What do you think qualifies one to be one of Christ's disciples?

[Wormwood]

Mat_11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

Yes to many smart people for Jesus, they have the bible dont need God.

Mat_16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

You have no authority, cepth that what people allow you to have over them

1Co_2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

Without revelation...you have nothing

1Co_1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

1Co_1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

Knowing the bible proves nothing cept taht you know teh bible.

mj, please stop. I dont know why you feel the continual need to belittle others and act as if they do not know God but are just into nominalism. You do not know me in any way, shape or form. Please stop acting as those you disagree with have no viable relationship with God. Please address the content of the comments, and stop making accusations against individuals and their character. This is a violation of the site policies that you agreed to keep. Thank you.

 

[Wormwood]

then see how limiting passages that reveal universal concepts to the definitions you have been given to understand about "church" or "believer" is a personal view. I agree with you, the Book will get you there, if/when you read It enough for yourself, and recognize that It is a Book of questions. Or else present a doctrine from the Book that you understand, and we can see whether it is universally understood or not. For i am confident that there is another valid pov that is equally derived from Scripture.

The above paragraph does not make any sense to me.

Of course you can trust that Christ's "For..." is truth, whereas mine is debatable, and i would say that all those years of Bible study did serve me, even though i was reading them blind at the time and can admit that now, because i have not forgotten them, now that Word has engendered a little hearing; even if i am no longer certain what a passage is referring to. I used to be sure of them all, myself. And now i am not. But i can find the "For" now, too, that i could not see when the passage had to mean what i thought it meant, and could not mean anything else.

So, it seems to me that you are saying the Bible confuses you, but you are now okay with that. Again, I dont think it is as difficult to understand as you indicate. I have no idea what the "For" references are about. This also makes no sense to me.

In sum, the Bible is inspired and written to reveal one's heart, and may quite easily be misunderstood, as those who would alter It to read "Easter" when the text translates to "Passover" might easily demonstrate. And you might reflect upon the fact that it is those who did the scribing that you rely upon for your understanding of the Book now. You are in a sense cemented into a frame, a pov, and have adopted premises that may or may not be true. So now you have a concept of treating a tax collector a certain way, that surely is not going to their house for dinner, see. The confusion or cognitive dissonance is not caused by the Book, but by the pov and premises from which It has been read.

Yes, it can be misunderstood for those who do not study it properly or rely on their own whims as their sole interpretive lens. The texts we have are reliable. The texts that make up the NA28 and other Greek and Hebrew compilations do not rely on any one scribe. They rely on thousands of ancient documents. If you are referring to the translations, I can read Koine Greek so I am not "relying" on that for my understanding either. So, I am not "cemented into a frame." I have spent the better part of two decades studying various pov's as it relates to the Bible, so your assumption that I am ignorant of any other pov than my own is more of a reflection of your own presuppositions rather than mine.

And these can change; this is what "change your mind" is referring to. Is it difficult? How difficult is it to see that "For wherever two or three are gathered" is the principle from which the preceding verses are derived? All depends upon how married one is to their premises. Having come to associate with a specific belief system--rather than "believes all things"--it is likely the most difficult thing you will ever do, because one will naturally go to their peers who hold the same pov with their questions, and it is well known that questions are not tolerated very well in...pretty much any belief system.

Look, if you think I am misinterpreting the "two or three" verses, then why dont you show me how I am misunderstanding them by referring to the text. Stop telling me I am cemented in a narrow pov and am unable to see the bigger picture when you arent giving me any rationale to see things a different way...other than to suggest I am ignorant. I have quoted the text at length and showed you from that passage as well as other NT passages how the texts refer to discipline and are related to legal proceedings in the OT law based on two or three witnesses. Your response has been simply to ramble on for long paragraphs about how I dont see the big picture but you provide no content. Say something of significance about the context or background of the passage and I will consider revising my position. Otherwise, it just comes across as rambling.

Your questions are going to precipitate a storm, and you are going to be at the center of it. You may have even witnessed this occurring before. Almost surely that person has now left your congregation, to be treated like a tax collector by your congregation now, i guess? But should you ever happen to have dinner with them, you might judge for yourself whether they have come closer to God, or gotten further away as you were told. Why do questions that earnestly seek truth--not asked from "why?"--cause this? Imo for the same reason that my last post is not being addressed--but that is just my opinion, and maybe there is some self serving stuff in there i don't recognize, and i am being called away so i can't concentrate anymore. Suffice it to say that it will not be God chastising you for asking questions to learn more about Him. But you are going to be driven away, i guess, so just get ready for that. Y'all have a good day.

