Author Topic: Jesus not allowed to be Head.  (Read 20452 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Teresa

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 989
  • Manna: 12
Re: Jesus not allowed to be Head.
« Reply #35 on: Fri Feb 10, 2012 - 07:11:08 »
Both branches of the majority of Westernized professing Christendom - Roman Catholicism and her daughter Protestantism, are in my studied opinion, very far removed from the faith which was once delivered unto the saints at the first. 
Firstly, there is no such thing as Roman Catholicism.  There is only Catholicism.  The appelation Roman was only added by guess who - Protestants.

Second. The Catholic Church has not fallen away from the faith. As a matter of fact, she is the only one who has remained true to the faith. She is the same Church that Christ established at the beginning of the 1st century. If you doubt that, read history books.  Even Protestant history scholars do not question that anymore.

If you hold to the apostasy theory that some ill-informed fundamentalist bandy about, then you defeat yourself because you make Christ out as not much of a God and on top of that a liar. He could not even keep his promise to not allow the gates of hell to prevail against His Church.

Thirdly.  I do not know what denomination you are but unless you are a Jew you are most likely one of the denominations or else you are what some call non-denom in which case you are a Church unto yourself.

So, ask yourself:
1) What do you base your belief on?
2) I presume it is the Bible becuase you have quoted quite extensively from it. Do you regard it as authoritative?
3) Do you regard the Bible as the Word of God?
4) If so, ask yourself how do you know? Who said that the Bible is the Word of God?

To the last question you might answer "the Bible said so" but in fact the Bible does not say so.
So on what authority do you insist that the Bible is the Word of God?

You see, my point here is that if you hold the Bible to be inerrant, then you must hold the Church that came up with the NT and canonized the entire Bible as infallible. If you don't hold to the infallibility of the Church then you lose your leg with regards the inerrancy of the Bible.

Peace and All Good

Teresa

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Jesus not allowed to be Head.
« Reply #35 on: Fri Feb 10, 2012 - 07:11:08 »

Offline ejected

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 69
  • Manna: 5
Re: Jesus not allowed to be Head.
« Reply #36 on: Fri Feb 10, 2012 - 11:07:19 »
Teresa, I thought I was talking to a 'born again' believer who has been doctrinally chained to falsehood which Martin Luther never abandoned. Let's take your premise. You sound like a hippie from the sixties 'who's to say, who's to say, who's to say?' That was their mantra if you questioned any of the tenents of their ungodly, abominable lifestyle.
I'll lay odds right now that you probabbly cling to every word, latin or otherwise, that falls from the lips of the pope. Am I right? Who's to say the pope is right on anything? Who's to say your local priest has a clue? Here's where I may get htrown out of the synagogue, I mean get banned from this sight. Teresa, how could the caholic church arrest those who seperated from them claiming to have found Christ through faith, being born gain[born from above] and then torture them unto death if they did not recant and re-submit to the catholic monster. No I am not talking about Islam, I'm talking about the catholic church during the Spanish Inquisition? I'm trying to restrain myself here[go slowly]. 

Offline Teresa

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 989
  • Manna: 12
Re: Jesus not allowed to be Head.
« Reply #37 on: Fri Feb 10, 2012 - 20:13:27 »
Teresa, I thought I was talking to a 'born again' believer who has been doctrinally chained to falsehood which Martin Luther never abandoned. Let's take your premise. You sound like a hippie from the sixties 'who's to say, who's to say, who's to say?' That was their mantra if you questioned any of the tenents of their ungodly, abominable lifestyle.
I'll lay odds right now that you probabbly cling to every word, latin or otherwise, that falls from the lips of the pope. Am I right? 
Actually you are very wrong. I believe what the Pope says because what he says is scriptural and plus the fact that he is the most brilliant theologian around.  And I am not the only one who say that. Even his detractors agree that he is extremely brillaint.
Quote
Who's to say the pope is right on anything?
So you are a relativist.  Do you know that relativists and atheists are offsring of the same evil philosphy called nominalism.

And yes, we can say whether the Pope is right or wrong because firstly, we have the Tradition of the Church, we have Scripture and we have History.  Any determination of what is true must square up with all three.

Now before you go questioning "Tradition",  remember that before the Bible ever was, there was only the Tradition of the Church. The NT is a codification of that Tradition.
Quote
  Who's to say your local priest has a clue? 
Actually, one of my local priests is not exactly that clued and I have questioned what he has taught several times.  And I can know that because I have a point of reference - the three that I have mentioned above.
Quote
Here's where I may get htrown out of the synagogue, I mean get banned from this sight. 
Thrown out of a synagogue? Are you a Jew?

Quote
Teresa, how could the caholic church arrest those who seperated from them claiming to have found Christ through faith, being born gain[born from above] and then torture them unto death if they did not recant and re-submit to the catholic monster.
Hmmm,  you really are totally clueless about history aren't you.

For your information most of the torturing was done by the Protestant to the Catholics and even their fellow Protestants. Surprised, huh?

You really should read and verify your facts before you post so it will not all blow up in your face.

It seems you do not even know YOUR own history. Sad.

Quote
  No I am not talking about Islam, I'm talking about the catholic church during the Spanish Inquisition? I'm trying to restrain myself here[go slowly]. 
Yes, do restrain yourself. And study.  Ignorat discourse does not speak well for Christians.


Peace and All Good

Teresa

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Jesus not allowed to be Head.
« Reply #37 on: Fri Feb 10, 2012 - 20:13:27 »

Offline BlackSheep

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 19
  • Manna: 2
Re: Jesus not allowed to be Head.
« Reply #38 on: Fri Feb 10, 2012 - 21:53:56 »
TERESA SAY'S: And yes, we can say whether the Pope is right or wrong because firstly, we have the Tradition of the Church, we have Scripture and we have History.  Any determination of what is true must square up with all three.

Teresa, I have noticed that you are very active across much of this site... I see that you are very devoted to your religious affiliation, and your loyalty to it cannot be disputed. Therefore, for anyone to continue in debate with you on biblical truth, as quoted from the bible is futile. It appears that you have a very "worldly wisdom/traditions of men" approach answer for each challenge. 

Offline p.progress

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 227
  • Manna: 15
Re: Jesus not allowed to be Head.
« Reply #39 on: Fri Feb 10, 2012 - 22:21:48 »
NO TIME nor ENERGY TO PROOF READ or EDIT THIS:

p.progress to Teresa:

Wow! Lots of spice in those lips of yours!

I seek to uphold the truth Teresa....yes, the truth as 'I' and which 'I' have come to the knowledge of, have gained understanding of and have become thoroughly convinced is embodied BOTH in the scriptures of truth (the living oracles of God)' and in the Son of God, Jesus of Nazareth, the Redeemer of Israel and the Light of the Gentiles (that includes I think both you and me).



Hi Teresa,

Quote
I don't need to ask her why she believes what she believes - she has already said why. And the why is precisely what i have been questioning and what I have been showing to be a false proof.

Quick inquiry: Ok. Perhaps she has. But may I ask you then, why you continue going back and forth with her? If you know what she believes; and you've attempted to refute her error; you must see she is neither moved to change nor even to consider your position, true? So why continue admonishing her? I have a very different reason for asking you this then you may think. But am interested in your answer. You can answer via message to me if you want, since this is off topic here. Also you say she has already said 'why' she believes what she believes. So 'why' does she believe what she believes - as best you have been able to figure out from her own words, if I can ask. Thanks.  

I'll address the things you said to me later....or do so somewhat now if I am able to continue uninterruped.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


I'll start by saying this:

Whether you Teresa, myself, 'Eject' or others who consider themselves believers and followers of Christ are following 'relativism' (in various areas) by choice or unawares is something we all have to be ever alert to and seek to purge ourselves of - if indeed, or as we become aware we indeed are being influenced by this 'ism' (as well as other 'isms', or that matter).

But being influenced by *relativism  is not exclusively a danger that those who ascribe to (what is referred to as) 'Protestantism', alone face. [*As that term is not limited to, but encompasses other things beyond what you might mean by referring to "private interpretation".]

Those who follow any 'ism' are faced with the very same dilemma. Even those who ascribe to the opinion that ['Roman', 'Greek' or if there be any other forms of] Catholicism is free of this impurity and the malady of 'relativism', are not free of these. In spite of thinking and believing they are; the disease and error of relativism, in my opinion, is not merely a scourge among the rank and file; but flows from the head waters of that 'ism' - and I do not mean Christ. Christ is certainly the Head of the Ekklesia; for the letters of Paul state this. I take issue with the claim - a claim even made by an ancient organization such as Catholicism - I take issue that they (as well as others) purport to be what they are not: the one true 'Church' that was allegedly (but erroneously) established by Christ, and has been maintained by him as its 'Head'; that Peter was the so-called first 'pope'; I take issue with the claim that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of her first born son...meaning I believe she had other children (sons and daughters) AFTER she gave birth to Jesus - as one would expect from a (yes, though blessed, yet a very) normal woman that married a normal man. I have no patience with hocus-pocus superstition of any sort - including 'christian' superstitions, myths and fables.    
Enough of that.

As to "private interpretations":
We are to take extreme care in our 'private' studying of the scriptures, that we don't end up ascribing to a passage or formulate a teaching on a subject, which is not in harmony with the testimony of scripture.  

But that takes time and great care to learn to avoid doing. Even then, being human, and seeing through a "glass darkly", we are bound to entertain notions that fall short of the truth here and there. But further studies will hopefully expose our erroneous notions to our minds, so we can correct our misunderstandings about the scripture's true meaning here and there or with respect to a given topic of study.  

Without the believer investing the necessary time, energy and due diligence in searching and studying the scriptures; in order to gain an understanding of and to strengthen themselves in the knowledge of scriptures, and scripture's own 'rules' of interpretation (one gains over time by pursuing all this); the believer is vulnerable in remaining 'dumped down' by the professing church's addiction to mediocrity.

The "simple"; the "dull of hearing"; the "unlearned"; the "unstable" (etc), allow themselves to be potentially easily"lead astray with the error of the wicked", via a blind devotion to those whom they have been persuaded (in their ignorance and slothful, blind trust). They swallow the error that says God has this or that man he's appointed to tell them what they need to know about spiritual matters. They place themselves in a very precarious and perhaps an even very dangerous position accepting this claim about so-called leaders. Many have not and will not examine carefully ON THEIR OWN the scriptures, to see "whether those things were so" - or not so, that they were 'told' by officially recognized 'leaders' (pastors, elders, ministers, priests, of some pope) are so.

Leaders, true one's, certainly have their place and function in the body of Christ. But true one's would be careful to train their less learned brethren how to use the tools of the trade - scriptural interpretation. to see for themselves "What saith the scripture", rather than keep them ignorant how to search for themsleves.

[*Christ and the apostles taught one and all the following admonitions: to "take heed"; to "beware of"; to "be not deceived" - that translates into personal responsibility to not blindly follow anything or anyone...including those who are the most "highly esteemed" among men]



Each individual believer ["saint"] is called by God to search and study the scriptures for themselves, so that they will be sound in the faith (the kind of faith that Paul spoke about). That cannot occur by blindly following and swallowing what ANY ONE else says. WE ALL are to approach what others 'claim' to be so, the same way as the "more noble" people of Berea approached the things that Paul expounded to them about, when he came into their town and their assembly. They each "searched the scriptures daily" to see "whether those things" that Paul said "were so" - or not so (for that matter). They looked not to anything other than the scriptures to determine the accuracy of Paul's claims. They were less 'encrusted' with the religious 'mumbo-jumbo' that their leaders were adapt at conjuring up, and claiming was what God meant (back in Jerusalem, or even over the hill in Thessalonica), apparently than many other folks who formed believing communities.



