How would you respond?

[Ms.Honey]

What does OP mean? I always thought it mean original poster...but I am guessing it must mean something else??

It means original poster and original post.

 

[PaperClip]

actually mshoney I'm not mistaken or incorrect on church attendance. That was Paul's stance/opinion/belief/teaching. Not a direct commandment from god.



As for the other post Jesus was a teacher not a congregant as demonstrated by the scriptures quoted and was there to teach not worship. Even with the various passages I've heard quoted or taught on over the years, I have seen nothing in the bible that explicitly instructs believers to attend collective, corporate worship services specifically every sunday. Paul's letters were addressed to specific churches not individual believers or the corporate body of christ.


This topic falls under debatable matters.

Let's read the scripture again:

Luke 4:16

"He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. And he stood up to read. (NIV)

And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. (Amplified)

He came to Nazareth where he had been reared. As he always did on the Sabbath, he went to the meeting place. When he stood up to read, he was handed the scroll of the prophet Isaiah. (The Message)

He was reared to go into the synagogue. He did it as a child (Luke 2). He grew up doing the same thing. He went to synagogue while He was in His EARTHLY BODY....

Why would He do something consistently/mandatory yet claim it as being an option? The Lord Jesus Christ is VERY CONSISTENT.

 

[discobiscuits]

My comment included all those words to cover all that I wanted it to, I should have been clearer. It is correct that he did write what his opinion was that one time. What I said is not in anyway shape or form heresy. When you study it out he is not even an apostle by one standard and then by another standard he is. He is attributed as such by the men who translated and cannonized the bible and those men also decided what would be included or omitted. They decided that Paul did not have to meet the standard of apostleship like the 12 did because Judas was "fired" which left a vacant position on the staff. Saul's experience on the road w/ Jesus is considered by these scholars to be equal to Jesus hand picking His diciples while He was alive.


I've said it before I'll say it again, I trust god enough to ensure that everything believers need to function is included in the bible as it currently is. Additionally, if for no other reason (but there are more), that one opinion of Paul's negates the bible as the inerrant word.

What I do know is Pastor Cherry I & II both teach that we must read the bible with the mind to know who wrote what, to whom it was written to and for what purpose.

 

[Ms.Honey]

My comment included all those words to cover all that I wanted it to, I should have been clearer. It is correct that he did write what his opinion was that one time. What I said is not in anyway shape or form heresy. When you study it out he is not even an apostle by one standard and then by another standard he is. He is attributed as such by the men who translated and cannonized the bible and those men also decided what would be included or omitted. They decided that Paul did not have to meet the standard of apostleship like the 12 did because Judas was "fired" which left a vacant position on the staff. Saul's experience on the road w/ Jesus is considered by these scholars to be equal to Jesus hand picking His diciples while He was alive.


I've said it before I'll say it again, I trust god enough to ensure that everything believers need to function is included in the bible as it currently is. Additionally, if for no other reason (but there are more), that one opinion of Paul's negates the bible as the inerrant word.

What I do know is Pastor Cherry I & II both teach that we must read the bible with the mind to know who wrote what, to whom it was written to and for what purpose.

Paul encountered this very same skeptism to his apostleship and answered the naysayers in his espistle to the Corinthian church. His doctrine is sound and we see in the book of Acts that JESUS Himself told him that he will preach the gospel to the gentiles converting them to the salvation of their souls. So to ME if JESUS has appointed him then that's good enough for me.

It is not a debatable issue, NOTHING in the Word is debatable. We are to conform the Word does not conform to our personal interests because we see ourselves as equal to authority and think authority that WE ourselves say God set us under is to be challenged on it's decisions.
You challenge the inerrancy of the bible I know and THAT is indeed heresay.

 

[Nice & Wavy]

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh.....now I get it.

Thank God that He is in control, cause if left up to some, we all will be stranded and left for dead.