Look, our job is not to pontificate about who is getting drawn closer under what circumstances or anything else. Our responsibility is to obey God's Word. If God's Word and Christ's command says that believers should distance themselves from those who refuse to be reasoned with so they can indulge in their own sinful and abusive behavior toward other believers, that is what we should do. I never said I cast anyone out of the church. I said this is what the passage is talking about. This is what Jesus said. To be very honest with you, I am not interested in your opinion, unless it is guided by the Scriptures. If you want to explain your opinion on the teaching of Scripture, I am fine with that. What I am not fine with, is finding rationale to disobey God because of personal opinions that are not based in what the Bible actually teaches. Show me how my beliefs are contrary to the teaching of the Bible and I will be happy to listen. But if you arent going to actually deal with the content or context of the Scriptures, again, it just sounds like a lot of hot air.

You have a good day as well :)

 

[mjrhealth]

mj, please stop. I dont know why you feel the continual need to belittle others and act as if they do not know God but are just into nominalism. You do not know me in any way, shape or form. Please stop acting as those you disagree with have no viable relationship with God.

Funny wormwood, thats all I get from you. Hoe have I belittled you, The problem you and so many religious peopel have, is that you cant accept that peopelk can actually have a relationship with Jesus without Church. Everyone wants to be a leader, everyone qwants to boast. I have nothing to boast of. Never being to bible college, never held a position in church, never went to uni, only did year 9 in highschool, gave up following man, couldnt stand teh lies and deceipt in the church. If peopel want church, the ycanb have it, if they want to follow men, theyu can do that, if they want Chirt they can have Him, they have to make the choice. Men or Jesus which is it to be. Only one leads to life and salvation and it not men and there churches. Are you willing to accept the responsibilty of souls that may be lost because you kept them from Him, we can only do but one thing, Theer is this man Jesu, in Him is your salvation, if you want to be savewd go to Him, That is the option no others.

 

[tabletalk]

mjrhealth said:

"If peopel want church, the ycanb have it, if they want to follow men, theyu can do that, if they want Chirt they can have Him, they have to make the choice. Men or Jesus which is it to be. Only one leads to life and salvation and it not men and there churches."

So, What do you think qualifies one to be one of Christ's disciples? You seem to say that there are only two choices: church (following men) or Jesus (leads to life). Do you really think a person who is a member of a local church is doomed to eternal destruction?

 

[bbyrd009]

then see how limiting passages that reveal universal concepts to the definitions you have been given to understand about "church" or "believer" is a personal view. I agree with you, the Book will get you there, if/when you read It enough for yourself, and recognize that It is a Book of questions. Or else present a doctrine from the Book that you understand, and we can see whether it is universally understood or not. For i am confident that there is another valid pov that is equally derived from Scripture.

The above paragraph does not make any sense to me.

you have a definition of "Church" and "believer" that you assume is universal, that is God's definition, too, when it likely is not. So you might be mentally insisting on your understanding of these definitions when reading Scripture (which is what makes it possible for a believer to be taking advantage of you, iow, when i would not count them a believer at all). But on the other hand you cannot present an inviolable doctrine from Scripture, that there is not a valid argument against. So we are encouraged to be sure--falsely--on the one hand, and are not sure at all on the other.

Have you ever said to someone of a third party, "Oh yes, they are saved; they are strong believers" or anything similar?

What led you to state this? How did they achieve this status in your opinion?

Back for the rest later.

 

[bbyrd009]

Of course you can trust that Christ's "For..." is truth, whereas mine is debatable, and i would say that all those years of Bible study did serve me, even though i was reading them blind at the time and can admit that now, because i have not forgotten them, now that Word has engendered a little hearing; even if i am no longer certain what a passage is referring to. I used to be sure of them all, myself. And now i am not. But i can find the "For" now, too, that i could not see when the passage had to mean what i thought it meant, and could not mean anything else.

