|
Post by tellingthetruth on Jun 10, 2006 23:14:56 GMT -5
Joel 2:28 And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:
Act 2:18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:
Nathan, how can you change scripture to be saying something it isn't?
Who are God's servants? The Workers? Or everyone who has been born again?
This isn't talking about church function it is talking about the work of the Holy Spirit in ALL true believers.
It is a dangerous practice to try and make scripture say something it isn't to back a pre-conceived idea.
In a CONGREGATIONAL or CHURCH setting, a women is not to have authority over or TEACH a man.
Why do you not believe this? Was Paul unaware of the above verses or was there a God given order in his statements?
Why are there not women elders in the F&W's church?
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Jun 11, 2006 7:34:11 GMT -5
1) Yes 2) No
N9 - Aquila and Priscilla is EXACTLY the example I used. They were NOT in a congregational setting when they were teaching Apollos. Yes, I am sure this is correct teaching because it says so in the Word of God. It says, IN THE CHURCHES and IN THE CHURCH. You cannot get any more specific.
Philip's daughters were prophesying, not TEACHING. If there was not a difference between these two activities, why would Paul make a list that specifically separates teaching from prophesying? (I Cor 12:28).
Philip, by the way, was married, since he had three daughters, which means he had a home and a wife. What's he doing out there, evangelizing and not being "itinerate." Funny, I never heard the workers EVER use the term "itinerate ministry." I heard that phrase first when I read the Secret Sect.
The Book is called THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES, written by Luke, the doctor, an eyewitness of the Lord Jesus Christ and his death and resurrection. The book was made finite and complete when the last word of the book, "HINDRANCE" was written--which word reminds me of something on these boards. I cannot quite put my finger on it.
Ah, well, the Lord knows.
Christ is God, Jessi
|
|
|
Post by Greg Lee unplugged on Jun 11, 2006 8:24:40 GMT -5
www.born-again-christian.info/woman.questions.htmThis site says the translation - women silent in the church(es) - is false. The claim is that the word "women" should be "wives". The reason being the translation does not mention anything similar to "let the unmarried women ask their fathers." [Well, if we are going to assume things, why not assume the unmarried women kept their places.] The summation being that wives should be in subjection to their husbands. www.bibletexts.com/versecom/1co14v33.htmThis site says the teaching on women silent in the church was an edit by a later writer. Further, that Paul would not make mention of "the law". [Well, if we are going to assume things - Paul would not make mention of "the law"- then likely his teaching on remarriage after divorce being according to "the law" was an addition also.]
|
|
|
Post by For HFA on Jun 11, 2006 13:26:16 GMT -5
HFA, are you saying these people had BLIND faith? Are you saying they had NOTHING to point to as reasons for their faith?
I hope not. Consider; your OT examples in at least some cases had heard directly from God. Your NT examples ignore what even the officers to the chief priests acknowledged:"Never man [Jesus] spake like this man".
It wasn't just blind faith.
Really
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Jun 11, 2006 21:43:34 GMT -5
The Bible says: Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man: rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve and Adam was not decived, but the woman was decieved and became t a transgressor. I Tim 2:11-14 ESV
Paul is exercising his apostolic authority over the church. He was hand-selected by Christ to teach the saints. Nothing indicates anything was ADDED LATER. I am looking in my Interlinear Greek/English NIV translation and there are differences in the words WIFE and WOMAN. He definitely says WOMAN in vs 11 and in Ch 3:2, "husband of one WIFE", the word is different than the word used for woman.
The Bible itself, God's inerrant Word is proof enough for me. Those who doubt the Sovereignty of Holy God and the Lord Christ must fight against the Holy Word with man-made websites, which will never prevail against God and His sovereign will.