 

[discobiscuits]

Let's read the scripture again:


Why would He do something consistently/mandatory yet claim it as being an option? The Lord Jesus Christ is VERY CONSISTENT.

again let me say: he went there to teach not worship as a paritioner. He made that very clear when he was a child and stayed behind He knew who He was and his purpose and he had to have the tools he needed to do his job.

Aditionally a custom is just that a custom not an edict that we must obey. Back then people had to go to synagogue to hear the word. There was no bible for the people. Women even had a different place there than the men did.


After Jesus destroyed the separation between the people and God that assembly is no longer a requirement.


The passage that says how will they learn w/o a teacher? Jesus is the Teacher. We get faith by hearing God's word. Well many churches teach that a believer reading the word for themselves or even speaking aloud the word is the same. My pastors included.


They also drilled it in our heads that believers do not need religious leades b/c we have the same bible, the same Holy Spirit and access to God though our Advocate Jesus. They also teach that believers should congregate together and fellowship and hear the word taught but they never said it was a sin or heresy to disagree with collective corporate sunday or mid week worship.

 

[Ms.Honey]

again let me say: he went there to teach not worship as a paritioner. He made that very clear when he was a child and stayed behind He knew who He was and his purpose and he had to have the tools he needed to do his job.

Aditionally a custom is just that a custom not an edict that we must obey. Back then people had to go to synagogue to hear the word. There was no bible for the people. Women even had a different place there than the men did.


After Jesus destroyed the separation between the people and God that assembly is no longer a requirement.


The passage that says how will they learn w/o a teacher? Jesus is the Teacher. We get faith by hearing God's word. Well many churches teach that a believer reading the word for themselves or even speaking aloud the word is the same. My pastors included.


They also drilled it in our heads that believers do not need religious leades b/c we have the same bible, the same Holy Spirit and access to God though our Advocate Jesus. They also teach that believers should congregate together and fellowship and hear the word taught but they never said it was a sin or heresy to disagree with collective corporate sunday or mid week worship.

Again you are mistaken. Jesus established His church for the edifying of the saints. The ONLY way this can be denied is to deny Pauls authority and the soundness of his epsitles WHICH you have done. Once you discount the inerrancy of the author of the vast majority of the NT you have removed the instructions of Jesus to the church INCLUDING the staying under the authority he has set over us.

You have been decieved.

 

[Ms.Honey]

Num 12:1 And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.


Num 12:2 And they said, Hath the LORD indeed spoken only by Moses? hath he not spoken also by us? And the LORD heard [it].
Num 12:3 (Now the man Moses [was] very meek, above all the men which [were] upon the face of the earth.)


Num 12:4 And the LORD spake suddenly unto Moses, and unto Aaron, and unto Miriam, Come out ye three unto the tabernacle of the congregation. And they three came out.


Num 12:5 And the LORD came down in the pillar of the cloud, and stood [in] the door of the tabernacle, and called Aaron and Miriam: and they both came forth.


Num 12:6 And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, [and] will speak unto him in a dream.
Num 12:7 My servant Moses [is] not so, who [is] faithful in all mine house.


Num 12:8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?


Num 12:9 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them; and he departed.

Num 12:10 And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and, behold, Miriam [became] leprous, [white] as snow: and Aaron looked upon Miriam, and, behold, [she was] leprous.


Num 12:11 And Aaron said unto Moses, Alas, my lord, I beseech thee, lay not the sin upon us, wherein we have done foolishly, and wherein we have sinned.


Num 12:12 Let her not be as one dead, of whom the flesh is half consumed when he cometh out of his mother's womb.


Num 12:13 And Moses cried unto the LORD, saying, Heal her now, O God, I beseech thee.


Num 12:14 And the LORD said unto Moses, If her father had but spit in her face, should she not be ashamed seven days? let her be shut out from the camp seven days, and after that let her be received in [again].


Num 12:15 And Miriam was shut out from the camp seven days: and the people journeyed not till Miriam was brought in [again].