So, it seems to me that you are saying the Bible confuses you, but you are now okay with that. Again, I dont think it is as difficult to understand as you indicate. I have no idea what the "For" references are about. This also makes no sense to me.

the passage was forwarded as being a reference to church admin, as having to be about church admin, and only church admin, when "For wherever 2 or 3 are gathered..." should plainly indicate that it is in fact the principle from which the "church admin" concept is derived, and not the other way around. If you don't think It is difficult to understand, then we can agree on this point, yes? If it is so easy, then surely you agree that there is no "hell" for people in the afterlife--or else i challenge you to show it to me. See, many people are absolutely convinced that Easter is in the Bible, and they believe that they can even show me the verse--but it is not in There, except where James scribed it up a little, and besides that it has no other witness anyway. King James did not write the Bible, and we have the original available to us.

So while i might no longer be absolutely sure at some passage, we have yet to see who it is that is confused, i guess.

 

[bbyrd009]

In sum, the Bible is inspired and written to reveal one's heart, and may quite easily be misunderstood, as those who would alter It to read "Easter" when the text translates to "Passover" might easily demonstrate. And you might reflect upon the fact that it is those who did the scribing that you rely upon for your understanding of the Book now. You are in a sense cemented into a frame, a pov, and have adopted premises that may or may not be true. So now you have a concept of treating a tax collector a certain way, that surely is not going to their house for dinner, see. The confusion or cognitive dissonance is not caused by the Book, but by the pov and premises from which It has been read.

Yes, it can be misunderstood for those who do not study it properly or rely on their own whims as their sole interpretive lens. The texts we have are reliable. The texts that make up the NA28 and other Greek and Hebrew compilations do not rely on any one scribe. They rely on thousands of ancient documents. If you are referring to the translations, I can read Koine Greek so I am not "relying" on that for my understanding either. So, I am not "cemented into a frame." I have spent the better part of two decades studying various pov's as it relates to the Bible, so your assumption that I am ignorant of any other pov than my own is more of a reflection of your own presuppositions rather than mine.

possibly, but you have not described how you might treat this tax collector yet, see, so i am just going off of your previous declarations. Why do you avoid the post that asks for a description of this treatment? :)
i suggest that it is because it will put you at odds with your stated purposes elsewhere, just like the description of the "saved" person that i likely am not going to get. We get led into a belief by someone we trust, and then we refuse to consider any other information that challenges that belief, because we are convinced that we have found truth, when likely what we have found is something that makes us comfortable, that we do not want challenged. So describe for me this treatment of the tax collector that you teach, and we will see.

 

[bbyrd009]

And these can change; this is what "change your mind" is referring to. Is it difficult? How difficult is it to see that "For wherever two or three are gathered" is the principle from which the preceding verses are derived? All depends upon how married one is to their premises. Having come to associate with a specific belief system--rather than "believes all things"--it is likely the most difficult thing you will ever do, because one will naturally go to their peers who hold the same pov with their questions, and it is well known that questions are not tolerated very well in...pretty much any belief system.

Look, if you think I am misinterpreting the "two or three" verses, then why dont you show me how I am misunderstanding them by referring to the text. Stop telling me I am cemented in a narrow pov and am unable to see the bigger picture when you arent giving me any rationale to see things a different way...other than to suggest I am ignorant. I have quoted the text at length and showed you from that passage as well as other NT passages how the texts refer to discipline and are related to legal proceedings in the OT law based on two or three witnesses. Your response has been simply to ramble on for long paragraphs about how I dont see the big picture but you provide no content. Say something of significance about the context or background of the passage and I will consider revising my position. Otherwise, it just comes across as rambling.

oh, well, i'm def rambling there, just speaking generally, but i note that the "For" that you did not understand a minute ago is plainly on display here, when i was sure that it had been mentioned enough at this point that simply referring to it as "For" would suffice, yet apparently it did not. So maybe wadr you should stop trying to show me, and acknowledge my response, which is that the passage does not mean what you are insisting that it must and can only mean at all, because beginning the verse with "For..." even though it is at the end of a passage that mentions church admin, requires that it be the overarching principle from which the church admin is derived.

Now rather than acknowledge this, you can accuse me of being unclear or rambling if you like, but that will not change the fact that the verse "For wherever 2 or 3 are gathered in My Name, there I am also" is meant to be understood as the principle from which the preceding "church admin" doctrine is developed, and not the other way around. If the verse depended upon the development of the doctrine, and thus was meant to be for church admin only, the verse would not have begun with "For," but rather "In this manner..." or even "So..." or "Because of this..."

