Ms.Honey
New Member
It means original poster and original post.What does OP mean? I always thought it mean original poster...but I am guessing it must mean something else??
It means original poster and original post.What does OP mean? I always thought it mean original poster...but I am guessing it must mean something else??
actually mshoney I'm not mistaken or incorrect on church attendance. That was Paul's stance/opinion/belief/teaching. Not a direct commandment from god.
As for the other post Jesus was a teacher not a congregant as demonstrated by the scriptures quoted and was there to teach not worship. Even with the various passages I've heard quoted or taught on over the years, I have seen nothing in the bible that explicitly instructs believers to attend collective, corporate worship services specifically every sunday. Paul's letters were addressed to specific churches not individual believers or the corporate body of christ.
This topic falls under debatable matters.
My comment included all those words to cover all that I wanted it to, I should have been clearer. It is correct that he did write what his opinion was that one time. What I said is not in anyway shape or form heresy. When you study it out he is not even an apostle by one standard and then by another standard he is. He is attributed as such by the men who translated and cannonized the bible and those men also decided what would be included or omitted. They decided that Paul did not have to meet the standard of apostleship like the 12 did because Judas was "fired" which left a vacant position on the staff. Saul's experience on the road w/ Jesus is considered by these scholars to be equal to Jesus hand picking His diciples while He was alive.
I've said it before I'll say it again, I trust god enough to ensure that everything believers need to function is included in the bible as it currently is. Additionally, if for no other reason (but there are more), that one opinion of Paul's negates the bible as the inerrant word.
What I do know is Pastor Cherry I & II both teach that we must read the bible with the mind to know who wrote what, to whom it was written to and for what purpose.
Let's read the scripture again:
Why would He do something consistently/mandatory yet claim it as being an option? The Lord Jesus Christ is VERY CONSISTENT.
again let me say: he went there to teach not worship as a paritioner. He made that very clear when he was a child and stayed behind He knew who He was and his purpose and he had to have the tools he needed to do his job.
Aditionally a custom is just that a custom not an edict that we must obey. Back then people had to go to synagogue to hear the word. There was no bible for the people. Women even had a different place there than the men did.
After Jesus destroyed the separation between the people and God that assembly is no longer a requirement.
The passage that says how will they learn w/o a teacher? Jesus is the Teacher. We get faith by hearing God's word. Well many churches teach that a believer reading the word for themselves or even speaking aloud the word is the same. My pastors included.
They also drilled it in our heads that believers do not need religious leades b/c we have the same bible, the same Holy Spirit and access to God though our Advocate Jesus. They also teach that believers should congregate together and fellowship and hear the word taught but they never said it was a sin or heresy to disagree with collective corporate sunday or mid week worship.
sorry, still not wrong. I never denied Paul's "authority" in fact Jesus gave all believers ther same authority and even moreso than the deciples. I presented information that is accurate that Paul's authority has been questioned because he is not one of the original 12 & that man decided the criteria of what is included in or omitted from the bible. I also said that Paul's one opinion is not God's word.
Just because some believers refuse to question what is fed to them and the hands that feed it does not make my statements untrue or heretical.
The Holy Spirit that is in me and my speaking in tongues is enough for God to correct me where I am wrong. So far He has not. So far He said trust Him not what I see. So I again repeat regardless of Paul's authority or apostleship I choose to trust God that the bible as it is has what I need to be a successful believer.
My questioning Paul's authority is not wrong and this is not the dark ages where we have heretics. I am not spreading untruth. I stated that Paul may or may not be a true apostle depending on which criteria one uses to decide (criteria created by men). I never said that Paul was not an apostle nor did I say that I do not believe that he is one. The only authority is God's not Paul's.
There were three main criteria used in canonization:
website
* Apostlitic authority - that the authors were eyewitnesses to the fact, or else were followers of the apostles.
* Conformity - that the document was consistent with the church's practices and traditions. For example, this is why the Gospel of Thomas is rejected.
* Finally, general acceptance and usage of the church. Not only should the document be written by an authentic source and teach the correct teachings, it should be generally accepted that it was the divine word of God.
"Canon" is derived front the Greek word "Kanon," signifying a measuring rod. Thus, to have the Bible "canonized" meant that it had been measured by the standard or test of divine inspiration and authority. It became the collection of books or writings accepted by the apostles and leadership of the early Christian church as a basis for Christian belief. It is the standard by which all Christians throughout the ages live and worship.
website
The Bible was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit by over 40 different authors...
dual authorship of God's word--the Holy Spirit was a co-author with the human writer.
Inspired is translated from the Greek word theopnuestos which literally means "God-breathed." Some have said the word could be translated "ex-spired" or "breathed out." Inspiration, then, in the biblical sense is the means by which the writers accurately wrote what God wanted written.
A working definition of inspiration. Theologian Carl F. H. Henry writes, "Inspiration is a supernatural influence upon the divinely chosen prophets and apostles whereby the Spirit of God assures the truth and trustworthiness of their oral and written proclamation."{1} Furthermore, the writers were "divinely superintended by the Holy Spirit in the choice of words they used."{2} Although some things were dictated to the writers, most of the time the Spirit simply superintended the writing so that the writer, using his own words, wrote what the Spirit wanted.
Technically, there is a fine distinction between the two words infallible and inerrant, but they both imply the same thing. The term infallible has traditionally meant that something cannot error (we will also use it this way). To say that something is inerrant is to say that it does not error. If something is infallible (i.e., it cannot error), then it is certainly inerrant as well (i.e., it does not error). Both convey the point that the Bible never affirms anything that is false.