Re: ATTN: ALL
|November 27 2016, 4:00 PM |
Today I am happy to report our song leader did a far better job. Surprisingly he did not lead any Christmas songs like the previous Sundays in November and there was no one to sing happy birthday to after the closing prayer so everything was Scriptural. He did not wear a suit nor a tie but only a sweater which is not dressing your best but other than that it was a great worship service. I feel better than I did yesterday about the church.
|November 27 2016, 5:29 PM |
I'm happy things returned to normal. I experienced the same, but it wasn't long before things started going off the rails again. This seems to be part of the methods that can be used to slowly slip in error. They call the method boiling the frogs...you heat water slowly, so the frogs don't jump out. Then before they know what's happening the water is boiling. Be sure to pay attention to every word that comes out of every mouth. I pray this is not occurring at your congregation. You can read more of what has happened in many of our church of Christ congregations at www.piney.com. Ken Sublett has collected many documents and his research at this site. He has an email that you can ask questions too. Should you wish to speak with me, he can give you my email.
You mentioned in another post that there was a meal after the assembly, and I admit I was closed minded about this practice too. People who live in rural areas generally don't have many options to eat out. Many of our congregations are 20 to 30 miles away from town and somewhere to eat. It seems to be a waste of the resources The Lord gave us to drive all over the county to eat a meal or even to drive back home, then be back for the evening assembly.
Re: ATTN: ALL
|November 28 2016, 8:47 AM |
|November 28 2016, 9:14 AM |
When you say that you are happy that things returned to normal, please tell me what is normal? Normal to a set of traditions that started several hundred years ago or normal for how the apostles worshiped, or how?
|November 30 2016, 4:29 AM |
D.H., I have a solution. Invite all to your house for frog legs.
Look at what's happening now
|December 1 2016, 7:24 PM |
The congregation that I was raised in didn't have fellowship halls, but right down the street was Madison CofChrist, which did have a fellowship hall. Perhaps, having fellowship halls helps to lead away from our understanding just what the assembling together means? Are we there to eat or are we there to teach? Some lines are not meant to be crossed. Unfortunately, practices that seem harmless become part of the downfall of later generations.
We did rent a community center occasionally (1 or 2 times per year) to get together with all members of the congregation. I do cook the meals for my fellowship now, but haven't tried any frog legs lately. I think the market has been cornered on that particular delicacy. Would you care to come procure some for me. I will provide the pond, if you will do the gigging. You probably have more experience. I've only done it once.
|December 1 2016, 9:55 PM |
Ken probably knows the ins and outs of frog cooking. You should have a party!
How would you like your frog legs boiled, Rancor? Hard-boiled you say? Or the change agents' way?
|This message has been edited by Donnie.Cruz from IP address 18.104.22.168 on Dec 1, 2016 11:42 PM|
Re: ATTN: ALL
|November 28 2016, 8:37 PM |
Rancor commented: "Days of our Lives." Without music in the background.
Where's "the beef," dude?
Order in the Court
|November 27 2016, 4:07 PM |
Well, Ken Sublett, according to your own words, you.....are in big trouble. You do that which you tell others not to do. COURT IS IN SESSION.
Comedian Implant by Ken and Donnie
|November 27 2016, 10:01 PM |
I thought Nancy was just being humorous, but she is being serious, isn't she?
No tie.....no Christmas songs......no birthday song after the closing prayer.
She isn't serious, is she?
|November 28 2016, 1:45 PM |
Was hoping that this deal/attitude about how one dresses and the objections for Christmas songs was a thing of the past.
Hope springs eternal.
Re: Do our emotions effect the way we perceive truth?
|November 27 2016, 11:01 PM |
Nancy, "leaders" presume the authority to connect secular events with the claim to assemble to give attention to God and His word. They should be aware that enough people are aware of pagan practices deliberately adopted that they will sow discord and offend a part of the congregation. That probably means that they neither have any grasp about the meaning of the Ruler of the Universe and treat Him like us.
Hos. 2:11 I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.
The generation that arose in the world, after the promulgation of Imperial laws, was ATTRACTED within the pale of the Catholic Church, and so RAPID, yet so GENTLE was the fall of Paganism, that only twenty-eight years after the death of Theodosius [the elder], the faint and minute vestiges were no longer visible to the eye of the legislator." Now, how can this great and rapid revolution be accounted for? Is it because the Word of the Lord has had free course and been glorified?
Then, what means the new aspect that the Roman Church has now begun to assume? In exact proportion as Paganism has disappeared from without the Church, in the very same proportion it appears within it.