 

[bbyrd009]

Look, our job is not to pontificate about who is getting drawn closer under what circumstances or anything else. Our responsibility is to obey God's Word. If God's Word and Christ's command says that believers should distance themselves from those who refuse to be reasoned with so they can indulge in their own sinful and abusive behavior toward other believers, that is what we should do. I never said I cast anyone out of the church. I said this is what the passage is talking about. This is what Jesus said.

yes, that is what "Jesus" said alright, and then He went and ate dinner with tax collectors, specifically. How do you reconcile this conundrum?

 

[bbyrd009]

What I am not fine with, is finding rationale to disobey God because of personal opinions that are not based in what the Bible actually teaches. Show me how my beliefs are contrary to the teaching of the Bible and I will be happy to listen. But if you arent going to actually deal with the content or context of the Scriptures, again, it just sounds like a lot of hot air.

well of course if you hold that you will someday be in heaven, after you die, and that Jesus might come down on a White Horse to Take You Away From All This, then of course i will be perceived as trying to encourage you to disobey God, although exactly how i am not sure. I am suggesting that God has a will for us, that heaven will come to earth, and that Christians have a perception of eternal life after they die, if they can but attain it, and the two concepts are not compatible.

You do not know where you are going when you die. You do not know who is saved or lost. Yes, you might be fooled into believing you do, by some interpretation of the Book, from someone drunk on tares, but that is just the blind leading the blind, and it is made obvious when other passages are considered, or in this case cannot be considered, actually, without upsetting the apple cart of fragile beliefs, that cannot be questioned. Faith in the possibility of attaining heaven after you die is no faith at all; it is a selfish attempt to justify one's own Godhood, when considered in the light of God's will, which is "on earth as it is in heaven."

 

[bbyrd009]

And if your eye causes your downfall, gouge it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell,

here i have just grabbed a random verse that might suggest to someone that there is a hell after you die, that you need to fear. But--aside from the fact that "hell" here is actually "Gehenna" mistranslated, as can be seen in the real Bible, when you look http://biblehub.com/lexicon/mark/9-47.htm, wherein we are told that it is "symbolic," and not to be taken literally--even staying with the "hell" analogy, notice how you are prone to supposing that this "hell" you might be "thrown" into is assumed to be after you die--when the passage does not say this at all.

It does not say "...It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell when you die." There is no reason that the verse cannot be understood to say that "it is better to enter the kingdom of God right now by any means that you can, rather than avoid those means to sit on a fence and thus be thrown into Gehenna, right now" except one's presuppositions on the matter, and the inspired wording of Scripture that makes it possible for one to come to their own conclusions, which i'm pretty sure that a human could not hardly even come up with. Of course then other Scripture will not make any sense, just like Christ eating with the very people that He also suggested be treated...in what way?

See, the way, the treatment, is left open for you to imagine, that your heart may be revealed. You can say that you know it is a passage about shunning, requiring judgement of another on your part, but then you are left scrambling at how to justify that int he face of turning the other cheek, or heaping burning coals on their heads, or eating dinner with them, as Christ did. And i don't mean to imply that there are not cases in which excommunicating someone is not the best alternative either, ok--there are tax collectors, and then there are tax collectors--but i do suggest that the model is usually strained from all credibility, and made to be self-serving, if you are not careful.

After all, i am convinced that this "treatment"--if i could only get a description of it--would not be what Christ would do.

 

[bbyrd009]

A friend and I were riding through a rough area. Within 2 blocks we past 4 Christian churches. Now I just read a chapter in 1 Corinthians that followers of Jesus are one body. If I went to each of these churches with this scriptural message and ask then to meet together as 1 in just one building what would their answer be? I believe their answer would reflect the unity of the community they serve. Just my thought.











LikeAngry










Commenthttps://www.facebook.com/#
Sharehttps://www.facebook.com/#















4You and 3 others





Comments












Yvette Ha! They may be about their differences and be like gangs.

