SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : A couple questions about the gift of an Evangelist? and gifts in general?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( 1 | 2 Next Page )

Joined: 2009/1/16
Posts: 393

 A couple questions about the gift of an Evangelist? and gifts in general?

1.On my Esword with Strongs the word is defined "preacher of the Gospel". How was this defined? Was it a word that the Church made up? Or was it a Greek word that meant "preacher of good news"? Or was it derived from a contextual word study? Or what?

2.I have a hard time finding distinction between Apostle, Evangelist, and Pastor. I mean Apostles would preach the Gospel so they were therefore Evangelist' right? Or were they just like Evangelist except they had more authority? They also seemed to Pastor? But maybe just more so did these things but over saw as overseers the Evangelist and Pastors? and carried more authority or what?

3.What is the difference between a witness and an Evangelist? I mean everyone that gets saved is supposed to confess and testify of the work of God right? Isn't that what Evangelist do? Like the demon possessed man or the Samaritan woman who had multiple husbands and went straightway to tell of Him. Do Evangelist just have more power or are they to witness more full time or something?

4.Or what of we as believers? We are to disciple one another. We are to build each other up. The older women are to teach the younger women ect. So what is the difference between that and a Pastor? Do Pastors just do it more and more authoritatively?

5.Do you get gifts when you get saved or after or both?

6.If after how?

7.Did Paul give us an exhaustive list of gifts? or are there more? if so what?

8.Are gifts just the amplification in a certain specific area?

9.How do you discern between a natural gifts and a spiritual one? I mean some people are just good teachers?

10.Why would you need a supernatural gift to teach isn't that something that almost anyone could do?

11.What is the difference between a word of wisdom and a word of knowledge?

12.Why did Philip have 7 daughters that were all Prophets? I mean did the Apostles give them or did they all pray for it or was it just something that God did?

13.Paul said he wanted to come to Rome to give gifts. So could Paul give gifts? If so where does that leave us without Apostles? How do we get these gifts? Can we be like Apostles and somehow get power and give it?

14.Timothy received a gift by prophecy and the laying on of hands of the Elders? So can this be done or something? Is this why we are to lay hands hastily because some of us can give power and we need to do it by the leading of God?

15. It would seem that Apostles and such had an authority to give the Spirit when they wanted. They should not lay hands hastily. Paul laid hands and gave the Spirit to certain men? Could they do this at will? Or could they forgive sins as in the end of John?

 2009/8/30 0:47Profile

Joined: 2009/4/5
Posts: 2007
Joplin, Missouri

 Re: A couple questions about the gift of an Evangelist? and gifts in general?

Anonymity: Wow, we spent a semester recently teaching on just a portion of the topic covered in this question. I can give you an idea of what I think I understand that might help.

The five “gifts” listed in Ephesians 4:11 are what I would call the equipping gifts. These are separate and distinct from the nine “gifts of the Spirit” listed in 1 Corinthians 12. Sometimes the Bible mixes several gifts or types of gifts in one discussion, but we have to look at the purpose of the discussion to keep things straight. For example in 1 Cor. 12:27, we find many gifts listed, but they seem mixed up. They are a combination of the nine listed earlier specifically as gifts of the spirit, the five equipping gifts listed in Ephesians, and other gifting in the body such as helps and governments. But the context is the body as a whole having all of its members functioning in the place where they are called to function for the good of the whole body, not a breakdown of which gifts are of what type.

So, the five gifts listed in Ephesians are given to the church for a specific purpose.

Eph 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
Eph 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
Eph 4:14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
Eph 4:15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
Eph 4:16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

These people are gifts to the body to focus primarily on preparing the body as a whole for the work of the ministry. These men and women are servant leaders in the body of Christ. They have a very specific calling and gifting given by God for the sake of the body. We are all called to evangelize. The gift of the evangelist is placed in the body to prepare the body for evangelism. He imparts to the body the heart of God for the lost, and has the calling to bring the body into a maturity in their call to fulfill the great commission. The apostle is a specific calling and gifting that serves to recognize, establish, and support ministry in the body just like Paul recognized, established, and supported ministry in the early church. Apostles are very relational and governmental in their service to the body. Anyone can teach others, and some are more talented at that than others. The equipping gift of “teacher” in this context, however, is interested in and concerned with the establishment of sound doctrine among the whole body. These men and women will help to bring the body into doctrinal maturity so that they may teach sound doctrine as they minister to others. I know because of abuses that the term “leadership” is slightly loaded, but these people comprise the spiritual leadership of the body. This gifting or calling is resident with the person called to this place of service to the body.

