Headship, Submission and Women in Ministry

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
The Barrd said:
You went to these 3 eminent evangelical commentators.

I went to the Scriptures and found several occasions where Paul went to the synagogue, and one where he met with some women by the river, on the Sabbath.

You showed me one...count them, 1...example of Paul at a dinner on the night before he is to leave, and speaking on past midnight.

I'm not asking you to read and listen to my views, Oz. If I did that, I'd be as bad as all of these people who insist that I put down my Bible, and listen to their views...which, of course, is never going to happen. Ever.

No, Oz...I'm asking you to believe what the scriptures are plainly telling us. Paul worshiped on the Sabbath, just as he had done all of his life....just as Jesus had taught His Apostles to do, and sent them unto all nations to teach others to do.

Now, of course, you can choose not to believe these scriptures...that is up to you. I know that the popular thing is to try to fit the scriptures into the Sunday "sabbath"...but the reality that we all know, but don't talk about, is that it was the RCC that actually changed the day that God had set aside and sanctified to another day. It wasn't the apostles.

Something I've never heard anyone address in these debates...
The Jews at the time only had the one day off. Not like in our time, when we have the whole weekend off and can choose what we will do on Saturday and on Sunday. For those ancient people, the first day of the week was a work day. They weren't getting the day off to do whatever they wanted. And it wasn't an eight hour workday, either...try 12 hours, at least. They would have come wearily home, tired to the bone...
And remember, there were no modern conveniences. Everything had to be done by hand.
Everything.
Think of it...every drop of water the household used had to be carried in from the closest well...which could be as much as five or six miles away. Every. Single. Drop. That alone would be a full day's work for most of us in our time.

Now, when did they have time, during this regular workday, to be having a worship service?
Come to think about it, after putting in a full day of work...and I do mean work...where did they have the energy to have a worship service? They were doing well, I'd say, to find the energy to eat and tumble into bed...
The Barrd,

None of the Scriptures you provided gave evidence that 'I'm asking you to believe what the scriptures are plainly telling us. Paul worshiped on the Sabbath, just as he had done all of his life'. No Scripture you quoted states that Paul worshipped on the Sabbath.

But Acts 20:7 states what happened when he gathered with believers on the first day of the week. They were breaking bread, i.e. engaging in the celebration of the Eucharist.

I agree with your appeal to 'believe what the Scriptures are plainly telling us'. The plain meaning of Acts 20:7 (NIV) is: 'On the first day of the week we came together to break bread'. Bible study indicates that this is the first mention in the NT of the Christians gathering for the Eucharist on Sunday, the first day of the week.

I'm fully supportive of accepting the plain reading of the text in Acts 20:7. You don't want to accept his.

By the way, you don't want to accept the teaching of 3 leading evangelical commentators of the NT, who are God's gift as Bible teachers. What is the purpose of Bible teachers? 'So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, 12 to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up' (Eph 4:11-12 NIV).

Lenski, Kistemaker and Bruce are among God's gifts of being Bible teachers to equip God's people for works of service and so edify (build up) the body of Christ. But you want to throw these Bible teachings out because they disagree with your view. I thank God for evangelical teachers with a high view of Scripture who are prepared to equip me for ministry and build up the body of believers.

Oz
 

Barrd

His Humble Servant
Jul 27, 2015
2,992
54
0
73
...following a Jewish carpenter...
OzSpen said:
The Barrd,

None of the Scriptures you provided gave evidence that 'I'm asking you to believe what the scriptures are plainly telling us. Paul worshiped on the Sabbath, just as he had done all of his life'. No Scripture you quoted states that Paul worshipped on the Sabbath.
Act 13:13 Now when Paul and his company loosed from Paphos, they came to Perga in Pamphylia: and John departing from them returned to Jerusalem.
Act 13:14 But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down.

Paul is here, as you surmised, to preach the gospel.

Act 13:42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.

Of course, if Paul were going to have a worship service the next day, he could have invited these guys to come to that, and he could preach to them then. But that isn't what he told them.

Act 13:43 Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.
Act 13:44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.

But things did not go as planned.

Act 13:46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.
Act 13:47 For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.
Act 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
Act 13:49 And the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region.

So the story does have a happy ending...well, sort of. And it does show the Apostle doing his preaching and teaching on the Sabbath.

ct 16:11 Therefore loosing from Troas, we came with a straight course to Samothracia, and the next day to Neapolis;
Act 16:12 And from thence to Philippi, which is the chief city of that part of Macedonia, and a colony: and we were in that city abiding certain days.
Act 16:13 And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither.

