_cesCrisis.htm 

The person who wrote this article did a very good job in factual,  truthful and practical writing. I give him a grade of "A". As an example, he wrote, 

Quote

While the Graesers may not recognize it, they were running and promoting a theocracy.

A theocracy is "a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god." 

The person also wrote the following. I recommend reading this article with link above. 

Quote

Third, personal prophecy assumes that believers must submit to the prophets on personal, spiritual and relationship matters. In practice, if not in teaching, the prophet is the intermediary between the believers and God. Submitting to the words of the prophet is submitting to the word of the Lord. There is no clear distinction, as least in the eyes of the prophet. Like a Roman Catholic Priest, the STF prophet stands in the place of God speaking for him and acknowledging the believers' submission. This is in stark contrast to the book of Hebrews, which states that Christ himself is the mediator, not a human prophet.

Just curios now, but does anyone remember the details of the doctrinal and practical errors, which John's Ex-wife saw and opposed, but John did not oppose?

2 hours ago, Duke Baxter said:

When you had mentioned John's association with Personal Prophecy & Momentus earlier in this Thread, I went ahead & did a Google search on all the relevant Keywords. There was a lot of legal mumbo-jumbo involving John's 2nd ministry that was just plain bizarre, & if John was taking the advice of some type of "female prophetess" in that organization over his then-wife then, yeah, that was pretty poor judgement on JAL's part. The reason I'm not quite ready to throw JAL under the proverbial bus just yet is because everything I read about that whole situation had some involvement with JAL's ex-wife. As the old cliche goes, there are 3 sides to every story: there's HIS side, there's HER side, and then you've got THE TRUTH.  And I would just add to that cliche, it's especially true when you're talking about a couple going through a Divorce -- "THE TRUTH", all of a sudden, starts to become very vague and ambiguous. As far as JAL's current ministry  (The Living Truth Fellowship) goes, that might lead a handful of people to Jesus and get them "born-again" but as for myself, I need a church where I can look the minister in the eye and talk to him face-to-face. Churches (or Ministries) based from the Internet or Cable TV (or Satellite TV) may be the new trend for the 21st century, but it just ain't my cup of tea.

 

 

Interesting and I remember this now somewhat, but not with the details about the doctrinal and/or practical errors that John's Ex-wife saw and spoke against, but that John did not speak against like his Ex-wife. I also saw the doctrinal and/or practical errors, but do not remember the details of them today as this was years ago.  The Ex-wife tried to correct the poophetess, but the poophetess did not listen to John's Ex-wife and instead was power and authority hungry.  Yes, John made a mistake and sided with the poophetess. instead of John's more doctrinally knowledgeable and practical Ex-wife.  Yes, we all make mistakes. After reading what John's Ex-wife had written on this subject, I saw that John's Ex-wife  regarding biblical doctrine was KNOWLEDGEABLE and PRACTICAL. I then contacted John since I know him and consider him a friend. John listened to me about his Ex-wife and soon after again contacted his Ex-wife. As a result they got back together again. and remarried. His then wife and not Ex-wife called me on the phone and thanked me. 

We all make mistakes and no one is perfect on the planet. The only perfect one is Jesus Christ. However, at least John corrected his mistake with the help of his Ex-wife and someone named Mark Sanguinetti. Who is that person?

14 hours ago, Twinky said:

"John Lynn brings half a century of Bible teaching experience..."

Well, yeah, he's been teaching something purporting to be Bible teaching, and for half a century - but that doesn't make it true, accurate, honest or (actually) even Biblical.  Take a verse or two out of context and build a doctrine on it... everybody should try it.  Why not?  There's enough fools out there.

Have you read the book, "One God & One Lord"? It was written by three people that includes John Lynn. It is very well researched and readable. After reading most of the book, I shared some of the content with a Christian that participates in the Catholic church. She agreed with what was explained to her and saw it as factual and godly or spiritual. John can be factual especially when he gets editing from other people. He has learned from other people including someone named Mark Sanguinetti. I wonder who that is?

Thank you Twinky for the inspiration. I need this also for my two index fingers that do not have the flexibility that they had a few years ago, especially the index finger on my left hand. Also the index finger on my right hand has trouble now with pressure and needed strength. Not as good as the other fingers. Any prayers would be appreciated. Also please pet your Kitty Cats for me. Thank you. 