I study the scriptures on my own, in order to learn to "rightly divide" them as best I am able. That is not something that occurs over night though. It takes place in growing measure each day, week, month, year and each new decade.

If personal studying of the scriptures, without enlisting the aid of - more precisely, without blindly accepting the claims that a so-called 'pastor', 'priest', a 'pope' or a 'minister' asserts to be 'Thus saith the LORD" (about a passage or on a subject), is judged to be wrong (an act of prideful rebellious presumptive defiance) by those "who seemeth to be somewhat" (at least in their own eyes): such judgment means little to me..it carries no weight with me.

If I had to choose: I would choose to 'follow' my own brand of 'relativism' I have 'conjured up' on my own; rather than to blindly swallow and follow another man's flavor of relativism he conjured up on his own. I know where I got my understanding of scripture; I don't know where someone else got theirs. Mine comes as the result of actually and honestly searching and examining the scriptures with a 'ready mind'.

Tired, off to bed.







  


« Last Edit: Fri Feb 10, 2012 - 23:19:41 by p.progress »

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Jesus not allowed to be Head.
« Reply #39 on: Fri Feb 10, 2012 - 22:21:48 »



Offline Teresa

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 989
  • Manna: 12
Re: Jesus not allowed to be Head.
« Reply #40 on: Fri Feb 10, 2012 - 22:27:58 »
TERESA SAY'S: And yes, we can say whether the Pope is right or wrong because firstly, we have the Tradition of the Church, we have Scripture and we have History.  Any determination of what is true must square up with all three.

Teresa, I have noticed that you are very active across much of this site... I see that you are very devoted to your religious affiliation, and your loyalty to it cannot be disputed. Therefore, for anyone to continue in debate with you on biblical truth, as quoted from the bible is futile. It appears that you have a very "worldly wisdom/traditions of men" approach answer for each challenge. 
I do not have a "worldy wisdom" approach.

I simply use my God given intellect to understand God's Word.

It is no use using God's Word if you do not even understand it.  Merely dumping verses is not enough. You must understand it in its entirety.

If you are a Christian and believe in the Bible, then one way or another you acknowledge the infalibility of the Church because she is the one who gave you the Bible.

You see, the problem with a lot of Protestants is they do not even know where the Bible came from and how come we say it is the Word of God.

It is the Church who declared that the Bible is the Word of God.   When the Protestant revolt happened, the Bible has already been around for over a thousand years and was declared the Word of God by the Church.  And this they took with them.  They just continued this tradition that the Bible is the Word of God as the Church has decreed.

The beliefs of the Church are all Biblical because the Bible is HER book.

Peace and All Good

Teresa

Offline Teresa

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 989
  • Manna: 12
Re: Jesus not allowed to be Head.
« Reply #41 on: Fri Feb 10, 2012 - 22:56:28 »
Quick inquiry: Ok. Perhaps she has. But may I ask you then, why you continue going back and forth with her? If you know what she believes; and you've attempted to refute her error; you must see she is neither moved to change nor even to consider your position, true? So why continue admonishing her? I have a very different reason for asking you this then you may think. But am interested in your answer. You can answer via message to me if you want, since this is off topic here. Also you say she has already said 'why' she believes what she believes. So 'why' does she believe what she believes - as best you have been able to figure out from her own words, if I can ask. Thanks.  
The simple answer is "because she still answers back" and she might think that what she said is true if I don't reply back.

Quote
Whether you Teresa, myself, 'Eject' or others who consider themselves believers and followers of Christ are following 'relativism' (in various areas) by choice or unawares is something we all have to be ever alert to and seek to purge ourselves of - if indeed, or as we become aware we indeed are being influenced by this 'ism' (as well as other 'isms', or that matter). 
Not quite because Catholics (and Protestants too) believe in absolutes.

Of course no everything is absolute but there are some absolutes.  The determination of what is absolute has to be based on reason.

And this is basically where are, at the moment, trying to find what is true - the Truth that is absolute and not relative.

Quote
But being influenced by *relativism  is not exclusively a danger that those who ascribe to (what is referred to as) 'Protestantism', alone face. [*As that term is not limited to, but encompasses other things beyond what you might mean by referring to "private interpretation".]
It is a danger because it leads to self-deification i.e. making a God of one's self even though one may not consciously acknowledge that.

Take for example the divorce question.  If we say "that is what you believe and this is what I believe and let us just leave each other to our beliefs" then it would be like Christ has not spoken at all.  It seems as though what Christ meant does not matter.

Quote
Those who follow any 'ism' are faced with the very same dilemma. Even those who ascribe to the opinion that ['Roman', 'Greek' or if there be any other forms of] Catholicism is free of this impurity and the malady of 'relativism', are not free of these. 
Well I would have to say that there is no relativism in Catholicism. That is why people hate her, because she is such a stick in the mud.

Quote
In spite of thinking and believing they are; the disease and error of relativism, in my opinion, is not merely a scourge among the rank and file; but flows from the head waters of that 'ism' - and I do not mean Christ. Christ is certainly the Head of the Ekklesia; for the letters of Paul state this.
I will look for the article that explains why Protestantism is relativist. It all stems from the fact that both Calvin and Luther were nominalists.

Quote
  I take issue with the claim - a claim even made by an ancient organization such as Catholicism - I take issue that they (as well as others) purport to be what they are not: the one true 'Church' that was allegedly (but erroneously) established by Christ, and has been maintained by him as its 'Head'; that Peter was the so-called first 'pope'; I take issue with the claim that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of her first born son...meaning I believe she had other children (sons and daughters) AFTER she gave birth to Jesus - as one would expect from a (yes, though blessed, yet a very) normal woman that married a normal man. I have no patience with hocus-pocus superstition of any sort - including 'christian' superstitions, myths and fables.   
And I agree that you can take issue with them because we are not relativists.

It is because we are not relativists and so we can say, "right then, throw your questions and let us dissect each and every issue" and we can come to the answer of whether these claim are true or false.  There would not be a need to make dogma's of these things if we are relativists.  Each one of these doctrines can be and has been defended and defended extremely well.

As a matter of fact, the ones who are at the forefront of the defense of these doctrines were protestants themselves and not just your run of the mill Protestants either. These were highly erudite Protestants who are very knowledgeable and steeped in their Tradition  who - shall we say - have been "Surprised by Truth".
Quote
As to "private interpretations":
We are to take extreme care in our 'private' studying of the scriptures, that we don't end up ascribing to a passage or formulate a teaching on a subject, which is not in harmony with the testimony of scripture.  
And that is a very wise guide.

But the truth of the matter is, we get a lot of protestant doctrines that fail this very wise guide - Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura and OSAS being three of them.
Quote
But that takes time and great care to learn to avoid doing.
Yes, that is true. That takes Time and Care. And these are precisely what is in the Church's favour.  She has been around for 2000 years, her bishops, saints and theologians have lived, mulled, prayed and dissected the faith for 2000 years.  The care that has been exercised has been great, convening councils, asking theologians and going by the traditions of the apostles.

These things the ordinary John Doe does not have if he were just to sit down and read the Bible.

That is why any ordinary Protestant who attempts to comprehend the Bible will never succeed for he/she is 2000 years removed from the formation of the Church from which the Bible came. It is like reinventing the wheel without having some of the necessary equipment for wheel making.
Quote
  Even then, being human, and seeing through a glass darkly, we are bound to entertain notions that all short of the truth here and there. But further studies will hopefully expose our erroneous notions to our minds, so we can correct our misunderstandings about the scriptures true meaning here and there or with respect to a given topic of study.  
But what hope does one have of getting to the truth just by simply reading the Bible sans the witness of the Church?

For one thing, why should one even consider the Bible the Word of God.  Who said so?

If you are someone who has no knowledge of Christianity and has no knowledge of the Bible, ho do you even come to determine whether the Bible is theWord of God?

I will reply to the rest of your post as I need to start doing housework.

Peace and All Good

Teresa

Offline Teresa

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 989
  • Manna: 12
Re: Jesus not allowed to be Head.
« Reply #42 on: Sat Feb 11, 2012 - 03:30:40 »
Without the believer investing the necessary time, energy and due diligence in searching and studying the scriptures; in order to gain an understanding of and to strengthen themselves in the knowledge of scriptures, and scripture's own 'rules' of interpretation (one gains over time by pursuing all this); the believer is vulnerable in remaining 'dumped down' by the professing church's addiction to mediocrity.
Again you speak of time.  How much time does one have to study scripture. Even if one were to dedicate half of one's time to study of scripture, one cannot truly understand it without reference to the Church upon whose bossom it was written.

From the time of its writing to the time of its canonization, the Scripture's right place was in the bossom of the Church.

It was not the individual Christian who tried to explain Scripture but rather the priests and bishops.
Quote
The "simple"; the "dull of hearing"; the "unlearned"; the "unstable" (etc), allow themselves to be potentially easily"lead astray with the error of the wicked", via a blind devotion to those whom they have been persuaded (in their ignorance and slothful, blind trust).  They swallow the error that says God has this or that man he's appointed to tell them what they need to know about spiritual matters. They place themselves in a very precarious and perhaps an even very dangerous position accepting this claim about so-called leaders.
And that is all too true.  So we end up again in this slipperyworld of relativism. We end up with a decision: which leader is the true leader? If we can't find out the truth about that then there is absolutely no point in saying what you are saying for in effect, there is no such thing as truth, but only what we declare to be true.

This happens to be the whole point of nominalism which greatly influenced the theology of both Luther and Calvin. Simply put, there is nothing really true or real essence but only the name we give to it.

And this is what underpins most protestant thought, that is why we have all these different denominations all claiming a different variation of the truth and no one seems to be able to decide which one is true.
Quote
 Many have not and will not examine carefully ON THEIR OWN the scriptures, to see "whether those things were so" - or not so, that they were 'told' by officially recognized 'leaders' (pastors, elders, ministers, priests, of some pope) are so.  
Yes, but scriptures can only get one so far especially since everyone seems to be reading  a different translation.  Some scriptures are so badly translated that they are in effect not so much a translation but an interpretation of the translator.

All these things affect the understanding of Scripture.
Quote
Leaders, true one's, certainly have their place and function in the body of Christ. But true one's would be careful to train their less learned brethren how to use the tools of the trade - scriptural interpretation. to see for themselves "What saith the scripture", rather than keep them ignorant how to search for themsleves.
Since it was Christ's will to appoint leaders rather than to write the NT, then this gives you an idea of what Christ willed.

I think this is a very important fact that most people ignore. Christ did not write the Bible.  Chrsit built a Church and within the bosom of this Church the NT was written and the whole Bible declared the Word of God.

Quote
[*Christ and the apostles taught one and all the following admonitions: to "take heed"; to "beware of"; to "be not deceived" - that translates into personal responsibility to not blindly follow anything or anyone...including those who are the most "highly esteemed" among men]
But how does one take that admonishment? How does one know whether one is decieved or not?

All that leaves one with is one's own opinion.  This makes one the sole arbiter of what is true. Can a person really claim such great knowledge and insight that he can put himself above the witness of the Church that Christ Himself establshed?

To be able to determine that, one must have a point of reference. But in a world where the teaching of Christ is relativised then how do you determine which is a deception and which is not?

This is the reason why Christ built a church and appointed men.  This system stops the relativisation of the Good News.

Quote
If I had to choose: I would choose to 'follow' my own brand of 'relativism' I have 'conjured up' on my own; rather than to blindly swallow and follow another man's flavor of relativism he conjured up on his own. I know where I got my understanding of scripture; I don't know where someone else got theirs. Mine comes as the result of actually and honestly searching and examining the scriptures with a 'ready mind'.
But when you do that, then you go against what God has willed.