Act 18:1 After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth;
Act 18:2 And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and came unto them.
Act 18:3 And because he was of the same craft, he abode with them, and wrought: for by their occupation they were tentmakers.
Act 18:4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.
Act 18:5 And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ.
Act 18:6 And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles.
Act 18:7 And he departed thence, and entered into a certain man's house, named Justus, one that worshipped God, whose house joined hard to the synagogue.
Act 18:8 And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.
Act 18:9 Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a vision, Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace:
Act 18:10 For I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee: for I have much people in this city.
Act 18:11 And he continued there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.

Every Sabbath for a year and six months! And you don't see a pattern here?


But Acts 20:7 states what happened when he gathered with believers on the first day of the week. They were breaking bread, i.e. engaging in the celebration of the Eucharist.
Act 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
Act 20:8 And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together.
Act 20:9 And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep: and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead.
Act 20:10 And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him.
Act 20:11 When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.
Act 20:12 And they brought the young man alive, and were not a little comforted.

Where does it say anything about this being the Eucharist?
If this were the Eucharist, why didn't Paul partake of it until after the incident with Eutychus? Was that customary?


I agree with your appeal to 'believe what the Scriptures are plainly telling us'. The plain meaning of Acts 20:7 (NIV) is: 'On the first day of the week we came together to break bread'. Bible study indicates that this is the first mention in the NT of the Christians gathering for the Eucharist on Sunday, the first day of the week.
Even if this was a Eucharist, which is not clear from the passage at all, why didn't Paul partake of it with the rest of the congregation? From a plain reading of the text, this was evidently an evening service, and there were lights in the upper room (hint: they didn't have electricity, so this took a bit of preparation). Was that normal? And, as we've already discussed, it continued on till the wee hours of the morning. I'm fairly sure this was not a normal weekly meeting.
It seems obvious that this was a banquet in Paul's honor. I do not see how it could have been anything else. If this is "Christians gathering for the Eucharist on Sunday", all I can say is that they had some very strange ways.


I'm fully supportive of accepting the plain reading of the text in Acts 20:7. You don't want to accept his.
You've done a bit of embroidery on the original text. Quite frankly, it sounds more like a wild party than a church service, to me.
But hey...maybe that's how they do things in other parts of the world. Does this sound like the average Sunday evening service where you are?


By the way, you don't want to accept the teaching of 3 leading evangelical commentators of the NT, who are God's gift as Bible teachers. What is the purpose of Bible teachers? 'So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, 12 to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up' (Eph 4:11-12 NIV).
You do know that there are several warnings about false teachers, yes?

2Co 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
2Co 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
2Co 11:15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

Now, how do we tell the difference between a teacher given to us by the Lord Himself, and a false teacher?
Well, one way might be to check and see if what they are teaching lines up with what Christ taught. In this case, a resounding "NO" sounds in my ears...

Lenski, Kistemaker and Bruce are among God's gifts of being Bible teachers to equip God's people for works of service and so edify (build up) the body of Christ. But you want to throw these Bible teachings out because they disagree with your view. I thank God for evangelical teachers with a high view of Scripture who are prepared to equip me for ministry and build up the body of believers.
Why should I believe these three guys, when they seek to change the plain teaching of the Bible? It is as I have been saying...Jesus kept the Sabbath, and taught His Apostles to do the same. When He left, He left them with instructions to go unto all nations, "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world."
Now, why do you think these guys would suddenly start a new tradition, instead of observing the Sabbath as Christ had done, and taught them also to do? Frankly, I don't believe they would, or did.
And it's going to take a lot more than the description of one wild party to convince me.


Oz
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
The Barrd said:
Perhaps, WW, but I doubt it, because the Apostles had been worshiping on the Sabbath all of their lives. Why would they suddenly change the day...and to a workday? It doesn't make any sense that they would do that.
The Barrd,

This may seem radical to you, but there is a MIGHTY BIG REASON why the Apostles would change worhipping from the Saturday Sabbath to Sunday, the first day of the week (Acts 20:7), the Lord's Day.

One event in human history changed this. According to the Gospels, Jesus was raised from the dead on "the first day of the week" ( Matt 28:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1), that is, Sunday.

Resurrection day was the first day of the week, Sunday, a mighty good day to change from Sabbath keeping to first day of the week, Lord's Day, worshipping.