The nine gifts listed in 1 Cor. 12 are gifts given to all Holy Spirit filled believers severally as the Holy Spirit wills (personally I think this is usually as they are needed for ministry to others). All nine are distinct, although several are similar in function. For example, the word of knowledge is a supernatural knowing of something that the person ministering could have no natural knowledge of. Example, in a meeting recently a man was there whom we did not know at all. He wanted prayer, and as we prayed for him, the Lord showed one of the ministry team that this man had stomach cancer and that God wanted to heal him. This man spoke what God has showed him and prayed for the man. At a subsequent service, this man stood and gave a testimony that he indeed had stomach cancer and that doctors at the Mayo Clinic had pretty much given up hope. He returned to the clinic a short time later and all traces of cancer were gone from His body (Praise the Lord!!!!!). So not only did I witness the gift of the word of knowledge in operation, but I also believe a gift of healing as well. Word of wisdom is a supernatural knowing of what should be done in a situation. i.e., knowledge tells us what is going on, wisdom tells us what to do about it. I believe Phillips daughters were operating in the gift of prophecy. Phillip is definitely called an evangelist, but to be fair, the Word never calls his daughters prophets. It just says they prophesied. Again the gift of prophecy is unique from the equipping gifting and calling of a prophet. The prophet is called to equip the body and operates in a much more broad sense.

I would say that the five gifts in Ephesians are callings from God on the life of an individual. Even a lost person can be called of God to a specific ministry, but live and die having never fulfilled that calling. The nine gifts in 1 Corinthians are given to those who have received the baptism of the Holy Spirit as outlined in Acts 2 and Acts 19:2 among other places. (I also know that this can be a loaded topic. I only know what the Word says and what I have personally experienced.)

There are other gifting in the body. For example, the gift of helps. I believe Stephen and the seven, Acts 6, were called by God to the ministry of helps, and gifted by God to carry out this unique ministry with authority. Oh how we often elevate one ministry and degrade another. Stephen was meals on wheels (or hooves) director for the body where he was at, and look at the power and authority of the Holy Spirit that he operated in. Look at his influence and how he was used of God. He ministered in the place God had called him to, and the result was, very likely, the salvation of a man named Saul of Tarsus. There are no great ones in the body, only obedient servants who allow themselves to be used of God wherever God has placed them.

All gifting are vital and important to the body. Not all are equal in sphere of influence and in operation.

The laying on of hands is another thing. Obviously there was the transfer of something in the spirit accompanying the laying on of hands in the scriptures, as well as today. The laying on of hands you refer to was an impartation of leadership. We are never to do that suddenly. Leadership has the potential to greatly influence the body for good and for bad. Leadership, scripturally, was established through ordination by existing leadership, usually by the five equipping gifts (actually, I would say all of the Biblical examples are so, but I may have missed one somewhere). The Bible even tells of people receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands, although it was received without that formality as well. But yes, the laying on of hands is a powerful thing. I know an African leader with a great anointing on his life. In a meeting he laid his hands on me and prayed for me. I felt something happen in the spirit that I could not explain, but later understood in prayer some of what happened. I know one thing for sure I have never been the same since that day. I believe something was imparted spiritually into my life by that man of God. I don’t think apostles were given a special authority to impart the Holy Spirit at will, but God did use them sometimes to aid in that purpose.

I hope this brought some clarity to a few of your questions. God Bless.


 2009/8/30 10:00Profile

Joined: 2005/11/2
Posts: 3707


The first thing we must ask ourselves when we study Eph 4 is, who is the Gifted One, The Only Gifted One?

Is it man? Or is it Christ? If we are to present every man Perfect in Christ, then who is the One that will give the Present (gifts) the Present of Himself to men?

If this is the only Gifted One and He is our Baptism into His Spirit, who will be the Gifted One in the Believer and who will be the One that in us as us who does greater works than He has already done?

Ephesians 4:1-10 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ. Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)

He that ascended, Is it Not He that has descended and given Himself as the present gift to men. Born again by the Spirit and Water of the Word, being The Glory of Jesus Christ Himself in us. Col 1:27

So then it is not man that has the gifts, but Christ who is in us that is the Gift and the Gifted One and He as us will do greater works than what He has already done through us and in us and going forth the Him as us. Not man gifted, but Christ the Gifted One in men according to His working and our labor and striving, in us by Jesus Christ Himself in us.