From Cover to Cover - Christ is God, Jessi
|
|
|
Post by Hope For All on Jun 12, 2006 12:07:07 GMT -5
HFA, are you saying these people had BLIND faith? Are you saying they had NOTHING to point to as reasons for their faith? I hope not. Consider; your OT examples in at least some cases had heard directly from God. Your NT examples ignore what even the officers to the chief priests acknowledged:"Never man [Jesus] spake like this man". It wasn't just blind faith. Really Hebrews 11 1Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
|
|
|
Post by For HFA on Jun 12, 2006 13:44:05 GMT -5
You mean things not seen like air? black holes? electrons? HFA, you are suggesting that Abraham, Noah, David, Paul and others had no reason for their faith. This is ludicrous, and I sincerely doubt is the case in even your own experience. Has God changed your life? Answered prayers? If so, is your faith still blind? What is the difference between blind faith and superstition? Really
|
|
|
Post by Hope For All on Jun 12, 2006 14:25:51 GMT -5
You seem very intent on putting words in my mouth. Why is that?? I never said anything about "blind faith" so I will not respond to something that I never said in the first place. What I was responding to were the three provocative statements that Junia made: 1. "Many f&w don't know what they believe and why they believe, so they avoid the tough issues and questions. " This is an insulting sweeping generality. I know of many F&W who defend what they believe. The problem is that some do not want-like- to hear it- or simply disagree- which is fine2. "Or deep down they know they can't defend their belief because they have a "simple faith". " To my illustration about those in the OT who demostrated simple faith- not to be confused with "blind faith.3. "I think the anti-intellectualism is based on fear. " This statement may have been accurate 75 years ago but is FAR from true today in the vast majority of the F&W I associate with.
I believe Jesus reveals himself to the humble who are like babes- not to intellectuals. Does this make me an anti-intellectual??
And besides- James said that we demostrate our faith by our Godly deeds- not through some intellectual explaination.Love, HFA
|
|
|
Post by For HFA on Jun 12, 2006 19:23:14 GMT -5
Just because you didn't use the phrase doesn't mean you didn't say anything about it, but if you say so....
|
|
|
Post by Greg Lee unplugged on Jun 12, 2006 22:17:43 GMT -5
Hi Jessi, Apostolic father's writings: ~~~ Justin Martyr (A.D. 160) On the day called Sunday, ALL who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits. Then when the readers have ceased, the president verbally instructed us and exhorts us to imitate these good things. Then we ALL rise together and pray. And, as we said before when our prayers is ended, bread and wine and water are brought. Then the president in like manner offer prayers and thanksgiving according to his ability. And the people assent, saying "Amen." Then the Euchrarist is distributed to everyone, and everyone participates in that over which thanks have been given. ~~~ Didache (A.D. 80-140) But every Lord's Day, gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgression, that your sacrifices may be pure. I'm not Jessi, hope no one minds me jumping in here. So, everyone is to meet in one place, not in various houses. People read what others have written, not a personal testimony. The president leads the gathering, not an elder or worker. Everyone/[/u] participates in the Euchrarist, not emblems. To what church did Justin Martyr belong? Surely not in line with the workers' teachings and ways.
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jun 12, 2006 23:18:12 GMT -5
Prue disagrees with you. According to her site:
"Historians who documented early church history were only looking at apostates."
"In like manner the early church conducted itself with discretion: it sought no publicity outside of preaching the gospel; engaged in no official civic duties; had no name and kept no records outside the books of the New Testament."
So which version of history should we believe? Yours, that Justin was part of the church Jesus started? Or Prue's who denies that Justin was part of the true church?
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jun 12, 2006 23:45:49 GMT -5
This makes no sense. You have two statements:
1) Justin M. was part of the true church of Christ 2) the Church he belonged departed from Jesus' teachings in the 3rd centuries.
So you are saying that Justin belonged to the true church of Christ, and that true church of Christ departed from Jesus' teachings in the 3rd century? So if the true church departed from Jesus' teaching that means there was no longer a true church. In other words apostolic succession must be false because the true church departed from Jesus' teachings leaving us with no true church, hence a break in the succession.
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jun 13, 2006 0:11:17 GMT -5
I have no problem with apostolic succession as a concept in principle. And the F&W's would have a branch in the overall tree of descent. However, I have no reason to think your version of apostolic succession through the Vaudois/Cathars/et al is true, nor even remotely plausible. It remains at the most a bare possibility though higly improbable in the light of the research done by people like Doug Parker and Cherie.
My point was that your statement as such was illogical. You have since clarified it by saying that some Godly men and women left the true church that went bad and preserved the truth in their own community. That qualification now makes your statement logical, yet no more plausible.
|
|
|
Post by Greg Lee unplugged on Jun 13, 2006 7:27:09 GMT -5
You got it... it was a true church but in the 3rd century many false teachings were brought in, taught and believed so you know what happened. Well, if Justin was in the true church well before it went bad, then the true church must meet altogether in one placce on Sundays (not in various houses), read the writings of the past (without any personal testimony), be led by a president (not an elder or worker), and everyone (everyone!) partakes in the Eucharist (not emblems). So, one can only conclude that the workers and their friends are not of that true church by extention (continuing) or by return.
|
|
studylearning unplugged
Guest
|
Post by studylearning unplugged on Jun 13, 2006 7:43:17 GMT -5
Do you mean God will show us HIS CHURCH?