:)
you just cannot make up affirmations like this

 

[Wormwood]

Funny wormwood, thats all I get from you. Hoe have I belittled you, The problem you and so many religious peopel have, is that you cant accept that peopelk can actually have a relationship with Jesus without Church. Everyone wants to be a leader, everyone qwants to boast. I have nothing to boast of. Never being to bible college, never held a position in church, never went to uni, only did year 9 in highschool, gave up following man, couldnt stand teh lies and deceipt in the church. If peopel want church, the ycanb have it, if they want to follow men, theyu can do that, if they want Chirt they can have Him, they have to make the choice. Men or Jesus which is it to be. Only one leads to life and salvation and it not men and there churches. Are you willing to accept the responsibilty of souls that may be lost because you kept them from Him, we can only do but one thing, Theer is this man Jesu, in Him is your salvation, if you want to be savewd go to Him, That is the option no others.

mj, you said,

Why dont you like people learning from Jesus by teh Holy spirit, is it too, because you hold position in church and love having "rule" over people??

This is just an example of the type of nasty rhetoric you continually use to belittle others and attack their character and motives rather than dealing with theological topics and doctrines. Your responses seem to always and only be focused on your accusation that those you disagree with follow men and not God and have evil motives to lead others astray while you alone know God. This is not discussing content but attacking people's character and faith. This is not allowed and is a violation of the board rules YOU agreed to adhere to while commenting on this site, such as...

• Do not attack another member's character in any way. Address the post content, not the member's character, family, denominational affiliation or any other subject that may be perceived as a personal attack by the Christianity Board team and is not germane to the topic or post at hand.
• Do not state or imply that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christians. If there is an issue where a member seems to have circumvented the basic tenants of the faith in order to join the community, please privately contact the Christianity Board Team to voice your concern.

Furthermore, you know nothing about me. You are assuming 1) I am a leader of a local church and 2) that I "rule" over others in a church setting. Then, you claim, based on your own imaginary assumptions, that I hold such a position and "rule" over people in order to cause people to look to me rather than Jesus.

This is incorrect, insulting and uncalled for. I have put up with a lot of this nonsense from you for quite some time, but it is getting old and you are continually goading people on this site with this kind of rhetoric. I have tried to be patient and dont like to use the "moderator" hat because I prefer to discuss ideas freely rather than restrict people's ability to comment. However, this needs to stop. Please respect the rules of this site and other people you are engaging with in conversation. Talk about why you disagree with their views all you like, but the personal slander needs to stop. I know you are a person of your word, so please keep your word and follow the site rules you agreed to keep. Thank you.

 

[Wormwood]

then see how limiting passages that reveal universal concepts to the definitions you have been given to understand about "church" or "believer" is a personal view. I agree with you, the Book will get you there, if/when you read It enough for yourself, and recognize that It is a Book of questions. Or else present a doctrine from the Book that you understand, and we can see whether it is universally understood or not. For i am confident that there is another valid pov that is equally derived from Scripture.

bbyrd, Why dont we actually address one of these "definitions" you feel leads me to a particular slant that may or may not be accurate. This kind of comment reminds me of the individual who makes comments like, "We all know the Bible is full of errors." Well, we dont "all know" that. So rather than assuming your position is correct, why dont we deal with a specific example of what you mean to see if your baseline assumptions that you build these premises on are true. Personally, I dont think terms like "church" or "believer" are nebulous concepts.

Also, I would make one other request. Please limit your comments to a few paragraphs. I am really working to scale back my comments to make this manageable, but when you make 6-7 multiple page responses, it just becomes impossible to process or respond to everything. I'd rather stick to a few topics and probe them deeply than touch on dozens of ideas that we can never really address properly. Ok?

Let me just make a couple more comments so as not to ignore your responses or the time you took to make them...

Have you ever said to someone of a third party, "Oh yes, they are saved; they are strong believers" or anything similar?

What led you to state this? How did they achieve this status in your opinion?

In the Greek, "belief" comes from the word "pistis" which means believe, trust, or faith. I think the Bible is pretty clear that a "believer" or a "faithful" person who joins the ranks of other faithful people because they believe the testimony of the Apostles that we now have recorded in the New Testament. Paul specifically refers to "believers" as those who accept the Gospel he preached. Paul summarizes this message for us in 1 Cor. 15:

“For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. Whether, then, it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.” (1 Corinthians 15:3–11, NIV84)

So, it seems simple to me. A "believer" is someone who really believes and responds to the testimony of the New Testament where as the "apistis" or faithless are those who reject that testimony. I agree there are some who are hypocrites, but it is not my job to try to look into a person's heart to see if their faith is genuine or not. Either way, I dont think it impacts the basic concept of what constitutes a "believer."

the passage was forwarded as being a reference to church admin, as having to be about church admin, and only church admin, when "For wherever 2 or 3 are gathered..." should plainly indicate that it is in fact the principle from which the "church admin" concept is derived, and not the other way around. If you don't think It is difficult to understand, then we can agree on this point, yes? If it is so easy, then surely you agree that there is no "hell" for people in the afterlife--or else i challenge you to show it to me. See, many people are absolutely convinced that Easter is in the Bible, and they believe that they can even show me the verse--but it is not in There, except where James scribed it up a little, and besides that it has no other witness anyway. King James did not write the Bible, and we have the original available to us.

