Jezebel -- why we should know who she is.

[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.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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.

Okay. I'll start the list.

The Body of Christ is built up through the proper assembling of ourselves together according to His design.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Okay. I'll start the list.

The Body of Christ is built up through the proper assembling of ourselves together according to His design.

Drake

I could make a stronger case that the body of Christ is built up by all the members obedient to the Head and abiding in Him.

WL put way too much emphasis on assembling. I'm not diminishing the benefits on the corporate side, but he was an extremist on this matter.

[Drake]

Ohio) "I could make a stronger case that the body of Christ is built up by all the members obedient to the Head and abiding in Him."

Ohio,

Therfore, you could make the strongest case that the Body of Christ is built up by all the members obedient to the Head and abiding in Him without ever meeting together.

And your basic assumption in that proposal is that obedience to the Head and abiding in Him does not include assembling together.

Since the Christians in Acts met daily they probably put too much emphasis on meeting and were extremists too?

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

Okay. I'll start the list.

The Body of Christ is built up through the proper assembling of ourselves together according to His design.

Drake

Then you can also see that this building up of the Body will result in the church as the family of God, Temple of God, Kingdom of God, Bride of Christ, one New Man, and the Warrior.

No individual Christian could ever represent or express any of these entities on their own.

Likewise you could never express any of these entities unless you are meeting in the name of Jesus and He is in your midst. He will only be in your midst if you are meeting in spirit and truth. What does that mean? You have one God and Father who is over all, one Lord, one faith, one Spirit, one baptism.

If you claim you have one Lord yet do not obey his command then you are not meeting in spirit or truth of Jesus being the one Lord. If you claim you have one God and Father who is over all, and then allow something else to act as a trump card to over rule our God and Father then you are not meeting in spirit and truth. If you claim you have one faith and then add something to that one faith or remove something from that one faith, then you are not meeting in spirit and truth. If you claim you have one baptism as an entrance into this kingdom and then you require something else for Christians to "enter" or else do not recognize their legitimacy based solely on this one baptism, then that is not meeting in spirit and in truth.

This is not an inferred teaching of the NT, it is the black and white teaching that is reiterated in many different ways by every apostle and writer of the NT.

Jezebel set up a governing principle that short circuited God out of the equation. In her reign God was not "over all". Jesus was not Lord. If you wanted an entrance into her kingdom you kowtowed to her request to stone Naboth. They did not meet in spirit and in truth, they met in malice and deceit.

[Drake]

ZNP)"Then you can also see that this building up of the Body will result in the church as the family of God, Temple of God, Kingdom of God, Bride of Christ, one New Man, and the Warrior.

No individual Christian could ever represent or express any of these entities on their own.

Likewise you could never express any of these entities unless you are meeting in the name of Jesus and He is in your midst. He will only be in your midst if you are meeting in spirit and truth. What does that mean? You have one God and Father who is over all, one Lord, one faith, one Spirit, one baptism.

If you claim you have one Lord yet do not obey his command then you are not meeting in spirit or truth of Jesus being the one Lord. If you claim you have one God and Father who is over all, and then allow something else to act as a trump card to over rule our God and Father then you are not meeting in spirit and truth. If you claim you have one faith and then add something to that one faith or remove something from that one faith, then you are not meeting in spirit and truth. If you claim you have one baptism as an entrance into this kingdom and then you require something else for Christians to "enter" or else do not recognize their legitimacy based solely on this one baptism, then that is not meeting in spirit and in truth.

This is not an inferred teaching of the NT, it is the black and white teaching that is reiterated in many different ways by every apostle and writer of the NT."

ZNP,

The part above I mostly agree with. I say "mostly" because it is one side of the truth but not the whole truth. There is the practice also. On the one hand we are, according to Ephesians, seated with Christ in the heavenlies. However, we also live on the earth in space and time and in Corinth or some other physical locale. Both are equally relevant. Yet, in your argument you conflate the two in the wrong way. You argue that the physical interferes with the spiritual when actually there is a symbiotic relationship between them. For instance, to experience the reality of the ones in Ephesians you cannot do this in a closet. You must have a practical way to experience the ones because though you have the position in Christ in Ephesians you need the experience while living in Corinth. On the other side, if you do not have the spiritual reality then the physical will be vanity. The building of the Body of Christ requires both the spiritual reality and the physical practice.

It is not as you, Igzy, and Ohio similarly argue that the physical is not needed or that the Body of Christ can be built without the assembling of ourselves together, or that just any old way of meeting will suffice.

Drake

[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.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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

All the preparations were made for the Lord and his disciples to celebrate the Passover, so we have no reason to suspect that they did not. But what was recorded was the first Table Meeting of the new covenant. Jesus broke bread and they shared the cup.

Of course, the meal was a transition ... In type. The Lord's body was broken and His blood shed ... In symbolism ... During the meal. Later that same day (Jewish day, evening then morning) He actually shed His blood.

[Evangelical]

The differences between passover and what they did has lead some to conclude that it was more of a chavurah than a seder. Or a chavurah with clear symbolism relating it to the passover.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

The "doctrine" is not mine. Have you not read John 4?

Willy-nilly? So how do you define your doctrine? You tell me in detail what makes an officially-samctioned LSM-approved Table meeting.

What about damp coal mines and cemeteries? Does that qualify? What about Roman catacombs? Were they legit? What about Cappadocian caves?

I need some serious detail bro. Please provide several pages of specs for me to check off. Can't leave anything to chance. Need to know specifics, such as whether whole wheat flour is acceptable or not, cause we had one elder sister tear up the bread for not being bleached flour. Got to dot all the "I's" eh? Don't want no willy-nilly to get us.

[Evangelical]

They did not choose those places out of free choice but out of necessity because of persecution. Even those choices indicate specific meeting places rather than meeting wherever it pleased them.

[Drake]

Evangelical)"The only time I have gotten sick from church was from a potluck dinner."

It was the pot stickers wasn't it? I knew it. Almost went for them but went for the lasagna instead.



Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

They did not choose those places out of free choice but out of necessity because of persecution. Even those choices indicate specific meeting places rather than meeting wherever it pleased them.

Where's my detailed specs?

So ... are there none?

Or is it as we all thought ... only LSM-approved meetings are sanctioned and this sanctioning process began during the Philip Lee administration, a man by all accounts not even saved!