Pagan dresses for the priests, Pagan festivals for the people, Pagan doctrines and ideas of all sorts, are everywhere in vogue.
The testimony of the same historian, who has spoken so decisively about the rapid conversion of the Romans to the profession of the Gospel, is not less decisive on this point. In his account of the Roman Church, under the head of "Introduction of Pagan Ceremonies," he thus speaks:
"As the objects of religion were gradually reduced to the standard of the imagination, the rites and ceremonies were introduced that seemed most powerfully to effect the senses of the vulgar.
If, in the beginning of the fifth century, Tertullian or Lactantius had been suddenly raised from the dead, to assist at the festival of some popular saint or martyr, they would have gazed with astonishment and indignation on the profane spectacle which had succeeded to the pure and spiritual worship of a Christian congregation.
As soon as the doors of the church were thrown open, they must have been offended by the smoke of incense, the perfume of flowers, and the glare of lamps and tapers, which diffused at noon-day a gaudy, superfluous, and, in their opinion, sacrilegious light." Gibbon has a great deal more to the same effect. Now, can any one believe that this was accidental? No. It was evidently the result of that unprincipled policy, of which, in the course of this inquiry, we have already seen such innumerable instances on the part of the Papacy. *
Gibbon distinctly admits this. "It must ingenuously be confessed," says he, "that the ministers of the Catholic Church imitated the profane model they were so impatient to destroy."
Using the closing prayer to CHOP OFF the memories we are supposed to take away from the assembly probably means that DOING the acts is what counts and not what new spiritual effect which are suddenly sidetracked.
|This message has been edited by Ken.Sublett from IP address 22.214.171.124 on Nov 28, 2016 12:43 AM|
The Pope, Shelly, New Wineskins
|November 28 2016, 11:09 AM |
We have discussed Messianic Judaism several times and LU and my "Investment advisers" David Young and North Boulevard Elders promoting of a radical Change. At the prophesied time, year 2000, and the Pope's and New Wineskins Baptizing Santa earlier, the radical invasion of Worship Teams and Instruments may mark the dredging up of Apollon and His Muses (Locusts and Prostitutes) In Egypt, Mount Sinai and to which God ABANDONED the Jews to WORSHIP THE STARRY HOST.
The New Wineskins c. 1992 published Christmas at Matthew's House
Though we’re still quite surprised by Matthew’s covert statement “she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit,” Matthew has set us up for it. It’s a sort of “Here we go again, folks….” Another sexually questionable woman. And what about Joseph’s faith in the face of Mary’s story? For it was he, who after a single dream, went ahead and married her. A dream that was real, yes, but still a dream. Could it have been a message from God? Or, could it have been his won imagination, wanting to believe her so much that his subconscious produced a nocturnal justification for marrying her, even in the face of such an outlandish excuse? But there’s Joseph, crawling into bed with her every night the rest of his life, relying on a dream, believing in her word, that she really hadn’t slept with another man and used him to cover her shame. If we’ve paid attention to the women of Matthew’s genalogy we’re not entirely surprised by Mary’s (Joseph’s?!) predicament. If God used those of the Messiah’s family tree thus, why woudn’t the Messiah himself come from a similar situation?
The Nashville New Wineskins Jubilee responded to the Pope's LAST JUBILEE in they hear 2000. That was the SET TIME when Madison was CAUGHT WITH IT'S RANTS DOWN before it was ready to EXPOSE itself
Correction on my part
|November 28 2016, 2:14 PM |
I went back and reread Nancy's post, and want to correct my response. From your post, it would seem this is not done but once a month, and is a new practice. If the practice is done for convenience every week then that is different from once a month. It is a little strange that it is new, and only done once a month. We should all understand that the kingdom is not about food and drink.
Romans 14:17-21 (KJV)
For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.  For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.  Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.  For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.  It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
Re: Correction on my part
|November 28 2016, 9:08 PM |
Dianna and Nancy, I know lots of churches that have a fellowship meal once a month every first Sunday morning or evening, and others that share a meal once a quarter on fifth Sundays. Just saying.
Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?
|December 1 2016, 8:00 PM |
I know lots of congregations that don't have fellowship halls. It's difficult to get 150 to 200 people into a restaurant. I don't condemn anyone who fellowships out side the assembly, nor do I condemn anyone who has a fellowship hall. Nancy told us that this is a new practice for her particular congregation, and she is uncomfortable with this practice. I don't know for sure, but perhaps she is worried that it will be brought into the assembly, and be instituted as a new act of worship. From what I understand this is exactly what has happened in other congregations. It's the new love feast of the 21st century. What will they think of next? What will our grandchildren be doing? Sorry, I'm just not a progressive liberal when it comes to the assembly of the saints. I'm trying my best to overcome my radical right leanings, and not compromise the truth. TRUTH! This is what needs to be stressed, not what we eat and drink or where we eat and drink. Don't you have homes where you can eat? I will also repeat the verse about not offending someone.
1 Corinthians 11:22 (KJV)
What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.
Romans 14:21 (KJV)
It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
Sin is SIn Even with Those Who Claim to Be Chrsitians
|December 2 2016, 12:31 PM |
Dianne, that verse about offending someone has been abused by a lot of people. Anyone can use that to say that they have been offended by some practice or action from somebody or a group. You offended me because......and therefore you shouldn't do that. Say, for example, in a congregation of 100, how many people will have different interpretations of the Scripture? How many bring past likes and traditions to their present congregation and one wants it this way, and the other that way, and ALL of them scream that it is Scriptural. Don't tell me that as long as it is Scriptural, then it is fine. Most anyone can hold claim to that.
I am sure that Ken will say that his interpretation is only READING and SPEAKING that which is written. Ken and Donnie's interpretation will not hold any more sway than mine or yours. How many times have I shown them the Scripture for what I behold to be the truth and them to blow it off with it being 'OUT OF CONTEXT," or even though it is KJV it still isn't translated properly? The guile of men to think that God isn't powerful enough to have led the KJV translators to bring the Truth to the world in the best way. They show error ONLY when it suits their needs or traditions. They don't believe that God being capitalized or a placement of "the" is significant to matter. This site is evil because they are making a mockery of the Lord's church and His very Word.
Ken believes that he cannot sanctify his errant writings by instilling humor, pictures, greek mythology, middle english, and man-made commentary. It is beyond vulgar and senseless. Donnie just doesn't hold true to what God says in His Word. So many people hide behind traditions and then get ticked if you confront their traditions against the Word, and the Word wins out over their traditions.
Do what makes you happy!
|December 2 2016, 7:12 PM |
I give you permission to offend as many people as you want
I give you permission to interpret scriptures as you want
I give you permission to believe in 3 gods in 1
I give you permission to put yourself before others
I give you permission to have your own church to have a rock band with some praise singers
I give you permission to believe there is no truth
I give you permission to accept whoever's opinion you are influenced by today or tomorrow
Please give me permission to believe that there is truth, and it was delivered by Jesus Christ. There is either black or white, no middle ground on this issue.
Please give me permission to believe that Ken and Donnie are teaching Truth thru the word.
Please give me permission to believe that there is one God and the man Jesus Christ
1 Timothy 2:5-6 (KJV)
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;  Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
Please give me permission worship God in spirit and truth.
Actually, permission comes from our Creator. He gave us all free will to follow Him or not.
Ken is teaching us about pagan beliefs, unfortunately, the pagans were crude. If your offended by it then stop reading it, and skip over Ken's post. Or better yet you could go somewhere else where you aren't offended. That advice seemed to work for those churches who offended the old timers in many of the churches across the country. Ken and Donnie are teaching about the history of Christianity as well as the meaning of words. They both have a good grasp of the English language and the rules of grammar. They also devote their time and energy, not to mention their financial means to teach us.
I have been reading the writings of the men who were closer to the time period of the Apostles, and I'm going to agree more with their teaching, as well as Donnie and Ken's, over yours Dave, because it agrees with what Jesus taught. Why don't you read them for yourself and maybe you might understand why Ken and Donnie are teaching what they are teaching. It might help your position if you know what you arguing against. You might also want to brush up on narrative theology and the sad effect it has had on the church. Oh wait, that is the theology you already follow.
I hope you can find a new site where you are not so easily offended! I sincerely believe that is not the motive of this site, but it can have that effect. Jesus told us some would be offended by the truth.
Do Whatever You Want
|December 3 2016, 6:12 PM |
You were the one who was speaking of being offended by those who eat in the church instead of houses. Donnie and Ken nor you offend me because I know a lot of it isn't the truth. The truth mingled with heresay and man-made commentary isn't the truth, no matter how you put it. The Truth doesn't offend those of us who love it. As far as me going somewhere else? Are you a moderator?