Num 12:16 And afterward the people removed from Hazeroth, and pitched in the wilderness of Paran.



Miriam was shut out from the congregation for questioning the man of God the HE HIMSELF had appointed as authority. Miriam no longer was able to attend church until she was made clean so she couldn't infect the congregation.

 

[discobiscuits]

sorry, still not wrong. I never denied Paul's "authority" in fact Jesus gave all believers ther same authority and even moreso than the deciples. I presented information that is accurate that Paul's authority has been questioned because he is not one of the original 12 & that man decided the criteria of what is included in or omitted from the bible. I also said that Paul's one opinion is not God's word.



Just because some believers refuse to question what is fed to them and the hands that feed it does not make my statements untrue or heretical.

The Holy Spirit that is in me and my speaking in tongues is enough for God to correct me where I am wrong. So far He has not. So far He said trust Him not what I see. So I again repeat regardless of Paul's authority or apostleship I choose to trust God that the bible as it is has what I need to be a successful believer.

My questioning Paul's authority is not wrong and this is not the dark ages where we have heretics. I am not spreading untruth. I stated that Paul may or may not be a true apostle depending on which criteria one uses to decide (criteria created by men). I never said that Paul was not an apostle nor did I say that I do not believe that he is one. The only authority is God's not Paul's.

 

[Ms.Honey]

sorry, still not wrong. I never denied Paul's "authority" in fact Jesus gave all believers ther same authority and even moreso than the deciples. I presented information that is accurate that Paul's authority has been questioned because he is not one of the original 12 & that man decided the criteria of what is included in or omitted from the bible. I also said that Paul's one opinion is not God's word.



Just because some believers refuse to question what is fed to them and the hands that feed it does not make my statements untrue or heretical.

The Holy Spirit that is in me and my speaking in tongues is enough for God to correct me where I am wrong. So far He has not. So far He said trust Him not what I see. So I again repeat regardless of Paul's authority or apostleship I choose to trust God that the bible as it is has what I need to be a successful believer.

My questioning Paul's authority is not wrong and this is not the dark ages where we have heretics. I am not spreading untruth. I stated that Paul may or may not be a true apostle depending on which criteria one uses to decide (criteria created by men). I never said that Paul was not an apostle nor did I say that I do not believe that he is one. The only authority is God's not Paul's.

Did Jesus tell Paul that He would preach the gospel to the gentiles? Yes or no? Did Paul preach the gospel to the gentiles even getting into trouble because he loved his people so much and wanted to preach to them also. Man did not decide Paul's apostleship Jesus himself did and Jesus set Paul as an authority over the church. Read the accounts in the book of Acts.

No one said to be spoon fed but when the Lord begins to need your advice and counsel on how He leads His pastors then yeah that heresay. You presented commentary not scriptural evidence that Paul is not an apostle. The writings of Paul are just as much the word of God as the writings of Peter and James, Jeremiah, Isaiah and others who the Lord spoke through or do you question them also?

Jesus did NOT give us all equal authority over the church where do you see that in the bible? You have been decieved that is not true. Who had equally authority with the apostles? NO ONE.

 

[Irresistible]

I bet hairlove is like



at the turns this thread took

 

[discobiscuits]

Sorry ladies I'm in the ER being looked after but I'm done anyway. You're right I'm not. Lata

 

[discobiscuits]

CLARIFICATION so that you all can be clear where I was coming from and stop misunderstanding my comments and taking them out of context. I am not trying to teach what you may already know.

This is what I meant about canonized and men setting criteria for measuring what goes in the bible and why. (This site lists some of the texts that were left out b/c they did not meet the criteria. 2 Peter had been disputed at one time that it did not meet the criteria.)

There were three main criteria used in canonization:
website
* Apostlitic authority - that the authors were eyewitnesses to the fact, or else were followers of the apostles.
* Conformity - that the document was consistent with the church's practices and traditions. For example, this is why the Gospel of Thomas is rejected.
* Finally, general acceptance and usage of the church. Not only should the document be written by an authentic source and teach the correct teachings, it should be generally accepted that it was the divine word of God.