Colossians 1:26-29 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily.

Wow? Did I really write this?

In Christ: Phillip


 2009/8/30 19:54Profile

Joined: 2005/11/2
Posts: 3707


Ephesians 4:8 Wherefore he saith , When he ascended up on high , he led captivity captive , and gave gifts unto men .

Not gifts but, A Present or gift.


Strong's Greek Dictionary
1390. doma
Search for G1390 in KJVSL
doma doma dom'-ah
from the base of 1325; a present:--gift.

In Christ: Phillip


 2009/8/31 0:16Profile

Joined: 2009/8/10
Posts: 59

 Re: A couple questions about the gift of an Evangelist? and gifts in general?

Hidy Ho, person in the Lord,

You asked among many things:

by anonymity on 2009/8/29 20:47:13

1.On my Esword with Strongs the word is defined "preacher of the Gospel". How was this defined? Was it a word that the Church made up? Or was it a Greek word that meant "preacher of good news"? Or was it derived from a contextual word study? Or what?

I loved your questions, and especially this statement:

[b]“Was it a word the Church made up?”[/b]

Here are a few things to ponder in that regards.

Please as you read this research, keep in mind this scripture.

Zephaniah 3:8 Therefore wait ye upon me, saith the LORD, until the day that I rise up to the prey: for my determination is to gather the nations, that I may assemble the kingdoms, to pour upon them mine indignation, even all my fierce anger: for all the earth shall be devoured with the fire of my jealousy.

Zephaniah 3:9 [b]For then will I turn to the people A PURE LANGUAGE, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.[/b]

What I intend to show here, is how the original meaning and intent of key words used by the writers of the NT, were intentionally corrupted, as they went over the centuries, from the Greek texts of the NT, though Latin, into French and Anglo Saxon and wound up in our modern English. And how these words present a false picture to the mind as to the true message of the New Testament. Hence an IMPURE understanding, through the corruption of language. Thus in order for us to fulfill the original message and intent of the New Covenant in Christ Jesus, his people must once again, come to understand the pureness of the original message.

To those in the first century to whom the letters of the NT were written, they understood the Greek word [i]aggelos[/i] simply meant messenger.

It was spelled in Greek letters;

Alpha -___A,
Gamma __G,
Gamma __G
Epsilon __E
Lamda - __L
Omikron _O
Sigma - __S

Transliteration, is where you take the Greek alphabet and transliterate it into the English alphabet.

At some point in time, many hundreds of years ago, when they chose to transliterate the word aggelos into Englsih, they remove the first G, and replace it with an N. So that you have a[b]N[/b]gelos. From which you should be able to recognize, that we get the word “angel”.

Then when they translated the scriptures into English, when the word aggelos, transliterated as angelos was referring to MEN or mortals, they translate it as messenger.

But if the word aggelos, transliterated as angelos, is referring to superhuman men or immortal beings, they translate it, angel.

Yet God in the writing of his Word, made no such distinction, using the SAME word AGGELOS, to describe both mortal and immortal beings as [b]messenger[/b].

I did not count how many times this word is used, but it is used at least 200 times. It is translated as the word angel everywhere but in the following examples.

Mat. 11:10 Behold I send my messenger (aggelos)...

Mark 1:2 Behold, I send my messenger (aggelos)

Luke 7:24 when the messengers (aggelos) of John...

Luke 7:24 Behold I send my messenger (aggelos)...

Luke 9:52 And sent messengers (aggelos) before his face:

2 Cor 12:7 a in the flesh, the messenger (aggelos) of Satan...

James 2:25 when she had received the messengers (aggelos)

Everywhere else the word is translated "aNgels".

There is also one word [i]aggel[b]ia[/b][/i], that is translated as [i]message[/i]

John 3:11 For this is the [i]message[/i] ye heard….

Now one of the words for “well” or “good” in Greek, is the word [i]“eu”[/i], spelled Epsilon - E, Upsilon - U.

This word [i]eu[/i], is often taken and added to other words to let the person know, that word represents something “good” or “well done”. In this case the Greeks added [i]eu[/i] to the word [i]aggelia[/i] and it became [i][b]eu[/b]aggelion[/i], meaning [i]good message[/i]. This is the word that is translated as [i]gospel[/i], in the English NT.