What I see in this discussion is how we apply our Christian Faith and not just or only doctrinal beliefs. The practice for Christianity as I see it is love and peace and not hatred.  As an example Jesus Christ said to even "love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you". Matthew 5:43-48. 

One thing here though is that Socks shows a lot of energy. Amazing how he is able to run around, move his body and and then jump over and over again. WOW!

19 hours ago, WordWolf said:

He asked if "the devil" literally appeared as a carnivorous, limbless reptile in The Garden.

Quote

Revelation 12:9

9 and the great dragon was cast forth — the old serpent, who is called 'Devil,' and 'the Adversary,' who is leading astray the whole world — he was cast forth to the earth, and his messengers were cast forth with him.
Young's Literal Translation
 

Quote

Revelation 12:9
9 The great dragon was hurled down — that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him. 
New International Version
 

Biblical students and then teachers who are sometimes called scholars often see that the book of Revelation was symbolic and figurative and not literal. It was written through symbols, images and numbers that often represented spiritual. However, do biblical students and teachers see that the book of Genesis at least in part could have been also written with images and symbols to represent spiritual? Not as much as the book of Revelation, but at least in part. 

Some people including the person that thinks Adam and the serpent are the same, simply do not understand spiritual and look at everything as physical and material. So was the God of this world who is a spiritual being or fallen angel  according to one of the foundations of the bible appear as a literal serpent in the book of Genesis? Did the devil appear literally as a dragon in the book of Revelation 12:9?

Revelation 12:9

9 So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. NKJV

The devil or Satan only appeared as a serpent and a dragon if this spiritual fallen angel wanted to look ugly to Eve and ugly as read in the book of Revelation. Yes looking ugly would make deception more difficult and challenging for the spiritual deceptive being. However, perhaps serpents and dragons look sweet and beautiful. At least to crazy people or to blind people. And certainly to people that are both crazy and blind. 

In addition to my previous post here regarding the subject of the "manipulation of language". Perhaps I was doing this by pronouncing VPW's name as "Wear Something". And VPW was doing this by pronouncing his name as "Werewolf". In addition, I sometimes pronounce my last name as "Spaghetti" instead of "Sanguinetti". Perhaps I also sometimes do the "manipulation of language". However, at least one of my goals and perhaps my primary goal is to get people to laugh or giggle. 

Regarding VPW in his mind able to have sex with all women that he liked, yet common people were looked at critically regarding relationships between men and women. In the early 1980s, I saw the problem with people high up in leadership being able to have special authority instead of being service oriented to humanity. Jesus Christ was and is the chief example of being service oriented to humanity. Because of this in 1983 or 1984, when I finally met VPW at a hotel that was part of an entertainment facility, I walked up to him and I said, "You look familiar, but I can't remember your name, but it sounds something like Wear Something". Perhaps God inspired me to tell him to "wear something", especially when he was with women that he was attracted to other than his wife. He then said “werewolf” which has the same pronunciation as "wear wolf". Since VPW was with his best friend at the time, we all laughed. I then told him, "Sorry, but I will not call you werewolf". We then laughed again. 

One errant or misunderstood part of the lady's teaching though. She mentions tithes or tithing. Tithing is misunderstood often and can be used to make money for large religious organizations and individual  already wealthy people instead of being used to help poor people. Tithing is NOT required in the New Testament. This was only practiced in the Old Testament under the Jewish religion. Here they mixed faith in God with their political authority. Jesus Christ spoke against this often as these people were not service oriented like Jesus wanted people to be. Instead they wanted power, authority and perhaps even worship of themselves. Here is an example of this with the first usage of tithe or tithing in the New Testament. 

Quote

Matthew 23:23

23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
KJV
 

Here is the NIV version. This version does not use the word tithe. However, obviously the same Greek word for tithe. The NIV simply describes the corruption and greed more of using tithing to gain religious authority and perhaps also using it to make money instead of helping the poor. The word "greed" is used in verse 25.

Quote

Matthew 23:23-28

23 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices — mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law — justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. 

25 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26 Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean. 