If Christ had wanted relativism, then instead of establishing a Church He would have just let everyone decide for themselves. There were so many who were following Him at that time and yet He specifically calls 12.  He did not leave it to every Tom, Dick and Harry to decide what they will believe.

Quote
Tired, off to bed.
Sweet dreams, God bless and may you fall asleep in God's embrace.


Peace and All Good

Teresa



Offline p.progress

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 227
  • Manna: 15
Re: Jesus not allowed to be Head.
« Reply #43 on: Sat Feb 11, 2012 - 16:06:36 »
Don't know how to copy and paste very well the quotes:


Quote

Quote from: p.progress on February 09, 2012, 02:06:25 AM
Teresa,
I have been following your 'tennis match' with chosenone regarding divorce and remarriage. I have appreciated your reasoning abilities in that forum. [But by the way, it is futile to continue to try to instruct; correct; train or even reprove or rebuke individuals like 'chosenone', concerning their notions about divorce, marriage and so-called 're-marriage' (legalized adultery) in that tread: "...after the first and second admonition reject...". If you want to invest any more time with her, then perhaps you might just try asking a bunch of questions first to see 'why' she believes what see believes - just a thought].  


You said:
Quote
I don't need to ask her why she believes what she believes - she has already said why. And the why is precisely what i have been questioning and what I have been showing to be a false proof.



I said:
Quote

Quote
But here though Teresa, I believe you are out of your element and league at present...and frankly sister, without meaning at all to be harsh, I believe you to be out of order here as well - as far as scriptural order is concerned...and coincidentally, as is found laid out in the very sections that 'ejected' has referenced several or more times regarding the way in which the ekklesia (called out saints) are to behave in the house of God (as the household of God that we are). Please go read and study carefully and meditate on 1Cor.14...but in particular for you at the moment, what has been assigned the number of verses 34b - 36:


You say:
Quote
I am not questioning Scripture. I am questioning Ejected's presumptive authority to determine who is and who is not following God and who is and who is not worshipping according to God's prescription.


Teresa, Perhaps I was not making myself clear.
What I was referring to, when I said: "But here though Teresa, I believe you are out of your element and league at present...and frankly sister, without meaning at all to be harsh, I believe you to be out of order here as well - as far as scriptural order is concerned..." was this:

While I realize, understand and even respect on some levels your zeal to express not only your own opinion, but as I am sure you probably view it, the divine opinion of your denomination's dogmas and decrees (or whatever terms you may choose to use to describe what you are seeking to present); I was attempting in a kind way to bring to your attention a principle that the scriptures record about how judgments, instructing, correcting, reproving and rebuking are to be administered - and more specifically and pointedly; those who are and those who are not to be involved in this process.

You may disagree with 'ejected' (his statements, etc) - and it is clear you very much do. But there are some scriptures that you have to take into account for yourself, before expressing the things you think (and 'feel') so passionately about.

Hence I earlier had encouraged you to examine and meditate upon some of these things which Paul wrote to the believers in Corinth about - see 1 Corinthians 14:34b-36 & 1Timothy 2:9-15, for starters. I'll quote the former here. But note: Below quotes are from KJV, interwoven with my uninspired yet thoughtful musings/explanation - in 'black']:

[34] "*As in all churches of the saints, let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak [in matters that require vocally exercising discernment by the brethren to judge, correct and teach what women are not permitted to exercise]; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
[35] "And if they will [desire to question the soundness of a claim made, or ask questions in order to] learn any thing [that may have been said by those who prophesied during the assembly], let them ask [their questions about these things to] their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak [on and utter their thoughts openly on these matters] in the [assembling of the] church [which are outside their designated purview - jurisdiction; namely, to verbally join in with the brethren when raising questions and/or making corrections to certain things declared by the prophets during the exercising of this gift in the assembly]."

[*See verse 33b. Because I believe "...as in all churches of the saints" seems out of place attached to the latter end of this verse 33; and appears more naturally connected (contextually speaking) to the statements of Paul, contained in the following 'verse' (v.34); I have taken the 'liberty' of doing so. Hence, I begin v.34 with: "As in all churches of the saints...". In my opinion, this does not violate the text, but as I said, appears more natural - contextually speaking.]

[Edited here]: I just looked for and found a Catholic Bible version. Interesting and to the credit of the translators, they to my dismay actually do place a period ("."), where I find the sense of this section would naturally require one for English readers. I quote it here:
[31] "You can all prophesy, but one at a time, then all will learn something and all receive encouragement.
[32] "The prophetic spirit is to be under the prophets' control,
[33a] for God is a God not of disorder but of peace.

[33b/34] "As in all the churches of God's holy people, women are to remain quiet in the assemblies, since they have no permission to speak: theirs is a subordinate part, as the Law itself says.
[35] "If there is anything they want to know, they should ask their husbands at home: it is shameful for a woman to speak in the assembly.

[From: http://www.catholic.org/bible/book.php?id=53  - I broke up 33 and 34 into '33a' and '33b/34' of course.]



Continued:
[36] What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
[37] If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
[38] But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
[Too much to comment on in this last section (last three verses), that would take me off subject in some respects; save to say, these commands are not optional; subject to time, generational or cultural change.]


I am saying then, that while I realize this is a forum, and I'm sure you would hardly consider this worthy to be considered as applicable to you, given it is NOT within your definition as a 'church' - 'The' 'Church'. Notwithstanding, as a woman I would hope you would want and seek to be mindfully careful, nevertheless, not to violate these principles and instructions to you as a women.


See also similar instructions from Paul to Timothy (1Tim. 2:9-15):

"In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
"But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

"For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
"And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
"Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety."




You say further about 'ejected':
Quote

I would not be surprised if he is guilty of the sin he accuses everyone else of. Be careful of taking the flint from someone's eye as there might be a boulder in yours is a good advice from our Lord.

Let me put it this way, most Protestant Churches do not allow God to be head.  The reason for this is that what underpins Protestant belief is relativism - private interpretation.  In this sense it is not Chrsit who is head but the self.  Ejected does this too. When he reads the Bible he reads it according to his own interpretation. So therefore, he is the head and Jesus come's secondary. I am sure that there [are] some things in the Bible that he ignores or sets aside because they are not comfortable - i.e. they do not jive with his own thoughts.  That is not allowing Christ to be head.


Please be careful with your own assumptions here Teresa.

I do not know if you are; but if you are married with children at home Teresa, may I ask you (you need not answer if you do not want to) how it appears to me at least, you seem to have so much spare time to devote to reading and then writing so much on this forum?

I noticed you wrote your response after 3am last night...very early this morning. I know how long it takes me to write, it must take you some time as well - though I am certain you received a top notch education if you went to Catholic schools, and may be able to 'whip out' these posts in no time at all, like they were nothing, I don't know. But 3:30am (plus) is very late to be up, and all this writing can easily absorb a great deal of time - I am well aware of this. By the way, I was not being sarcastic about Catholic schools. I'm aware of the reputation of their schools being perhaps hard, or even retaining cruel and perverse educators at times; but they are also known to be fairly effective in training its students to excel. :-)


Please, do not misunderstand me, and I say this sincerely.
While I see you are very devote and a devoted adherent to your religion,*one who seems to be clearly and thoroughly convinced that all you've been taught 'it' (Catholicism) is, teaches about and represents is true, whatever be the subject matter (both spiritually and historically); I normally would not invest my time to try to speak to such who are, as I see it, so blindly devoted to things they have yet to truly vet (examine and test to the limits its claims) for themselves. Yet, having read some of your posts, I am moved to write to you, whether prompted by the Lord or of my own.
 
But I want to say some things that I for some reason believe (or want to believe) you will not become offended at me when I say them.
 
That is to say, based upon what I have read you've written, and the attempts I sense you do make, to try to restrain yourself to be respectful of even those who you believe fail to represent the truth as you see it (flowing from Catholicism): In light of this, I don't expect you'll become offended by what I am saying...even if you think or might think I am saying this to demean or disrespect you - which I am not. I say this to your credit. I hope that I am perceiving you aright.

From my admittedly limited vantage point, it still appears to me that you have invested quite a bit of time and energy, not only writing all the posts you've written so far on this one web-site, but all the time its taken you to read all that you have on this forum.

But I am wondering if the focus of your time and energies would be better served, if directed towards and invested in those things which God calls you to as a woman, wife, mother and "keeper at home" to clearly be about the business of. Which would include getting plenty of sleep for you to be at your best to fulfill your actual responsibilities within your own life, and personal world of influence (family, friends, other women, and those you meet along the way).

I quoted 1Corinthians 14 above. May I encourage you to read it in the version of the Holy Scriptures you prefer, and see what it says in that vein. Read also other like passages which speak to woman, wives and mothers (the Timothy passage cited above, plus Titus 2; 1 Peter 3:1-6 at least (etc).

I am not saying you have no business whatsoever to express your opinions to anyone here or other places. If I said that, I would have no business, doing so. I am encouraging you though to be discreet in your zeal to express your opinions in a way that may find you in violation of the teachings of the scriptures (and perhaps, even the teaching of your religious affiliation - Catholicism).

Sorry, need to go, out of time.

God bless you Teresa.



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


* I too have very strong and deeply held convictions or beliefs, which I have come to be convinced to be the truth as revealed and laid out "in the scripture of truth" [Dan.10:21]. So I voice them confidently, but hopefully with a level of humility and not in a way that is unjustifiably offensive, but the opposite. My purpose is to comfort, instruct, admonish, train, exhort, encourage, bring to sobriety, to warn, to reprove and rebuke if need be for the good of the person, or to mark and reject deceivers and full time self-deluded individuals, when it demands such action. I try to remain objective and dispassionate when dealing with individuals that seem not only ignorant of the things that try to speak about, but are I find even bent on being willingly ignorant.

All to say, I appreciate passion and those who display it for the things that they may even be wrong about; those who reveal they are not merely playing games with truth, in order to cover an agenda; but who at least are convinced what they believe is the truth.

I can respect for instance, a Jehovah's Witness, who though may be in error in various areas of scriptural teaching; yet are 'sincere' in their belief.

In my opinion, such are stifled in their knowledge and understanding, in great measure because they have been taught and persuaded by their leaders that what 'they' say is (the so-called) 'truth' (on this or that subject or meaning of a passage), in fact, is the truth. And for them, that settles the matter.

While they are not in error in certain areas of scriptural teaching, they are unaware of their error in certain other areas. They have not had the opportunity to be effectively confronted by someone who is able to filet their false notions, and help them facilitate making that 'leap' that is required of any who have had their ability to "exercise" "their senses to discern between good and evil" neutralized via the enemy within.    

Personal 'critiquing' is fine as far as the leadership is concerned, so long as it is to critique other people or groups, and so long as it is not aimed in their direction (or the organization/organism, and it's tenets).

To think to critique them, the organization, or the tenets of the organization, is an act of intolerable blasphemy.

 
« Last Edit: Sat Feb 11, 2012 - 17:38:36 by p.progress »

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Jesus not allowed to be Head.
« Reply #43 on: Sat Feb 11, 2012 - 16:06:36 »

Offline Teresa

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 989
  • Manna: 12
Re: Jesus not allowed to be Head.
« Reply #44 on: Sat Feb 11, 2012 - 18:15:46 »
While I realize, understand and even respect on some levels your zeal to express not only your own opinion, but as I am sure you probably view it, the divine opinion of your denomination's dogmas and decrees (or whatever terms you may choose to use to describe what you are seeking to present); I was attempting in a kind way to bring to your attention a principle that the scriptures record about how judgments, instructing, correcting, reproving and rebuking are to be administered - and more specifically and pointedly; those who are and those who are not to be involved in this process.