The word [i]gospel[/i], wound up in the English language, through the Latin Church, after they proselytized Briton. It comes from the Anglo Saxon word [i]godspel[/i], from [i]good spell[/i]. You do get the connotation of that word don’t you? And then this word as it traveled into the English language, became totally associated with Christiandumb. Whereas originally when the gospel…..see there I automatically wrote that word, before I even thought, it’s just planted in my head. So let me do that over.

Whereas originally when the word [i]euaggelion[/i] was used by those in the first century, it was not a religious word, reserved primarily for the “The Church”. Rather [i]euaggelion[/i] was a word, that the common man on the street at that time would readily understand.

Now this word [i]euaggelion[/i], if you take away the [i]on[/i], and add [i] stees[/i], you get the word [i]euaggelistees[/i], which again, traveled through the Latin Church, into Anglo Saxon and into modern English as the word [b]evangelist[/b].

Now this word [i]euaggelistees[/i], was not replaced with an Anglo Saxon word like aggelion was replaced with “good spell”, though the two words were associated with one another. This word was kept and the spelling changed, by adding a [b]V[/b], in place of the [b]U[/b], to make it e[b]V[/b]angelist. Oh yes and don’t forget the added [b]N[/b] too.

For all the hoopla, about weather one has the “gift” of an “evangelist”, the word is only used three times.

Acts 21:8 …the house of Philip the eVaNgelist, [i][b]euaggelistes[/b][/i]
Eph 4:11 …and some , eVaNgelists; [i][b]euaggelistes[/b][/i]
2 Tim 4:5 …do the work of an eVaNgelist [i][b]euaggelistes[/b][/i]

In reality written words are in effect PICTURES. The Greek word translated scripture, is the word “graphes”, from which we get the English word “graph”. A graph is a “picture”.

By taking words, and replacing them, with other words, or changing the letter and sounds, you replace the “picture”.

To take the word aggelos, translate it messenger when it refers to mortals, and angel when it refers to immortals, changes the “picture”. Not to use the same word is to take liberty with translation, regardless of what words came to represent years down the line.

WHY is the Greek word euaggelion, first transliterated with an N that isn't there, and then by the time the word get's into the English Language, the word euaggelistes, is transliterated into English letters, as uaNgelistees and then winds up with a "V" in it, as in "eVangelist", by the time it gets into the English language, with a soley religious connotation and undertone. Hence one of those “special”, Church words.

There is no "N" and no "V".

And if your going to keep the Greek word [i][b]euaggelistes[/b][/i], and smooge it over into English, even if you change the spelling and sound a bit, why not also keep the word euaggelion, instead of replacing with a completely foreign word like “god spell”…gospell? And WHY even put that S in there and replace the original D?

These two words GOSpel, and GODSPEL, present quite a different mind picture. We do not relate the letters GOS, with GOD, nor the letters PEL with SPELL. To SPELL a tail, was to “enchant” the listeners with a story. As in “The people were held “spell bound”, by the “enchantment” of the Bards tale.” GET THE PICTURE.

In witchcraft and sorcery WORDS were used to cast a SPELL. Spells are different than a curse, in that SPELLS were used to CONTROL people, and get them to do your bidding.

By changing words, to present a different picture or “image”, than what they are truly meant to convey, you control the mental picture, that individual has of that word. Since words direct our thoughts, beliefs and actions, you then control the individual, by the use of the words, you have implanted in their thinking. In essence if the words are not true to fact, you bewitch them, you cast a “spell” on them, and they are under your control, even if you are not actually present. You have planted words in their mind that control their belief, and so they will act on them automatically.

Originally the words "[b]aggel[/b]os" and "eu[b]aggel[/b]ion", were related and all one had to do was read and SEE, that they were related, but by the time, we get them, they have a whole different LOOK as angel and gospel.

"eu", means "good" or "well done". aggelos.
"aggelia" means "message".
Take "eu", add it to aggelia, from which you take away the "a" and add "on", making it "euaggelion", and you have good message. This is ALL THE WORD MEANT originally. Now it has a purely religious meaning as the word “gospel”.

An aggelia was a message, brought by a aggelos, messenger. A euaggelion was a good message brought by a euaggelistes, a good messenger.

After these words, go from the Greek, though the Latin Church, and through the Churches conquest of France, and Frances conquest of Briton, and wind up as angel, gospel, evangelist?

[b]Aggel[/b]os, eu[b]aggel[/b]ion, eu[b]aggel[/b]istes

Why when God used the same word "aggelos" to describe both men and supernatural beings, did man think he had the right to translate the word aggelos, as angel (a word he made up) and then just as "messenger", when referring to men. Was there someone around who did not want men to think that they were on equal par with what LATER came to be known as "aNgels". Again where did they get the right to take the word "aggelos", drop the "g" and add an "N", and make up a whole different word.