Oz
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
The Barrd said:
Act 13:13 Now when Paul and his company loosed from Paphos, they came to Perga in Pamphylia: and John departing from them returned to Jerusalem.
Act 13:14 But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down.

Paul is here, as you surmised, to preach the gospel.

Act 13:42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.

Of course, if Paul were going to have a worship service the next day, he could have invited these guys to come to that, and he could preach to them then. But that isn't what he told them.

Act 13:43 Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.
Act 13:44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.

But things did not go as planned.

Act 13:46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.
Act 13:47 For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.
Act 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
Act 13:49 And the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region.

So the story does have a happy ending...well, sort of. And it does show the Apostle doing his preaching and teaching on the Sabbath.

ct 16:11 Therefore loosing from Troas, we came with a straight course to Samothracia, and the next day to Neapolis;
Act 16:12 And from thence to Philippi, which is the chief city of that part of Macedonia, and a colony: and we were in that city abiding certain days.
Act 16:13 And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither.

Act 18:1 After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth;
Act 18:2 And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and came unto them.
Act 18:3 And because he was of the same craft, he abode with them, and wrought: for by their occupation they were tentmakers.
Act 18:4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.
Act 18:5 And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ.
Act 18:6 And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles.
Act 18:7 And he departed thence, and entered into a certain man's house, named Justus, one that worshipped God, whose house joined hard to the synagogue.
Act 18:8 And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.
Act 18:9 Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a vision, Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace:
Act 18:10 For I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee: for I have much people in this city.
Act 18:11 And he continued there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.

Every Sabbath for a year and six months! And you don't see a pattern here?


Act 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
Act 20:8 And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together.
Act 20:9 And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep: and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead.
Act 20:10 And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him.
Act 20:11 When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.
Act 20:12 And they brought the young man alive, and were not a little comforted.

Where does it say anything about this being the Eucharist?
If this were the Eucharist, why didn't Paul partake of it until after the incident with Eutychus? Was that customary?


Even if this was a Eucharist, which is not clear from the passage at all, why didn't Paul partake of it with the rest of the congregation? From a plain reading of the text, this was evidently an evening service, and there were lights in the upper room (hint: they didn't have electricity, so this took a bit of preparation). Was that normal? And, as we've already discussed, it continued on till the wee hours of the morning. I'm fairly sure this was not a normal weekly meeting.
It seems obvious that this was a banquet in Paul's honor. I do not see how it could have been anything else. If this is "Christians gathering for the Eucharist on Sunday", all I can say is that they had some very strange ways.


You've done a bit of embroidery on the original text. Quite frankly, it sounds more like a wild party than a church service, to me.
But hey...maybe that's how they do things in other parts of the world. Does this sound like the average Sunday evening service where you are?


You do know that there are several warnings about false teachers, yes?

2Co 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
2Co 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
2Co 11:15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

Now, how do we tell the difference between a teacher given to us by the Lord Himself, and a false teacher?
Well, one way might be to check and see if what they are teaching lines up with what Christ taught. In this case, a resounding "NO" sounds in my ears...

Why should I believe these three guys, when they seek to change the plain teaching of the Bible? It is as I have been saying...Jesus kept the Sabbath, and taught His Apostles to do the same. When He left, He left them with instructions to go unto all nations, "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world."
Now, why do you think these guys would suddenly start a new tradition, instead of observing the Sabbath as Christ had done, and taught them also to do? Frankly, I don't believe they would, or did.
And it's going to take a lot more than the description of one wild party to convince me.


Oz
It's impossible for me to have a rational conversation with you when you engage in these kinds of logical fallacies and misrepresentations of what I wrote and what the Bible teaches.

Bye, Bye :wub:
 

Barrd

His Humble Servant
Jul 27, 2015
2,992
54
0
73
...following a Jewish carpenter...
OzSpen said:
It's impossible for me to have a rational conversation with you when you engage in these kinds of logical fallacies and misrepresentations of what I wrote and what the Bible teaches.

Bye, Bye :wub:
Ahh, well...I needed to get to bed early tonight anyhow. I'm getting too old for these midnight debates...
G'night, Oz! :wub:
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
The Barrd said:
Jesus kept the Sabbath, and taught His Apostles to do the same. When He left, He left them with instructions to go unto all nations, "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world."
Now, why do you think these guys would suddenly start a new tradition, instead of observing the Sabbath as Christ had done, and taught them also to do? Frankly, I don't believe they would, or did.
And it's going to take a lot more than the description of one wild party to convince me.
Actually did not always, and you conveniently leave out Mark 2:23-27
Maybe you can show us where Jesus told the Apostles to keep the Sabbath, EXACTLY as you just worded it?
As far as convincing you, I've already told you this is NOT the IMF.
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
The Barrd said:
My old Gran' taught me long ago...an opinion is only worth as much as the person who holds it.