Man, I am really having trouble following you. Maybe its me. I don't recall arguing that "church admin" created the "two or three" concept. Of course the concept is derived from the Scripture and not the other way around. And what does this have to do with the Scripture's teaching on hell? Again, we need to pick a topic here. I'd be happy to explain to you the NT teaching on eternal punishment as I see it...if you like. However, this is a very in-depth topic and we need to find something to focus on. I dont want to try writing 40 pages a day to respond to all these concepts, and I doubt you would read it all if I did. Ha.

Oh, and we do not have the "original" available to us. We have early copies of Greek manuscripts...much earlier than the materials used to translate the King James Version. However, the KJV is still a very good translation which just goes to show how consistent the various manuscripts we have throughout the centuries are.

possibly, but you have not described how you might treat this tax collector yet, see, so i am just going off of your previous declarations. Why do you avoid the post that asks for a description of this treatment? :)

I apologize. I am not trying to "ignore" anything. Its just a lot of information and I am trying to slim things down and just hit the wave tops. To answer your question briefly, Jesus is teaching using a figure of speech here. Tax collectors were not treated as part of the Jewish community for a host of reasons that I will not get into right now. Jesus is just basically saying that they should treat an unrepentant disciple who mistreats and misleads others in the same way the Jewish community treats tax collectors. You are reading way too much into this simple point. It would be like me saying, "guard her like she was the Queen of Egypt." The point is simple, treat her very well and keep her safe. Picking the statement apart and saying, "Well, as Christians, we shouldn't favor one nationality over another or view royalty as greater value than a peasant." I just think you are unnecessarily complicating a very simple statement that has a very simple point. I think your interpretation of the Bible sufferers from "paralysis by analysis." I think it is often just best to take the message at face value without dissecting it for hidden or complicated meanings.

"For..." even though it is at the end of a passage that mentions church admin, requires that it be the overarching principle from which the church admin is derived.

I really think you are misunderstanding the use of "gar" in the Greek language.

γάρ gár; a causative particle standing always after one or more words in a clause and expressing the reason for what has been before, affirmed or implied. For, in the sense of because, and so forth.
Spiros Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament (Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2000).

In other words, the reason you should treat a person like a pagan or tax collector who refuses to respond to the rebuke of two or three witnesses and the church body is "because" where two or three are gathered, Christ is with them. Remember, the "two or three" concept is a quote from a legal passage in Deuteronomy lthat was used to establish the validity of a witness. The entire context is based in how to treat someone who is accused of sinning against a brother. I mean, by your rationale, the guilty person can just go grab two or three of his pals and say, "Well, now I have two or three with me, so now Jesus is on MY side!" Clearly, I dont think Jesus is teaching that he sides with the majority. Moreover, I dont need another believer to be near me for God to show up.

Anyway, its late and I have written far too much already. Let me encourage you to just pick one topic and lets focus on it....whether it be Matt 18, the topic of hell, the definition of "believer" or the "saved," or whatever else you feel is most important. have a blessed day.

 

[mjrhealth]

So, What do you think qualifies one to be one of Christ's disciples? You seem to say that there are only two choices: church (following men) or Jesus (leads to life). Do you really think a person who is a member of a local church is doomed to eternal destruction?

Wel . make a list. One with how many times Jesus tells anyone to go to church, and teh second with how mnay times Jesus calls people to Himself.

Than go read about teh wheat and the tares, how Jesus tells the workers to leave them together till harvest than the tares will be removed and burnt. Do you really believe that everyone in church is a christian because they tell you. You really have no clue about the devils tricks. We actuallly in one church I was in, had 4 witches come and Join us. My dad told me that my sister used to run a home group, in the middle of one of the sessions, one of the ladies got up, said im a witch and need to go pray agaisnt the christians. There is a reason why Jesus says we need eyes to see and ears to hear. When you take everything for granted its easy to be caught in teh trap.