27 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean. 28 In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness. 
NIV

Quote

What do you think?

Oldiesman! The lady speaks like a legitimate biblical teacher, while learning from and quoting actual bible verses. In my view for faith, she gets a grade of "A". For teaching, she gets a passing grade. Interesting that sometimes the Roman Catholic church believes in the gift of the Holy Spirit and the manifestation, evidence, events or gifts of the Holy Spirit. Whatever they want to call it, it is OK with me. 

Koine Greek was the dialect that it was specifically called. Of course, to say that any text written to people that were in a Greek culture and city would NOT be written in the most understood language for them which in the first century was called Koine Greek. This would be Dumdi Dum Dum. Perhaps I am starting and learning my own language now. Either that or my own dialect of the English language. However, perhaps I made a mistake and misspelled it. Perhaps it is Dumdee Dumdum.

On 5/10/2019 at 5:07 AM, Raf said:

As cynical as I can be, I would refrain from making such a blanket statement. I think there are some who are sincerely trying to do their best and are not in it for the glory. That's not to say there isn't some ego involved -- a splinter group, by definition, is led by people who think they can do a better job than the group they left. But to declare them unworthy to be ministers... I don't know. It certainly applies to some, but I cannot see where it applies to all. Sincerity may not be a guarantee for truth, but it is a guarantee for sincerity.

I agree with Raf on this. Using my own figurative and not literal language,  to see if they have made or make a change, perhaps reach out with your hand like you would with a dog. Then look and see if they wag their tail, while listening to make sure they don’t growl or bark. If they growl or bark then simply walk away. If they wag their tail then perhaps either pet them or wag your tail also.

Perhaps Raf and TLC can or should at least agree that Paul made a huge change from being hateful to being loving and peaceful. Paul named with his Jewish name Saul as a greedy power hungry Pharisee worked to persecute the followers of Jesus Christ.  The bible says in Acts, when Jesus Christ appeared to him he got Paul to make a major change to being an actual loving and peaceful follower of Jesus Christ. Regarding knowledge, yes Paul showed more knowledge than the original twelve disciples pertaining to the message of Jesus Christ.. This should be clear when reading the epistles that has his name on them. This can also be seen when reading the apologetic or historical book of Acts which has Paul's name mentioned many times compared to the original twelve disciples. As an example, in the NIV version in the book of Acts, the name of Paul is written 172 times. The next highest is the name of Peter, 71 times. The third highest is John, 27 times. At least four of them were only mentioned one time in the book of Acts in the same verse Acts 1:13. 

On 4/8/2019 at 12:49 PM, socks said:

Browsing and reading....

I think it has to do with perspective. What's the fundamental place from which I view this or any "technical" question in the Bible and from which I then get my view, my perspective that informs me? 

Christianity, faith in Christ, life in "the way, the truth and the life" is a rebirth, a new birth, a new beginning for me. So then, a question - if I didn't know anything more about it than that, could I still live it? If all I knew was that I now follow Jesus Christ, and accept my own human condition as one requiring mercy and forgiveness to succeed, that Jesus Christ has acted on my behalf and bridged a gap I would have been unable to, and that the full life possible is to be "born again of God's spirit", or God's "life".....then what?

The most basic place to go from there is "living the life". And the question would be is it "on or off", active or passive, in wait mode for a future or in act mode, living now? I think we could agree it's on, it's active, it's a life to be lived. Everything I read in the New Testament encourages me to be patient and steadfast in living this new life now, while knowing death is not the end, that there is a future beyond that, a "hope" and that I must transition to that future. So again and still - what is this new life, this place from which I now live and work?

The question of "gifts or manifestations" and related issues answers itself then - we have a new life, in Christ. We are born again of God's spirit, we are God's children, we are new creation in Christ, we have a fresh new set of answers and ideas to bring to our fellow man - 

 Accept God's gift of forgiveness and mercy through Christ. Believe that God showed us the Way through death in Christ's resurrection, believe that God raised Him from the dead and that now we too can be raised into new life believing in that, and that the new life to come is our future. Believe it, say it. Now - forgive as you've been forgiven. Extend mercy as it's been shown to you. Lift others as you have been lifted. Pray to God and seek Him, pray for others and that they will do the same. Act as Jesus did, do as He did, live the new life without owing anyone anything other than to love them. 