Let's just say that, given some of the things we disagree on, your opinion has no value to me whatsoever.

For you to actually hurt my feelings, Stan, I'd have to actually care what you think.
The Barrd,

I consider that is a very unkind way to approach your brother in Christ, Stan. How does it meet the standard that Jesus asked his disciples to pursue?
Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these” (Mark 12:30-31 NIV).
Are you loving Stan as you love yourself with your kind of no care statement? I think not. Does that not bother you?

We have this teaching endorsed in 1 John 4:21 (NLT): 'And he has given us this command: Those who love God must also love their fellow believers'. Caring what a Christian thinks with whom we are engaged in conversation online should surely fall under the command to love other Christians as we love God.

Is your statement, 'For you to actually hurt my feelings, Stan, I'd have to actually care what you think', what you would say to Stan if he were speaking with you face to face among a group of believers? I hope that is not how you would express your care to Stan in person. Don't you care about your relationship with him? I do. If I didn't, I wouldn't be writing like this to you.

To be honest, I'm very concerned when you treat a brother in Christ like this.

Oz
 
  • Like
Reactions: StanJ

Barrd

His Humble Servant
Jul 27, 2015
2,992
54
0
73
...following a Jewish carpenter...
OzSpen said:
The Barrd,

I consider that is a very unkind way to approach your brother in Christ, Stan. How does it meet the standard that Jesus asked his disciples to pursue?

Are you loving Stan as you love yourself with your kind of no care statement? I think not. Does that not bother you?

We have this teaching endorsed in 1 John 4:21 (NLT): 'And he has given us this command: Those who love God must also love their fellow believers'. Caring what a Christian thinks with whom we are engaged in conversation online should surely fall under the command to love other Christians as we love God.

Is your statement, 'For you to actually hurt my feelings, Stan, I'd have to actually care what you think', what you would say to Stan if he were speaking with you face to face among a group of believers? I hope that is not how you would express your care to Stan in person. Don't you care about your relationship with him? I do. If I didn't, I wouldn't be writing like this to you.

To be honest, I'm very concerned when you treat a brother in Christ like this.

Oz
You do know that there is history here, I think, Oz. This has been going on for some time. At one time, I thought Stan and I were friends, in spite of our differences. Stan has set me straight on that on more than one occasion. He has told me in no uncertain terms that I am not to refer to him as my brother, or my friend...in fact, I am not to use any terms in reference to him that might indicate any kind of friendly relations...and I have complied with his request.

I've been a Mom for 45 years...I tend to call people "Hun" or "Sweetie". In face to face encounters, nobody has ever objected to me calling them "Hun". Nor have I ever had anyone object in any online experience I've ever had...except for on this board. I tend to be an affectionate person...in person, I hug people. it's a part of who I am. I never thought it was a bad thing...but evidently, it is, at least, around here.

I promise you, if we were face to face in a group, and he were to continue to insult me the way he tends to do, constantly making his little digs, I wouldn't be talking to him at all. He'd be talking to the men in my group, and the conversation would not be comfortable.

This has been going on for awhile, Oz, and after a couple of months of this, no, I do not care what he thinks. He's made it quite clear that he's not terribly concerned, either about my feelings, or about what I think of him, and frankly, I'm getting a bit tired of his oh-so-superior attitude. I've even tried putting him on my ignore list, thinking he'd get tired of harrassing me and go find another hobby, but it did not work. Everywhere I go there are these little "view it anyway"...and every time I do, it is another of his little digs. I don't respond to half of them. But even I have my limits.

Your concerned when I treat a "brother in Christ" like this? But I'm not supposed to refer to Stan as my "brother in Christ", by his orders. You don't seem to be overly concerned with the way he treats a "sister in Christ"...or don't I qualify for this title? You called me out in a public forum, so in a public forum, I'm asking you...do you hold everyone up to the standards you want to set for me?
Do you hold yourself to those same standards, Oz?
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
The Barrd said:
You do know that there is history here, I think, Oz. This has been going on for some time. At one time, I thought Stan and I were friends, in spite of our differences. Stan has set me straight on that on more than one occasion. He has told me in no uncertain terms that I am not to refer to him as my brother, or my friend...in fact, I am not to use any terms in reference to him that might indicate any kind of friendly relations...and I have complied with his request.

