Jezebel -- why we should know who she is.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So then, Jesus answer to her did not address her question?



The believers met in the upper room, they met in the wilderness, they met on a boat, they met in the home of a ruler, they met in a field of wheat, they met in the streets of the city, they met on the outskirts of the city, they met in a prison, they met in a courtroom, they met on an island they had been banished to, they met on the beach, they met on the mountain top, a park bench, and yes, the Lord also met with a man who was up a tree. Have you even read the NT?



Common sense tells us that not every meeting is a wedding or a funeral. Where you meet will be dictated by how many people and what you plan to do. Two hundred people at a wedding or a funeral will need a different place to meet than three college students, or evangelists, or prisoners.

We can meet anywhere, in the Recovery we have met in many different places, in a shopping mall, in homes, in a park, but we cannot hold the Lord's table just anywhere. Jesus and the disciples prepared a specific place for that.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We can meet anywhere, in the Recovery we have met in many different places, in a shopping mall, in homes, in a park, but we cannot hold the Lord's table just anywhere. Jesus and the disciples prepared a specific place for that.

Then, based on your interpretation the account in the gospels is prescriptive. Going into the town nearby, following a man carrying water and finding an upper room is somehow prescriptive.

So then, can you elaborate? Did the apostle's pick up on this in the epistles to make this a doctrine related to how we meet? Or do we have to infer this great truth from this figurative language and story?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Then, based on your interpretation the account in the gospels is prescriptive. Going into the town nearby, following a man carrying water and finding an upper room is somehow prescriptive.

So then, can you elaborate? Did the apostle's pick up on this in the epistles to make this a doctrine related to how we meet? Or do we have to infer this great truth from this figurative language and story?

It is inferred just as many other things we do are inferred. I think it shows that if believers can meet anywhere as claimed , then why did they not just meet anywhere? If Jesus said we could worship anywhere in Spirit and truth then why did they go to great lengths to prepare a specific place for the Lord's Table? Why did they not just do it anywhere they liked ? (the Garden of Gethsemane for example, they could have had a picnic in the park).

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It is inferred just as many other things we do are inferred. I think it shows that if believers can meet anywhere as claimed , then why did they not just meet anywhere? If Jesus said we could worship anywhere in Spirit and truth then why did they go to great lengths to prepare a specific place for the Lord's Table? Why did they not just do it anywhere they liked ? (the Garden of Gethsemane for example, they could have had a picnic in the park).

Because it was a Seder involving several dishes not easily done in a garden.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It is inferred just as many other things we do are inferred. I think it shows that if believers can meet anywhere as claimed , then why did they not just meet anywhere? If Jesus said we could worship anywhere in Spirit and truth then why did they go to great lengths to prepare a specific place for the Lord's Table? Why did they not just do it anywhere they liked ? (the Garden of Gethsemane for example, they could have had a picnic in the park).

If it is inferred then we don't insist on it. No item of the faith is an inferred teaching. We do not infer that Jesus is Lord, we are told matter of factly that this is in fact the case and that it is an item of the faith that we should fight for. We do not infer that Jesus redeemed us on the cross.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

If it is inferred then we don't insist on it. No item of the faith is an inferred teaching. We do not infer that Jesus is Lord, we are told matter of factly that this is in fact the case and that it is an item of the faith that we should fight for. We do not infer that Jesus redeemed us on the cross.

Certain things we are told matter of factly, other things we are not.

There are things in the Bible which are stated matter of factly - head coverings for example, yet no one insists on those.

There are other matters which are not stated matter of factly - baptism by immersion, for example, and yet a number of denominations will insist on baptism by full immersion. We can know that full immersion is the proper way because we can infer this from how people were baptized in the New Testament. Yet there is no instruction saying full immersion is the right way. This is all inferred from how it was done.

Similarly, how we meet for worship can be inferred from how it was done. Is it not hypocritical to infer certain things from the Bible such as baptism by immersion, yet not infer the matter of where the church should congregate?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Certain things we are told matter of factly, other things we are not.

There are things in the Bible which are stated matter of factly - head coverings for example, yet no one insists on those.

There are other matters which are not stated matter of factly - baptism by immersion, for example, and yet a number of denominations will insist on baptism by full immersion. We can know that full immersion is the proper way because we can infer this from how people were baptized in the New Testament. Yet there is no instruction saying full immersion is the right way. This is all inferred from how it was done.

Similarly, how we meet for worship can be inferred from how it was done. Is it not hypocritical to infer certain things from the Bible such as baptism by immersion, yet not infer the matter of where the church should congregate?

No, I agree with you. However, if the teaching is an inferred teaching it is wrong to insist on it as an item of the faith. Your claim (Witness Lee and his followers) that Christianity is degraded, adulterous, etc. is based in part on the claim that they are not meeting on the proper ground. They go so far as to state that taking a Lord's table meeting with other Christians could result in you getting sick and dying.