I did miss a bit.

Coverings.

When you come to Christ as a brand new fresh Christian, you are under Jesus and His covering. The moment you walk in to a church and sign your name over to it, you come under teh covering of that chruch, Its pastor now becomes the head and you must now abide by its doctrines, you are no longer under teh covering of Christ and have now put men between you and Him.

Thats why it says

Isa_30:1 Woe to the rebellious children, saith the LORD, that take counsel, but not of me; and that cover with a covering, but not of my spirit, that they may add sin to sin:

and

Mat 15:7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
Mat 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
Mat 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

AAs I said, its Him or men. You choose.

 

[tabletalk]

mjrhealth said: "Wel . make a list. One with how many times Jesus tells anyone to go to church, and teh second with how mnay times Jesus calls people to Himself.

Than go read about teh wheat and the tares, how Jesus tells the workers to leave them together till harvest than the tares will be removed and burnt. Do you really believe that everyone in church is a christian because they tell you. You really have no clue about the devils tricks. We actuallly in one church I was in, had 4 witches come and Join us. My dad told me that my sister used to run a home group, in the middle of one of the sessions, one of the ladies got up, said im a witch and need to go pray agaisnt the christians. There is a reason why Jesus says we need eyes to see and ears to hear. When you take everything for granted its easy to be caught in teh trap."



First list: Zero. I don't think Jesus told anyone to go to church. But, there were no churches yet.

Second list: A bunch of times. Believers (saints, Christians, born-again people) are the Body of Christ (the church) and Jesus is the head of the Body (the church). So, Jesus calls people to himself, yes.


No, I don't "really believe that everyone in church (the physical church) is a christian because they tell you". But, I don't have to be able to discern someone's heart, like trying to know if mjrhealth is a Christian.

How do you know I "have no clue to the devils tricks" ? Because I go to a Christian church?

 

[mjrhealth]

Because I go to a Christian church?

One day you will see and you wil be surprised.

 

[tabletalk]

One day you will see and you wil be surprised.

Maybe so, but I don't desire to see what you have seen. You did say you've been to heaven, and you met Jesus. I have no desire to do those things in this life.

My wife suggested I quote this Bible verse from John 3:13 "13 No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is,the Son of Man who is in heaven."

Would that verse lead you to doubt your trip to heaven? I don't want that type of experience.

Thanks for responding to my rambling thoughts!

 

[bbyrd009]

A "believer" is someone who really believes and responds to the testimony of the New Testament where as the "apistis" or faithless are those who reject that testimony. I agree there are some who are hypocrites, but it is not my job to try to look into a person's heart to see if their faith is genuine or not. Either way, I dont think it impacts the basic concept of what constitutes a "believer."

the point being here that we imagine we can read Paul and then define who the faithful are based not upon their fruit, but their beliefs, assuming we are applying the same standards that Paul did. This believer "responds to the testimony" in a manner acceptable to us--the Second Son, iow--and we have a checklist of works that one must do to be considered a "believer," thinking that the NT is being faithfully followed. And the First Son, who does not appropriately respond to the testimony in our opinion, is judged to not be a believer.

So faith is turned into beliefs, and we accept verbal indications of beliefs as faith, and disregard the fruit;
"i was saved in such-and-such church on such-and-such date, and i got baptized on this date, and "spoke in tongues" on this date. I am therefore now saved."

and your belief that you are saved might be quite strong, but this does not speak to your faith. You might believe in the Rapture, but that does not mean it will happen. You might be convinced of hell for humans after death; but you cannot prove that it exists or will exist, as you understand it. Paul was talking to people who had sold out and dropped their nets; it is dangerous imo to believe that we can confidently assume the same. We can't even agree on what "Gospel" means, usually.

 

[bbyrd009]

Man, I am really having trouble following you. Maybe its me. I don't recall arguing that "church admin" created the "two or three" concept. Of course the concept is derived from the Scripture and not the other way around.

well, they are both Scripture, but you have made the "For" verse dependent upon church admin, when you say "that is about this; that means this" when it is merely that church admin--once you have correctly defined "Church" anyway--is one practical application of the verse, that it derives from. Iow "For" is not about church admin; church admin is about "For."