Comments on: How to Identify False Teachers – Matthew 7: 15-20

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:48:18 +0000

Melanie,
I don’t usually humor trolls, but, um, let me ask you.
Are you familiar at all with the fact that Jesus is not a Greek word but a transliteration of the Hebrew name “Joshua” which means “God is our salvation”?
http://tinyurl.com/62jpof
But let me ask you, can you provide the supposed greek words that translate to ‘pig man’?
And I can’t wait to hear what significance you think that the word ‘pig man’ might mean – are the Jews pigs? Was Jesus a pig? A gentile?

By: Melanie

Melanie — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 17:54:38 +0000

Search and you will find. Go look up the meaning of the word Jesus. It is the combination of two words Je – Sus and it is a Greek word. You will be surprised to find out that it means Pigman.

By: Cineaste

Cineaste — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 19:54:39 +0000

The satire was obvious.
Want to hear something I think is cool? My little brother, who is a police officer, is guarding Barack Obama’s house tonight. He’s complaining that it’s going to be cold tonight. I told him to take a camera with him just in case. My Dad had lunch with Obama when he was a state senator. I don’t think he’s going to get another lunch with him any time soon. :) I was able to attend the Grant Park celebration, which was pretty cool!

By: danielg

danielg — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 15:14:27 +0000

I guess I missed it in the bizarreness of it all. If it’s satire, it’s obscure.

By: Louis

Louis — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 13:38:44 +0000

I though it was satirical.

By: danielg

danielg — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 13:36:33 +0000

So why are you posting your speculations on my “False teachers” posting? If nothing else, I’d say that you are showing us exactly how false teachers operate – on obscure spiritual impressions and premonitions.
Now, the holy spirit most certainly can and does communicate through images and other methods that go around our very limited intellects. My own experience with prophecy is that God often gives a picture, then interprets it for us.
But Melanie, I suspect that you are not being led by the Holy Spirit in these things, but practicing divination and soulishness, because this ‘work’ you are doing does not look like the work of the Holy Spirit at all, since His work is to convince us of the gospel and personal holiness. Or in the case of prophecy, edification and exhortation and comfort (1 Corinthians 14:3).
Your post is so seemingly unrelated to the subject of this post, you come across even more fanatical and crazy than you otherwise might.

By: Melanie Stefien

Melanie Stefien — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 10:50:42 +0000