I've been a Mom for 45 years...I tend to call people "Hun" or "Sweetie". In face to face encounters, nobody has ever objected to me calling them "Hun". Nor have I ever had anyone object in any online experience I've ever had...except for on this board. I tend to be an affectionate person...in person, I hug people. it's a part of who I am. I never thought it was a bad thing...but evidently, it is, at least, around here.

I promise you, if we were face to face in a group, and he were to continue to insult me the way he tends to do, constantly making his little digs, I wouldn't be talking to him at all. He'd be talking to the men in my group, and the conversation would not be comfortable.

This has been going on for awhile, Oz, and after a couple of months of this, no, I do not care what he thinks. He's made it quite clear that he's not terribly concerned, either about my feelings, or about what I think of him, and frankly, I'm getting a bit tired of his oh-so-superior attitude. I've even tried putting him on my ignore list, thinking he'd get tired of harrassing me and go find another hobby, but it did not work. Everywhere I go there are these little "view it anyway"...and every time I do, it is another of his little digs. I don't respond to half of them. But even I have my limits.

Your concerned when I treat a "brother in Christ" like this? But I'm not supposed to refer to Stan as my "brother in Christ", by his orders. You don't seem to be overly concerned with the way he treats a "sister in Christ"...or don't I qualify for this title? You called me out in a public forum, so in a public forum, I'm asking you...do you hold everyone up to the standards you want to set for me?
Do you hold yourself to those same standards, Oz?
The Barrd,

I have not been reading your encounters with Stan so I'm unaware of the dimensions you mention. Would you please refer me to one of them and I'll address that matter with him as I want to treat both of you fairly?

However, this doesn't address the issue I raised with you of treating Stan as your neighbour and loving him as your neighbour as you love yourself. Please, please don't give him tit for tat.

I understand if he doesn't prefer being called Hun or Sweetie, just as I cringe when I go through the supermarket checkout and one of the chicks calls me Darl or Sweetie. That's something that my wife and I call each other. However, if you want to call me Hun or Sweetie in this Christian conversation, that's fine by me. But I'm not of the view you should do that indiscriminately to any brother in Christ.

You are my sister in Christ and I love in in Jesus' name, even though I've never seen you in person and never will. Even though I extend Christian love to you, that does not prevent either of us from being Bereans (Acts 17:11) with each other when it comes to correct doctrine. You should have noticed that while I have deep respect for you as a caring person, that does not prevent my engaging with you on doctrine with which I disagree.

Yes, you have a history of engagement with Stan and he has told you the boundaries for conversation with him. I trust that you will abide by them.

Your Brissy mate from Down Under,
Oz
 

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
More likely, they were getting paid by the day. Paul wants them to put back a bit of their first day's wages. Again, there is no hint that this is referring to a meeting...you'd have to "exegete" that into the text...which is, I understand, poor "hermaneutics"....
Well, I think it is unlikely that Paul just picked a day at random, especially the first day of the week where they would likely need those wages after a day many of them didnt work. Also, just FYI, "exegete" means "to draw out" or "to lead out." The prefix means "out." Eisegete has the prefix eis- which means "into." I think that is the word you are looking for. Like I said, your view is possible. I am not trying to be dogmatic about it. I think it could be seen both ways, and dont think a definitive case can be made that the NT teaches Sunday worship for Christians. However, I do find it more than coincidental given the texts we have that something as significant as the "Sabbath" as the day for meeting in the synagogue would be changed so quickly after the Apostles death to some of the earliest literature we have that says that Sunday worship was a practice for all the churches. Especially the Didache which was likely written within a decade or two after Paul's death (and John would have likely still been alive).

So, the time frame is much less than 200 years. If much of the NT is written between the 50s - 90s AD and we have the Didache (likely 80-120ish) which clearly proclaims that Christians were to gather on Sunday...and early church Fathers writing around 200 who declare this is the practice of all the churches, then we have at least some (if not all) Christians meeting on Sunday in the first century and all Christians meeting on Sunday by the end of the second century. Changing something like a day of worship...especially the Sabbath...for believers scattered across half the world without social media, etc. is not small thing. To think this just evolved without any instruction from core church leaders or even the Apostles within a few decades over the known world seems highly unlikely to me. I think it is more likely that these references by Paul and John indicate that this was already the practice and something they practiced very early on. I think it is likely that people like Paul took Saturday to go to the synagogue to try to evangelize the Jews and then used Sunday as a time to gather the local church for teaching and encouragement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StanJ

Barrd

His Humble Servant
Jul 27, 2015
2,992
54
0
73
...following a Jewish carpenter...
OzSpen said:
The Barrd,

I have not been reading your encounters with Stan so I'm unaware of the dimensions you mention. Would you please refer me to one of them and I'll address that matter with him as I want to treat both of you fairly?