And here is something else that’s interesting in that regard. Take the Greek word [i]agios [/i]translated into English as [i]saint[/i]. I haven’t counted how many times the word [i]agios [/i] is used, but it’s a LOT! Over 200 times, and it’s translated HOLY, in every place EXCEPT where it refers to men, and then they use the word SAINT.

Perhaps we should look at how the word “saint” came to us. According to the history of the word, it came into English, from French, into French from Latin. It was the Latin word “sanctus”, meaning “holy”. No need to go into all the conotations that the word “saint” brings to our minds. But one thing is for sure, we rarely ever refer to ourselves as “saints”.

God used the same word “agios”, in referring to Himself, and his Spirit and to believers in general. But now all of a sudden when we read those words (pictures), we see the picture “HOLY” referring to God, and “angles” or immortals, and the word SAINT, when referring to mortals.

HOLY (immortals, spirit)
SAINT (mortals, flesh and blood)

Two different PICTURES, when God said:

AGIOS (immortals, spirit)
AGIOS (mortals, flesh and blood)

As the saying goes;

“A PICTURE, paints a thousand WORDS.

But the reverse is also true in that;

“A thousand WORDS, paint a PICTURE!“

And in this case just a few words paint a completely different picture.

Are these just words “The Church” made up? , As in The “Latin” Church, since every one of these words went through the Latin language used by “The Church”, into what became the English language.

Where did these “words” come from, and WHO made the decision to use them?

Here is a very, VERY interesting story, that is Historically documented and true to fact, that every believer, who loves God’s Word, should come to be aware of.

This story concerns events which transpired when the King James translation of the scriptures was in the commencement.

This story is taken from J. I. Mombert D.D, “A Handbook of the English Translations of the Bible”. Written in the late 1800’s, it gives detailed histories of each English version, and it’s translation up to that time.

Regarding the translation of the King James, then known as “The Authorized Version”, it states on page 347;

The nature of the work to be done by the translator is clearly defined in a set of instructions, which read as follows.
[Please note, that what they called “instructions” here, were in reality “LAWS”, given to the translators, and they were not optional or debatable.]

1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Biships’ bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the truth of the original will permit.

2. The names of the prophets, and the holy writers, with the other names of the text to be retained as near as may be, accordingly as they are vulgarly used.

3. [b]The old ecclesiastical words[/b] to be kept, viz. , as the word church not to be translated congregation.

4. When any word has divers significations, [b]that to be kept which has been most commonly used by the most eminent fathers,[/b] being agreeable to the propriety of the place, and the analogie of faith.

And here we come to those “WORDS, the Church made up.” They have a “name”, they are called “The old ecclesiastical words”, and they were made up by “the most eminent fathers”. These most eminent fathers, by the way, were also called “ecclesiastics”. Hence that is why there were certain words, like “gospel”, and “saint”, and “church”, which they had coined in their writings on their, “analogy” of “the faith”. In essence these ecclesiastical words were more of an “interpretation”.

Now here is something very interesting. We have in our English language, the word “ecclesiastic”. And it came from the Greek word “ecclesia”, which meant a “general assembly” of free persons. It represented EVERYONE who came together in an assembly for whatever purpose.

But in English it refers to a person in holy orders, or consecrated to the service of the church; clergyman; priest.

Now how is it, that the Greek word ecclesia, which referred to ALL of God’s people, came to be separated out, to refer primarily to only clergymen and priests? There is no way the “common” folk, would have ever referred to themselves as “ecclesiastic”. In fact the word “ecclesiastic”, as well as the word “Church”, struck abject fear into the hearts of men. For example a court of the Inquisition, was a “Ecclesiastic Court”.

Just several hundred years ago, and even during the time of the translation of the KJV, if someone was to come up to you and say, “The Church has been asking about you.” It would have a much different effect on you, than it would today. In that time they had a word they used called “ecclesiarchy”, which meant government by ecclesiastics. The last thing you wanted, was for the Church to be looking for you, or asking about you, it was NEVER for good. It had the same effect as if you a Jew in Germany during WWII, and someone telling you the Geshtapo or the S.S. was looking for you. Or as in U.S.S. R. if someone told you the KGB was looking for you.