"Canon" is derived front the Greek word "Kanon," signifying a measuring rod. Thus, to have the Bible "canonized" meant that it had been measured by the standard or test of divine inspiration and authority. It became the collection of books or writings accepted by the apostles and leadership of the early Christian church as a basis for Christian belief. It is the standard by which all Christians throughout the ages live and worship.

website
The Bible was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit by over 40 different authors...

dual authorship of God's word--the Holy Spirit was a co-author with the human writer.

When I speak of inspired I mean:
website

Inspired is translated from the Greek word theopnuestos which literally means "God-breathed." Some have said the word could be translated "ex-spired" or "breathed out." Inspiration, then, in the biblical sense is the means by which the writers accurately wrote what God wanted written.
A working definition of inspiration. Theologian Carl F. H. Henry writes, "Inspiration is a supernatural influence upon the divinely chosen prophets and apostles whereby the Spirit of God assures the truth and trustworthiness of their oral and written proclamation."{1} Furthermore, the writers were "divinely superintended by the Holy Spirit in the choice of words they used."{2} Although some things were dictated to the writers, most of the time the Spirit simply superintended the writing so that the writer, using his own words, wrote what the Spirit wanted.

infallible and inerrant

Technically, there is a fine distinction between the two words infallible and inerrant, but they both imply the same thing. The term infallible has traditionally meant that something cannot error (we will also use it this way). To say that something is inerrant is to say that it does not error. If something is infallible (i.e., it cannot error), then it is certainly inerrant as well (i.e., it does not error). Both convey the point that the Bible never affirms anything that is false.

When I spoke of Paul's apostleship, I was stating that people have used Apostolic authority(see above) to both confirm and deny Paul as an apostle depending on their belief. By presenting this fact, I was not stating and have not stated my personal belief or opinion on Paul's apostleship.

Essentially, when I said that Paul's opinion in that one verse negates the bible being God's words I meant that Paul was permitted by or guided by the Holy Spirit to write his opinion and it was made clear that those were his words not God's but that his opinion was still good for the believer and not contradictory to anything of God. So Paul's opinion is still God-breathed but it is also his words not God's and since the bible cannot affirm anything false, there is nothing wrong with his opinion nor is my statement a false statement about his opinion not being God's word - Paul said it was not God's words. It is not heretical for me to reiterate Paul's words that say it is not God's words but his. This is not the same as if I said that the bible was not God's divine word - I've never said that nor would I.

On church attendance: it is just like communion. The bible does not specifically say when, where, how often or what day to have fellowship (you can go here to debate the sabbath if you want). It just says do not forsake fellowship. If you are a member of a local church, one should attend service when that church has service. As with anything, it is intent of heart. If your heart does it only out of "because I'm supposed to" & not out of a sincere desire to hear and learn then attendance is moot.

 

[discobiscuits]

I just realized something. I spoke of Paul's apostleship in a different thread months ago. None of the persons who are/were casting aspersions (a false or misleading charge meant to harm) and attacking me, my salvation, my beliefs, my intent, (et cetera) in this thread contested what I said in the other thread even though they participated in that other thread. Interesting. I wonder what changed in X months because my comments didn't. *shrug*

 

[Shimmie]

It's very easy to see that he's not grounded in a relationship with the Lord. He's out of fellowship and one blow of the wind from satan and he's off the Vine, the True Vine; he's not a 'branch'.

"He is the Vine and we are the Branches; any branch which does not produce fruit shall be cut off."

He's out!

But not outside of our prayers to be captured by the love of God. satan cannot have him. We've lost enough of our men to the enemy. So here's one that won't be a spiritual casuality.

He may not be "CMM" (Christian Marriage Mate), but he's neither rat bait.