You may disagree with 'ejected' (his statements, etc) - and it is clear you very much do. But there are some scriptures that you have to take into account for yourself, before expressing the things you think (and 'feel') so passionately about.

Hence I earlier had encouraged you to examine and meditate upon some of these things which Paul wrote to the believers in Corinth about - see 1 Corinthians 14:34b-36 & 1Timothy 2:9-15, for starters. I'll quote the former here. But note: Below quotes are from KJV, interwoven with my uninspired yet thoughtful musings/explanation - in 'black']:

[34] "*As in all churches of the saints, let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak [in matters that require vocally exercising discernment by the brethren to judge, correct and teach what women are not permitted to exercise]; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
[35] "And if they will [desire to question the soundness of a claim made, or ask questions in order to] learn any thing [that may have been said by those who prophesied during the assembly], let them ask [their questions about these things to] their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak [on and utter their thoughts openly on these matters] in the [assembling of the] church [which are outside their designated purview - jurisdiction; namely, to verbally join in with the brethren when raising questions and/or making corrections to certain things declared by the prophets during the exercising of this gift in the assembly]."

I will give a quick response here because I have to go to Mass but I will go through your post in detail when I get back.


What Paul is saying does not apply because:

1) This is the net not the Church  (Paul said nothing about that)

2) Ejected is not part of the Catholic Church.  As a matter of fact he is separated from the Church that Paul speaks of. He is only a an ordinary male who happens to believe in Christ (according to what it pleases him as to who Christ is)

3) If he is my husband then I will listen to him but he is not so I can read as I please and prove him wrong as I please and my proofs are based on the Bible, Tradition, History and reason.  He has absolutely no authority over me or anyone for that matter. God has not given him any.

Jesus said that we must speak the Truth. That is what I am doing and I am countering the errors that Ejected is proposing.

Jesus should be head but Ejected is not allowing Him to be.

Peace and All Good

Teresa

Offline ejected

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 69
  • Manna: 5
Re: Jesus not allowed to be Head.
« Reply #45 on: Sat Feb 11, 2012 - 19:01:01 »
Teresa, do you know Jesus personally...have you been 'born again'?

Offline p.progress

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 227
  • Manna: 15
Re: Jesus not allowed to be Head.
« Reply #46 on: Sat Feb 11, 2012 - 23:22:51 »
While I realize, understand and even respect on some levels your zeal to express not only your own opinion, but as I am sure you probably view it, the divine opinion of your denomination's dogmas and decrees (or whatever terms you may choose to use to describe what you are seeking to present); I was attempting in a kind way to bring to your attention a principle that the scriptures record about how judgments, instructing, correcting, reproving and rebuking are to be administered - and more specifically and pointedly; those who are and those who are not to be involved in this process.

You may disagree with 'ejected' (his statements, etc) - and it is clear you very much do. But there are some scriptures that you have to take into account for yourself, before expressing the things you think (and 'feel') so passionately about.

Hence I earlier had encouraged you to examine and meditate upon some of these things which Paul wrote to the believers in Corinth about - see 1 Corinthians 14:34b-36 & 1Timothy 2:9-15, for starters. I'll quote the former here. But note: Below quotes are from KJV, interwoven with my uninspired yet thoughtful musings/explanation - in 'black']:

[34] "*As in all churches of the saints, let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak [in matters that require vocally exercising discernment by the brethren to judge, correct and teach what women are not permitted to exercise]; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
[35] "And if they will [desire to question the soundness of a claim made, or ask questions in order to] learn any thing [that may have been said by those who prophesied during the assembly], let them ask [their questions about these things to] their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak [on and utter their thoughts openly on these matters] in the [assembling of the] church [which are outside their designated purview - jurisdiction; namely, to verbally join in with the brethren when raising questions and/or making corrections to certain things declared by the prophets during the exercising of this gift in the assembly]."

I will give a quick response here because I have to go to Mass but I will go through your post in detail when I get back.


What Paul is saying does not apply because:

1) This is the net not the Church  (Paul said nothing about that)

2) Ejected is not part of the Catholic Church.  As a matter of fact he is separated from the Church that Paul speaks of. He is only a an ordinary male who happens to believe in Christ (according to what it pleases him as to who Christ is)

3) If he is my husband then I will listen to him but he is not so I can read as I please and prove him wrong as I please and my proofs are based on the Bible, Tradition, History and reason.  He has absolutely no authority over me or anyone for that matter. God has not given him any.

Jesus said that we must speak the Truth. That is what I am doing and I am countering the errors that Ejected is proposing.

Jesus should be head but Ejected is not allowing Him to be.

Peace and All Good

Teresa


Only have a moment Teresa.
It seems as if you are missing my point. Perhaps because my posts are long and too detailed. So I'' try to be more succinct here:

Quote
What Paul is saying does not apply because:

1) This is the net not the Church  (Paul said nothing about that)

Correct, hence I qualified my statement with:
"I am saying then, that while I realize this is a forum, and I'm sure you would hardly consider this worthy to be considered as applicable to you, given it is NOT within your definition as a 'church' - 'the Church'. Notwithstanding, as a woman I would hope you would want and seek to be mindfully careful, nevertheless, not to violate these principles and instructions to you as a women."

And no, Paul said nothing about this type of 'forum' (on an internet), or 'vehicle' to communicate and exchange ideas. But there are principles to follow (I believe), that are born of clear cut commandments - such as in 1Corinthians 14:33b-34-36. This 'forum' is a 'place' where you and I and others have found to 'gather together' or 'come to' hear others, as well as voice our thoughts, opinions, experiences, questions (and the like) with others who ostensibly ascribe to the belief that scripture is something more than just relevant, but authoritative in our lives (granted, there are many who would claim this and fail to display this in practice in very important areas of their lives, and serious violate clear {enough} commands of God; and cannot help but cause one to doubt the genuineness of their profession).  


("keep silence"; "learn in silence"[/b]; "be in silence"
So, what about the command for women not to enter into judgment, with one who is speaking truth or erroneously; or what about the command to women "not...to teach", or attempt to overthrow ("usurp") God's order of headship and authority given to the man (at least) since the Fall?

Yes this new medium called the 'net', is not some duly 'official' or 'officiated' assembly of believers - but neither is the assembling of the 'Church' in many cases - if we count that ungodly professors of Christ and false professors and non-professing individuals mix and mingle with true believers throughout all kinds of congregations within professing Christendom.

There are many unbelievers who are being weekly "mixed" with the "multitudes" of believers in various congregations - including at Catholic congregations...many of them even who 'officiate over' their meetings (both so-called 'Pastors' and 'Priests' - even pedophiles galore and other deviants).

So while it is true that the 'net' is not spoken of by Paul, Peter or other apostles; that does not mean that Paul or Peter or the other apostles wouldn't be able to apply the commands of God to this new medium...such as the passages I cited.

Now of course, this does not mean that woman are forbidden from any and all verbalizing of their thoughts or beliefs or even to guide others into truth. A good example in the narrative account of this is of course when both Priscilla and Aquila spoke to their new found friend and partner in the gospel: Apollos. "They" both "took him unto" them, and "expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly".

I only am trying to caution you to be careful not to violate scripture - even if you 'reject' 'ejected' as an unbeliever, there is protocol to follow, as I see it spelled out in the scriptures.


     

One word study worth anyone's time and energy:
"usurp" G831; αὐθεντέω; authenteō; ow-then-teh'-o: From a compound of G846 and ἕντης hentēs (obsolete; a worker); to act of oneself, that is, (figuratively) dominate: - usurp authority over.
Examine derivatives of this word.

God bless you Teresa.


« Last Edit: Sun Feb 12, 2012 - 00:14:24 by p.progress »

Offline ejected

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 69
  • Manna: 5
Re: Jesus not allowed to be Head.
« Reply #47 on: Sun Feb 12, 2012 - 02:57:39 »
 Without going to deep: where it is

written in 1Cor.14:  34Let your women

keep silence in the churches: for it is

not permitted unto them to speak; but

they are commanded to be under

obedience as also saith the law.

 

35And if they will learn any thing, let

them ask their husbands at home: for

it is a shame for women to speak in the

church.

 36What? came the word of

God out from you? or came it unto you

only?
Quotation marks were unheard

of at that time. Paul was quoting this

church's misconception.and then

exclaimed 'WHAT? Did the word come

unto you MEN only?'
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

Offline Teresa

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 989
  • Manna: 12
Re: Jesus not allowed to be Head.
« Reply #48 on: Sun Feb 12, 2012 - 04:24:37 »
Teresa, do you know Jesus personally...have you been 'born again'?
Yes most certainly to both counts.

Praise and Thanks to our most Loving Lord for that.

Peace and All Good
Teresa

Offline Teresa

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 989
  • Manna: 12
Re: Jesus not allowed to be Head.
« Reply #49 on: Sun Feb 12, 2012 - 05:51:36 »
Only have a moment Teresa.
It seems as if you are missing my point. Perhaps because my posts are long and too detailed. So I'' try to be more succinct here:

Quote
What Paul is saying does not apply because:

1) This is the net not the Church  (Paul said nothing about that)

Correct, hence I qualified my statement with:
"I am saying then, that while I realize this is a forum, and I'm sure you would hardly consider this worthy to be considered as applicable to you, given it is NOT within your definition as a 'church' - 'the Church'. Notwithstanding, as a woman I would hope you would want and seek to be mindfully careful, nevertheless, not to violate these principles and instructions to you as a women."
Since the principles are not meant to apply to everything - only to the Church - then I am not violating any principle at all.

Quote
And no, Paul said nothing about this type of 'forum' (on an internet), or 'vehicle' to communicate and exchange ideas. But there are principles to follow (I believe), that are born of clear cut commandments - such as in 1Corinthians 14:33b-34-36. This 'forum' is a 'place' where you and I and others have found to 'gather together' or 'come to' hear others, as well as voice our thoughts, opinions, experiences, questions (and the like) with others who ostensibly ascribe to the belief that scripture is something more than just relevant, but authoritative in our lives (granted, there are many who would claim this and fail to display this in practice in very important areas of their lives, and serious violate clear {enough} commands of God; and cannot help but cause one to doubt the genuineness of their profession).  

Still it is not the Church. Therefore I violate no principle.

I believe scripture is authoritative and relevant. And in the text that you cited, the particular relevance was specifically stated - it refers only to the Church and nothing more.  It would be totally ludicrous if Paul said women should not have any say at all.

Paul also said that in Christ there is no man or woman, no gentile or Jew. We are equal but not the same.
Quote
("keep silence"; "learn in silence"[/b]; "be in silence"
So, what about the command for women not to enter into judgment, with one who is speaking truth or erroneously; or what about the command to women "not...to teach", or attempt to overthrow ("usurp") God's order of headship and authority given to the man (at least) since the Fall?
Paul himself had already given the context for the venue of this silence so I am violating nothing.

Which brings me to ask why do you want me to be silentg? I mean, there are other women in this forum so why is it only me that you are trying to silence. You did not do that to chosenone, or to janice who are obviously against your own held belief of no-divorce.  So I am puzzled why you think I should curtail my speech.

Quote
Yes this new medium called the 'net', is not some duly 'official' or 'officiated' assembly of believers - but neither is the assembling of the 'Church' in many cases - if we count that ungodly professors of Christ and false professors and non-professing individuals mix and mingle with true believers throughout all kinds of congregations within professing Christendom.  
Since I belong to the Church that Christ founded, then that is the only authority that I consider. As a matter of fact, she is the only real authority on earth because her authority is one bequeathed by God to her.