Originally in Greece, and at the time the word “ecclesia” was used by writers of the NT, the word simply meant a political assembly of the citizens for conducting public business, usually for affairs proposed by a council. It had everything to do with democracy and equality among citizens and all that jazz. It NEVER represented some high mucky, muck control freaks, who wanted to LORD it over everyone else, as it came to be used by those “most eminent Fathers, those ecclesiastics”.

But now, how is it that they kept a Greek word ecclesia, turning it into ecclesiastic to represent THEM, but the word never makes it into the translation of the Bible in some form as an English word, regarding the word ecclesia, but instead we wind up with, what is an “ecclesiastic” word called CHURCH?

I would really like to know, which one of those most eminent “fathers”, coined that word for the first time, when he was analogizing the faith. Because guess what? This word Church does in fact originate from a Greek word, but NOT from the word “ecclesia”.

Well, what Greek word was that, and how many languages did it have to go through to “morph” into the common English word “Church”.

Now remember as I share what this word really is, and what it went through to replace the word ecclesia, that in effect what they did, was take and REPLACE one word with another word from the same language. That is they took away a word and added a word, from the same language, into the English translation.

Here is the origin of the old ecclesiastical word “CHURCH”, which remember the rules told the translators they HAD TO USE, and could not translate the word ecclesia into the word “congregation”. Remember also that the word “congregation”, would represent all the common folk, while the word “CHURCH”, represented that organization or big shots, that struck fear into the hearts of men.

CHURCH, comes into modern English from Middle English where it was spelled “churche”, which came from the Anglo Saxon word circe, which came from the Greek word Kyriako meaning the Lord’s house, from kyriakos concerning a master or lord, from kyrios master, lord, from kyros power, authority; it is akin, or related to in meaning, to the Sanskrit word “sura, meaning mighty, bold, and he Old Irish word caur, cur meaning hero. In Briton is was pronounced “Church”, and in Scottland it was pronounced and spelled KirK, but it was the same word.

In effect by replacing the Greek word ecclesia, meaning assembly, with the Greek word kyros meaning master or Lord, you are in effect making the body of Chirst, the HEAD, and replacing Christ, by usurping “authority”, and putting yourself in a position that is not rightfully yours, which is exactly what this organization called “The Church, Kirk, kyrios”, did.

They did the same thing in effect by taking the word ecclesia, and turning it into a word that ONLY represented the higharchy of that thing they called “The Church”. THEY coined these words. These words were a result of their perverted INTERPRETATION, which they arrived at from their twisting of the scriptures, as they analogized the Word of God in their studies.

What they did was to REDEFINE the words in God’s Word, and make up or “coin” other words to represent their interpretations. These are words the “Church” made up.

But when we say “church”, here we are not talking about, that which was born in the first century, but that which arose out of that and separated itself from them, giving themselves a new name, taking over and usurping the lordship of Jesus Christ, and casting it’s GOD SPELL throughout the earth.

1 Tim 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times [b]some[/b] shall depart from the faith,[b] giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;[/b]

1 Tim 4;2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

1 Tim 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

You will find people who try and justify the use of the word “gospel”, in reciting it’s etimology, and saying it just meant “good story”. This is not exactly accurate. A “gode spel” or “good or god spell” was a story alright, a story given to a man by a “god” or “spirit”. It was not in truth “good”, but rather evil spirits, pawning themselves off to mankind. The Bards of Celtic Lord, in Briton and Scottland, were also considered a type of “prophet”, who communed with the gods, and then cast, or told a godspell, the god’s story. Again it was more than just a story, but a SPELL. As in the example below.

Misfortunes of Elphin

Though, small and feeble, from my coracle
To thee my helpless hands I spread,
Yet in me breathes a holy oracle
To bid thee lift thy drooping head.
When hostile steps around thee tread,
A spell of power my voice shall wield,
That, more than arms with slaughter red,
Shall be thy refuge and thy shield.

Here is something we all need to realize. In Greece Homer and those like him were considered prophets, and their writings were considered as scripture. Home was the equivalent to the Bards, of Briton, they sang about and for the gods. And were considered to be “inspired” (in spirited) by the gods.

Why is it doctrines of devils? Because these ecclesiastics, these eminent Church Fathers, all got revelation from a devil. It may have been many men over the centuries, that developed and coined these words to replace the original words in the Word, but it was one devil, working in them with one plan.