By doing this you make this doctrine the cornerstone of your sect, hence a damnable heresy.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

No, I agree with you. However, if the teaching is an inferred teaching it is wrong to insist on it as an item of the faith. Your claim (Witness Lee and his followers) that Christianity is degraded, adulterous, etc. is based in part on the claim that they are not meeting on the proper ground. They go so far as to state that taking a Lord's table meeting with other Christians could result in you getting sick and dying.

By doing this you make this doctrine the cornerstone of your sect, hence a damnable heresy.

I see your point. It's not as important as the Trinity or whether Jesus came in the flesh or the Son of God. But at the level of its importance, I think it outranks the alternatives of denominationalism.

In as much as taking the Lord's table while not discerning the body I think 1 Corinthians 11:29 would apply.

Ellicott's commentary:
They did not rightly estimate such gatherings as being corporate meetings; they did not rightly estimate themselves as not now isolated individuals, but members of the common Body. They ought to discern in these meetings of the Church a body; they ought to discern in themselves parts of a body. Not only is this interpretation, I venture to think, the most accurate and literal interpretation of the Greek, but it is the only view which seems to me to make the passage bear intelligibly on the point which St. Paul is considering, and the real evil which he seeks to counteract

That said, I don't know anyone who has gotten sick or died from taking communion in a denomination or the local church. The only time I have gotten sick from church was from a potluck dinner.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It is inferred just as many other things we do are inferred. I think it shows that if believers can meet anywhere as claimed , then why did they not just meet anywhere? If Jesus said we could worship anywhere in Spirit and truth then why did they go to great lengths to prepare a specific place for the Lord's Table? Why did they not just do it anywhere they liked ?

The celebration of the Passover meal was acc. to O.T. regulations.

In your post you purposely confused the old with the new.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The celebration of the Passover meal was acc. to O.T. regulations.

In your post you purposely confused the old with the new.

And that did not really change after Jesus's death. The early Christians continued to celebrate the Lord's Table in like manner, without celebrating it wherever they liked.

[Drake]

ZNP)"Jesus has clearly equated this one place with "spirit and truth". That is the one place where we are to worship, make sacrifices and celebrate the feasts."

ZNP,

Okay, let's take your doctrine to its logical conclusion. If the one place and only place to worship is in spirit and truth then why meet together ever? Since every believer can worship in spirit and truth 24X7 then there is no need for any assembly of believers. If the one place to worship is spirit and truth then Paul had no basis to say " forsake not the assembling of yourselves together". Why didn't Paul understand that we do not need to assemble together since we believers all worship in spirit and truth?

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP)"Jesus has clearly equated this one place with "spirit and truth". That is the one place where we are to worship, make sacrifices and celebrate the feasts."

ZNP,

Okay, let's take your doctrine to its logical conclusion. If the one place and only place to worship is in spirit and truth then why meet together ever? Since every believer can worship in spirit and truth 24X7 then there is no need for any assembly of believers. If the one place to worship is spirit and truth then Paul had no basis to say " forsake not the assembling of yourselves together". Why didn't Paul understand that we do not need to assemble together since we believers all worship in spirit and truth?

Drake

Once again, just as your question with Jezebel which initiated this thread, this question will initiate another thread. There are many reasons to meet together, I will enumerate them when I get a chance, doubt I can give a comprehensive list.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

And that did not really change after Jesus's death. The early Christians continued to celebrate the Lord's Table in like manner, without celebrating it wherever they liked.

Are you serious?

We were discussing the details in preparing the Sabbath meal on the night He was betrayed, and how it could not be eaten anywhere, including the garden of Gethsemane.

Then you conclude "Christians continued to celebrate the Lord's Table in like manner."

Have you ever studied the events surrounding that meal? It was part of the transition from the Old to the New. What started as the Passover, concluded as the Lord's Supper.

I'm sure you learned this stuff from Lee's writings.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Have you ever studied the events surrounding that meal? It was part of the transition from the Old to the New. What started as the Passover, concluded as the Lord's Supper.

Supposedly. This is a debated issue in Christianity about whether it was a Passover meal or not.

Also, the precise time when the Old finished and the New started is also a matter of debate. I lean towards the view that it was when Jesus died on the cross that stopped the Old Testament and started the New.

For the sake of discussion I will agree with you that there was an Old to New transition during the Passover. That still leaves the question of how the church celebrated the Lord's Table during the early stages of the New Testament.

I am quite sure based upon the New Testament and church history, that they did not proclaim "woohoo, we can never celebrate the Lord's Supper wherever we like because Jesus said location doesn't matter". In other words, it must have been such a burden for them to celebrate the Lord's Table in a 4-walled house, that they could not wait to celebrate it in a park or some other location (sarcasm).

I just wonder if you have thought through the practical implications of your "worship anywhere" doctrine and seen that Scripture does not show the disciples acting willy-nilly. I agree with you that in principle worship can be done anywhere, as it is a spiritual thing after all. But church is not just a matter of exercising one's spirit (which may be done anywhere), but of congregation in a physical location for a particular purpose. I would probably separate worship into two aspects - private worship which can be done anywhere, and corporate worship which cannot be done just anywhere.