That is why I am a faithful Catholic. I follow the teachings of the Church even when other Catholic women are for women priests and for greater presence of women in the liturgy.  I believe only men are to be priests and I am obedient to the Pope.

Quote
There are many unbelievers who are being weekly "mixed" with the "multitudes" of believers in various congregations - including at Catholic congregations...many of them even who 'officiate over' their meetings (both so-called 'Pastors' and 'Priests' - even pedophiles galore and other deviants).

So while it is true that the 'net' is not spoken of by Paul, Peter or other apostles; that does not mean that Paul or Peter or the other apostles wouldn't be able to apply the commands of God to this new medium...such as the passages I cited.
Well no it cannot be applied and if Paul and Peter were alive today they would not do so either.

Paul was very specirfic that it applies only to the assembly at Church. That is all.  Nothing more, nothing less.  The internet does not even approach in any shape or form the Church as Paul and Peter knew it.
Quote
Now of course, this does not mean that woman are forbidden from any and all verbalizing of their thoughts or beliefs or even to guide others into truth. A good example in the narrative account of this is of course when both Priscilla and Aquila spoke to their new found friend and partner in the gospel: Apollos. "They" both "took him unto" them, and "expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly".
And that is what I have been doing. I have been expounding the Truth of God.

Quote
I only am trying to caution you to be careful not to violate scripture - even if you 'reject' 'ejected' as an unbeliever, there is protocol to follow, as I see it spelled out in the scriptures.
Since I have convincingly shown that I have not violated the scripture then nothing more needs to be said.

Quote
One word study worth anyone's time and energy:
"usurp" G831; αὐθεντέω; authenteō; ow-then-teh'-o: From a compound of G846 and ἕντης hentēs (obsolete; a worker); to act of oneself, that is, (figuratively) dominate: - usurp authority over.
Examine derivatives of this word.

God bless you Teresa.

Now, if I have presumed to tell the Bishop or the Pope and challenged their authority then that word study would apply.

Since the one I am challenging is a mere man with zilch authority from God, then the word is study is not necessary.

And the Grace and Peace of Our Lord be with you as well.

Teresa
« Last Edit: Sun Feb 12, 2012 - 07:32:38 by Teresa »

Offline Teresa

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 989
  • Manna: 12
Re: Jesus not allowed to be Head.
« Reply #50 on: Sun Feb 12, 2012 - 07:27:53 »
Please be careful with your own assumptions here Teresa.

I do not know if you are; but if you are married with children at home Teresa, may I ask you (you need not answer if you do not want to) how it appears to me at least, you seem to have so much spare time to devote to reading and then writing so much on this forum?
Can you tell me how this is relevant to what we are discussing?

Quote
I noticed you wrote your response after 3am last night...very early this morning. I know how long it takes me to write, it must take you some time as well - though I am certain you received a top notch education if you went to Catholic schools, and may be able to 'whip out' these posts in no time at all, like they were nothing, I don't know. But 3:30am (plus) is very late to be up, and all this writing can easily absorb a great deal of time - I am well aware of this. By the way, I was not being sarcastic about Catholic schools. I'm aware of the reputation of their schools being perhaps hard, or even retaining cruel and perverse educators at times; but they are also known to be fairly effective in training its students to excel. :-) 
Ever heard of different time zones?  What makes you think I am in your time zone?
You are of course assuming that we are in the same time zone.

Much of what I have learnt regarding the faith happened because someone questioned me about it some years back and I realized I could not answer this person with conviction. I was a faithful Catholic but did not know much about apologetics. So I read, and I read and I read some more. 

It was then that I realized what a wonderful, beautiful, robust, and intelligent faith we have.

My friends have clothes and shoes they have not yet worn, I have books that I have not yet read.
Quote
Please, do not misunderstand me, and I say this sincerely.
While I see you are very devote and a devoted adherent to your religion,*one who seems to be clearly and thoroughly convinced that all you've been taught 'it' (Catholicism) is, teaches about and represents is true, whatever be the subject matter (both spiritually and historically); I normally would not invest my time to try to speak to such who are, as I see it, so blindly devoted to things they have yet to truly vet (examine and test to the limits its claims) for themselves. Yet, having read some of your posts, I am moved to write to you, whether prompted by the Lord or of my own.
Let me explain from whom I learned most of what I have learned - from Protestants of differing denominations who - through their rigorous study and much prayer - have been led to the Church.

These people are not your run of the mill protestant who reads their Bible and maybe attend services and that is all.  These people are highly erudite - some with masters and doctorate degrees in theology.  These people were also very passionately anti-Catholic when they were Protestants. And there are many of them.  The first one I listened to was Scott Hahn and then others followed.  It was very edifying to hear their stories.  Some started off being atheists and "bums" and then they met Christ through the first denomination and their life was changed. And the story of that change was beautiful.  But then as they continued studying (which they needed to do to become Pastors and teachers of theology in their own denominations) they started to see these cracks in their theology which they never saw before. And this is the beginning of their search for the truth. Scott Hahn promised Jesus that he will study and follow the truth wherever it will lead him and it lead him to the Catholic Church.

To "cross the Tiber" was a painful decision for most of them to make - they are afterall leaving something that has nurtured them for most of their lives.  But to be faithful to the truth they had to make that decision.  Scott's decision to convert caused a lot of strain in their marriage until Kimberly too converted.  If you read their book "Rome Sweet Home" you will see how this decision was not taken lightly.  Both of them have done their masters in Theology at a Protestant College so these two are no stranger to the ins and outs of the protestant confession.

I have just finished reading the book "Seven Lies about Catholic History" and it is sad to know that Protestants (who were supposed to be Christians) manufactured those lies. I expected that sort of behaviour from atheists but those professing to be following Christ?

So, regarding your point about not believing the history as taught by the Catholic Church, I must say that it was distortion of history that we all have been taught for a very long time and these distortions were done by men who professed their faith in Christ. I wondered why they needed to lie. The devil is the father of lies and they all have participated in his work.

I do not know which denomination you are but I will post some links to some of the conversion stories that I have read so you can asses the arguments and the agonies that these people went through.  Becoming Catholic cost them their friends and their jobs.  Their Protestant friends dropped them like a hot potato once they became Catholics.  A Protestant couple who are friends of the Hahns even advised Kimberly to divorce Scott for having apostasized.

This is why I know so much about Protestant theology. These guys explained the theology they learned from their denominations.

Quote
But I want to say some things that I for some reason believe (or want to believe) you will not become offended at me when I say them.
 
That is to say, based upon what I have read you've written, and the attempts I sense you do make, to try to restrain yourself to be respectful of even those who you believe fail to represent the truth as you see it (flowing from Catholicism): In light of this, I don't expect you'll become offended by what I am saying...even if you think or might think I am saying this to demean or disrespect you - which I am not. I say this to your credit. I hope that I am perceiving you aright.

From my admittedly limited vantage point, it still appears to me that you have invested quite a bit of time and energy, not only writing all the posts you've written so far on this one web-site, but all the time its taken you to read all that you have on this forum.

But I am wondering if the focus of your time and energies would be better served, if directed towards and invested in those things which God calls you to as a woman, wife, mother and "keeper at home" to clearly be about the business of. Which would include getting plenty of sleep for you to be at your best to fulfill your actual responsibilities within your own life, and personal world of influence (family, friends, other women, and those you meet along the way). 
Yes, I have spent a fair bit of time in writing those posts but not quite as much as you may think because I type fast and I think fast. What takes longer though is the editing (which as you may have noticed I am rubbish at considering all the typos and missing words).  I read and re-read my posts but for some reason I still miss them.

Also, I am one of those who as Saint Paul has put it "one called to devote herself only to the Lord". I regard this as a kind of Apostolate to explain the teachings of the Church.  I believe as Cardinal Fulton Sheen has said that "There are not more than 100 people in the world who truly hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they perceive to be the Catholic Church."

Many people have the wrong perception about the Church and that includes even Catholics.  I think that in the case of the Church - to know her is to love her.

I was one of those who used to have a "Catholic Cringe". I would not speak up about my faith and I believed that religion should be a private matter.

It was actually a Baptist friend who changed that. I said to him that I am not into going into discussions about religion and that I just want to live my life in accord with God's will.  But then he quoted me Pauls words: "But how can they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how can they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone to preach?".  I think God sent this Baptist friend to tell me that so that I will not be silent anymore.

The most I can do is explain the truth. The rest is up to the Holy Spirit.

Quote
I quoted 1Corinthians 14 above. May I encourage you to read it in the version of the Holy Scriptures you prefer, and see what it says in that vein. Read also other like passages which speak to woman, wives and mothers (the Timothy passage cited above, plus Titus 2; 1 Peter 3:1-6 at least (etc).

I am not saying you have no business whatsoever to express your opinions to anyone here or other places. If I said that, I would have no business, doing so. I am encouraging you though to be discreet in your zeal to express your opinions in a way that may find you in violation of the teachings of the scriptures (and perhaps, even the teaching of your religious affiliation - Catholicism).

Sorry, need to go, out of time.

God bless you Teresa. 
You do not need to quote them to me as I am one of those very old fashioned women in terms of perspective. I believe in the headship of the man and I believe that it was Christ's prerogative who to call and He called only men.

As a matter of fact, I think I am a true feminist - one who upholds what is feminine rather than a masculinized female which is what most people mean by feminism. I believe that the mother's place is at home with her children until they are old enough for school.  I believe that home duties is of equal value as any job a woman can do outside the home.

However, I also think that God gave me the intellect to understand His Word and the teaching of His Church and I believe He wants me to use that gift for His Glory.


Peace and All Good

Teresa

Offline ejected

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 69
  • Manna: 5
Re: Jesus not allowed to be Head.
« Reply #51 on: Sun Feb 12, 2012 - 12:39:15 »
Teresa, I really need to put this to you again. Have you been saved by the blood of the lamb?

Offline Teresa

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 989
  • Manna: 12
Re: Jesus not allowed to be Head.
« Reply #52 on: Sun Feb 12, 2012 - 17:49:10 »
Teresa, I really need to put this to you again. Have you been saved by the blood of the lamb?
I am "being saved" by the Blood of the Lamb.

We are only 'saved" when we are in heaven.  At the moment we are "being saved'.

Peace and All Good

Teresa

Offline p.progress

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 227
  • Manna: 15
Re: Jesus not allowed to be Head.
« Reply #53 on: Sun Feb 12, 2012 - 20:41:06 »
Hope clear, cause I'll have no time for a while to edit it:


Hi 'ejected'.

Allow me to respond. By the way, I don't know how this reply will appear when posted; but I have modified the layout of your post and added semi-colons, bold, underline, (etc.) for my own use:

Quote
 Without going too deep: where it is
written in 1Cor.14:  
(34) Let your women
keep silence in the churches: for it is
not permitted unto them to speak; but
they are commanded to be under
obedience as also saith the law.


(35) And if they will learn any thing, let
them ask their husbands at home: for
it is a shame for women to speak in the
church.


(36) What? came the word of
God out from you? or came it unto you
only?



Quotation marks were unheard of at that time. Paul was quoting this church's misconception; [the church at Corinth], and then exclaimed: 'WHAT? Did the word come unto you MEN only?'