God sees everything, doesn’t he?
This is one small piece of proof that God talked to me:
Like I said earlier, the Holy Spirit talked to me, besides his message about First is Last and Last is First, he had something to say about �Who Killed JFK�. Christ tells me that the man who shot JFK is a policeman. He also tells me the name of the shooter, but it is in a jumbled word. The word is �Fritters�. I see the name F. Ritter right off so I think that is the name of the killer. Now God has lots of other messages for me to figure out, so I put �who Killed JFK� on the back burner for over a year. A year or more later , just recently, I have more time to look for F. Ritter. I can�t find a policeman with that name who lived in Dallas, Texas in 1963. So I am searching for information about who killed JFK and there is a picture of a policeman by the name of J D Tippit. Now Tippit kind of looks like Ritter. Now I unjumble the letters of Ritter to get TIRRET. Now TIRRET looks more like TIPPIT. Now I make the R�s stand at attention, I get TIPPET. One problem is that the I and the E are not the same. So I do some research on the family name TIPPIT. Turns out that in the late 1800�s JD Tippit�s grandfather changed their name from Tippett to Tippit. So the next step I change the E to I. So Tippet is now Tippit.
Now I have FS Tippit and JD Tippit. The first two initials are not the same. Next I go to Wikipedia, there I find; “Some thought that J D stood for “Jefferson Davis” however JD does not stand for anything”. That means his name is just J D. So the initials F S , do not stand for anything. I just have two initials that do not stand for anything. Are you following me?
Next what does “FRITTERS” mean. If your following my thinking here, God is going to tell you what happened to JD Tippit after he was shot. Fritters is a dough that is deep fried. Bread also means body, like in the last super Christ takes the bread and says this is my body. Look in the dictionary, PIT means HELL. TIP means money paid, gratuity. There are other meanings to. These meanings tell a story.
JD Tippits body (dough) is placed in the deep fryer (lake of fire). Now I think this clue (Fritters) was ingenius. After all God came up with it. I think he does have a sense of humor too. Kids now have a new game to play. They can play God. Pilsbury dough boy fry�s in the lake of fire. You get HELL! fry baby fry!
If you think this is just crazy. Remember I am just the messenger. Jesus is the one that had to talk about JFK. So he had a reason for doing that. Only God knows who the killer is. This is proof that Christ talked to me and that is the reason he told me “Who killed JFK”. It is proof. I had forgotten about the case years ago. This is a cold case now, it been 45 years since the shooting.
I also read the part about giving false prophesy. God says false prophets go to Hell or something like that. I only repeat what God told me. Now what I wrote above is from God. He told me who killed JFK in 2006. The above is not a lie or a joke and I am going to HEAVEN without fear.
Before I forget. Gods messages usually have more than one meaning. F S could also stand for �Fence Shooter�.
Who are the co-conspirators? Turns out that there are two policemen named Tippit, and one Tippett working in the Dallas police Department that same year(1963). Back to the clue word Fritters. That is plural, you know about plural. We have two fritters. The co-conspirators name is Gayle M. Tippit.
Now the Dallas Police Departtment obviously covered up and framed Oswald. He was the Patsy. They did it cause it is very possible that one of the other police officers rushing to the scene saw Tippet fleeing the scene carrying a rifle. They covered it up because of the embarrassment of one of their own was the man that killed JFK? And the Warren commission must have also figured that out so they stuck with the Dallas Dept. story saying that it was Oswald. It could have been a National embarrassment. Now if you look at the evidence like I did. It is easy to see that the DAllas Police Dept tampered with the evidence over and over again. And they did a very bad job of it too.
Now this is my opinion, not Gods. I think God is behind the creation of the Internet. I could never have been able to figure out a lot of his messages without the use of the Internet. People on the Net have been a big help to me. God talks to other people too, they just don�t know it. God let me know it was him.
Now I just made solving the case of �Who shot JFK?�, look easy. I also gave you proof here. Did you see it? You ask where�s the proof. The proof is that it is impossible for anyone to repeat what I just did above. I mean try it. And I do that over and over again in all of God�s messages.
See if you can make up a word that is a fried food (like fritters). Unjumble the letters to reveal the name of the killer (Tippit). Then divide the word Tippit into words that describe what happened. Tip- means that JD Tippit was paid for the job and the presidency was over turned. Pit – means that he went to Hell for what he did. Pit means the worst Hell.
See if you can prove me wrong. Show me how easy it is to make up a name like �Fritters� that solves the crime. This clue is ingenious. God came up with the name �FRITTERS�. God is a genius, not me. I am only the messenger.
Then the two remaining letters F. S. stands for Fence Shooter. It’s INGENIUS!
Then on top of that it just so happens that there are two Tippit�s working in the Dallas Police Department in 1963. Fritters (plural) means we have more than one Fritter going in the deep fryer . The other shooter is Gayle M. Tippit. He goes to Hell too. Now I did some research on Gayle M Tippit. There is very little information on him unlike JD Tippit. In my search I found two Gayle Tippit�s still in Dallas. One died in 1967 and the other is married and still lives in Texas. So the other conspirator could still be alive and has managed to avoid detection.
This is where it gets intesting. Does Gayle M. Tippit come forward and ask God to forgive him? I think he also has to ask the American people to forgive him for his part in the murder of the president or he gets the worst Hell just like JD did. God told me that waiting until the 11th hour is too late. God is forgiving, but you can�t wait until your on your death bed to ask to be forgiven.
Now if Gayle M. Tippit wants to save himself from the deep fryer. (This could be a long fry, not a quick dip.) He has to come forward and ask to be forgiven. He still gets death or Hell but it won�t be the worst Hell. Just like the worst death is being crucified. The Dallas Police Department also has to answer to God for their part in the cover-up and the arrest of an innocent man.
Gods messenger, Melanie

By: Melanie Stefien

Melanie Stefien — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 10:47:23 +0000

Daniel, that is one of my favorite names. God told me the above messages. God is now teling you his message through me. The message comes from God, to me, to you. That is the correct order. NOw God has a point he wants to make, or I should say he has an issue that is important to him. HIs big issue is the meaning of First is Last and Last is First. It can also be re-written to say, the First will be Last and the Last will be First. It means the same thing.