It seems that you are trying to separate Gods will by limiting it to a man made concept of "Church". All are under the hand of God.
The Church is the Body of Christ The Church is the Family of God The Church is God's Holy Temple
|
|
|
Post by Hope For All on Jun 13, 2006 17:19:49 GMT -5
This makes no sense. You have two statements: 1) Justin M. was part of the true church of Christ 2) the Church he belonged departed from Jesus' teachings in the 3rd centuries. So you are saying that Justin belonged to the true church of Christ, and that true church of Christ departed from Jesus' teachings in the 3rd century? So if the true church departed from Jesus' teaching that means there was no longer a true church. In other words apostolic succession must be false because the true church departed from Jesus' teachings leaving us with no true church, hence a break in the succession. You got it... it was a true church but in the 3rd century many false teachings were brought in, taught and believed so you know what happened. However, there were good and godly men and women of the SAME church who LEFT the those in Rome, Church! and HELD on to Jesus' true teachings of Jesus after the 3rd-21st century. Apostolic succession is not a false teaching! I believe in heaven God will show us How Jesus' Church has survived through down the ages. We'll be able to talk many of these Christians from Jesus' days, apostles' days and from every generation in the past... Read (Revelation 6:9-12) and (Revelation 7:9-17) Multitudes of Jesus' Witnesses! or believers which no man can count. Dear Nathan, Have you read Eusebias's history? It is a very interesting account of the first 225 years of the Christian church. If J. Martyr was a part of the "true church"- (Which we have no reason to beleive he was not), and this same "true church" was meeting in church buildings by as early as 200 AD (and probably before that), how do you reconcile that with the fact that the F&W only meet in homes- and condemn all who do not meet in a home? This historical fact has bothered me now for quite some time since I read these historical accounts. And in keeping with the subject at hand- there is absolutely no record of women apostles or of women bishops or of women elders or of women presbyters in any of these early writings. (other than by the Montanists who were a heretical gnostic group). There are women deaconesses- but a deacon(ess) was simply a servant (helper) in the church. Not an official "officer" of the church. Love, HFA
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jun 13, 2006 19:44:01 GMT -5
HFA,
Why does it bother you?
The synagogue played the same role in Judaism that the church building plays in Christianity. It is a place for devotion and instruction. Jesus and apostles preached at synagogues. It was Jesus' custom to meet every Sabbath at the synagogue. Meeting at the synagogue was not required under Mosaic Law so He wasn't doing it because He "had to". And the follow-up claim that many F&W's make that they were only there to preach is stretching credibility in order to preserve their condemnation of church buildings. The early church saw itself as a logical extension to Judaism and they continued meeting at synagogues until they were expelled as hostility grew. Even after the fall of Jerusalem and the great divide between Christianity and Judaism, Christians and Judaists in some areas still met together in the synagogues. The divide was not complete.
|
|
|
Post by Hope For All on Jun 14, 2006 9:07:11 GMT -5
HFA, Why does it bother you? The synagogue played the same role in Judaism that the church building plays in Christianity. It is a place for devotion and instruction. Jesus and apostles preached at synagogues. It was Jesus' custom to meet every Sabbath at the synagogue. Meeting at the synagogue was not required under Mosaic Law so He wasn't doing it because He "had to". And the follow-up claim that many F&W's make that they were only there to preach is stretching credibility in order to preserve their condemnation of church buildings. The early church saw itself as a logical extension to Judaism and they continued meeting at synagogues until they were expelled as hostility grew. Even after the fall of Jerusalem and the great divide between Christianity and Judaism, Christians and Judaists in some areas still met together in the synagogues. The divide was not complete. Rob, What bothers me is the condemnation of all church buildings - not the fact that the early church constructed and met in Churches. I agree with your assessment of the role of the early synagogue. Without them the gospel would not have spread nearly as quickly as it did. Nathan, Archaeologists have uncovered an early church in Capernium- that was a home converted into a church/assembly hall. They believe it is very possible that it was Peter's home-not that that matters- but the point is that this was no where near Rome-and was converted before 200AD. Having said all of this- in no way do I support the building of large ornate churches that often become a burden to the people. Meeting in homes is simple and personal. I just do not see it as being an absolute doctrinal requirement- nor do I see it ever mentioned as such in scripture or in the early writings. Love, HFA
|
|