"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



I am fully aware this in all likelihood can be or is going to sound offensive to you - if you are like most. I understand why it could. I hope you won't be. But I am still going to address your post - you, this way: I am wondering a few things 'eject': I wonder how old are you. How long you've been a believer (Christian). How long you've been seriously studying the scriptures? And how long have you been exercised about the *deplorable state you consider professing Christendom is in - how, from your perspective and estimation, 'it' has been failing to follow what you referred to in your first post(s); and I think is capsulized (for me) in 1 Cor.14, v.26, 31:
"How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying."; "For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted."

Do you realize to me that does not necessarily exclude woman - meaning as far as I can gather this includes women as well? How else could they "prophesy" as you point out with your last scripture quote (joel 2.28-32); and cited by Peter in act. 2.28 as Joel's fulfillment; and witnessed in act.21.9 to be literal in nature?

Did you read where I said:
Quote
[31] "For ye may all [male and perhaps female] prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted."
[See post #31, pg.3]

It appears you think that I do not accept that the Lord permits women to 'prophesy'; when I have not said he has forbid or denied them to exercise this kind of gift. While I attempt to be cautious about claiming more than I can prove or have certain knowledge of; I am not about to deny something that I have some clarity, that it is scriptural fact: such as the fact that Joel foretold about women ("daughters" and "handmaids") prophesying; that Peter confirmed this occurred and why it did (citing Joel) and that the daughters of Philip, at least four, who "did prophesy". And so I understand that it is very possible, highly probable perhaps, that women were "permitted to speak in the church" - IN the context of speaking for exhortation sake, through the gift of prophesy; but NOT to enter into judgment when the prophets - and I take it, the other scripture savvy elder men, who through their wisdom provided godly guidance *among and on the behalf of their younger brethren = (*'episkopos'/'episkopeo'/'episkope') judged what was expressed by the "two or [at the most] three" other prophets which spoke.    



But I have to disagree with your interpretive view about what Paul was saying in 14:36. It does not say: "'WHAT? Did the word come unto you MEN only?'" Perhaps you were not being careful (I make these kinds of mistakes); and neglected to catch this: Instead of saying, "'WHAT? Did the word come unto you MEN only?'", better to have been clearer, by including the first part of that verse in your rendering, and said: "'WHAT? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you MEN only?" Because I misunderstood you to be corrupting that verse more than you actually did, by editing out the first part, where 'What' begins it (What? came the word of God out from you); then by inserting the word 'MEN' in your condensed version of the whole passage.

I realize that I 'added'/inserted additional words, terms and phrases into my rendering of verses 29-35, and that you may wish to point that fact out. But be aware, that I was very careful to note that these passages were my 'uninspired' 'rendering': ("The following is my own uninspired personal rendering of how I wonder if perhaps Paul intended his thoughts to be communicated in this section of 1Cor.14:29-38:"); and I both highlighted the actual passages in maroon; while I left in black-type my rendering and in addition, I enclosed my rendering in brackets '[]'. My rendering was my opinion, my studied opinion, but by no means conclusive. Just the best scenario I have come up with that I consider at present to make sense...draw out the sense (in my opinion) of some of the ambiguities I consider are native to the text.  

But if I understand you correctly, you claim that verses 34 and 35 merely represent some man-made erroneous teaching, Paul was determined to correct - and did so in verse 36. That women could do what: Prophesy: in spite of some alleged false teaching to contrary? Or in addition - That women could judge matters; and/or could function as leaders and teach in the Ekklesia?

So it sounds as if you are claiming that Paul was saying:

"It has been reported to me that there is a teaching circling around in your churches there in Corinth, that claims I and perhaps the other apostles of the Lord have said: 'Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church'. What?! I nor any other apostle has ever given any such commandment regarding women and sisters in the Lord! You ought to be clear about that error. Did the word of God originate from you and spread across the world? Or did it come to you only? If any man think he is a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I'm write to you are the commandments of the Lord. But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant - vainly thinking that women cannot prophesy and or judge the things expounded through prophesy; and/or become leaders among you."

If you are claiming Paul was refuting a so-called erroneous teaching he supposedly was exposing in verses 34 and 35, and in verse 36 corrected; I have to say you have for whatever reason arrive at an incorrect conclusion. So IF you hold to this notion, I encourage you: rethink it.  

I take it that the words Paul spoke in verses 34 and 35 were not him repeating some error that was being spread about in Corinth; which you seem to think and claim he set straight in verse 36.

No, the words in verse 34 and 35 were/are Paul's own words. His command (from the Lord) to women, to "keep silence" in the Ekklesia. Though it was a command, it was one with specific reference - NOT to forbid women from prophesying; BUT to keeping silent in regard to judging of what had been said by those who prophesied (v.29b).

It appears to me that women could 'speak' when it came to exercising the gift of prophesy. But they were to "keep silence" when the judging occurred. The men alone were permitted to do this. The meaning of "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak" refers to what was just spoken about by Paul (see vs.29-33a). She is not permitted to speak in reference to judging what had been said by both male and female prophets.

In this passage: "Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge"[v.27], I take the term "other" here to ONLY (exclusively) refer to MEN. Women can "speak" in, or to "prophesy"; but NOT "speak" to judge. This is my studied interpretive opinion, but not perhaps an infallible one. I do my best.

So in my opinion, IF you are are claiming about verses 34, 35 and 36, what I think you are, I encourage you to revisit and think - not only the conclusions you've come to; BUT seek why you think this view is even plausible.

Please, though, if you can provide more convincing proof, I am all ears, with a ready-mind set square between them.

In conclusion:
While I would agree that there are times that Paul or the Lord are correcting errors and popularized sayings. It is I think more or much more clearly identified (contest is king, in these cases). This section is not one of those.

Bless you 'eject'.


  






« Last Edit: Sun Feb 12, 2012 - 21:57:54 by p.progress »

Offline ejected

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 69
  • Manna: 5
Re: Jesus not allowed to be Head.
« Reply #54 on: Sun Feb 12, 2012 - 21:25:04 »
Progress, i think i failed to scour through all that has been written. Those verses bugged me for years until recently deducing that Paul was simply quoting the brethren. Think we're on the same page.

Offline ejected

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 69
  • Manna: 5
Re: Jesus not allowed to be Head.
« Reply #55 on: Sun Feb 12, 2012 - 21:32:32 »
Teresa, you are saying that you are NOT saved yet..correct? Read:, "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, in order that you may KNOW that you have eternal life" (1 John 5:13).
It doesn't read 'that you will one day have eternal life' but 'that you may know, here and now, that you have eternal life.'

Offline Teresa

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 989
  • Manna: 12
Re: Jesus not allowed to be Head.
« Reply #56 on: Sun Feb 12, 2012 - 23:35:05 »
Teresa, you are saying that you are NOT saved yet..correct? Read:, "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, in order that you may KNOW that you have eternal life" (1 John 5:13).
It doesn't read 'that you will one day have eternal life' but 'that you may know, here and now, that you have eternal life.'
Do you already have eternal life?

As far I can tell you are still conversing with me here on earth. Suppose it should happen that you should turn away from God commit all sorts of sins and evil things. Then you are hit by a bus. Do you think you still have eternal life?

Secondly, go to John 6.  You will see there the requirement for eternal life.

Peace and All Good

Teresa

Offline p.progress

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 227
  • Manna: 15
Re: Jesus not allowed to be Head.
« Reply #57 on: Mon Feb 13, 2012 - 01:32:23 »
Edited:

Progress, i think i failed to scour through all that has been written. Those verses bugged me for years until recently deducing that Paul was simply quoting the brethren. Think we're on the same page.

Ejected, Did you read the last post? I had to edit, re-edit and re-edit it. I finished about 11:00pm EST (I'm in sunny Florida).

Please tell me clearly that I misunderstood you about verses 34-36. Do you see that though I may sound as if I am not absolutely clear that women are able to prophesy, nevertheless, as I have written, it appears to me that they are; in view of the passages I added to the Joel passage you cited.

Again, I hope I do not offend you by what I said in that last post regarding my comments and questions as to your age, etc. I mean nothing unkind, disrespectful of you or your understanding. I just desire the facts, the truth...something that all who are sincere to a great enough degree are attempting to pursue.

I took the name Pilgrim Progress (p.progress), in honor of Bunyan's characters Christian, Faithful and Hopeful, who were pilgrims heading for the Celestial City. I too have been 'run through the mill' (so to speak) in the world of Professing Christendom - not only from Protestants, but from Catholics as well. Some of my first bad experiences were not from the (so-called) 'laity', but from the (so-called) 'clergy': Catholic 'leaders' of both Roman and Greek Orthodox persuasion. It was these initial negative and unpleasent experiences that caused me to dismiss the possibility that if there was a God (the kind of God, my vague comprehension of what I perceived these 'Christians' seemed to be following), he wasn't really knowable nor appealing...considering the way his 'representatives' reflected upon him.

I have a little time right now, I didn't think I'd have any, so here's a story from my life, to provide one example of a semi-Protestant causing me as an unbeliever, to avoid 'Christians'; and was used by Satan to deflect me away from seriously considering this Christian God (he claimed to be a follower of). I relate this experience:

I recall one Southern baptist 'preacher' (I was doing some work for), played the humble bit with me, saying how he was 'just an old simple country boy. He probably tried to 'witness' to me' - I can't recall a word of it though. Save, I do recall vividly how after he said something about Hell to me (in his 'humble' way), I remember saying to him in return - actually in a friendly non-condemning, sarcastic or retaliatory fashion (I still think was my attitude back then): "And I hope you don't go to Hell either if you died today." What a reaction though, wholly unexpected and disturbing. What he failed to perceive about me and the way I said this back to him, was I truly meant it. I wasn't aware at the time that he was trying to tell that I was 'going' there!

I was stunned at the reaction he had when I said that. I was merely saying that I wished him the same hope. Holding out the hope that he too would not go or end up there - if such a place existed (as I then in my ignorance and blindness thought). He took it though as an affront to himself and his religion it appears.

Though small and an out of shape middle aged man, and I in great shape and unknown to him, trained; he looked and acted as if he was about to try to assault me. I didn't understand why then. I was lost, blind, the Enemy had blinded my eyes and heart, so that I could not see "the glorious gospel" that his guy was in his religious way trying to witness to me about. His wife I think was perceptive of the real dynamics in play, and tried to clam her husband's emotions. I hope that fellow, realized after I left that he was manipulated by Satan, via his, lack of being sober and vigilant about his real motives and his weaknesses, which Satan used to throw me off track from being curious about Christ and 'Christianity'.

As I said, as a young man, I had experiences designed by the Enemy to try to keep me from the Light of Christ (which Christ IS).   

So instead of being drawn to Christ and the truth that is in Him, I went deep into Eastern philosophies, believing in a sort of Super Consciousness that 'we all' (I thought) originate from, and were on our journey back to 'it' - whether we knew it or not.

After some years, I came to the knowledge of the truth about the Creator God and his Son through a book in 1978. God used it to enlighten me of himself and his truth - a 'back door' method, that was not presented to me as 'Christian'; but was to the core. FULL of scripture, and laid out in a detailed way...like a 'manual' with a 'troubleshooting' guide, providing a Eternal and historical perspective to the Creation story, the Fall, the promise of a Redeemer, defining the true and the false, the genuine and the pretenders (among those who claim to be from God), etc...etc.

After absorbing the truth presented in the contents of this book, it was easy for me to release all the other opinions I had developed and held to as my philosophy of life. Because the testimonies of the scriptures resonated within my heart and mind; witnessing to my soul that this is the truth. The truth of scripture 'rang' true, and I judged it far superior to that of any and every other claim being made elsewhere regarding our existence and that of the existence of a Superior being.