If Ken and Donnie, who own this site, wish to ban me, then they most assuredly will. I told them that they should have banned me years ago and in that way they wouldn't have me to show them where they have abused, repeatedly, the Word of God. I will not allow them to speak evil of the Lord's church. If you can stomach that, then you are welcome to live with it. I cannot.
You don't give me permission for anything and I don't think you are looking for me to grant you such also. For once, you are right. God does that. Your choice to follow their teachings is YOUR choice. I have seen enough of what you behold to be the truth to understand why you would follow them instead of what God wants you to do. No permission is needed for that either. God gives all free choice.
I have proven many times that Ken and Donnie have taught error. They slander the Lord's church, and they have shown to be very liberal with the Word of God.
This here is the good one too, Dianne. They preach on how the NIV is evil, so I proved them to be in error with the KJV. What did they do for this? They then cried that the KJV translators are also wrong. They say that where GOD is captialized....it shouldn't be. Instead of John 1 stating that the "...Word was God," they claim the original text ACTUALLY MEANS that 'the Word was 'a god,' therefore trying to devalue the Deity of Jesus.
So you follow them, if you so desire. I will follow God....ALWAYS!
Again, you are right when you mentioned that some would be offended by the Truth. Anyone can change that by FOLLOWING the Truth? Right?
Progression of "fellowship" meals. THE FINAL DESTINATION?
|December 1 2016, 8:11 PM |
John Mark Hicks certifies the Catholic Mass of killing and eating Jesus while they JUBILATE: The Lord's supper is a moment of gratitude. Thus, the church has historically called it a "Eucharist" from the Greek word which means "thanksgiving." But if it shares in the meaning of the thanksgiving meals of Israel, the Lord's supper needs to be revisioned along the lines of the those meals.
The Lord's supper should be understood as an interactive meal which engages the whole community in joyous, celebrative fellowship with God. If the supper is a thanksgiving meal, why is the dominant practice of the supper so silent, solemn, singular and sad? The supper is a table, not an altar. It is the experience of communion, not the search for atonement.
In the Hebrew Bible the table is a communal act of communion with God characterized by joy (thanksgiving) and rededication (vow). At Solomon's inauguration Israel "ate and drank before the Lord on that day with great joy" (1 Chron. 29:22). It was not a moment of solemn, private silence. It was not an individualistic act. On the contrary, it was an interactive meal which engaged the whole community in joyous, celebrative fellowship with God.
1Cor. 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.
1Cor. 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord,
unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord
A-1, Adverb, 371, anaxios
is used in 1 Cor. 11:27, of partaking of the Lord's Supper "unworthly," i.e., treating it as a common meal, the bread and cup as common things, not apprehending their solemn symbolic import. In the best texts the word is not found in ver. 29 (see RV).
"a, negative, n, euphonic, axios, "worthy," is used in 1 Cor. 6:2. In modern Greek it signifies "incapable."
axios worthy to be killed instead of him, only fit to be slaves,
To eat or drink unworthily is in general to come to the Lord's table in a careless, irreverent spirit, without the intention or desire to commemorate the death of Christ as the sacrifice for our sins, and without the purpose of complying with the engagements with we thereby assume. The way in which the Corinthians ate unworthily was, that they treated the Lord's table as though it were their own; making no distinction between the Lord's supper and an ordinary meal; coming together to satisfy their hunger, and not to feed on the body and blood of Christ; and refusing to commune with their poorer brethren. This, though one, is not the only way in which men may eat and drink unworthily. All that is necessary to observe is, that the warning is directly against the careless and profane, and not against the timid and the doubting. Charles Hodge
Britannica: According to the EUCHARISTIC doctrine of Roman Catholicism, the elements of bread and wine are "TRANSUBSTANTIATED" into the BODY and BLOOD of Christ; i.e., their whole substance is converted into the whole substance of the body and blood, although the outward appearances of the elements, their "ACCIDENTS," remain.
"Such practices as the ADORATION and reservation of the HOST [Sun Image] follow from this doctrine that the whole Christ is really present in his body and blood in the forms of bread and wine. During the 19th and 20th centuries the Roman Catholic Liturgical Movement put new emphasis on the frequency of communion, on the participation of the entire congregation in the priestly service, and on the Real Presence of Christ in the church as the fundamental presupposition for the Real Presence in the Eucharist.
"In Reformed Christianity, Huldrych Zwingli emphasized the memorial aspect of the Eucharist. John Calvin, however, taught a "real but spiritual presence" of the living Christ, but in the sacramental action rather than in the elements.