By: danielg

danielg — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 10:50:32 +0000

What does this have to do with the subject matter? God sent a message to whom, through whom? What importance is this ‘first is last’ stuff? I literally have no idea what your point is. Yet.

By: Melanie Stefien

Melanie Stefien — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 07:24:14 +0000

Correction: to the meaning of First is Last and Last is First. It means that Birth is Last and Birth is First, In that order. It also means that you haven't been Born yet. Daniel G, Does that make more sense to you? I read your Um, What? I tried to make this as clear as possible. For some reason a number of people just don't understand First is Last. Then some people get it right away and they are clever about it too. If you could tell me what is not clear, it will try to give you a better explaination.

By: danielg

danielg — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:55:42 +0000

Um, what?

By: Melanie Stefien

Melanie Stefien — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 18:07:22 +0000

In the Spring of 2006 God sent a message. It is about the meaning of First is Last and Last is First. The message is this:
In the morning I go to Heaven. In the afternoon I live my life. In the evening I die, death.
What does this mean? It means that Birth is Last and Last is Birth. God also gives an example so that you can understand this better. Example: Mike Douglas died on his birthday, August 11. (note Mike Douglas and Michael Douglas are two different people.)

By: danielg

danielg — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 16:15:32 +0000

The more literal translations? I don't know what that means since a translation is meant reflect what the passage really means. But given the context of the passage in the Sermon on the Mount, I would say it is referring to that stuff, not any sterile legalistic stuff. Sure. Are you familiar with such terms as formal equivalence, dynamic equivalence, and paraphrase? These (among others) reflect different philosophies of translation. In the order listed, they range from word for word translation to highly interpreted and applied. In fact, Zondervan has a nice discussion of these and their "accuracy", as well as a nice translation continuum chart showing the various translations and how they fall on the spectrum between very literal and very interpreted. Those that I called "more accurate" are less interpreted, so they are in some sense closer to the intended meaning of the original word. But that is debatable. But the original words are important. But scholars will tell you that often, the less "formal equivalant" translations, like the NIV, can be more "dumbed down" into simpler vernacular and can often give the wrong meaning - I find that the NIV does this more than one would like, although I have a paraphrase (TLB) which I find to be very accurate when I comopare it's translation to my examination of the original languages and context.

By: keith johnson

keith johnson — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 13:32:08 +0000

The NIV translates it as “evildoers”. The more literal translations? I don’t know what that means since a translation is meant reflect what the passage really means. But given the context of the passage in the Sermon on the Mount, I would say it is referring to that stuff, not any sterile legalistic stuff.
your friend
keith

By: danielg

danielg — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 11:48:56 +0000

Then you disagree with the use of the word, or the translation of that passage?
On that day many will say to me, ?Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?? And then will I declare to them, ?I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.?
Here’s how others translate that word:

NIV: evildoers
TNIV: evildoers
NAS: lawlessness
NKJV: lawlessness
CEV: evil people

Note that the more “literal” translations (NAS, NKJV, ESV) all translate the word as “lawlessness.”
What do you think this means?

By: danielg

danielg — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 11:25:12 +0000

“RCism”–religious correctness
LOL! Never heard that, but of course, such things exist. You gotta be careful though, RC already has a pre-existing meaning in Christian circles ;)
Thanks for the compliments. As has been oft said on the web, the impersonal and immediate nature of the blogosphere means that not only can people easily misinterpret your tone, but if you are not careful, you can easily get into vitriolic interchanges, since you are not forced to face other people directly.
Also, though people do not always buy into this idea, I do think that personal disagreement on specific moral principles, or disapproval of certain moral choices of others, does not mean that you hate others, even if they experience it that way.
What I mean is that I think to a large extent it is proper, even necessary, to vehemently oppose bad ideas, while at the same time not attacking people. The problem is, if you attack ideas, people often feel like you are attacking them personally. I addressed this in my oft cited (by me ;) and not well-liked What is hate?, an article I am proud of. However, I will admit that, when delivering value judgments, even of ideas, we should be careful to not use overly pejorative terms.

By: keith johnson

keith johnson — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 10:54:57 +0000

Btw Seeker: here’s what I meant by “RCism”–religious correctness, which is in my opinion considerably more serious a threat than the made-up danger of “political correctness”.
your friend
keith

By: keith johnson

keith johnson — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 10:52:26 +0000

Hi Seeker:
Thank you for your response. BTW you didn't sound the way I imagined you would (no one does of course:-) and I must say I liked your tone and your stylistic sensibilities. I know that such isn't the point–proclaiming the truth is the point–but I found a compassion in your voice that speaks well for your pastorship.
Anyway, you wrote:
Aft of the false prophets teaching, he discusses those who say they do the will of God, but in actuality, are not. And their sin? Lawlessness, not gracelessness. That is, they are doing lots of religious activity, but do not pay attention to Him or the *law*.
I don't see that lawlessness was the sin Jesus was objecting to here. This was all part of his Sermon on the Mount and it seems clear to me he was talking about the sins referred to there, i.e. placing self-righteous, legalistic thinking ahead of generosity of spirit. Maybe you are taking Jesus' comment that "not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven" to be referring to the law. But it seems to me Jesus was referring to the specific commandments Jesus just gave in the SoM.
your friend
Keith

By: danielg

danielg — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 09:16:27 +0000

And btw, I take as my context the immediate teachings before and after this one.
Before this passage, he is starting a section on the narrow way that leads to life. Of course, this doesn’t mention either purity or love, grace or truth, as I did in my sermon.
Aft of the false prophets teaching, he discusses those who say they do the will of God, but in actuality, are not. And their sin? Lawlessness, not gracelessness. That is, they are doing lots of religious activity, but do not pay attention to Him or the *law*.
It is in the law that, among other things, sexual sins are condemned, including homosexuality. Again, I was not focusing on that, however. What I was saying is that false teachers abandon either love or truth, and the latter end up justifying sins that are clearly condemned in scripture, of which I mentioned both adultery and homosexuality. However, those were merely examples. But you are right in that Jesus’ was usually attacking legalists, not those who excused sin.
I believe, however, that my addressing both legalism and permissivism as heresies is consistent with this passage and Jesus’ and Paul’s other teachings on false teachers. It is also consistent with a passage which applies to those who teach (among others), Isaiah 5:20

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

By: danielg

danielg — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 09:04:10 +0000

RCism? Roman Catholicism?

By: keith johnson

keith johnson — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 08:57:24 +0000

Hi Seeker:
In listening to your sermon, I think you make some very good points, but I think you are missing the context of Matthew 7:15-20, and therefore are missing the point of the passage. As you noted, Jesus warns of false prophets and gives us a litmus test to detect them: by their fruits we’ll know them. But in the full context of Matthew 5-7, Jesus seems to be contrasting the ideas of the sermon on the mount with “religiously correct” behavior–with RCism. The false prophets “prophes[ized] in [Jesus] name, and in [Jesus'] name [drove] out demons and perform[ed] many miracles”, they did all the things that one would associate with religion, but they failed to follow Jesus’ mandate of love–including it seems to me his mandate to look at the big log in our own eyes before the tiny splinter in our brother’s eye.
To me that’s the contrast; not whether or not the teacher teaches that homosexuality is a sin. It’s the sin of self-righteousness replacing love that Jesus was specifying here, no other sin.
your friend
Keith