I encourage people to a living faith, an active lifestyle that embraces all the fundamentals, all the time. "All nine all the time" sounds childish, boorish, to me now, like somethng I'd hear in a football game analysis.  The whole attitude takes something eternal and incredible and turns it into a list of things-to-do and "believe for", greek words to be twisted and squeezed to gain some deeper understanding of what is already here, now and living in me.

One thing I learned in the Way - men will torture the life out of each other and every word in the Bible while condemning each other to hell, to get to some elevated stated of enlightened understanding and ignore mercy, forgiveness, grace.

There's that old saying - you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink"......in the Way we saw it as no, you can lead that horse to water and if you hose it down, stand it in 10 feet of water, show it pictures of water all day and say "water water water water water" a million times it will eventually just swallow whatever you're giving it to just get you to stop. It doesn't mean it liked it or won't bolt the minute you're not looking. And that isn't belief or faith or trust. How can God have the heart of a man or woman if they're only trying to please some lesser power or get something of lesser value than to please their Creator? 

The line of people that want to start some new improved version of Christianity that's better than what's come before is pretty long. The line of those who give a dang about people, care for them and are willing to be as passionate about learning to forgive and love as they are about cutting out their lesser competition is much shorter. 

“The Lord is gracious and full of compassion, slow to anger and great in mercy. The Lord is good to all, and His tender mercies are over all His works.”
Psalm 145:8,9. 

Very Good insight and practical application Socks. I give you a grade of "A" for your post. As an example of mercy, the book of Psalms was perhaps written by a number of authors along with the imperfect and sometimes sinful David and his son Solomon. Psalms is a book with many not long chapters. However, in doing additional research, David as a King was much better than Saul as a King. Saul was a crazy moron who could be considered demon possessed.  

2 minutes ago, Raf said:

Then that rules out the Bible

Certainly these are the views of Raf.

6 hours ago, Raf said:

I was using a pop culture reference to explain forgery to you.

Sorry for not learning from fiction. I would rather instead learn from factual information. 

39 minutes ago, Raf said:

In the tv show Welcome Back Kotter, one of the characters used to hand in notes to excuse himself for being absent or late, or for missing homework. The notes were always signed, "Epstein's mother." The joke was, of course Epstein's mother didn't write those notes. Epstein only wanted people to THINK his mother wrote those notes.

 

 

 

Why would Raf want to learn from a fictional TV show?

I wonder where Raf gets his views? Paul is one person that is mentioned many times in the New Testament. According to the New King James Version (156) times his name is written. Three times Paul's name is written in the epistle of Colossians. One thing though that Raf will like. Under the Roman empire with the Sadducees who did not believe in any Resurrection being given religious and legal authority. Paul got put in prison. This is where Paul did some of his written work. Perhaps he simply did not want to waste his time. I wonder if I am wasting my time on this web site mentioning bible verses?

Quote

Colossians 4:14
14 Luke the beloved physician and Demas greet you. 
NKJV
 

Colossians as seen in Col. 1:1 was written by Paul. Yes, there was a physician named Luke who was a friend of Paul, the apostle for the gentiles. 

Quote

2 Timothy 4:11-12
11 Only Luke is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful to me for ministry. 
NKJV
 

Regarding the actual authorship of what is titled the Gospel of Matthew. Here is another quote from the Nelson Bible Dictionary regarding the subject of who was the author of the Gospel of Matthew. From this study this is questionable only.

Quote

MATTHEW, GOSPEL OF

Authorship and Date. Matthew is an anonymous gospel. Like other gospel titles, the title was added in the  second century A.D. and reflects the tradition of a later time. How, then, did the gospel acquire its name? Writing about  A.D. 130, Papias, bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor (modern Turkey), records, "Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew (that is, Aramaic) language, and each interpreted them as best he could." Until comparative studies of the gospels in modern times, the church understood "oracles" to refer to the first gospel and considered Matthew, the apostle and former tax collector (9:9; 10:3), to be the author.