In brief: I accepted Christ outside any Christian sect; I later became involved in Protestant sects of various flavors. I studied scripture, as a hunger was placed in me from the very start to do so. As I grew in both knowledge and study skills, this automatically put me at odds with a number of people and practices that were commonly being accepted as 'normal' for Christians. I thank the Lord for the negative experiences, because they provoked me to examine and even re-examine my presuppositions in every area eventually. It lead me out of the Evangelical professing world of Christendom.

Before this though, I was married, blessed with a wonderful (semi-ex-Catholic) wife; and eventual we had nine children: six living children and three miscarriages - two of them seemingly perfectly formed sons, I held in the right palm of my hand (Evolution ["science falsely so-called"]cannot even begin to scratch the surface of forming such wonders of God's nature, even a child of nine weeks old). We had all these children, seeing that we came to understand very early on to discover and then yield our wills to God's in this matter and...well, I'll quote what the Spirit of God spoke to my heart one day - and as clear as a man could, who was standing next to me. After a months worth of study in scripture on the subject of children, these words rose up, as if rising up and out of the dark murky waters of what I discovered to be  true Protestant *relativism [Teresa, will like this]. Standing out in bold BLACK & WHITE relief God's Voice gently but resoundingly said: "I am the LORD. I open the womb; I close the womb".

I had asked the opinions of men (my professing christian friends), what does God say if anything about avoiding having children. Our first child nearly died along with my wife, and was constantly crying (long story; sickness; lack of production of breast milk; etc.; and I needed real sleep because of a condition I had). After this, I was hard pressed to want to go through that again. So I asked everyone about what they thought I should do - assuming they being 'older' in the Lord, they'd know better than me. Yes very naive of me...I was in many areas. Two months into using all those methods to avoid the natural outcome of being 'one' with my wife; I somehow came to as myself: Why didn't I ask God himself "Oh. I should have had a V-8!" First things first: "Trust in the LORD with all thine heart...", "search the scriptures". It was after my diligent inquiry, the Lord spoke those words to me: "I am the LORD. I open the womb; I close the womb" From then on, not looking back, God blessed us; and we accepted however many or few he chose to bless us with.

I relate this story, cause it was one of the first memorial moments that I focused hard on seeking the will of God on such a day to day matter, that was so important; but which is very easy to think it is left to our own devises and will to choose. WE chose, when we become man and wife. That choice required we live in accordance to the will of God that he revealed in scripture, with regard to those he joins together as one in his sight. We are not our own. We are truly bought with a price. So to glorify God in our body as a husband and wife God joined together by him at our request. We are to fulfill his will he gave to those who become one, and that includes yielding him our bodies to create new life, which becomes an evident token of the reality that we are one flesh, representative of spiritual truths. Malachi asks why 'one'? Because God is seeking "a godly seed".

This experience, and the many others afterwards, that exposed to me the sad state of affairs that the professing Protestant-Evangelical world is in...they all caused me to both leave and at the same time in certain respects be driven from professing Christendom. I am not saying that I am better or above many of those who associate in these sects of Christendom. I just cannot function as I have come to understand I cannot restrain myself from functioning in such groups. There is too many and too much "leaven" that is not being addressed in these places - they embrace the 'leaven' as if it were normal fair and good. Such as the divorce and so-called 'remarriage' issue. As someone that both Teresa and I have come across, has put it: "A marriage is a marriage; and every marriage in a lawful marriage"; "divorce ends the marriage"; Jesus forbid a man or woman who only left or put away their, to marry another - because put away is not the same as divorce; but if they legally divorce them - even if they divorce their innocent spouse for wrong reasons, they are still free to marry another: cause, right or wrong, divorce ends the marriage." Such mumbo-jumbo is a very popular cool-aid mixer for a "majority" of believers and teachers as well...even as it was proudly claimed.    

I have learned a lot of things in my adventures in my pilgrimage, a degree of which I've had to unlearn. Hebrews 13:17 does not say nor teach, what it is being taught and used as a 'whip' for. And it is being used to do so not only in Protestant groups, nor just in Catholic groups, but in another sect of Christendom that few Protestants or Catholics know exist out there. But in virtually every sect of Christendom that I have been involved in and have some knowledge of. I have seen that there is at least one major common tread that runs through them all: the notion of Christ bestowing Divine authority upon men, to quote: "rule over" others (i.e their brethren), whether they be and expect or demand to be called (so-called) 'pastors' (with a capital 'P'); or Priests, or otherwise.

The notion that God commands believers to "obey" the alleged 'authority' that God (allegedly) granted leaders to 'exercise' 'over' their brethren, is at this point in my life and understanding of the scriptures, very, very repugnant, and grievous to my heart and mind, to think about. Let alone to hear about as I do from time to time. It is grievous to me, having seen and continue to see the 'evil fruit' from that corrupt tree. It is a teaching - a teaching that is a very effective process, with a staggering track record of being able to keep "the simple", simple; and produce by the scores apathetic "dull of hearing" grey-haired overripe "babes".

The oft quoted (parroted) passage in Hebrews 13:17: "Obey them that have the rule over you and submit yourselves..." [KJV]; and what it is being claimed to mean and require by those in leadership (- no surprise there of course) of the (so-called) 'laity', can so easily be refuted. But the most beautiful and enlightening aspect to this passage and what it points to, is the fact that there is 'authority' in the Ekklesia, just not what is so widely taught and so tenaciously defended.

The type of 'authority' it (Heb.13.17 and 7, as well as other passages on the subject) points to, is that which is forged in the life of a man, both through his own learning of obedience to the Word of God, and through the things he's suffered. Such men do not require pressure or tactics of the outward kind to establish (claim & defend) their 'authority'; they receive it, having earned it: "for he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes".

Late, got to go.

Just expressing myself a bit here 'ejected'.
« Last Edit: Mon Feb 13, 2012 - 11:39:14 by p.progress »

Offline p.progress

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 227
  • Manna: 15
Re: Jesus not allowed to be Head.
« Reply #58 on: Mon Feb 13, 2012 - 03:04:05 »
Hi Teresa.

I read your responses. Thank you.

You have some questions, I will answer - I hope I'll remember to answer them when I can. I'm not avoiding them, just know I'll need time and energy to do so.

I went to read Scott Hahn's story. Read some of it. Appreciated some things he related, others, require more reading.

I had though the same experience regarding the subject of abortion and contraceptives; but with respect to a very different group.

Years ago, in order to study J.W's, I picked up some of the little booklets they used to give or sell back in the sixties or so. I was examining them looking for signs of their particular errors. But what struck me was their stance on practical moral issues, such as abortion (and contraceptives, if I recall aright). It was weird having to give them credit for taking a stand about what the scriptures teach on this matter. They do have errors to be sure, but where even a 'cult' is declaring truth, they cannot be condemned for that in that area.

I came to the knowledge of the will of God in this area from personal study, in the face of the fact that no one else among all the other Christians I asked back in the early 80's ever gave me an answer from scripture; but gave me their world wisdom, served with heaping helpings of 'Christian' pragmatism. 'God gave us brains'; 'God expects you to act responsibly' - so thwart God's hand and will in this area? After I came to see by God's powerful and all sufficient Word, what he wills in this area, and effortlessly yielded to it (in spite of what this would in all likelihood mean)...along they came! After the first daughter, here came the first son, another son, and another; another girl. Then three heartaches - miscarriages: a son, another son, ...?.... - whether daughter or son, we could not tell this time). The last miscarriage was not easy, thought I'd loss my wife (blood, blood). Who would have known one could become so attached and emotional over the loss of such small 'things'. But, no they were not 'things', but human beings, made just as surely in the image of God as you or I. Then a break...

One day, months later or perhaps a year. While sitting around the table; I looked about it, looking and perhaps even counting the children, I said, "It feels that someone is missing." After I said that, my eldest daughter quickly blurted out, "I've been praying for a baby, I've been praying for a baby!" I quickly said, "You pray for God's will, not a baby." "Oh no, I'm praying for a baby! she answered.

I think it was two weeks later, and sitting around the table again about the same time in the early evening, my wife looking kind of off in the distance, said while biting her lip, "Boy, I sure could go for some roast beef (or corn beef)." We ALL KNEW what THAT meant! Seven or so months later, our third and final daughter (child) was born.

OM, and I was 'chiding' you for staying up late...and I'm on the East Coast [EST].

Just thought it might make me human to you to hear some of my story.

I'll try to answer you sometime next week, busy perhaps too busy to write for awhile (week).

Bless you Teresa.





    









  
« Last Edit: Mon Feb 13, 2012 - 10:10:52 by p.progress »

Offline Teresa

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 989
  • Manna: 12
Re: Jesus not allowed to be Head.
« Reply #59 on: Fri Feb 17, 2012 - 07:28:12 »
Hi Teresa.

I read your responses. Thank you.

You have some questions, I will answer - I hope I'll remember to answer them when I can. I'm not avoiding them, just know I'll need time and energy to do so.

I went to read Scott Hahn's story. Read some of it. Appreciated some things he related, others, require more reading.

I had though the same experience regarding the subject of abortion and contraceptives; but with respect to a very different group.

Years ago, in order to study J.W's, I picked up some of the little booklets they used to give or sell back in the sixties or so. I was examining them looking for signs of their particular errors. But what struck me was their stance on practical moral issues, such as abortion (and contraceptives, if I recall aright). It was weird having to give them credit for taking a stand about what the scriptures teach on this matter. They do have errors to be sure, but where even a 'cult' is declaring truth, they cannot be condemned for that in that area.

I came to the knowledge of the will of God in this area from personal study, in the face of the fact that no one else among all the other Christians I asked back in the early 80's ever gave me an answer from scripture; but gave me their world wisdom, served with heaping helpings of 'Christian' pragmatism. 'God gave us brains'; 'God expects you to act responsibly' - so thwart God's hand and will in this area? After I came to see by God's powerful and all sufficient Word, what he wills in this area, and effortlessly yielded to it (in spite of what this would in all likelihood mean)...along they came! After the first daughter, here came the first son, another son, and another; another girl. Then three heartaches - miscarriages: a son, another son, ...?.... - whether daughter or son, we could not tell this time). The last miscarriage was not easy, thought I'd loss my wife (blood, blood). Who would have known one could become so attached and emotional over the loss of such small 'things'. But, no they were not 'things', but human beings, made just as surely in the image of God as you or I. Then a break...

One day, months later or perhaps a year. While sitting around the table; I looked about it, looking and perhaps even counting the children, I said, "It feels that someone is missing." After I said that, my eldest daughter quickly blurted out, "I've been praying for a baby, I've been praying for a baby!" I quickly said, "You pray for God's will, not a baby." "Oh no, I'm praying for a baby! she answered.

I think it was two weeks later, and sitting around the table again about the same time in the early evening, my wife looking kind of off in the distance, said while biting her lip, "Boy, I sure could go for some roast beef (or corn beef)." We ALL KNEW what THAT meant! Seven or so months later, our third and final daughter (child) was born.

OM, and I was 'chiding' you for staying up late...and I'm on the East Coast [EST].

Just thought it might make me human to you to hear some of my story.

I'll try to answer you sometime next week, busy perhaps too busy to write for awhile (week).

Bless you Teresa.
  


Thank you very much for sharing that edifying story. May God bless you even more abundantly for your fidelity to His law.

The subject of contraception (which looms large at the moment because the proposed bill) it seems to me, to be the mark that the Catholic Church is indeed the Church that Christ established on earth.

When Pope Paul VI came up with the Encyclical Humanae Vitae (Of Human Life) - there was much uproar among Catholics who wanted to go the way of the Protestants. It was pilloried and ridiculed.  But the Pope and the Church stood their ground. When every other Christian denomination has succumbed to the dictates of the world, the Church stood all alone in upholding Christian Tradition - in upholding the Truth. And this is what Christ promised His Church after all, that she will be guided into truth and that the gates of hell will not prevail against her.

Now 44 years later, we see just how right Pope Paul VI has been about this.  Everything that he has said will happen - if contraception were allowed - has happened.

I post here a link to an article by Mary Eberstadt

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/07/002-the-vindication-of-ihumanae-vitaei-28

Peace and All Good

Teresa


Offline p.progress

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 227
  • Manna: 15
Re: Jesus not allowed to be Head.
« Reply #60 on: Fri Feb 17, 2012 - 08:48:19 »


Quote
Thank you very much for sharing that edifying story. May God bless you even more abundantly for your fidelity to His law.

And thank you.

But Teresa, do you understand...or I want you to understand further, that while it is certainly true that my enlightenment in this area did not come to pass through any Protestant teaching I 'received'; nor through any professing Protestant (those I knew at the time): it ALSO did NOT come from my own mother-in-law who WAS and STILL IS a loyal follower of - at least her form of - Catholicism.

When we had our first child, and she got big enough to go out to places with, say, her grandmother. There was no way I would let her. And why? Because she wanted to infect her with the worldly ways. She was the kind of Catholic (all that I ever met) who tried to wear the pants, rebelliously resisting her husband in many ways. I don't have time to relate stories about what she did to upset my wife (her daughter); and in my view would have liked nothing more than to turn her daughter (my wife) into the same kind of feminist Catholic that she was. I though was strong and wise enough even back then to avert that.

In concert with all this, my mother-in-law, after she heard we were going to have 'her' second grandchild (blessing): what was her response...NO, her reaction - one responds to truth in a thoughtful manner: when circumstances require of you to make a choice; when you are controlled by the flesh and worldly wisdom, and something in life comes up which you do not want to accept, or you are faced with a "hard saying", which requires you to make a decision to go one way (the right way, the straitened and narrow path) or another way (the wrong broad path): where you are in your heart and mind with respect to the truth of God, your love and fear of God and faith that One Day you will indeed either hear "Well done thy good and faithful servant..." or "Depart from me...": all these things will determine whether you respond to the truth rightly or react that same truth wrongly (ungodly and selfishly). But she reacted with what can only be thought of as a very self-centered, steeped in the world attitude and thinking.

For the next pregnancy, and the next, and if I recall, perhaps even the next; we did not tell her...it became manifestly apparent to her.

Now. I realize there are Catholics like yourself that hold to the teachings of your church. And in the case of 'birth control' and contraceptives (and other areas) you I am happy to say a hardy 'Amen' to you Teresa, and your church...just as I would say the same TO even JW's, or Mormons, or Protestants, or even Muslims...WHERE EACH OF THESE GROUPS HAPPEN TO BE IN HARMONY WITH THE TRUTH OF SCRIPTURE.

And I realize my mother-in-law was not following the Catholic way in theses things. By the way, she turned to a great degree in the right direction in certain areas and we are at peace now and have been for a long while.

What is sad and has been very, very grievous to and for me over these last 30 plus years, is that I am constantly bumping into both Catholics and Protestants that deny the truth in lifestyle and verbally in many areas of truth.

Have to go...not finished.













 


     














Offline Teresa

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 989
  • Manna: 12
Re: Jesus not allowed to be Head.
« Reply #61 on: Fri Feb 17, 2012 - 21:23:55 »


Quote
Thank you very much for sharing that edifying story. May God bless you even more abundantly for your fidelity to His law.

And thank you.

But Teresa, do you understand...or I want you to understand further, that while it is certainly true that my enlightenment in this area did not come to pass through any Protestant teaching I 'received'; nor through any professing Protestant (those I knew at the time): it ALSO did NOT come from my own mother-in-law who WAS and STILL IS a loyal follower of - at least her form of - Catholicism.

When we had our first child, and she got big enough to go out to places with, say, her grandmother. There was no way I would let her. And why? Because she wanted to infect her with the worldly ways. She was the kind of Catholic (all that I ever met) who tried to wear the pants, rebelliously resisting her husband in many ways. I don't have time to relate stories about what she did to upset my wife (her daughter); and in my view would have liked nothing more than to turn her daughter (my wife) into the same kind of feminist Catholic that she was. I though was strong and wise enough even back then to avert that.

In concert with all this, my mother-in-law, after she heard we were going to have 'her' second grandchild (blessing): what was her response...NO, her reaction - one responds to truth in a thoughtful manner: when circumstances require of you to make a choice; when you are controlled by the flesh and worldly wisdom, and something in life comes up which you do not want to accept, or you are faced with a "hard saying", which requires you to make a decision to go one way (the right way, the straitened and narrow path) or another way (the wrong broad path): where you are in your heart and mind with respect to the truth of God, your love and fear of God and faith that One Day you will indeed either hear "Well done thy good and faithful servant..." or "Depart from me...": all these things will determine whether you respond to the truth rightly or react that same truth wrongly (ungodly and selfishly). But she reacted with what can only be thought of as a very self-centered, steeped in the world attitude and thinking.

For the next pregnancy, and the next, and if I recall, perhaps even the next; we did not tell her...it became manifestly apparent to her.

Now. I realize there are Catholics like yourself that hold to the teachings of your church. And in the case of 'birth control' and contraceptives (and other areas) you I am happy to say a hardy 'Amen' to you Teresa, and your church...just as I would say the same TO even JW's, or Mormons, or Protestants, or even Muslims...WHERE EACH OF THESE GROUPS HAPPEN TO BE IN HARMONY WITH THE TRUTH OF SCRIPTURE.

And I realize my mother-in-law was not following the Catholic way in theses things. By the way, she turned to a great degree in the right direction in certain areas and we are at peace now and have been for a long while.

What is sad and has been very, very grievous to and for me over these last 30 plus years, is that I am constantly bumping into both Catholics and Protestants that deny the truth in lifestyle and verbally in many areas of truth.

Have to go...not finished.


The unfortunate thing about the last 40 years is that Catholics have bought into the Protestant way of thinking that the self-determines what is and is not in accord with scripture.

As such, we saw large scale eschewing of Christian teaching precisely because of this rule of the self.

In the article I gave a link to, there was a "Catholic" commentator who claims to be a faithful Catholic and yet picked and chose what doctrine of the Church he will believe.  Sadly, this "cafeteria Catholic" are the more vocal and and unfortunately sway many to their lies.

While it may not have been through a Catholic that you did not come to the conviction that abortion and contraception are moral evils, the fact remains that every single "Christian" denomination have caved in to the dictate of the world in this matter.

The issue of contraception - it seem - has become the litmus test as to which Church truly preaches the teaching of Christ and which ones don't.

Today, it is not just contraception that has become unfashionable among cafeteria Catholics.  Many have bought into Hindu and New Age beliefs and this is not limited to the laity.  The sad fact is that monks, priests and nuns are at the forefront of these terribly unChristian teachings and they have the audacity to call themselves Catholics.

In this instance, I have more in common with conservative Protestants who maintain that Jesus is Lord.

But here again, the issue boils down not to what each denomination teaches but what each person believes.

The Protestants may have this luxury of deciding for one's self what is and is not to be believed, but the Church of Christ does not, precisely because she is the Church of Christ and her teachings must be followed.  That there are rebellious and misguided Catholics is fact but it is also fact they do so in rebellion and not in obedience to Christ.  What these people believe do not constitute Catholic doctrine.

I quote here an exerpt from Mary Ebertadts's article which I gave a link to.

Of course, all that Paul VI did, as Anscombe among many other unapologetic Catholics then and since have pointed out, was reiterate what just about everyone in the history of Christendom had ever said on the subject. In asking Catholics to be more like contraceptive-accepting Protestants, critics have been forgetting what Christian theologians across centuries had to say about contraception until practically the day before yesterday.

It was, in a word, No. Exactly one hundred years ago, for example, the Lambeth Conference of 1908 affirmed its opposition to artificial contraception in words harsher than anything appearing in Humanae Vitae: “demoralizing to character and hostile to national welfare.

Offline p.progress

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 227
  • Manna: 15
Re: Jesus not allowed to be Head.
« Reply #62 on: Mon Feb 20, 2012 - 05:13:48 »

Quote
Today, it is not just contraception that has become unfashionable among cafeteria Catholics.  Many have bought into Hindu and New Age beliefs and this is not limited to the laity.  The sad fact is that monks, priests and nuns are at the forefront of these terribly un-Christian teachings and they have the audacity to call themselves Catholics.

Yes, it is a sad, and I would think for you even a sadder fact to acknowledge that “monks, priests and nuns are at the forefront of these terribly un-Christian teachings
« Last Edit: Mon Feb 20, 2012 - 05:56:21 by p.progress »

Offline p.progress

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 227
  • Manna: 15
Re: Jesus not allowed to be Head.
« Reply #63 on: Mon Feb 20, 2012 - 05:23:48 »

[continued from last post]

 
Quote
The Protestants may have this luxury of deciding for one's self what is and is not to be believed, but the Church of Christ does not, precisely because she is the Church of Christ and her teachings must be followed. 


Teresa. I believe in the authority that God possesses, and his Divine Right to set the "plumb-line" of truth - what is and is not acceptable to claim to be true and sound or believe. None of us have the right or ‘luxury’ to ’decide’ what is sound doctrine - that includes any and all men…not excluding mere men who, regardless how HIGHLY ESTEEMED they may be; and no matter how HIGH they are set up before others (’ordained‘), and no matter how much POMP and GLORY is displayed in doing so before men; and WHATEVER name or title MEN have conjured up to call them by: ONE THING is crystal clear to me: Christ had already established what is to be taught as truth. The letters of the apostles, the synoptic gospels and the other letters of the NT: whoever preserved copies of them and however they have over the centuries found their way into the hands of transcribers, translators, publishers and those who fearlessly distributed them to individuals here and there throughout the nations of Europe, Asia and eventually across the length and breadth of the earth, THEY are what I personally ESTEEM to be worthy of GLORIFICATION and faithful adherence to. Not the word of men; but the Word of God alone.

I cannot decide for myself what to believe anymore than you can. I though in contrast to you am persuaded that the choice for my beliefs has been previously set; but not in those which mere men claim to be authoritative (and have conjured up). Instead I find them set forth in the scriptures SOLEY. Yes, I must agree with the concept of “sola scriptura“ as I understand and define ‘it’ to mean.

Yet, I do not say that there is neither merit nor truthful statements and saying to be found in parts here and there in either the books of the Apocrypha (perhaps), or that of writers from the time of the early church (90-300AD or so). I DO know, or at least I have no reason so far to doubt that scripture is complete in and of itself:
 “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works

Offline Teresa

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 989
  • Manna: 12
Re: Jesus not allowed to be Head.
« Reply #64 on: Mon Feb 20, 2012 - 06:09:17 »

Quote
Today, it is not just contraception that has become unfashionable among cafeteria Catholics.  Many have bought into Hindu and New Age beliefs and this is not limited to the laity.  The sad fact is that monks, priests and nuns are at the forefront of these terribly un-Christian teachings and they have the audacity to call themselves Catholics.

<snip>

When I began to study scriptural subjects by examining the scriptures. I ended up either ‘tossing’ certain doctrines I had been wrongly taught 'out'; or else I ended up reaffirming other things I had been taught aright; or else I purged the erroneous notions out of the truth on an issue, subject or doctrine I had been taught a mixture of truth and error in; but I also ended up discovering other truths of scripture (God’s Word) I had not been taught or heard being articulated before in my (limited) experience among professing Christendom.

I believe that each saint is responsible to “make his calling and election sure

 

     
anything