A seducing spirit, is a spirit or “messenger”, what we call “angel” of Satan. A demonic spirit, also called and thought of as “a god”, to those in the first century. Hence a “god spell” was a word of knowledge by “a god”, or devil, in Greek called a daimon. A godespel, was a good tale about the gods. It was not just a nice little story.

These people would get HIGH on SPIRITS and I’m not talking about Jack Daniels or Coors. Literally a spirit, angel, daimon, theos, god (with a small “g”), can get you literally high, just like a drug. In fact they called the experience “ecstasy”, (go figure).

These evil beings, love to come along and impersonate the holy spirit, by giving some poor searching, confused deceived man an “EXPERIENCE”. This is where you are infused spiritually with a word of knowledge, but it’s a false word, a deceiving word.

Then because you’ve had this “glorious” experience, you never REALLY check it against the Word of God. Rather, after you are given a bit of knowledge, a bit of what you think is enlightenment, you go to the scriptures,[b] and find verses that AGREE with your enlightenment, by that spirit. [/b]

Then after that, they develop a systematic theology, where they “systemize” the error and teach it to others. And the godspell they got gets passed on through teachers. It starts with a false word, a prophecy from a spirit, it gets written down, and then taught in the normal way. And anyone who receives that teaching, that godspell, also receives the spirit that originally gave it.

The purpose of true apostles, prophets, “evanglists”, pastors and teachers is to bring to the body of Christ the true knowledge of God, so that they can literally grow up into Christ. That is so that they can walk in the absolute SAME power he did, and be just like him on this earth.

This in contrast to what has been taking place for the last 2000 years.

Eph 4:14 (Interlinear word for word translation)
Until we may arrive all at the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, at a man full-grown, at the measure of the stature of the fullness of the Christ; THAT NO LONGER we may be infants, being tossed and carried about by every wind of the teaching in the sleight of men, in craftiness with a view to the systematizing of the error;

The word “slight”, in “the slight of men”, is the Greek word “kubia” , from which we get the word “cube”, and specifically here refers to a cube of dice, and what is called “dice playing deception”.

I have a lot of experience in what this is, because before I came to Christ, I came from a family of con artists, gamblers and thieves. This is how dice playing deception works. You get into a dice game, and you have what looks like identical dice hidden on you, but they are loaded to make you be the winner. When the dice cup is passed to you, you switch the dice. When the other players in the game look at the dice they have no idea that they are not playing with the same dice, they were before. You’ve done the old switch-aroo, and no one is the wiser.

This is why Paul told the Galations, that he marveled that they were so soon removed from the “gospel” of Christ unto another “gospel”, which was not another, but a perversion of the original. The switched dice are a perversion, that look like the original.

Well, now where to go??? Don’t know, that’ all I got to say for now.

El Harris

 2009/9/1 21:36Profile

Joined: 2004/7/7
Posts: 7494

 Re: A couple questions about the gift of an Evangelist? and gifts in general?

Evangelist: his function is one that calls people to repentance. His primary focus is the unsaved.

Pastor: the one who takes the lambs the evangelist brings in and teaches them, shepherds them in their spiritual growth.

An evangelist is not a pastor and a pastor is not an evangelist. Their function is very different.

This is my understanding and observation.


Sandra Miller

 2009/9/1 22:35Profile

Joined: 2009/6/14
Posts: 703


ginnyrose, thank you. Great post --- short, precise, and clear.

 2009/9/1 22:49Profile

Joined: 2009/8/10
Posts: 59


Evangelist: his function is one that calls people to repentance. His primary focus is the unsaved.

Pastor: the one who takes the lambs the evangelist brings in and teaches them, shepherds them in their spiritual growth.

An evangelist is not a pastor and a pastor is not an evangelist. Their function is very different.

This is my understanding and observation.


Greetings in Christ Jesus ginnyrose,

Your understanding and observation is correct, in that, this truly is the way some Church's have made an evangelist out to be.

But did you know that in most of the places where you read the word “preach” in an English bible it is the word it is the Greek word “evangelize”.

Here is where the word is used in the New Testament. The word evangelize is translated in any where from on to three words in English.