However, this doesn't address the issue I raised with you of treating Stan as your neighbour and loving him as your neighbour as you love yourself. Please, please don't give him tit for tat.

I understand if he doesn't prefer being called Hun or Sweetie, just as I cringe when I go through the supermarket checkout and one of the chicks calls me Darl or Sweetie. That's something that my wife and I call each other. However, if you want to call me Hun or Sweetie in this Christian conversation, that's fine by me. But I'm not of the view you should do that indiscriminately to any brother in Christ.

You are my sister in Christ and I love in in Jesus' name, even though I've never seen you in person and never will. Even though I extend Christian love to you, that does not prevent either of us from being Bereans (Acts 17:11) with each other when it comes to correct doctrine. You should have noticed that while I have deep respect for you as a caring person, that does not prevent my engaging with you on doctrine with which I disagree.

Yes, you have a history of engagement with Stan and he has told you the boundaries for conversation with him. I trust that you will abide by them.

Your Brissy mate from Down Under,
Oz
It wasn't that long ago that you sent me a message about "Stan's obnoxious behavior". Or had you forgotten?

It's one thing for friends to engage in dialogue on points of doctrine on which they disagree.
You respect me, and I also have a deep respect for you...but that doesn't mean that we are always going to agree on every point. And that's fine. As long as we don't resort to ad hominem attacks.

As far as me referring to him as "Hun" or "Sweetie" or any other term that might indicate affection, or even friendship...that is one thing he will never have to worry about again.
We are definitely not friends...
 

Wormwood

Chaps
Apr 9, 2013
2,346
332
83
47
California
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I dont even know what the S_D_ reference means. Maybe we could insert our own words "Serious Debater" or "Sincerely Determined." :) To the pure all things are pure...right? :popcorn:
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
The Barrd said:
I guarantee you this much...he was not calling me a "Sweet Darling"...
That is right, and because of the ToS here, I had to BLANK it. You like playing the weak feminine card when it suits you, but you are very adept at the digs Barrd, and most see that despite your protestations to the contrary. The FACT IS, you instigated all the digs, and I warned you early on you would reap what you were sowing. I only regret that you have caused the tone in the threads you are in, to degenerate into name calling, and not just with me.
IMO, it is totally self serving to portray the innocent at this point. Even calling your home group Love Inc., the name of a real organization that actually works with churches across the states to help feed and clothe the poor. My concious is clear and if I do break the rukes, I trust the mods will rebuke and warn me in the way they should. I'm not oerfect, but in 2 tears I've only had 2 warnings, one a year, which doesn't seem that bad to me. Then again, I submit to authority over me, something you take great pains to NOT DO!
 
Jan 11, 2016
97
6
0
StanJ said:
That is right, and because of the ToS here, I had to BLANK it. You like playing the weak feminine card when it suits you, but you are very adept at the digs Barrd, and most see that despite your protestations to the contrary. The FACT IS, you instigated all the digs, and I warned you early on you would reap what you were sowing. I only regret that you have caused the tone in the threads you are in, to degenerate into name calling, and not just with me.
IMO, it is totally self serving to portray the innocent at this point. Even calling your home group Love Inc., the name of a real organization that actually works with churches across the states to help feed and clothe the poor. My concious is clear and if I do break the rukes, I trust the mods will rebuke and warn me in the way they should. I'm not oerfect, but in 2 tears I've only had 2 warnings, one a year, which doesn't seem that bad to me. Then again, I submit to authority over me, something you take great pains to NOT DO!
Did you demand that said warnings were given only in the color black? :lol:

OK, all kidding aside, Barrd seems like a pleasant person well aware of her faults. We all have them.
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Veni_Creator_Spiritus said:
Did you demand that said warnings were given only in the color black? :lol:

OK, all kidding aside, Barrd seems like a pleasant person well aware of her faults. We all have them.
NOT funny, and she IS aware, she just doesn't think they are faults.