This conclusion, however, is full of problems. Our Gospel of Matthew is written in Greek, not Aramaic (as Papias records); and no copy of an Aramaic original of the gospel has ever been found. The Greek of the gospel cannot readily be translated back into Aramaic; and this strongly indicates that the gospel is not a Greek translation of an Aramaic original. Moreover, it is now generally agreed that Mark is the earliest of the four gospels and that the author of Matthew substantially used the Gospel of Mark in writing this gospel (also see GOSPELS).

If the apostle Matthew wrote the gospel, one would wonder why he quoted so extensively from Mark (601 of Mark's 678 verses appear in Matthew), who was not a disciple of Jesus. Such observations virtually eliminate the possibility of the apostle Matthew being the author of the gospel.

The most promising way out of this dead-end street is to understand the "oracles" mentioned by Papias, not as the Gospel of Matthew, but as a collection of Jesus' sayings collected by the apostle Matthew. Later these sayings were used by an unknown author as a source for the present Gospel. The actual author probably was a Palestinian Jew who used the Gospel of Mark, plus a Greek translation of Matthew's Aramaic "oracles," and composed the gospel in Greek. The name of the gospel, therefore, stems from the apostle Matthew on whom the author draws, in part, to compose his work. This interpretation has the benefit of paying Papias' testimony the respect it deserves, as well as honoring the problems mentioned above.
(from Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Copyright © 1986, Thomas Nelson Publishers)
 

Regarding the question of who was the actual author of the Gospel of Luke? Here is information that I am simply copying from the Nelson Bible Dictionary. Overall I think the Nelson Bible Dictionary is a good biblical reference book with many articles on different biblical subjects. 

Quote

LUKE, GOSPEL OF

Authorship and Date. The author does not identify himself by name, but he does tell us a good deal about himself. Although not an eyewitness of the events he reports, he has followed them closely enough to write an orderly, reliable narrative (1:1-4). He is an educated man with the best command of Greek of any New Testament writer. He counts among his acquaintances a person of high social standing, the "most excellent" THEOPHILUS, to whom he addresses both Luke (1:3) and Acts (1:1). As a Gentile, the author is interested in Gentiles; he is equally disinterested in matters purely Jewish. At some point in his life he joined the apostle Paul. His experiences with Paul served as a firsthand source for his sequel to the Gospel of Luke.

For the author's name we are dependent on later tradition. Writing about  A.D. 175, Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon, identified the author as LUKE, the companion of Paul. Eusebius agreed, adding that Luke was a native of Antioch. The importance of Antioch in Acts (13:1-3) lends credibility to Eusebius' statement. The few glimpses we get of Luke from Paul's epistles-a physician, both beloved and compassionate (Colossians 4:14) who was with Paul during his Roman imprisonment (Philemon 24; 2 Timothy 4:11) parallels what we gather from him in LukeActs. The logical conclusion is that Luke wrote Luke-Acts.

The date of Luke's writing can only be guessed from inferences. Luke tells us that he drew upon earlier accounts, some of which were written (1:2). It is likely that two such accounts were Q (about  A.D. 50) and the Gospel of Mark (about  A.D. 60). The Gospel of Luke probably was written sometime shortly after  A.D. 70.
(from Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Copyright © 1986, Thomas Nelson Publishers)
 

Luke was a physician and a gentile who later became a follower of Jesus Christ. Luke simply called the two that were crucified with Jesus Christ, criminals. Matthew one of the 12 disciples later to be apostles that worked with Jesus Christ, called them robbers. Both Luke and Matthew said one on the left and one on the right of Jesus Christ. The two different people simply described them with different words. Using common sense, can a robber be called a criminal? Only if robbery is legalized can a robber not be also considered a criminal. Sorry, but robbery is NOT legalized. Yes, there could have been more people that were crucified with Jesus Christ. Also a large tree could have also been used in the Crucifixions. With the cross or crosses simply nailed to a tree. Either that or someone carrying in a cross to be used for a Crucifixion, in order to hold it up it would need to be either cemented into the ground, which would take time to dry or nailed to a tree which would take a much shorter time.   

6 hours ago, Mark Sanguinetti said:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+15%3A12-28&version=NIV

The bible chapter on the resurrection of the dead, 

Here it is again for people to at least consider.