…evangelize - evangelize

Mat 11:5 have the gospel preached

Luke 1:19 shew these glad tidings
Luke 2:10 bring you good tidings
Luke 3:18 preached
Luke 4:18 preach the gospel
Luke 4:43 preach
Luke 7:22 gospel is preached
Luke 8:1 shewing the glad tidings
Luke 9:6 preaching the gospel
Luke 16:16 is peached
Luke 20:1 preached the gospel

Acts 5:42 preach
Acts 8:4 preaching
Acts 8:12 preaching
Acts 8:25 preached
Acts 8:35 preached
Acts 8:40 preached
Acts 10:36 preaching
Acts 11:20 preaching
Acts 13:32 declare….glad tidings
Acts 14:7 preached
Acts 14:15 and preach
Acts 14:21 had preached the gospel
Acts 15:35 preaching
Acts 16:10 to preach the gospel
Acts 17:18 preached

Rom 1:15 to peach the gospel
Rom 10:15 that peach the gospel
Rom 10:15 bring glad tidings
Rom 15:20 to preach the gospel

1 Cor 1:17 to peach the gospel
1 Cor 9:16 preach the gospel
1 Cor 9:16 preach (not) the gospel
1 Cor 9:18 preach the gospel
1 Cor 15:1 preached
1 Cor 15:2 preached

2 Cor 10:16 To preach the gospel
2 Cor 11:7 have preached

Gal 1:8. Preach (any other) gospel
Gal 1:8 have preached
Gal 1:9 preach (any other) gospel
Gal 1:11 which was preached
Gal 1:16 might preach
Gal 1:23 preached the gospel
Gal 4:13 preached the gospel

Eph 2:17 preached
Eph 3:8 preach

1 Thes 3:6 brought us good tidings

Heb 4:2 was the gospel preached
Heb 4:6 preached

1 Peter 1:12 that have preached the gospel
1 Peter 1:25 which by the gospel is preached
1 Peter 4:6 was the gospel preached

Rev 10:7 hath declared
Rev 14:6 to preach

And evangelist is a preacher, and a preacher is also a pastor, and a pastor must of necessity also be a teacher. These all work in the one and the self same person with God inspiring according to the needs in the body at the time.

Paul also reveals exactly what an “evangelist” is, in his letter to Timothy, who he also called “mine own son in the faith”.

2 Tim 4:5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, [b]do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.[/b]

What “work” was Timothy commanded to do?

2 Tim 4:1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;

2 Tim 4:2 [b]Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season;
with all longsuffering and doctrine (did ache - teaching).[/b]

2 Tim 4:5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, [b]do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.[/b]

From what I have gleaned over the years, it is God’s will that men grow up into the fullness of Jesus Christ. Men like Paul and Peter and others, walking in ALL of these ministries, performing the office of apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor and teacher, in combination, as was needed.

They were to be examples to the flock, of what it was to be grown up and walking in the fullness of Christ. The purpose being that EVERY BELIEVER, should grow up and walk in at least a certain amount of the same depending on their individual circumstances.

They taught faithful men who were able to teach others.

2 Tim 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

And here is one of those things Timothy as an evangelist was supposed to teach.

Titus 3:8 This is a faithful saying, [b]and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works.[/b] These things are good and profitable unto men.

I don’t believe there are many who are called “evangelists” today who would go around affirming this constantly. Both Timothy and Titus were sent out by Paul with the same ministry. That ministry was primarily to the believers. By reading those letters, we can get a very good example who who they taught, and what they taught. And it is a far cry different than what those who call themselves evangelists today, for the most part teach.

 2009/9/3 9:21Profile

Joined: 2007/9/13
Posts: 1752



Can you sit ethe research that you quoted here. Interesting stuff.


 2009/9/3 10:46Profile

Joined: 2009/1/16
Posts: 393


What Elharris said is something like what I was thinking.

I was thinking we really don't see examples of Evangelist' being only those who go out and preach to the lost. I mean there is one example of Philip, but is that really emphatic.

I think one can make a case that all believers are witnesses and all go out and witness.

Also, from my understanding even the word Evangelist just means a "preacher of the Gospel".

So, I mean, if you are a preacher of the Gospel then you just preach the Gospel which is what most ministers do most of the time.

So many who call themselves Pastors are also or some mainly Evangelist'.

Or many who call themselves Evangelist' are really just Christians actually obeying and witnessing.

I am still getting the feeling that many of these gifts in some ways are very similar and overlap to some degree. I mean if a Pastor is one who counsels well that would be the same as teaching sort of and if a Pastor is one who preaches the Gospel then he is also an Evangelist.

Many will take the verse in Timothy and say that Timothy was to do the work of an Evangelist so therefore He was not an Evangelist, but just doing the work of one. I wonder though. One usually is what they work toward and do. Or it does not say sometimes do the work of an Evangelist.

 2009/9/3 16:58Profile

Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy