PDA

View Full Version : Joyce Meyer



VAN
Mar 16th 2007, 06:31 AM
Hi Brothers and Sisters,

In one of Joyce Meyer's books "The most important decision you will ever make" she writes His(Jesus) spirit went to hell because that is where we deserved to go..... Jesus went to hell for you. He died for you. He paid for your sins.

And she also writes, He(Jesus) was resurrected from the dead-the first born-again man.

Any help on this please???

Van

excubitor
Mar 16th 2007, 10:40 AM
Hi Brothers and Sisters,

In one of Joyce Meyer's books "The most important decision you will ever make" she writes His(Jesus) spirit went to hell because that is where we deserved to go..... Jesus went to hell for you. He died for you. He paid for your sins.

And she also writes, He(Jesus) was resurrected from the dead-the first born-again man.

Any help on this please???

Van

Article III of the 39 Articles of the Church of England states:
Of the going down of Christ into Hell
As Christ died for us, and was buried, so also is it to be believed that He went down into Hell.

The Apostles creed says
"He descended into hell. The third day He arose again from the dead."

I imagine that this is on account of
1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
By which it is assumed this prison is hell.

Then also speaking about Christ, Paul makes the point that he ascended to the highest parts of heaven because he first ascended to the lowest parts of the earth, which is to say hell where it is said the dead dwell awaiting the judgement.
Eph 4:9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill [3] all things.)

Outlandish things are said, like Christ suffered all the torments in hell which is entirely conjecture however as Calvin very cleverly points out that it is erroneus to suppose that Christ suffered all the agonies of death on this side of the grave and none on the other side of the grave.

Also it says in
Acts 2:24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death:
because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
This clearly shows that he suffered the pains of death but was able to get loose of them by the power of the resurrection and that therefore he was bound in the pains of death for three days.

Steve M
Mar 16th 2007, 12:31 PM
Good choice of scripture, excubitor.

However, if memory serves (as it so often doesn't) Joyce doesn't stop there, but puts together some kind of theology around that point. I'll be doggoned if I can remember how that goes... I do remember being offended last time I heard it.

Quickened
Mar 16th 2007, 12:38 PM
Good choice of scripture, excubitor.

However, if memory serves (as it so often doesn't) Joyce doesn't stop there, but puts together some kind of theology around that point. I'll be doggoned if I can remember how that goes... I do remember being offended last time I heard it.

Aye! I believe you are right on this one. I am sure ChristianResearchNetwork had something written up about this but then again i could be entirely wrong. Probably read it in the last month or so

Roselady
Mar 16th 2007, 04:24 PM
Van

I will give you some help/advice with the Joyce Meyer books. Dont read them. She has some strange ideas about a lot of stuff. They do make good fire starting materials, thats what I did with mine.

jiggyfly
Mar 16th 2007, 11:40 PM
She is part of the "Word Of Faith" movement aka "The prosperity gospel"

MailmanGuy
Mar 16th 2007, 11:56 PM
I think she also added to the teaching, that Jesus suffered in hellfire for three days and three nights. That would be a major doctrinal error.

Maybe that was Marilyn Hickey? :hmm:

Someone will know for sure shortly............[standing by]

divaD
Mar 17th 2007, 02:22 AM
QUOTE:

Outlandish things are said, like Christ suffered all the torments in hell


Keep in mind, Luke 23:43 *And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise


With Luke 23:43 in mind, and knowing that Jesus must first decend into Hell, so then where is paradise? I believe that Luke 16:19-31 should show that paradise was in the center of the earth.



So to sum it all up, Jesus descended into the paradise side of hell(Psalms 16:10) and preached from there. I promise you, our dear Lord and
Precious Saviour wasn't tormented in hell. That is absolute heresy to even suggest that he was. He descended VICTORIOUSLY!!! and he bodily rose VICTORIOUSLY!!!.


Edited: I decided to delete some of my post, because I decided that it was getting a bit off topic.

Pilgrimtozion
Mar 17th 2007, 09:46 AM
For the record, I've heard Joyce preach quite a few times and I've never heard her preach the prosperity gospel aka 'name it claim it' or any of that kind of stuff. Her preaching is generally Biblically very sound and extremely practical and straight-forward. She doesn't beat around the bush like other preachers often do.

So I just want to have said that I really like Joyce Meyer and the message I have heard from her: a call to a holy life in intimacy with God.

jiggyfly
Mar 17th 2007, 10:09 AM
I think she also added to the teaching, that Jesus suffered in hellfire for three days and three nights. That would be a major doctrinal error.

Maybe that was Marilyn Hickey? :hmm:

Someone will know for sure shortly............[standing by]
They both belong to the same pack.

jiggyfly
Mar 17th 2007, 10:23 AM
For the record, I've heard Joyce preach quite a few times and I've never heard her preach the prosperity gospel aka 'name it claim it' or any of that kind of stuff. Her preaching is generally Biblically very sound and extremely practical and straight-forward. She doesn't beat around the bush like other preachers often do.

So I just want to have said that I really like Joyce Meyer and the message I have heard from her: a call to a holy life in intimacy with God.

Yes I agree she has had some very practical lessons but actions speak louder than words. Jesus said in order to follow Him you must deny yourself and take up your cross. He made Himself of no reputation unlike many of our profitting pulpiteers today. I mean, for cryin' out loud, can you purchase any of her books or tapes that don't have her picture on it. We all know what she looks like since her million dollar make-over( plastic surgery and wardrobe change).

Thats why I stick with teaching from the likes of A.W. Tozer, T.Austin Sparks, A.B. Simpson and Aurthur Pink.

Pilgrimtozion
Mar 17th 2007, 10:34 AM
Yes I agree she has had some very practical lessons but actions speak louder than words. Jesus said in order to follow Him you must deny yourself and take up your cross. He made Himself of no reputation unlike many of our profitting pulpiteers today. I mean, for cryin' out loud, can you purchase any of her books or tapes that don't have her picture on it. We all know what she looks like since her million dollar make-over( plastic surgery and wardrobe change).

Thats why I stick with teaching from the likes of A.W. Tozer, T.Austin Sparks, A.B. Simpson and Aurthur Pink.

How easy is it to stand on the outside and judge? What do you really know about Joyce Meyer? Faces are put on books nowadays, that is just the way it is. Steven Curtis Chapman is on all his CD's; but he's one of the purest Christian artists you will ever find. Judging by appearance is easy - anybody can do that.

jiggyfly
Mar 17th 2007, 12:48 PM
How easy is it to stand on the outside and judge? What do you really know about Joyce Meyer? Faces are put on books nowadays, that is just the way it is. Steven Curtis Chapman is on all his CD's; but he's one of the purest Christian artists you will ever find. Judging by appearance is easy - anybody can do that.

http://www.trinityfi.org/press/JoyceMeyer6.html
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/special/joycemeyer.nsf/0/7C0D90DB0AF048E286256DDF00701F8B?OpenDocument
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/special/joycemeyer.nsf/0/C5099399D2FCC5FA86256DDF00661C5F?OpenDocument
http://www.trinityfi.org/press/JoyceMeyer7.html
http://www.cultintervention.com/reference/meyer/meyer26.html

The same applies to everyone in the kingdom of God, I thought we were to avoid the appearance of evil.:confused

If one does not show fruit of denying self and taking up their cross then they are not following Jesus, period.

jiggyfly
Mar 17th 2007, 12:52 PM
Hi Brothers and Sisters,

In one of Joyce Meyer's books "The most important decision you will ever make" she writes His(Jesus) spirit went to hell because that is where we deserved to go..... Jesus went to hell for you. He died for you. He paid for your sins.

And she also writes, He(Jesus) was resurrected from the dead-the first born-again man.

Any help on this please???

Van

I would disregard it totally Van.

Skullsike
Mar 17th 2007, 02:05 PM
1Cor.14

[33] For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
[34] Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
[35] And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.:o

Studyin'2Show
Mar 17th 2007, 03:00 PM
1Cor.14

[33] For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
[34] Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
[35] And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.:o I usually stay out of these things but....:eek:. Let me first say that every jot or tittle in scripture is there for a purpose but not each and every phrase is scripture to be followed. Just read Job or Ecclesiastes and you'll see this clearly. Listen to the words of Messiah:

Matthew 18:16 - But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’

And Pail himself:
2 Corinthians 13:1 - This will be the third time I am coming to you. “By the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established.”

*** Also see Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15 ***

This principle was laid out for us in the Hebrew scriptures and confirmed by both Jesus and Paul. Two or three witnesses are necessary to establish something. There is only ONE witness that ever says women should not preach, teach men, or speak in church. Is it said anywhere else in scripture to be that second witness? In fact, the opposite is shown by God's clear hand on Deborah (a female judge over Israel) as she led His people to victory. Jesus sent the woman at the well back to her village to tell (preach) of Him and it says the whole village was saved.

So, what could the words of Paul mean. There are several times where Paul says things that are clearly for a particular church (group of believers) and not for 'the church' (Body if Christ). Understanding the times would show you that most women of the day were not educated. It seems the were causing trouble by stopping to ask many questions. Paul was addressing this issue of the time. BTW, Joyce preach UNDER the authority of her husband as do I. In fact, she was a great witness to me concerning being submissive to your husband. It has strengthened my marriage greatly! Just as Priscilla preached with Aquilla, as a team so do most of the female preachers I'm familiar with.

karenoka27
Mar 17th 2007, 03:03 PM
I know this is dangerous to say as I could get pounced on...(please don't hurt me..)
I think some of Joyce's messages are very encouraging. She is definitely a good motivational speaker. I do, however, have a problem with her teaching men. Oh, there I've gone and said it. If she were a women's speaker I think I would have more respect for her....ok..what are you throwing at me...:o

Studyin'2Show
Mar 17th 2007, 03:09 PM
Sorry for double posting :blush:. As for listening to Joyce preach and teach, I'm in agreement with pilgrintozion. I had found her very biblical. Although, I must say that I don't watch her much anymore. She's more of a teacher to new, baby believers. I would say that I have likely matured past her level of teaching. It would be like going back to grammar school. I would like to add that I have NEVER found a preacher that I agree with 100% of the time (sort of like people on the board :lol:). It's funny that there are some of us that will be in agreement on many issues but will strongly disagree on others and that's ok. Paul tells us to follow him AS he follows Christ, which is what I do for any church leader. If I believe they are not following Him on some point, I will step back. I follow Jesus; not preachers. I heard Kent Hovind say "Sometimes you have to eat the meat, and spit out the bones". I love eating fish so I'm familiar with the principle :D. We each have to study without thinking we can just sit back and follow what anyone but Jesus says. Many times I agree completely with Joyce, sometimes I don't. And that's fine with me since I would only follow her as she follows Christ anyway!

God Bless!

Da Roc
Mar 17th 2007, 03:11 PM
Hi,

I think that all messages from the pulpit are important for someone, not all are important for my growth.

In reference to Joyce, she has a ministry that is from God and God will be her judge.

If what she says does not apply to you doesn't mean that she is not doing God's work.

Jesus's disciple's complained about others who were reaching the lost, Jesus's response was I have disciple's that you do not know of.

Paul said I choose to know only the Christ in them.

On this message, Jesus did die and go to Hell for 3 days to set the captives free. All of the faithful that died before him were there.

Peace,

Da Roc

karenoka27
Mar 17th 2007, 03:20 PM
The saints in the Old Testament rested. That was not hell. If you look at Abraham's bosom you will see how they were separated from those in hell. They were in paradise. That is where Jesus went to gather the saints who could not go to heaven until Jesus Christ died for their sins.
I would imagine though that those in hell could see at the time Jesus when He was there. What a horrible thing for them to realize that the One they rejected was truly...the One.

jiggyfly
Mar 17th 2007, 03:49 PM
St. Francis of Assisi said "preach the gospel everyday, if necessary use words".

Skullsike
Mar 17th 2007, 03:52 PM
I usually stay out of these things but....:eek:. Let me first say that every jot or tittle in scripture is there for a purpose but not each and every phrase is scripture to be followed.

So you think these scriptures should not be followed?

I am sorry that it doesnt mean what is said!!!!

John.3

[16] For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Well is this one to be followed?

Tittle or jot i.e perish, everlasting

Da Roc
Mar 17th 2007, 04:28 PM
Hi,

Yes you're correct, I was being liberal with the words.

Christ did not go to the hell where sinner's went.

He went to paradise to release the captives.

Da Roc

Studyin'2Show
Mar 17th 2007, 05:31 PM
So you think these scriptures should not be followed?

I am sorry that it doesnt mean what is said!!!!

John.3

[16] For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Well is this one to be followed?

Tittle or jot i.e perish, everlastingIs that what you got from my post? That scripture you quoted has been established by the mouth of more than one witness.

*** Read Isaiah 9:1-7, Matthew 25:46, Romans 5:10 & 6:22 ***

I'm sure you know that there are many more scriptures that establish that God loves the world and that those who believe in God's Son (Messiah) will not perish but will have everlasting life. So many scriptures establish it! You are proving my point. Although God doesn't need to have His word established.....He still does! That should tell you something about the importance of establishing something in the word before you make it doctrine. Listen to the words of our Savior:

John 5:31-39
31 “If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true. 32 There is another who bears witness of Me, and I know that the witness which He witnesses of Me is true. 33 You have sent to John, and he has borne witness to the truth. 34 Yet I do not receive testimony from man, but I say these things that you may be saved. 35 He was the burning and shining lamp, and you were willing for a time to rejoice in his light. 36 But I have a greater witness than John’s; for the works which the Father has given Me to finish—the very works that I do—bear witness of Me, that the Father has sent Me. 37 And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form. 38 But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe. 39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me.

If Jesus, as He explains here , says it is necessary even for Him to have more than one witness, why are so many so willing to accept things as doctrine when there is no other witness to establish it?

God Bless!

Frances
Mar 17th 2007, 05:56 PM
1Cor.14
[33] For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
[34] Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
[35] And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.:o

The reason women had to keep silent in synagogue was/is because the men are on the floor and the women in the gallery. You can imagine the chaos if all the women started talking (calling out) to their husbands down below them. It was just the way Paul was brought up.

karenoka27
Mar 17th 2007, 08:37 PM
St. Francis of Assisi said "preach the gospel everyday, if necessary use words".

what?

Ok, I'm sorry.

I have an issue with francis of assisi. He preached to the birds. He hated his service in the kitchen. I never once read where he became a believer in Jesus Christ but was considered one..I know he had some revelation or something but I never really understood it. his works are what got him to be called a saint.

again, I apologize..I just had to get that off my chest.

Pilgrimtozion
Mar 17th 2007, 08:49 PM
OK, well, back to Joyce Meyer then. Let's leave Francis for what he is. :)

Studyin'2Show
Mar 17th 2007, 09:02 PM
Can you say derailed? :lol:

jiggyfly
Mar 17th 2007, 09:16 PM
So then some parts of God's word is not to be obeyed and some are. No wonder you need to be a theologian to get anywhere in the Kingdom of God. This is great info for a new study bible idea I have. I'm calling it the perforated study bible, if you dont like a what a certain page says just tear it out.

Good thing Abraham didn't know about the 2 or 3 witness thing, he would never have left Haran, never had Isaac either.

Studyin'2Show
Mar 17th 2007, 10:27 PM
So then some parts of God's word is not to be obeyed and some are. No wonder you need to be a theologian to get anywhere in the Kingdom of God. This is great info for a new study bible idea I have. I'm calling it the perforated study bible, if you dont like a what a certain page says just tear it out.

Good thing Abraham didn't know about the 2 or 3 witness thing, he would never have left Haran, never had Isaac either.You are completely missing the point! No one has advocated changing anything in scripture, at least not in this thread. I LOVE God's word! I LOVE studying God's word.

Do you follow this verse?

Job 2:9 - 9 Then his wife said to him, “Do you still hold fast to your integrity? Curse God and die!”

It's in the Bible so does that mean we should curse God and die? Of course not! I'm referring to accepting a thing as doctrine. I'm not referring to listening to and following God as He leads you; as He led Abram.

Job 8:4-6
4 If your sons have sinned against Him,
He has cast them away for their transgression.
5 If you would earnestly seek God
And make your supplication to the Almighty,
6 If you were pure and upright,
Surely now He would awake for you,
And prosper your rightful dwelling place.

Was God asleep to Job as this passage implies? Scripture elsewhere says that God does not sleep. According to this Job's trouble came upon him BECAUSE he was not upright. Bad things come on people because of something they did. People have made doctrine on these words, but they are WRONG! Remember Jesus told them that the blind was not born blind because of his sin or his parents iniquity. Jesus' words go against this scripture but this scripture is there for a purpose; for us to gain wisdom and understanding.

I love Paul! I am not discounting his words at all. They have a purpose. I believe those who adopt his words that are not established as doctrine have missed the point Jesus was making. He said that IF He testified of Himself, His testimony would not be true! Why would He say this if He meant for us to hear an inspired word and run with it? Paul tells us in his own words that he commends the Bereans for searching EVERYTHING out in scripture before just following it. Why do you think he said that?

God Bless!

jiggyfly
Mar 18th 2007, 01:29 AM
what?

Ok, I'm sorry.

I have an issue with francis of assisi. He preached to the birds. He hated his service in the kitchen. I never once read where he became a believer in Jesus Christ but was considered one..I know he had some revelation or something but I never really understood it. his works are what got him to be called a saint.

again, I apologize..I just had to get that off my chest.

NP, the quote means that we should preach the gospel by our actions. My point was there are many tele-evangelists who's lives do not reflect what is taught in the scriptures. "It is better for us to give and them to receive" gospel. We are to give to the poor not the rich. Many of them promote themselves more than anything else.

Matthew 23:1-12
1 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 “The teachers of religious law and the Pharisees are the official interpreters of the Scriptures. 3 So practice and obey whatever they say to you, but don’t follow their example. For they don’t practice what they teach. 4 They crush you with impossible religious demands and never lift a finger to help ease the burden.
5 “Everything they do is for show. On their arms they wear extra wide prayer boxes with Scripture verses inside,* and they wear extra long tassels on their robes. 6 And how they love to sit at the head table at banquets and in the most prominent seats in the synagogue! 7 They enjoy the attention they get on the streets, and they enjoy being called ‘Rabbi.’* 8 Don’t ever let anyone call you ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one teacher, and all of you are on the same level as brothers and sisters.* 9 And don’t address anyone here on earth as ‘Father,’ for only God in heaven is your spiritual Father. 10 And don’t let anyone call you ‘Master,’ for there is only one master, the Messiah. 11 The greatest among you must be a servant. 12 But those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.

ikester7579
Mar 18th 2007, 05:15 AM
For the record, I've heard Joyce preach quite a few times and I've never heard her preach the prosperity gospel aka 'name it claim it' or any of that kind of stuff. Her preaching is generally Biblically very sound and extremely practical and straight-forward. She doesn't beat around the bush like other preachers often do.

So I just want to have said that I really like Joyce Meyer and the message I have heard from her: a call to a holy life in intimacy with God.

Before I say what I'm going to say, I just want to say: I like Joyce.

Now that being said, I have heard over 100 of her sermons (because I have sky angel network (http://www.skyangel.com/?aid=00010)). Only 1-2% have ever been on prosperity. And I have never heard her push the word of faith belief about some of the weird things they believe. But I have heard her say she is part of it.

I believe she realizes that some of what they believe is not right, other wise she would be preaching and teaching their stuff as much as the rest do. So do we condemn her for it? I think not. For if she is trying to hold on to truth by rejecting false teaching. Then we need to pray for her instead of condemn her.

For how shall we answer to the question on judgement day as to why we did not pray for Joyce, when we knew that what she was doing was wrong? And we also know that she is open minded because she has not fully committed to false teaching. Maybe we say: We condemned her already and therefore saw no need? Only one person has the ability to condemn someone to hell, and it's not us. And if we think we are really able to take that position when we get to heaven. I don't think God wants that type of rebellion going on. It has already happened once with Satan. I'm sure God does not want it to happen again.

So do we pray, or condemn joyce?

One answer makes you humble to the will of God. The other does not. One can bring another soul into the kingdom of heaven, the other makes the decision not to.

Atrandomdutch
Mar 18th 2007, 09:38 AM
So do we pray, or condemn joyce?


I would say both. I've also heard Joyce Meyer a few times, but to be honest, anything that even hints at prosperety teaching should be avoided. I've seen her talk about her new dress. HOW big of a wardrobe does she have? I mean, Jesus is very clear about wealth, and so are the apostles: Matthew 6:19-34 This is what Jesus says, and it's exacly what he means: DO NOT STORE UP FOR YOURSELVES TREASURES ON THIS EARTH. Can it be any clearer? James 5 is also very clear. Any teaching that flirts with mammon is wrong. Jesus is not about earthly riches. Doesn't he say that we must take up our cross? What if we DON'T get food, and all the 'prosperety' that is preached?

Should we judge: 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 (NASB) 9 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; 10 I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. 11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler--not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES.

I do not want to imply that Joyce Meyer is a false sister per se, but I do think that we should judge what she teaches to biblical standards and if there is anything false in her teaching to pray for her, and not associate with that teaching.

ikester7579
Mar 18th 2007, 10:28 AM
38 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.

39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
40 For he that is not against us is on our part.

Unlike us, Christ knew that those not against us are for us. Now would you say that Joyce does what she does in Christ's name, or in Satan's name? And if you respond for Satan, then I have another verse.


26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?

So does Joyce's ministry bring people to salvation or not? If so, it cannot be of Satan because he will not run a ministry that will allow souls to be saved.

MailmanGuy
Mar 18th 2007, 12:23 PM
Unlike us, Christ knew that those not against us are for us. Now would you say that Joyce does what she does in Christ's name, or in Satan's name? And if you respond for Satan, then I have another verse.

What she does - is in another christ's name. Her version of christ says it's ok for a woman to usurp authority over men. The Bible is clear, it's not. Her response when challenged to this fact was, "hogwash". Hogwash? In the message, she said that she was sometimes asked about Paul's writing that prohibited women from teaching in the church. She said, "Hogwash" and the crowd went wild. She ended by saying that if God did not want her to preach He would not have given her the gift. So, through that bit of logic, she argued in essence that God would act contrary to His own Word. Pretty sad. It doesn't have to be Satan's work all the time - it could be a little thing called "pride of life". ;)



So does Joyce's ministry bring people to salvation or not? If so, it cannot be of Satan because he will not run a ministry that will allow souls to be saved.

No. The ministry of Christ alone brings people to salvation. Not the ministry (or servitude) of Joyce.

watchinginawe
Mar 18th 2007, 02:19 PM
What she does - is in another christ's name. Her version of christ says it's ok for a woman to usurp authority over men.Ultimately, you would say the same thing about me and my "version" of Christ where it disagrees with what you think the Bible represents.

Whether we agree or not with Joyce, it simply is not true to say that there is some other Jesus out there that Joyce has dug up material on and preaches. That is simply a fallacious arguement. I am sure she is speaking of the same Jesus, the same Gospel, the same God, and the same Bible as we. She might or might not be in error on some things, but what she preaches is not unrecognizable as to who she preaches.

Studyin'2Show
Mar 18th 2007, 02:52 PM
What she does - is in another christ's name. Her version of christ says it's ok for a woman to usurp authority over men. The Bible is clear, it's not. Her response when challenged to this fact was, "hogwash". Hogwash? In the message, she said that she was sometimes asked about Paul's writing that prohibited women from teaching in the church. She said, "Hogwash" and the crowd went wild. She ended by saying that if God did not want her to preach He would not have given her the gift. So, through that bit of logic, she argued in essence that God would act contrary to His own Word. Pretty sad. It doesn't have to be Satan's work all the time - it could be a little thing called "pride of life". ;) Actually, she does not think it's ok to usurp authority over men. In fact, as I posted before, she teaches of how important it is for a wife to submit to her husband just as they both submit to Christ. She was not saying "hogwash" to God's word, she was saying "hogwash" to those who interpret Paul's words as being some doctrine from God that God never wants a woman to preach. Paul states in that same chapter (1 Corinthians 11:1), that we are to imitate him as he imitates Christ. Did Christ or the Father ever tell us this thing? As I posted earlier, I believe this scripture was written for a purpose but that purpose wasn't to make a doctrine of exclusion. If God had wanted us to have this as doctrine, there would have been two or more witnesses to establish it as doctrine. We are to be diligent, to study, to rightly divide the word of truth.

MailmanGuy
Mar 18th 2007, 03:44 PM
Whether we agree or not with Joyce, it simply is not true to say that there is some other Jesus out there that Joyce has dug up material on and preaches.

Really?

Joyce Meyer teaches that her Jesus did not pay for sin completely upon the cross, but actually went through the torments of hell to finish the atonement process. She adds (a little leaven to the bread - if you will) by saying that Jesus Himself was tormented by the very demons that He created. Where does the Bible state this? Jesus died for our sins on the cross as the Lamb of God. Like those lambs that were sacrificed in the temple (on behalf of Israel only) the animal's spirit didn't continue to make atonements for Israel after it died.


"During that time He entered hell, where you and I deserved to go (legally) because of our sin...He paid the price there.…no plan was too extreme...Jesus paid on the cross and in hell….God rose up from His throne and said to demon powers tormenting the sinless Son of God, “Let Him go.” Then the resurrection power of Almighty God went through hell and filled Jesus...He was resurrected from the dead - the first born-again man" (The Most Important Decision You Will Ever Make: A Complete And Thorough Understanding Of What It Means To Be Born Again, 1991, pages 35-36, Joyce Meyer)

Jesus' death on the cross made us sinless but it was the resurrection that justified us before our Holy Father in Heaven. [Rom 4:25]

Studyin'2Show
Mar 18th 2007, 04:52 PM
Really?

Joyce Meyer teaches that her Jesus did not pay for sin completely upon the cross, but actually went through the torments of hell to finish the atonement process. She adds (a little leaven to the bread - if you will) by saying that Jesus Himself was tormented by the very demons that He created. Where does the Bible state this? Jesus died for our sins on the cross as the Lamb of God. Like those lambs that were sacrificed in the temple (on behalf of Israel only) the animal's spirit didn't continue to make atonements for Israel after it died.

Jesus' death on the cross made us sinless but it was the resurrection that justified us before our Holy Father in Heaven. [Rom 4:25]Eat the meat and spit out the bones! :D I have yet to find ANY preacher (male or female) that I agree with 100% of the time. There will be bones. This is why I do not follow people. That's how crazy cults get started. I follow Christ / Messiah alone!

I can not comment on your quote. I guess your point is that it is from her. Was it a book or a sermon that you got this from? If so, I'd really like to know so I can read what is said before and after....for context! Can you please cite your source. Thanks!

God Bless!

*** added: Oh, I see the source. :blush: Do you have a link to this so it can be read in context, or would I have to buy the book? I have found many references on Google but all seem to be the small quote you have posted EXACTLY. ***

ChristopherE
Mar 18th 2007, 05:24 PM
Matthew 18:16 - But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’

This principle was laid out for us in the Hebrew scriptures and confirmed by both Jesus and Paul. Two or three witnesses are necessary to establish something. There is only ONE witness that ever says women should not preach, teach men, or speak in church. Is it said anywhere else in scripture to be that second witness? In fact, the opposite is shown by God's clear hand on Deborah (a female judge over Israel) as she led His people to victory. Jesus sent the woman at the well back to her village to tell (preach) of Him and it says the whole village was saved.


Denise, I think I generally appreciate your thoughts on most threads, but your excusing of scripture with this idea is grossly erred, misleading, or mistated.

We cannot say any scripture does not apply because we fail to find it restated elsewhere. All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for doctrine, only once does Paul say he's stating anything from personal experience and he identifies it by clearly declaring, "I say this with permission". And that's when he touts single-life to follow God, though even that statement has life application for everyone.

No scripture should be excused away as not applicable to each and every one of us. None.

Your idea is in further error by stating that this verse is by it's lonesome and has no witness. It reflects biblical principal established by Genesis 3. It is reinforced in 1 Timothy 2:12. Titus 2 also gives guidance for women's ministry.

Understanding of scripture should definatley be sought. None can be dismissed as not profitable for doctrine even when we fail to identify it with other scripture. It's still God's word for our guidance. I'm surprised you suggested such a notion.

watchinginawe
Mar 18th 2007, 05:35 PM
Really? Yes, really. Unless you are proposing that she is bringing forth some other person from some other Bible, then she is talking about the same Jesus.
Joyce Meyer teaches that her Jesus did not pay for sin completely upon the cross, but actually went through the torments of hell to finish the atonement process.If she teaches that then I believe she is in error. However, that still wouldn't make it some completely different person that she is talking about. Nor does it mean that she has her own Jesus that she is putting forth.

Your arguement would seem to put forth that she is possibly right about "her" Jesus since it is a different one than yours. I propose that she is either right or wrong about the same Jesus. She is either right or wrong, but not talking about a completely different Jesus, right?

God Bless!

divaD
Mar 18th 2007, 06:04 PM
[QUOTE=watchinginawe;1195543]
Yes, really. Unless you are proposing that she is bringing forth some other person from some other Bible, then she is talking about the same Jesus.If she teaches that then I believe she is in error. However, that still wouldn't make it some completely different person that she is talking about. Nor does it mean that she has her own Jesus that she is putting forth.


And this is where I personally see a problem. She is not talking about nor is she preaching another Jesus, she is referring to the one and only Jesus, the Son of God. What she teaches about Jesus and his descent into hell, is not only in error, but is heresy.

My mother is wheelchair bound. A cpl of months ago she brought up Joyce Meyer and that she watched her everytime she was on. She asked me if I was familiar with her. I told her yes, but I wasnt't that familiar with her beliefs. So I did some Googling.
Then I found out about her beliefs. Afterwards, I called my mother and begged her not to watch Joyce Meyers anymore. I explained to her why. My mother said that she would stop watching her and I can only hope that she has.

Studyin'2Show
Mar 18th 2007, 07:22 PM
Denise, I think I generally appreciate your thoughts on most threads, but your excusing of scripture with this idea is grossly erred, misleading, or mistated.

We cannot say any scripture does not apply because we fail to find it restated elsewhere. All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for doctrine, only once does Paul say he's stating anything from personal experience and he identifies it by clearly declaring, "I say this with permission". And that's when he touts single-life to follow God, though even that statement has life application for everyone.

No scripture should be excused away as not applicable to each and every one of us. None.

Your idea is in further error by stating that this verse is by it's lonesome and has no witness. It reflects biblical principal established by Genesis 3. It is reinforced in 1 Timothy 2:12. Titus 2 also gives guidance for women's ministry.

Understanding of scripture should definatley be sought. None can be dismissed as not profitable for doctrine even when we fail to identify it with other scripture. It's still God's word for our guidance. I'm surprised you suggested such a notion.Well, we will have to disagree then. Don't worry, I'm sure there will probably be more times! :P I haven't found anyone that I agree with 100% of the time, even my hubby! :lol: I tell you what, for all those that don't believe a woman should preach or teach men, then don't go to a woman to be preached to or taught. Pretty simple to avoid and I am not offended by anyone who would not hear me. However, I will stick to the words of Messiah as it is not my intention to please man but rather to please God. I would never assume to NOT submit to my husband, nor would I ever tell any married woman to do anything but that. I have been so blessed in the eight years (of my 21 year marriage) that I have become submissive to my husband. It is the best thing that has ever happened to my marriage. If my husband told me not to preach to men, I would be obedient and would support him in his ministry as I already do. As Priscilla and Aquilla were a team for the Lord, so are we! He happens to be gifted in music and youth and that is where he feels called in ministry. I, on the other hand, would preach to anyone....anywhere! At the bus stop (we have a bus stop ministry), at the grocery store, at my job, in a small home, in a big auditorium; literally anywhere. He loves the Lord too and says. "Go for it!" So, how is that not being submissive to him? How is that not being obedient to him? How is that in any way against the ministry Titus 2 speaks of or against Genesis 3 in any way? I am NOT a women libber. God forbid! I am in no way a rebellious sort.

I must refer back to post #31 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1194943&postcount=31) in this thread. Do you not realize that there are MANY verses that you do not hold as doctrine? I love Paul! I mean no disrespect to Paul whatsoever. As I've stated, I believe Paul's point of view was for a purpose when he wrote to the Corinthians. Every word of scripture is there for a purpose. So, why did Jesus say that even He needed a witness to be established? I think it was because He knew how easily people would accept things as doctrine. Show me one other thing in scripture, not written by Paul, that states that a woman should not speak amongst the congregation. As I stated before, I completely agree with a woman being submissive to her husband. In fact, it was listening to the testimony of Joyce Meyer talking about how she first began to be submissive that I realized this was necessary to be in the will of God.

This topic always gets very passionate responses, but i truly believe it is just another way the enemy uses to try to divide God's people over non-salvational things. I have stated my opinion and quoted scripture to back up that opinion. We are basically at a point of differences in interpretation which is ok. I obviously interpret things differently than some but make no mistake, I do not 'throw out' any scripture.

God Bless!

ChristopherE
Mar 18th 2007, 09:31 PM
My post was not to debate women's position in the church. It was to counter your dismissiveness of scripture so that others don't treat it hapharzardly. You talk like some parts of the Bible were not God given, that you can dismiss anything you don't like of what "Paul wrote" because you love him anyway. That is not the case.

First you say that one verse "has no witness". Then when I point one out, your suggestion is that, 'oh, Paul wrote that too', show me one "not written by Paul". It is this dismissiveness that I take the most issue with rahter than your interpretation of scripture. Paul did not give us his thoughts, God gave us HIS word through Paul. We cannot say something doesn't apply to us today, our job is to figure out how each word applies to us - actually to seek the Holy Spirit to teach us how it applies.


However, I will stick to the words of Messiah as it is not my intention to please man but rather to please God.
Indeed, and Paul was one, through whom, our Lord chose to give us His words.


I must refer back to post #31 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1194943&postcount=31) in this thread. Do you not realize that there are MANY verses that you do not hold as doctrine?

One cannot point to where someone was examplified as being wrong and say, "we don't follow this" and use that as an excuse not to follow parts of the Bible. That's terrible. Paul was not examplified as being wrong when he wrote what he did. In fact, we do make even your examples doctrine -we see where they were wrong and learn what not to do. Job's wife was wrong, and obviously so. Job pointed out her error immediately. We learn to not curse God and die in hard times. That scripture IS doctrine! So the reasoning you presented is faulty on many levels. Including (once again) disagreeing with Paul in his saying that 2Ti 3:16 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/2Ti/2Ti003.html#16) All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:


So, why did Jesus say that even He needed a witness to be established? I think it was because He knew how easily people would accept things as doctrine.

Jesus was witnessed for our sakes. He does not NEED to be witnessed to be true: Jhn 8:14 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=8&verse=14&version=kjv#14) Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, [yet] my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go.
but he is witnessed for our sakes. Of course, that all gets tricky because He's witnessed by Himself because He is God. In any event, let's not digress. We'll agree that He gave us witness to Himself. Now that He is witnessed to us, that He IS truth, we must believe His word, whether He repeats Himself in it or not. We know He is truth, believe what He says. What He says is recorded in the Bible.


Show me one other thing in scripture, not written by Paul, that states that a woman should not speak amongst the congregation.

It is not my focus to debate women's ministry here, as I stated. However, I don't need to put any effort into answering that concern. Paul already did it for me in pointing to the Genesis account. (he didn't formulate his own opinions but based all doctrine he presented on scripture) You obviously believe his interpretation of scripture is flawed (or only for a certain time). I'd state that Paul's doctrine is scriptural, inspired by God, and relevant to all.


This topic always gets very passionate responses, but i truly believe it is just another way the enemy uses to try to divide God's people over non-salvational things. I have stated my opinion and quoted scripture to back up that opinion.

But you didn't! You pointed to scriptures, yes. But it was an attempt to reach then end of proving some scripture is not relevantly applied to us. You were unsuccessful in that end because that point is invalid, as the Bible tells us ALL scripture is profitable for doctrine.

Oh, to your credit, you did point to Priscilla. Unfortunately for your cause, she is not shown leading and teaching a church, in opposition to what Paul taught. She is, in fact, teamed with her husband.


We are basically at a point of differences in interpretation which is ok. I obviously interpret things differently than some but make no mistake, I do not 'throw out' any scripture.
God Bless!

I wish we were merely in difference of opinion on interpretation. You've basically said we can discount it because it's not repeated (which it is), like we can discount other verses in the Bible (which we can't) and don't have to follow it like how we don't follow "curse God and Die"(which is irrelevant and we do follow the lesson taught by even that scripture). I'd be much more at ease if we simply disagreed on interpretation, but you have, in fact, chosen just to ignore it. Or, at the very least, you expressed that certain parts are and can be ignored - a misleading that I hope to undo by my expressed concern on the matter.

ikester7579
Mar 18th 2007, 09:55 PM
What she does - is in another christ's name. Her version of christ says it's ok for a woman to usurp authority over men. The Bible is clear, it's not. Her response when challenged to this fact was, "hogwash". Hogwash? In the message, she said that she was sometimes asked about Paul's writing that prohibited women from teaching in the church. She said, "Hogwash" and the crowd went wild. She ended by saying that if God did not want her to preach He would not have given her the gift. So, through that bit of logic, she argued in essence that God would act contrary to His own Word. Pretty sad. It doesn't have to be Satan's work all the time - it could be a little thing called "pride of life". ;)
No. The ministry of Christ alone brings people to salvation. Not the ministry (or servitude) of Joyce.

mt 12:26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?

So if Joyce is running a Satanic ministry that caters to a counterfeit Christ, then the verse above is wrong. So are the words of Christ wrong?

Satan does not give the gifts of God, regardless of your ideology that women should not usurp the authority of man. As I have said before, and I'll say again. The "only" authority that God gave man over woman, that is not part of her family (father figure). Is in marriage.

And if women are not supposed to preach and prophecy, then why is the word prophetess in God's word? Name one verse in God's word that condemns a prophetess? Just one. Name one verse where a prophetess was ever cursed for being a prophetess?

A prophet (man) is not only someone who is selected by God to do the work for the kingdom. But to even have that position on earth they have to be accepted by the people as well. Which means they have to show their gift before the people. So if that authority is wrong to have for a woman, how did they maintain that here on earth? And why were there not one prophetess ever stoned to death for blaspheming God, by being a woman who held that position? For did they not try to do that very thing to Christ? And he was what? A man. So how did women get by with it, but yet they want to stone a man only for what you claim is wrong.

In fact, name one woman, in God's word, that was stoned to death, for taking the position in church that she was not allowed to have? Name one woman who held a position in any government, written in God's word, that was stoned to death for holding a position that only man should have?

The only time you see a woman stoned to death for usurping a man's authority is when that authority is broken in marriage. In fact, I may just start a thread showing where women only only stoned for this one thing as far as the authority of man was concerned. And I bet before the thread was over with I could find ten times more verses that directly support this.

God does not use people in positions that mock Him. To do this, God would be making Himself out to be a liar and a hypocrite. For if I say to you not to do this one thing because of this. But then I do it myself. What am I? So if God works with Women who are in positions that mock Him, but yet says: They are not supposed to have those positions. What does that make God?

God's approval equals God's blessing. God's approval equals no cursing. God's approval equals no stoning. God's approval equals winning a war with a woman (Debra) who held a authoritative position in government.

So how does God work with people who hold positions that supposedly mock Him? That would be like blessing Satan and Satanist for the work they do. Can, or will God bless those who do evil mockery of Him? What else would you call it when someone supposedly holds a position they are forbidden to have?

To sum it up:

1) God cannot bless or work with those who mock Him.
2) Satan cannot do things that work against his kingdom.

Here are all the verses with the word prophetess:

ex 15:20 And Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand; and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with dances.

judg 4:4 And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time.

2kings 22:14 So Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam, and Achbor, and Shaphan, and Asahiah, went unto Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tikvah, the son of Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe; (now she dwelt in Jerusalem in the college;) and they communed with her.

2chron 34:22 And Hilkiah, and they that the king had appointed, went to Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tikvath, the son of Hasrah, keeper of the wardrobe; (now she dwelt in Jerusalem in the college:) and they spake to her to that effect.

neh 6:14 My God, think thou upon Tobiah and Sanballat according to these their works, and on the prophetess Noadiah, and the rest of the prophets, that would have put me in fear.

is 8:3 And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz.

lk 2:36 And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity;

And here is the only negative thing said about a woman who "calleth herself" to be a prophetess, but was actually a satanic idol worshipper.

rev 2:20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.

The reason the word "calleth" is used is because to become a prophet, or prophetess you have to be anointed for that work. So how did the prophetess listed above that did it the right way get anointed for this position, and accepted by the people, if this is the wrong thing to do?

And notice that not one of them gets stoned. But Jezebel, the fake self appointed prophetess, is killed by her own servants. And until this day she is the symbol of satanic worship. Why are not the other prophetess used as a symbol of satanic worship? It is because even satanists know that the others were approved of by God, and Jezebel was not.

For being a false prophetess, was Jezebel blessed or cursed?

And if it were wrong for the other women to do this, why were they not cursed in the same manner? Mocking God is mocking God.

gal 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

Studyin'2Show
Mar 18th 2007, 10:38 PM
Ok, so we will continue to disagree on this one. Somehow, you seem to think that I am somehow disregarding scripture and I am not. It seems we simply disagree on the interpretation of that scripture. Why no comment on my submission to my husband or the fact that my ministry is one with my husband? The two have become one flesh. You mentioned that you would show me a scripture that did not have a 'witness' but i didn't notice one. Was that an oversight or did I misunderstand you?

Here's one for you:

Galatians 3:26-28
26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

According to this passage, I am a son of God because I have been born again. I am a new creation. I am no longer female or male....in the spirit. It is my flesh that still binds me to that, but not my spirit. I do not preach through the flesh. I crucify my flesh daily. I do not preach to gain glory for myself, only glory for my Father in heaven! If that is a problem for some, I'm sorry they feel that way. However, my desire is that when I stand before my Father, He will say well done my good and faithful servant. Although it would be nice to have the approval of man, it is not a requirement.

All that said, this is not a point I think believers need to divide over. We disagree on interpretation but we agree on what is most important. Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior! We must begin to focus on uniting on the things of real importance that we agree on instead of dwelling on things of little importance we don't agree on. Just my 2 cents!

God Bless!

ChristopherE
Mar 18th 2007, 11:24 PM
Ok, so we will continue to disagree on this one. Somehow, you seem to think that I am somehow disregarding scripture and I am not. It seems we simply disagree on the interpretation of that scripture. Why no comment on my submission to my husband or the fact that my ministry is one with my husband? The two have become one flesh. You mentioned that you would show me a scripture that did not have a 'witness' but i didn't notice one. Was that an oversight or did I misunderstand you?


No I didn't suggest unwitnessed scripture. I pointed out that it was an irrelevant arguement since 1. Paul's statement is witnessed 2. Even if there was, scripture is God's word, who is witnessed, so we can take Him at his word.

Again, I'm not purposed to prove anything about women's ministry here (though I've participated in such discussions before). There's a much bigger issue at hand and that is that you suggested we can discredit something Paul wrote. You tried to prove it having no authority because it's unwitnessed. You likened it to the wrong saying's of Job's wife. 'We don't live by what Job's wife said, so we don't necessarily have to live by what Paul said' Did you not state these things? Both were incorrect and can lead to gross error in dealing with the scripture for those newly seeking to do so.

all scripture is profitable for doctrine. all of it is God's word to us and none can be given less credance.

There will always be difference of opinion when dealing with these few verses - but that we should deal with them should not be in question.

eschatologist
Mar 18th 2007, 11:27 PM
Hi Brothers and Sisters,

In one of Joyce Meyer's books "The most important decision you will ever make" she writes His(Jesus) spirit went to hell because that is where we deserved to go..... Jesus went to hell for you. He died for you. He paid for your sins.

And she also writes, He(Jesus) was resurrected from the dead-the first born-again man.

Any help on this please???

Van


Jesus did die and go to hell. That was part of the suffering He had to go through in order to fully suffer for our sins so that we wouldn't have to. That was Love: "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man give His life for His friends". But He did not suffer hellfire and damnatin of the Lake of fire. In fact, nobody is going to be cast into the lake of fire until the Anti-christ and his false prophet are at the end of the battle of Armageddon. And all the rest of the wicked won't suffer in the Lake of fire until after the Great white throne Judgement of God.

When Jesus was on the cross before he died He said, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" He wasn't just speaking rhetorically here. God really had to forsake Jesus momentarily in order for Jesus to die the death of a sinner all alone, and without God and His Love. It was a spiritual suffering that included going to the spiritual prison of Hell where the unsaved spirits of the unsaved dead go to wait for the final Judgment.

It is the kind of suffering that you or I won't have to go through since we've accepted Jesus as our saviour and accepted His attonement for our sins. As soon as a saved born again Christian dies his spirit goes straight up the Heaven and to God's throne.

Studyin'2Show
Mar 19th 2007, 01:32 AM
No I didn't suggest unwitnessed scripture. I pointed out that it was an irrelevant arguement since 1. Paul's statement is witnessed 2. Even if there was, scripture is God's word, who is witnessed, so we can take Him at his word.

Again, I'm not purposed to prove anything about women's ministry here (though I've participated in such discussions before). There's a much bigger issue at hand and that is that you suggested we can discredit something Paul wrote. You tried to prove it having no authority because it's unwitnessed. You likened it to the wrong saying's of Job's wife. 'We don't live by what Job's wife said, so we don't necessarily have to live by what Paul said' Did you not state these things? Both were incorrect and can lead to gross error in dealing with the scripture for those newly seeking to do so.

all scripture is profitable for doctrine. all of it is God's word to us and none can be given less credance.

There will always be difference of opinion when dealing with these few verses - but that we should deal with them should not be in question.I do take God at His word. Can I ask you a question? (I just did, huh?:D) How do you know what Job's wife said was wrong? How do you know when one of Job's friends say something that is not correct? How do you know when Job says something that is not God's word? What of Solomon or anyone else? You know because you know the nature of God and His character. You know because you will not see that word established by God elsewhere in scripture. Otherwise, you would never be able to tell what is God's word to be taken as doctrine and what is God's word.

I, in no way, would want to discredit what Paul said. Paul's words had a purpose. However, Paul is clear that some of what he writes is indeed his opinion.

1 Corinthians 7:6-12 & 40
6 But I say this as a concession, not as a commandment. 7 For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that.
8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; 9 but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
10 Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband. 11 But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife.
12 But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her.

40 But she is happier if she remains as she is, according to my judgment—and I think I also have the Spirit of God.

He, very clearly, points out that some of what he says is not commandment. Then he points out in verse 12 that he, not the Lord, is speaking. In concluding this chapter in verse 40, he makes a statement that is extremely informative. He says that the things he has just written are according to his judgment and adds that he thinks he also has the Spirit of God. Paul, himself, is telling us that not everything he is writing is commandment or doctrine.

That's my interpretation. It seems to be a clear one but that's one of the interesting things about scripture. What seems clear for one person may not be seen by another. Then what the other person sees clearly, may not be seen by the first. As I've said before, we obviously see this differently. As I've already said, my intention is to please my Father; not man. I am being both submissive and obedient to my husband. Both things that are established many times in scripture. I would never do ANYTHING purposely to rebel against the word of my Lord. If I could not preach the gospel I think I would explode.

God Bless!

ChristopherE
Mar 19th 2007, 04:16 PM
I do take God at His word. Can I ask you a question? (I just did, huh?:D) How do you know what Job's wife said was wrong? How do you know when one of Job's friends say something that is not correct? How do you know when Job says something that is not God's word? What of Solomon or anyone else? You know because you know the nature of God and His character. You know because you will not see that word established by God elsewhere in scripture. Otherwise, you would never be able to tell what is God's word to be taken as doctrine and what is God's word.

This just seems an illogical line of questioning for the topic at hand. It has nothing to do with Paul's writings to the churches. Paul was an apostle sent by God to spread HIS word and given the Holy Spirit. God would not allow Paul to spread errant message. That you would draw such parrallels worries me, and is the reason I posted. Nevertheless, I'll answer those questions, though I appologize if they were merely rhetorical. We know when Job's wife and friends and even Job state something wrong because the opposite is established by God. What they said are story elements for effect so that God can show us what's correct in respect to thoughts that enter all our minds at times. In other words God gives us examples of what's wrong within man - even ourselves - and establishes what's righteous. He doesn't leave us hanging and wondering. It's not because there is no witness but because there is witness to the opposite and the correct way throughout.

Paul is not shown incorrect in any of his teachings anywhere, and the parallels you've drawn are, not only invalid, but dangerous to present to those too imature in studying the word to know better. Paul is an apostles, given God's word by the Holy Spirit and witnessed by God. His teachings(God's teachings) are not meant as examples of what's wrong, in which God shows us the opposite.


He, very clearly, points out that some of what he says is not commandment. Then he points out in verse 12 that he, not the Lord, is speaking. In concluding this chapter in verse 40, he makes a statement that is extremely informative. He says that the things he has just written are according to his judgment and adds that he thinks he also has the Spirit of God. Paul, himself, is telling us that not everything he is writing is commandment or doctrine.


Here, you're illustrating a point I already made a couple posts back. Paul IS clear when he is giving counsel for which he has no scriptural reference, yet feels led to do so by the Holy Spirit. He identifies the specific thing he's talking about from his best judgement - that's not to be transferred to just anything he writes where we feel like it. Paul carefully and clearly identifies it. Quite conversely, he identifies the judgement he's making about women's role in church with scriptural principal.

As the side note, I should make it clear, I am not judging you, you don't have to keep excusing yourself. I believe you would not purposely be out of order with God's word nor His will. I have continuously attempted to make this about how careful we are in our exegesis of scripture - how we study it. I felt some wreckless postulations had to be cleared up, a task which I think has now reached its apex, in answering your questions... unless you still wish to discuss it. I have not even clearly defined my position on the matter of women's ministry. I've only pointed to scriptures and gave them the credence they deserve. You've assumed correctly from those scriptures what my position would be, and yes, that we would be in disagreement. However, that's the smaller issue, in which I'm not judging you. I leave it between you and God.

I do hope you are blessed even in this conversation which may have felt contentious.

Steve M
Mar 19th 2007, 04:39 PM
Paul is an apostles, given God's word by the Holy Spirit and witnessed by God.

And, (as if he needed it) Paul's writings are witnessed as scripture by two other NT writers. Luke said in Acts 9 that he was a Chosen vessel of God to spread His word. Peter said that some men twisted Paul's words, as they did ALL the scriptures.

I'm not sure that's what Studying2Show is looking for, in terms of a witness, but it's definitely THERE.

ChristsCourage
Mar 19th 2007, 05:00 PM
So, basically what everyone is getting at about Joyce Meyer, is that we all need to stay away from her? If so, then, I am gonna stay as far away as possible from her. She's no good in my book. If others like her teachings, that's fine. They can like her. I read on Wikipedia(sp?) that she is using millions of dollars to buy things, and is teaching that it's okay to talk about your riches. I thought it says throughout the bible that we need to not worship worldly things. Correct me if I'm wrong. That's just my 2 cents worth. Maybe more.LOL!!!!!

Pilgrimtozion
Mar 19th 2007, 07:02 PM
What I'm interested in knowing is how many of you have ever heard her preach, and have heard her preach those things that are said to be objectionable?

Alabama Larry in K
Mar 19th 2007, 07:11 PM
Paul says women must be silent in worship when men are present. We cannot pick and choose scripture. If she feels she has the gift to preach she can, but for only in front of women and children.

Steve M
Mar 19th 2007, 07:32 PM
What I'm interested in knowing is how many of you have ever heard her preach, and have heard her preach those things that are said to be objectionable?
I catch her on the radio occasionally. I haven't heard her fall into all the errors attributed to her, but I've heard enough.

Studyin'2Show
Mar 19th 2007, 08:51 PM
This just seems an illogical line of questioning for the topic at hand. It has nothing to do with Paul's writings to the churches. Paul was an apostle sent by God to spread HIS word and given the Holy Spirit.

I do hope you are blessed even in this conversation which may have felt contentious.Of course Paul is an apostle to be respected and held in high esteem. Where exactly have you seen me post otherwise? I showed you where Paul, himself, in his own writings clearly says that some of what he is writing is the word of the Lord and some is his opinion. Those were his own words! I don't see how it can be any more clear. You act as if scripture teaches us that apostles are perfect. Even Paul again writes of Peter:

Galatians 2:11-13
11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.

Paul points out Peter's error, and his and Barnabas' hypocrisy. In other places he commends Peter. BTW, Deuteronomy, the words of Jesus and the words of Paul do not say that a PERSON needs two or three witnesses to be established. It says a thing, a word, a doctrine, a testimony; needs two or more witnesses to be established. Someone please post from the mouth (or words) of another witness that shows that a woman should not speak in church.

Ironically, how many of you attend churches where women are not allowed to speak in church? And please, don't change it to preach because that is not what Paul says. Let's go on the honor system, ok? Tell us if your church would never allow a woman to even speak; whether it's giving a testimony or a prayer in Bible study, or during some sort of church production, no women are EVER allowed to speak. I know the conservative Southern Baptist church I attended most recently (left on good terms and still consider my church family) would never have a woman preach, but they do allow testimonies, guest speakers, even presentations by women. In Bible study on Wednesday, women ask questions of the pastor without having to go home to ask their husbands. Women even speak as the pastor preaches to say amen or preach it or answer a question if he asks it to the congregation. Isn't all this against the words of Paul?

God Bless!

ChristopherE
Mar 19th 2007, 10:21 PM
Of course Paul is an apostle to be respected and held in high esteem. Where exactly have you seen me post otherwise? I showed you where Paul, himself, in his own writings clearly says that some of what he is writing is the word of the Lord and some is his opinion. Those were his own words! I don't see how it can be any more clear. You act as if scripture teaches us that apostles are perfect. Even Paul again writes of Peter:


you're obviously too focused on one issue to consider what I've written...

:giveup:

Studyin'2Show
Mar 19th 2007, 10:28 PM
you're obviously too focused on one issue to consider what I've written...

:giveup:I have considered what you've said, Christopher, and we obviously just will not agree on this one. I could say the exact same thing to you. I'm actually beginning to tire of the debate. You have your opinion (as do others), I have mine. Is this salvational? Do I lose my salvation because I disagree with you? If not, then what the point of being so divided on this.

I guess your failure to answer my last direct question is that you do not attend a church that does not allow a woman to even speak in church. If women are allowed to speak at your church, I don't know why the debate is so hard that this is indeed some sort of doctrine that is to be followed. If it is, I have not EVER attended any church that follows it as written by Paul. Have you?

God Bless!

ChristopherE
Mar 19th 2007, 11:09 PM
I have considered what you've said, Christopher, and we obviously just will not agree on this one. I could say the exact same thing to you. I'm actually beginning to tire of the debate. You have your opinion (as do others), I have mine. Is this salvational? Do I lose my salvation because I disagree with you? If not, then what the point of being so divided on this.

I guess your failure to answer my last direct question is that you do not attend a church that does not allow a woman to even speak in church. If women are allowed to speak at your church, I don't know why the debate is so hard that this is indeed some sort of doctrine that is to be followed. If it is, I have not EVER attended any church that follows it as written by Paul. Have you?

God Bless!

Never the point. I'd agree not to be divided over it. I'd simply not attend and would not confront you on it. I do not need to answer your last question because it's not the debate I desire to have. You keep going back to it because it's an easier debate than dealing with your fallacious exegesis of scripture.

Studyin'2Show
Mar 20th 2007, 12:00 AM
Never the point. I'd agree not to be divided over it. I'd simply not attend and would not confront you on it. I do not need to answer your last question because it's not the debate I desire to have. You keep going back to it because it's an easier debate than dealing with your fallacious exegesis of scripture.I seem to be offending you and that is definitely not my intention. I believe my last question IS the very crux of the issue. If this is doctrine, we should treat it as doctrine, as written. Without changing it to fit what is culturally accepted today. If it is not doctrine, then we should recognize why 'scripturally' it is not. And be diligent in our study to find out why it does belong in scripture.

Yes, I think the fact that likely none of those who have debated so hard on this issue actually practice the doctrine, as written, is pivotal in understanding why this is still an issue that would divide God's people. I think ikester's pointing out the instances of the biblical prophetess is key in understanding the Father's heart on this issue. I hope as this discussion comes to an end, everyone on all sides will have a better understanding of each other and our positions. The major point is that we should still be able to stay united as brothers and sisters in Christ, who happen to disagree.

God Bless!

ChristopherE
Mar 20th 2007, 01:56 AM
I seem to be offending you and that is definitely not my intention. I believe my last question IS the very crux of the issue. If this is doctrine, we should treat it as doctrine, as written. Without changing it to fit what is culturally accepted today. If it is not doctrine, then we should recognize why 'scripturally' it is not. And be diligent in our study to find out why it does belong in scripture.

Yes, I think the fact that likely none of those who have debated so hard on this issue actually practice the doctrine, as written, is pivotal in understanding why this is still an issue that would divide God's people. I think ikester's pointing out the instances of the biblical prophetess is key in understanding the Father's heart on this issue. I hope as this discussion comes to an end, everyone on all sides will have a better understanding of each other and our positions. The major point is that we should still be able to stay united as brothers and sisters in Christ, who happen to disagree.

God Bless!

Thank you. That is reasoning that is profitable for discussion and does invite diligence in studying scripture. I did agonize on the way home whether I should answer your question which I saw as no more than a strawman to the bigger issue that I stated many times I was trying to address. Stating we should be diligent in studying why it belongs in scripture, you state the passion driving my discussion in this thread. I appreciate that.

In that light, I will oblidge, and answer the question:


Ironically, how many of you attend churches where women are not allowed to speak in church? And please, don't change it to preach because that is not what Paul says. . . . Women even speak as the pastor preaches to say amen or preach it or answer a question if he asks it to the congregation. Isn't all this against the words of Paul?


1Cr 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
1Cr 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.


With modern church format, in effect, women AND men follow this instruction of Paul. Everyone sits and listens, without interuption, to one pastor. You say not to change it to mean "teach", but "not permitted for them to speak" does refer to teaching. The purpose of anyone speaking in that specific setting was to teach on scripture, or perhaps question the teaching. Teaching and Questioning is included in "speak". There was of course order to it. Women interjecting was not orderly because it was not permitted. They were not to teach (but be under obediece) and they were not to interupt with questions. Today, no one does these things in church, one pastor speaks. Everyone listens. So yes, churches are in order with Paul's instruction here.

Notice also, Paul's not giving "his opinion". He identifies why he's providing this instruction: it's an established principal of the law

... but let's let scripture interpret scripture. It's reiterrated here:

1Ti 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

11. Women should learn in silence and subjection, that is, not questioning what's being taught.

in Corrinthians it specifies the questioning be done at home12. Women should not teach or usurp authority over men.

We see the silence defined as I've interpreted Corrinthians. Silence is defined as neither questioning nor teaching.13-14. Paul clarifies the reasoning for this instruction as being established in the law - Adam was formed first; Eve was deceived; God commanded Eve to be under authority of Adam. This principal is what's orderly when extended to the church family.

I believe that to be proper interpretation of the scripture in question. Churches today don't actually have women or men teaching and questioning other than the one behind the pulpit.

Studyin'2Show
Mar 20th 2007, 02:27 AM
Ok, so in your church women do not give testimonies or pray in Bible study. Fine! Then I accept that you follow this as doctrine, though I've never seen this practice in action. I know that in my father's church they would not sing with instruments or have a choir. It seemed odd to me but he enjoyed it and I respect him for his opinion as well, as he did mine. Am I understanding your answer correctly as it was not very clear whether women speak at all in your church or ask questions of the pastor in Bible study rather than go home to their husbands and ask? Either way, I respectfully disagree with your position.

BTW, you quote where Paul says that this principle is in the law. I must say that I most definitely see obedience to her husband in the law; which I am in full obedience to my husband. Can you point out where being silent or not speaking is in the law or that she is to be obedient to someone other than her parents and her husband?

God Bless!

ChristopherE
Mar 20th 2007, 03:37 AM
Ok, so in your church women do not give testimonies or pray in Bible study. Fine! Then I accept that you follow this as doctrine, though I've never seen this practice in action. I know that in my father's church they would not sing with instruments or have a choir. It seemed odd to me but he enjoyed it and I respect him for his opinion as well, as he did mine. Am I understanding your answer correctly as it was not very clear whether women speak at all in your church or ask questions of the pastor in Bible study rather than go home to their husbands and ask? Either way, I respectfully disagree with your position.


This shows manipulation of what I've actually said to be subversive. The only thing I've offered is that women do not teach or interrupt the sermon with questions. I do not go further than that as I don't believe the scriptures to go beyond how I interpreted them.

I'm fine with you disagreeing with me. Perhaps you'd like to offer a different interpretation.

Studyin'2Show
Mar 20th 2007, 10:30 AM
This shows manipulation of what I've actually said to be subversive. The only thing I've offered is that women do not teach or interrupt the sermon with questions. I do not go further than that as I don't believe the scriptures to go beyond how I interpreted them.

I'm fine with you disagreeing with me. Perhaps you'd like to offer a different interpretation.You interpreting the scripture differently than what it appears to be on the surface is just fine. Ironically, this is exactly what I am doing.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35
34 Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. 35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.

Paul clearly says that women should not speak, not that they should not interrupt. It also clearly says that if they want to learn anything they should go home and ask their husband because it is shameful for them even to ask a question if not in their house. Did Paul mean something different or should women not be able to say anything or to even ask the pastor a question during Bible study (if the pastor is not her husband, that is). When something implies that the law says a woman is supposed to be submissive to anyone other than her parents and husband I have to say - Can you point out where that is in the law? That would be crucial in understanding why the portion is where it is. Each and every line of scripture is included for a purpose but not every purpose is the same. We must rightly divide the word. We must seek the Father's will in this matter.

As I've said before, the church I attended before our current housechurch is a conservative Southern Baptist church. Every year we would have a 'Lottie Moon Offering' campaign for foreign missions. She went across the sea to China and literally gave everything she had, including her life, to evangelize the Chinese people. She taught both men and women and many church groups in China today have their roots in the work of Lottie Moon. Yes, it is very important to diligently study to understand the word of God properly. How many women who may have been called as she was, did not heed that call because someone taught them that women are not allowed to preach? Yes, it is very important to understand the context.

God Bless!

ikester7579
Mar 21st 2007, 08:18 AM
What I'm interested in knowing is how many of you have ever heard her preach, and have heard her preach those things that are said to be objectionable?

Well everyone likes to point to the few times she has preached on prosperity. And those times are very few.

For those who would like to push that prosperity teaching is wrong period. Would you also say that you take this to the level that Christ did within your life?

For Christ lived off the offerings of other people, and then gave anything he could to others. Is there one here that can claim they live their life to this standard, and live with zero prosperity?

Then to what degree can you condemn another for preaching it, when most cannot even live up to the level of Christ on this subject?

Steve M
Mar 21st 2007, 01:50 PM
Studying2Show, if your doctrine is that the words of one man, unwitnessed, are not grounds for doctrine, where do you stand on salvation by grace? Because I can't think of anybody besides Paul who speaks on that. Can you?

Where in the NT are the messages of Romans repeated?

Who besides Paul gives us qualifications for elders and tells us to appoint them in every Church?

...

There are a dozen more doctrines formed solely from the words of Paul. Do we call each of these invalid because they lack a second witness?

What about doctrines from the book of Hebrews? Or the book of James?

Does it make a difference if the only one to say something is Jesus?

What about 'it is more blessed to give than receive'? Only Paul says that the Lord said this. No second witness at all. Actually, only Luke says that Paul said this.

This is the matter of interpretation ChristopherE wants to talk about, not the matter of women preaching in the pulpit or not. Why is that irrelevant? Because it is possible to disagree on that matter without believing that the words of scripture must have a second witness to make them binding. I have disagreed with many people over the years who have accepted those words as scripture and binding and witnessed and still have found plenty of room to disagree.

So it doesn't really matter whether this issue rises or falls.

What we should really do, to be fair, is start a completely new thread to discuss it.

Alabama Larry in K
Mar 21st 2007, 04:02 PM
I see nothing wrong with women praying, give announcements, testimonies, and so forth, she isn't allowed to teach over a man. There are a rising numbers of churches that have women Pastors and if someone chose to attend her church thats their choice. Romans 11 states that if someone gets a call from God, only God can remove the calling. Where were the men when Jesus came out of the tomb? "Go Mary, tell them their Savior has risen".

I'm glad to see that you two can agree to disagree but understand each others think so's with respect.

Some churches have women who are very bold in their faith and have to take on more responsibilty and thats because some men will not do it, so the women do it.

The main thing is that Jesus Christ is being preached and his teachings are taught, and he isn't going to harshly judge a women for preaching his word.

I just choose to not have a female Pastor.

carolyn
Mar 21st 2007, 07:44 PM
I know it is self explanitory. But will someone please help me.
so i will'n had very a litter bit to talk about.Look it my first time.
please help me

Thank You:help::help::B:B

Studyin'2Show
Mar 21st 2007, 09:09 PM
Studying2Show, if your doctrine is that the words of one man, unwitnessed, are not grounds for doctrine, where do you stand on salvation by grace? Because I can't think of anybody besides Paul who speaks on that. Can you?

Where in the NT are the messages of Romans repeated?

Who besides Paul gives us qualifications for elders and tells us to appoint them in every Church?Hello Steve! We likely differ greatly on this one being that I believe salvation through grace (not works) was preach throughout the entire Hebrew scriptures. But that's definitely one for another thread! :D The definition of 'grace' is basically mercy and/or unmerited favor, something given, not earned. All through the OT it speaks of God either 'granting' salvation or giving it through His 'mercy'. So, there is endless witness available for salvation through grace. That said, there is also, witness to that fact in the apostolic scriptures.

John 3:16-17 - For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. (This is not salvation through works; it is by grace)

I Peter 1:10-11 - Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow.

Any other doctrinal concept will also be found if the time is taken to dig deeply to find truth. I'm telling you, God is like any good parent. Anything important He makes clear by repetition. Any doctrine in Hebrews or James or anywhere else can be seen elsewhere in scripture. And please remember, I am speaking of established doctrine. Anything historical, where it doesn't have anything to do with doctrine is not what we're talking about. That was not what was being referred to in Deuteronomy or by Yeshua Himself. Only John said that Messiah said what is recorded in John 3:16-17, however, as I've shown above, that concept of salvation given without merit (the doctrine) IS shown elsewhere. Do you see the difference?

As for the concept of choosing Godly men for service:

Exodus 18:20-22 - And you shall teach them the statutes and the laws, and show them the way in which they must walk and the work they must do. Moreover you shall select from all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them to be rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens. And let them judge the people at all times. Then it will be that every great matter they shall bring to you, but every small matter they themselves shall judge. So it will be easier for you, for they will bear the burden with you.

Act 6:3-4 - Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business; but we will give ourselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word.

Just as Jethro offers Moses good counsel to choose Godly men, so Paul has given good counsel. The best advice Jethro gives is to let God lead in this thing (Exodus 18:23).

As for this topic, it would probably be best if we moved on to another thread that is not titled 'Joyce Meyer' as this one is actually supposed to be discussing her. If you want to start one, please email me the link or post it here. Otherwise, it has been very good discussing this issue with all of you. This is how believers should be able to discuss differences without name calling or finger pointing.;)

God Bless!

Faithwalker
Mar 21st 2007, 10:18 PM
Hi Brothers and Sisters,

In one of Joyce Meyer's books "The most important decision you will ever make" she writes His(Jesus) spirit went to hell because that is where we deserved to go..... Jesus went to hell for you. He died for you. He paid for your sins.

And she also writes, He(Jesus) was resurrected from the dead-the first born-again man.

Any help on this please???

Van


Joyce is teaching fables...hard to believe since she does have all those theology degrees...but theres no accounting for some preachers...other than they must not love the truth as much as they say they do.

This might help you:
http://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-go-to-hell.html


Unless I missed it, no one in this thread objected to Joyce`s
"Born Again Jesus" Thats strange...

hillbilly dave
Mar 21st 2007, 10:58 PM
Hi Brothers and Sisters,

In one of Joyce Meyer's books "The most important decision you will ever make" she writes His(Jesus) spirit went to hell because that is where we deserved to go..... Jesus went to hell for you. He died for you. He paid for your sins.

And she also writes, He(Jesus) was resurrected from the dead-the first born-again man.

Any help on this please???

Van
My bible tells me that Jesus went to the cross for our sins.The Spiriit of Christ was God and we can all agree God aint in hell.If memory serves me well the disiciples witnessed Christ ascend not descend. And Jesus left us the Holy Spirit to lead,guide,comfort and direct our hearts.

Roselady
Mar 22nd 2007, 05:00 PM
Van,

I used to listen to Joyce Meyer back when I did not know any better, I was her biggest fan, had like 10 of her books and watched the show pretty much everyday.

Slowly, not unlike yourself, I started seeing that some of the stuff she teaches is just plain wrong, other stuff is really misguided. I dont know if its intentional or if she is just confused, but you do need to be aware that not all she says is the truth, or even close.

It started with little things, errors in interpreting scripture (bad enough a baby Christian like I was could see it), and things like her judgmental attitude about the way people dress. There was a show where she bragged about coming down on an employee with wrinkled clothes. I had to stop and think to myself is this how Jesus would act? The church is not about what you wear, its about who you are on the inside. That whole story was in poor taste, especially coming from a "preacher."

It all ended when she had a show on around Christmas time that she said something that was so fowl and disgusting that I cant even bring myself to repeat it. Please dont ask me to say what she said, no decent Christian woman would repeat it. Its that bad.

I knew right then that she has no clue about the things of God and should not be preaching His word. I quit listening, burned all the books, I would not even risk donating them to the thrift store because I did not want to be responsible for leading anyone else astray. If I were you, I would get rid of the book and find someone else who does know the word of God to teach you.

One good thing about her, if not for her fowlness, I would not have quit and found the good teachers that I listen to now. So there is a positive side.

HappyinHim

divaD
Mar 22nd 2007, 05:31 PM
Van,

I used to listen to Joyce Meyer back when I did not know any better, I was her biggest fan, had like 10 of her books and watched the show pretty much everyday.

Slowly, not unlike yourself, I started seeing that some of the stuff she teaches is just plain wrong, other stuff is really misguided. I dont know if its intentional or if she is just confused, but you do need to be aware that not all she says is the truth, or even close.

It started with little things, errors in interpreting scripture (bad enough a baby Christian like I was could see it), and things like her judgmental attitude about the way people dress. There was a show where she bragged about coming down on an employee with wrinkled clothes. I had to stop and think to myself is this how Jesus would act? The church is not about what you wear, its about who you are on the inside. That whole story was in poor taste, especially coming from a "preacher."

It all ended when she had a show on around Christmas time that she said something that was so fowl and disgusting that I cant even bring myself to repeat it. Please dont ask me to say what she said, no decent Christian woman would repeat it. Its that bad.

I knew right then that she has no clue about the things of God and should not be preaching His word. I quit listening, burned all the books, I would not even risk donating them to the thrift store because I did not want to be responsible for leading anyone else astray. If I were you, I would get rid of the book and find someone else who does know the word of God to teach you.

One good thing about her, if not for her fowlness, I would not have quit and found the good teachers that I listen to now. So there is a positive side.

HappyinHim


You did the right thing. I find it so sad that so many Christians follow and support teachers like her.
Why do Christians need all these countless books that these teachers and preachers are coming up with? Isn't the Holy word
of God, the Holy Bible, good enough for people? Doesn't anyone trust the Holy Spirit to lead and guide them in Truth and understanding?

godsgirl
Mar 22nd 2007, 06:06 PM
You did the right thing. I find it so sad that so many Christians follow and support teachers like her.
Why do Christians need all these countless books that these teachers and preachers are coming up with? Isn't the Holy word
of God, the Holy Bible, good enough for people? Doesn't anyone trust the Holy Spirit to lead and guide them in Truth and understanding?

Yes, I trust Him-and he leads me to listen to Joyce. I haven't heard anything "vile" either.

VAN
Mar 23rd 2007, 05:17 AM
Thanks to everyone for your answers. I must say when you listen to Joyce sometimes, and you are still learning she might sound like she is preaching the word of God correctly. But after all the replies I will not be reading, or watch anything on Joyce anymore.

God Bless

Roselady
Mar 23rd 2007, 03:44 PM
divaD,

You said

You did the right thing. I find it so sad that so many Christians follow and support teachers like her.
Why do Christians need all these countless books that these teachers and preachers are coming up with? Isn't the Holy word
of God, the Holy Bible, good enough for people? Doesn't anyone trust the Holy Spirit to lead and guide them in Truth and understanding?

Thanks, I am actually glad I quit listening when I did, it was right before I was thinking of plunking down like 125 dollars for her "emotional healing" package.

I know why I wanted to listen to her and why the ministry seemed so attractive to me. At that time in my life I was going through some really bad stuff, which, I wont go into, the past is the past. The effects of which, left me very hurt, sad, and depressed. The promise of healing, or relief from emotional pain, was the big draw for me. The problem was it was kind of like a carrot on a stick. None of that stuff ever worked.

It was not until I switched to the people I listen to now that I actually started to heal. Its strange and I dont know how exactly to explain this, but I think it was kind of like studing the whole bible with some depth of subject, and not just a lot of gloss and show with a couple scriptures tossed in. Thats what really helped me.

Plus, I like preachers who make me think and use my mind. I would starve to death spiritually listening to a preacher like her.

Studyin'2Show
Mar 23rd 2007, 09:29 PM
HappyinHim, I definitely see Joyce as a sort of baby Christian preacher, if that makes any sense. You made a comment that you would starve spiritually if you were still listening to preachers like her. Well, I feel like what she has is baby food for the spirit. When I was a baby, spiritually, she fed me and grew some but I had to mature. Now, I feel that I have really matured past what she has to offer because now I need more meat and potatoes, spiritual. But I do feel that her ministry helped give me a taste for the things of God and that once I developed that taste, I began craving more. If she does the same for others, I see no trouble with that. ;) Unfortunately, there are many who have no problem staying baby believers!

God Bless!

ikester7579
Mar 24th 2007, 06:22 PM
Thanks to everyone for your answers. I must say when you listen to Joyce sometimes, and you are still learning she might sound like she is preaching the word of God correctly. But after all the replies I will not be reading, or watch anything on Joyce anymore.

God Bless

This is not a response to the person above. I'm using what was said as an example of how we judge people, and how it turns one another against each other in the body of Christ.

So since we claim to have such an absolute truth to judge Joyce like we are doing in this thread. And looking at How it has affected the poster above. I decided to post on the core of this issue.

Part 1:
1) Who in here can say they have the "absolute truth about God"?
2) Who in here can say they have the "absolute truth in doctrine"?
3) Who in here can say they can stand behind the pulpit and preach and never utter a mistake out of their mouth?
4) Who in here has never lied? For have you ever changed your mind about what something means in God's word? Which means we all make mistakes.

Part 2:
1) Where is it written that Satan will bless someone?
2) Where is it written that Satan has ever blessed someone?
3) If Joyce's ministry gets millions of dollars, can you prove, and back it up with scripture, who is blessing Joyce? If it's Satan, prove that Satan has ever blessed anyone using scripture.

Part 3:
1) Who at this forum has the legal authority, through the word of God, to judge or condemn another person for their actions?
2) Who at this forum can truly claim to point a finger at a brother or sister with such rightouness that the verse about the log in your eye would not ever apply to you as well?

So if anyone here can claim such authoritve knowledge to do all these things we are currently doing here, what would they also have to claim to be to make it right? For anytime we think we can usurp the authority of God, and judge other as if we are God. Then what are we trying to be?

So if anyone here has this authority, could you also tell me with absolute confidence whether Joyce will go to heaven or hell? Then explain to me how this judgement power that is actually retained unto God got transferred to us? Scripture please?

Because this thread condemns Joyce, and you can only be condemned to hell. You don't get condemned to heaven. So through what scripture do we have this power to condemn someone to hell?

This thread has made the poster above condemn someone in their minds to a point to where they are considered not Christian. And more or less damned for hell.

If a man calls another man a liar, but does not have absolute truth unto himself. He becomes a liar also.

So who here has such absolute truth, power, and knwoledge of God to pass such judgement upon another?

When Joyce stands before God. Will she be judged by our opinions of her, Or God's opinion of her? If you hate Joyce so much, that condemning is all that can be done. To what in God's word can you justify such hate?

I wonder if someone would start another thread to show all the supporting verses that allow another Christian to condemn someone to the point I see it done here. A God like Judgement.

Conversion to hating someone equals what?

jiggyfly
Mar 24th 2007, 08:31 PM
This is not a response to the person above. I'm using what was said as an example of how we judge people, and how it turns one another against each other in the body of Christ.

So since we claim to have such an absolute truth to judge Joyce like we are doing in this thread. And looking at How it has affected the poster above. I decided to post on the core of this issue.

Part 1:
1) Who in here can say they have the "absolute truth about God"?
2) Who in here can say they have the "absolute truth in doctrine"?
3) Who in here can say they can stand behind the pulpit and preach and never utter a mistake out of their mouth?
4) Who in here has never lied? For have you ever changed your mind about what something means in God's word? Which means we all make mistakes.

Part 2:
1) Where is it written that Satan will bless someone?
2) Where is it written that Satan has ever blessed someone?
3) If Joyce's ministry gets millions of dollars, can you prove, and back it up with scripture, who is blessing Joyce? If it's Satan, prove that Satan has ever blessed anyone using scripture.

Part 3:
1) Who at this forum has the legal authority, through the word of God, to judge or condemn another person for their actions?
2) Who at this forum can truly claim to point a finger at a brother or sister with such rightouness that the verse about the log in your eye would not ever apply to you as well?

So if anyone here can claim such authoritve knowledge to do all these things we are currently doing here, what would they also have to claim to be to make it right? For anytime we think we can usurp the authority of God, and judge other as if we are God. Then what are we trying to be?

So if anyone here has this authority, could you also tell me with absolute confidence whether Joyce will go to heaven or hell? Then explain to me how this judgement power that is actually retained unto God got transferred to us? Scripture please?

Because this thread condemns Joyce, and you can only be condemned to hell. You don't get condemned to heaven. So through what scripture do we have this power to condemn someone to hell?

This thread has made the poster above condemn someone in their minds to a point to where they are considered not Christian. And more or less damned for hell.

If a man calls another man a liar, but does not have absolute truth unto himself. He becomes a liar also.

So who here has such absolute truth, power, and knwoledge of God to pass such judgement upon another?

When Joyce stands before God. Will she be judged by our opinions of her, Or God's opinion of her? If you hate Joyce so much, that condemning is all that can be done. To what in God's word can you justify such hate?

I wonder if someone would start another thread to show all the supporting verses that allow another Christian to condemn someone to the point I see it done here. A God like Judgement.

Conversion to hating someone equals what?

1Corinthians 5:9-13
9 When I wrote to you before, I told you not to associate with people who indulge in sexual sin. 10 But I wasn’t talking about unbelievers who indulge in sexual sin, or who are greedy or are swindlers or idol worshipers. You would have to leave this world to avoid people like that. 11 What I meant was that you are not to associate with anyone who claims to be a Christian* yet indulges in sexual sin, or is greedy, or worships idols, or is abusive, or a drunkard, or a swindler. Don’t even eat with such people.
12 It isn’t my responsibility to judge outsiders, but it certainly is your job to judge those inside the church who are sinning in these ways. 13 God will judge those on the outside; but as the Scriptures say, “You must remove the evil person from among you.”*

Colossians 3:5
So put to death the sinful, earthly things lurking within you. Have nothing to do with sexual sin, impurity, lust, and shameful desires. Don’t be greedy for the good things of this life, for that is idolatry.


Acts 20:28-30
28 “And now beware! Be sure that you feed and shepherd God’s flock—his church, purchased with his blood—over whom the Holy Spirit has appointed you as elders.* 29 I know full well that false teachers, like vicious wolves, will come in among you after I leave, not sparing the flock. 30 Even some of you will distort the truth in order to draw a following.

1Timothy 6:2-12
Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. 3 Some false teachers may deny these things, but these are the sound, wholesome teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ, and they are the foundation for a godly life. 4 Anyone who teaches anything different is both conceited and ignorant. Such a person has an unhealthy desire to quibble over the meaning of words. This stirs up arguments ending in jealousy, fighting, slander, and evil suspicions. 5 These people always cause trouble. Their minds are corrupt, and they don’t tell the truth. To them religion is just a way to get rich.
6 Yet true religion with contentment is great wealth. 7 After all, we didn’t bring anything with us when we came into the world, and we certainly cannot carry anything with us when we die. 8 So if we have enough food and clothing, let us be content. 9 But people who long to be rich fall into temptation and are trapped by many foolish and harmful desires that plunge them into ruin and destruction. 10 For the love of money is at the root of all kinds of evil. And some people, craving money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many sorrows.
11 But you, Timothy, belong to God; so run from all these evil things, and follow what is right and good. Pursue a godly life, along with faith, love, perseverance, and gentleness. 12 Fight the good fight for what we believe. Hold tightly to the eternal life that God has given you, which you have confessed so well before many witnesses.

I do not hate Joyce Meyer but I do hate her demonstration of the Gospel, it is very misleading.

Pilgrimtozion
Mar 24th 2007, 08:33 PM
A recent book she has written is called 'reduce me to love'. What I understand from the Bible school students here, it talks about how really nothing in our life matters if we don't have love - God wants to reduce us to love.

Looking at a book like that, how can that be offensive or even questionable? Could you not recommend such a book to somebody?

Saved7
Mar 24th 2007, 08:48 PM
And she also writes, He(Jesus) was resurrected from the dead-the first born-again man.

Any help on this please???

Van


THE FIRST BORN FROM THE DEAD, the first of the NEW CREATION. Just like we will too be a part of the same "incorruptible" life, in a new body like unto our Lord's; when our Lord returns. As it stands we are a "new creature" inside, but outwardly, we are still the same. But that will change one day.
And we could go even a little deeper than that, because we are considered "dead" until we are born of "spirit"/born again.:saint:

Saved7
Mar 24th 2007, 08:56 PM
divaD,

You said

You did the right thing. I find it so sad that so many Christians follow and support teachers like her.
Why do Christians need all these countless books that these teachers and preachers are coming up with? Isn't the Holy word
of God, the Holy Bible, good enough for people? Doesn't anyone trust the Holy Spirit to lead and guide them in Truth and understanding?

Thanks, I am actually glad I quit listening when I did, it was right before I was thinking of plunking down like 125 dollars for her "emotional healing" package.

I know why I wanted to listen to her and why the ministry seemed so attractive to me. At that time in my life I was going through some really bad stuff, which, I wont go into, the past is the past. The effects of which, left me very hurt, sad, and depressed. The promise of healing, or relief from emotional pain, was the big draw for me. The problem was it was kind of like a carrot on a stick. None of that stuff ever worked.

It was not until I switched to the people I listen to now that I actually started to heal. Its strange and I dont know how exactly to explain this, but I think it was kind of like studing the whole bible with some depth of subject, and not just a lot of gloss and show with a couple scriptures tossed in. Thats what really helped me.

Plus, I like preachers who make me think and use my mind. I would starve to death spiritually listening to a preacher like her.

I'm with you. It was when I was very new in Christ that I listened to her and many like her. And eventually because I hungered for more of Jesus, I read just about everything I could get my hands on. Then I found myself tossed about by every wind of doctrine. Eventually, I just wanted the "Word" and the Holy Spirit to be my teachers. And now I find that much of what she has to offer is either baby food, or fluff, or simply WoF doctrines and that doctrine is wrong. I can say that SOME of her stuff is good.
But ultimately, I would rather read the Word and let God teach me. I stopped buying all those books by all of these "teachers" of the Word, and even started just taking even what my pastor says with a grain of salt. It would seem that there are soooooo many different doctrines on the same topics out there, that it's hard to filter through all of it, and find the TRUTH. But God will give the truth, without as much help as we think we need.

SO JUST READ THE WORD!!!!!:saint: :D

SIG
Mar 24th 2007, 11:07 PM
Once again--note the difference between "judging" and "discerning." If someone holds a false doctrine, we do not need to judge them. But we do need to discern true doctrines from false...

ikester7579
Mar 25th 2007, 11:52 AM
1Corinthians 5:9-13
9 When I wrote to you before, I told you not to associate with people who indulge in sexual sin. 10 But I wasn’t talking about unbelievers who indulge in sexual sin, or who are greedy or are swindlers or idol worshipers. You would have to leave this world to avoid people like that. 11 What I meant was that you are not to associate with anyone who claims to be a Christian* yet indulges in sexual sin, or is greedy, or worships idols, or is abusive, or a drunkard, or a swindler. Don’t even eat with such people.
12 It isn’t my responsibility to judge outsiders, but it certainly is your job to judge those inside the church who are sinning in these ways. 13 God will judge those on the outside; but as the Scriptures say, “You must remove the evil person from among you.”*

KJV: 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

This addresses specific sins:
1) Fornicator. Is not Joyce married? Or is there some gossip we are not aware of?
2) Covetous. Is Joyce wanting things that does not belong to her? What is it?
3) Idolator. Who or what does Joyce idolize?
4) Railer: One who utters curses and lamentations, or that shouts abuse... So where does Joyce do this?
5) Extortioner. To prove this sin one would have to do what? Go through all of her money coming in, and see whether she is using it to support things that are not Godly. Has anyone done this here, or would this be hearsay from another person who claims such things?



Colossians 3:5
So put to death the sinful, earthly things lurking within you. Have nothing to do with sexual sin, impurity, lust, and shameful desires. Don’t be greedy for the good things of this life, for that is idolatry.

KJV: 5 Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:

Covet: A strong desire for something that does not belong to you. wish, long, or crave for (something, especially the property of another person); "She covets her sister's house"

So what is it that Joyce covets?


Acts 20:28-30
28 “And now beware! Be sure that you feed and shepherd God’s flock—his church, purchased with his blood—over whom the Holy Spirit has appointed you as elders.* 29 I know full well that false teachers, like vicious wolves, will come in among you after I leave, not sparing the flock. 30 Even some of you will distort the truth in order to draw a following.

KJV: 28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

So where is Joyce drawing the disciples to? Satan? And when she invites people up front to accept the Lord in the sinners prayer, does she welcome them to Satan?

mt 12:26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?

Have yet to see anyone here prove that Joyce is Satanic. Because you can only do the work of God, or Satan. So which is Joyce doing? And prove it as well.


1Timothy 6:2-12
Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. 3 Some false teachers may deny these things, but these are the sound, wholesome teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ, and they are the foundation for a godly life. 4 Anyone who teaches anything different is both conceited and ignorant. Such a person has an unhealthy desire to quibble over the meaning of words. This stirs up arguments ending in jealousy, fighting, slander, and evil suspicions. 5 These people always cause trouble. Their minds are corrupt, and they don’t tell the truth. To them religion is just a way to get rich.
6 Yet true religion with contentment is great wealth. 7 After all, we didn’t bring anything with us when we came into the world, and we certainly cannot carry anything with us when we die. 8 So if we have enough food and clothing, let us be content. 9 But people who long to be rich fall into temptation and are trapped by many foolish and harmful desires that plunge them into ruin and destruction. 10 For the love of money is at the root of all kinds of evil. And some people, craving money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many sorrows.
11 But you, Timothy, belong to God; so run from all these evil things, and follow what is right and good. Pursue a godly life, along with faith, love, perseverance, and gentleness. 12 Fight the good fight for what we believe. Hold tightly to the eternal life that God has given you, which you have confessed so well before many witnesses.

KJV: 2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

I'm not sure what translation you read from. But it adds a lot of stuff and promotes Judgement of other people. It seems to be a more personal opinion of the person who translated it.


I do not hate Joyce Meyer but I do hate her demonstration of the Gospel, it is very misleading.

Mark 9: 38 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.
39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
40 For he that is not against us is on our part.

God's judgement and approval in ministry is the power in which He gives as a gift unto those who do their work in His name. Can someone heal in God's name if God is being mocked? Can someone raise money in God's name if God is being mocked?

I'd like to see scripture that shows where people do things in God's name (God of the bible), and mock God but still be blessed?

If we are more willing to judge people in ministry by our opinions, instead of God's approval (blessings). Then we are ignoring the power of God to show us through His power what is right, and what is wrong.

2tim 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

1) From whom does Joyce draw her power from when she prays (does she pray to Satan)?
2) To whom does she glorify when she leads people in the sinners prayer (remember, Satan cannot work against his own kingdom)?
3) From whom does she get her blessings for the money she runs her ministry with (Can Satan bless you? Scripture please)?

divaD
Mar 25th 2007, 04:27 PM
ikester7579, the way that you have worded your post, #84, it is almost impossible to reply without offending. So I will say this, who says that Joyce Meyers was blessed by God in the first place? There are a lot of successful people who are not blessed by God.

We as Christians have varying views on doctrines, but one doctrine that we need to be very clear on is, that Jesus paid the price in FULL on the cross with his shed blood. Jesus did not go to hell to be tormented and reborn there. He went to the paradise side of hell. He paid the price in full when he said that it is finished. There was nothing else to pay for after he spoke those words. I refuse to support or to follow any teacher that believes Jesus was tormented in hell because he deserved it.

jiggyfly
Mar 25th 2007, 07:15 PM
KJV: 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

This addresses specific sins:
1) Fornicator. Is not Joyce married? Or is there some gossip we are not aware of?
2) Covetous. Is Joyce wanting things that does not belong to her? What is it?
3) Idolator. Who or what does Joyce idolize?
4) Railer: One who utters curses and lamentations, or that shouts abuse... So where does Joyce do this?
5) Extortioner. To prove this sin one would have to do what? Go through all of her money coming in, and see whether she is using it to support things that are not Godly. Has anyone done this here, or would this be hearsay from another person who claims such things?




KJV: 5 Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:

Covet: A strong desire for something that does not belong to you. wish, long, or crave for (something, especially the property of another person); "She covets her sister's house"

So what is it that Joyce covets?



KJV: 28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

So where is Joyce drawing the disciples to? Satan? And when she invites people up front to accept the Lord in the sinners prayer, does she welcome them to Satan?

mt 12:26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?

Have yet to see anyone here prove that Joyce is Satanic. Because you can only do the work of God, or Satan. So which is Joyce doing? And prove it as well.



KJV: 2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

I'm not sure what translation you read from. But it adds a lot of stuff and promotes Judgement of other people. It seems to be a more personal opinion of the person who translated it.



Mark 9: 38 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.
39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
40 For he that is not against us is on our part.

God's judgement and approval in ministry is the power in which He gives as a gift unto those who do their work in His name. Can someone heal in God's name if God is being mocked? Can someone raise money in God's name if God is being mocked?

I'd like to see scripture that shows where people do things in God's name (God of the bible), and mock God but still be blessed?

If we are more willing to judge people in ministry by our opinions, instead of God's approval (blessings). Then we are ignoring the power of God to show us through His power what is right, and what is wrong.

2tim 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

1) From whom does Joyce draw her power from when she prays (does she pray to Satan)?
2) To whom does she glorify when she leads people in the sinners prayer (remember, Satan cannot work against his own kingdom)?
3) From whom does she get her blessings for the money she runs her ministry with (Can Satan bless you? Scripture please)?

Galatians 5:19-21
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21 envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Bottom line is this, She has profited off of the pretense of preaching the gospel. She lives a very extravigant life style, one that is demonstrated by some in the new testament but only by those whom the apostles warned us of and advised us to stay away from. "Deny self, take up your cross and follow after me" Jesus said. I do not know Joyce Meyer or her family but what I know of her is the oposite of denying self. Simple logic says that if I am in the public eye like she is what everyone will see is the very best I can do, so there you have it. You want to be led by her and her teachings then that is your choice.
The thread was started by a person asking about Joyce Meyer and I say she now misrepresents the Gospel and Christ, mainly by her life style. It's nothing personal, I have the same bone to pick with the rest of the WOF aka prosperity and self help gospel pack. Just takes a little leaven, thats all, just a little. This here is one ol'boy they won't be making mechandise of.

So money is a fruit of the Spirit now???????? Give me a break, I suppose then that Ted Turner and Bill Gates are devout men of God too. Let me get this straight, if a ministry has lots of money it is of God and if a ministry has no money it is not of God, is this the way you discern things? Paul said he knew what it was like to be in much and in lack.
Acts 16:16-18
16 And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us, which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying: 17 the same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation.
18 And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour. KJV

ikester7579
Mar 25th 2007, 07:49 PM
ikester7579, the way that you have worded your post, #84, it is almost impossible to reply without offending. So I will say this, who says that Joyce Meyers was blessed by God in the first place? There are a lot of successful people who are not blessed by God.

mk 9:39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.

We as Christians have varying views on doctrines, but one doctrine that we need to be very clear on is, that Jesus paid the price in FULL on the cross with his shed blood. Jesus did not go to hell to be tormented and reborn there. He went to the paradise side of hell. He paid the price in full when he said that it is finished. There was nothing else to pay for after he spoke those words. I refuse to support or to follow any teacher that believes Jesus was tormented in hell because he deserved it.

And you have never in your life believed anything wrong about God? If God condemned everyone as we do just because he required a perfect truth from us. Who would be going to heaven? I know I would not because perfect truth is impossible because it would require the knowledge of God. correct?

So if God accepts us anyway (being in perfect), then where is this deciding line that separates the ones who are making a mistake. And the ones who are decieving? For can you really look at what Joyce is doing and tell me she is decieving people on purpose? And how would or could you tell?

mk 9:39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.

Does the above verse lie? Does Joyce use God's name or not?

jas 4:11 Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that Speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, Speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.

1pet 3:16 Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.

So when Joyce prays and someone is healed. Through what power is this healing done? She ends all her prayers in Jesus name. So through what power does this healing occur, and through what scripture could it be backed up (if it be Satan)?

Because ending a prayer in Christ's name is calling upon the power of God. Unless you can show how this calls upon the power of Satan. Because God is not into mocking Himself to the point to where He will allow a counterfeit to operate in His name. Unless there is scripture that can be found on this too.

When Joyce holds a conference, does she hold the conference in Satan's name? And is it Satan who draws thousands of people to hear Joyce bring people to Christ through the sinners prayer?

mt 12:26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?

Satan cannot stand behind Joyce when she calls upon the power of God through the sinners prayer. To say that Joyce does the work of Satan, is to also say that untold thousands in Joyce's ministry are Satan worshippers. For if Joyce is doing Satans work, then her followers are Satan worshippers. And not a one has salvation.

You cannot get by condenming someone in ministry without condenming everyone else in it.

I heard another preacher preach (Hagee) a wrong thing on tv the other day. So does this also make his ministry Satanic?

So let's work this on fair and even ground for judgement. Let us condemn all who have ever utter an untruth behind the pulpit as Satanic, whether they be on tv or not. Now how many preachers would be left if absolute perfection is required to preach? Zero sound about right?

So to which standard do we judge Joyce, that we also would judge the preacher in your own church? Perfection? So ask your preacher if he has ever preached an untruth behind the pulpit.

Example:Some preachers preach that to have music in church is a sin, because music is of the devil. So because there can be only one truth. And "if" perfection of that truth is required to enter heaven. It would mean that everyone in one church is wrong and will be condemn. All just because of music. Don't seem fair does it?

So which is true, and who will be condemn because perfection of truth could not be reached?

But then again God's word never claimed we would sin no more upon being saved. So now it boils down to forgivable sins. So to which sin has Joyce done that is not forgivable? Or is their a different standard to which Joyce will be Judged that will be different from everyone else?

Name a sin to which Joyce has committed that is not forgivable?
And if God is forgiving her and blessing her, then why are we condemning her? Are we not supposed to follow God's example?

ikester7579
Mar 25th 2007, 08:06 PM
Galatians 5:19-21
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21 envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Bottom line is this, She has profited off of the pretense of preaching the gospel. She lives a very extravigant life style, one that is demonstrated by some in the new testament but only by those whom the apostles warned us of and advised us to stay away from. "Deny self, take up your cross and follow after me" Jesus said. I do not know Joyce Meyer or her family but what I know of her is the oposite of denying self. Simple logic says that if I am in the public eye like she is what everyone will see is the very best I can do, so there you have it. You want to be led by her and her teachings then that is your choice.
The thread was started by a person asking about Joyce Meyer and I say she now misrepresents the Gospel and Christ, mainly by her life style. It's nothing personal, I have the same bone to pick with the rest of the WOF aka prosperity and self help gospel pack. Just takes a little leaven, thats all, just a little. This here is one ol'boy they won't be making mechandise of.

Paul said he knew what it was like to be in much and in lack.
Acts 16:16-18
16 And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us, which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying: 17 the same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation.
18 And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour. KJV

So what is the moral behind the story of the talents?

Matthew 25:

14 For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.
15 And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.
16 Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.
17 And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.
18 But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money.
19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.
20 And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.
21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
22 He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.
23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:
25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.
26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:
27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.
28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.
29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Talent in God's word equals money. So who was cast into outer darkness for being what? Unprofitable.

So if Joyce is the profitable servant, is she condemned in that example?


So money is a fruit of the Spirit now???????? Give me a break, I suppose then that Ted Turner and Bill Gates are devout men of God too. Let me get this straight, if a ministry has lots of money it is of God and if a ministry has no money it is not of God, is this the way you discern things?

Some people are not currupted by money, and some are. Does not God's word say that He will not tempt us with more than we can bare? Regardless of what you imply here about churches that bring in a lot of money. I don't judge a church by their profit in tithes. I look for whether the Holy Ghost is in that ministry. God has the ability to take away the the Holy Ghost out of a ministry that He does not approve of. I don't make an issue of money and ministry. I look for the Holy Ghost, which is God's approval.

In fact I'd like to ask a question to those who think a church that prospers greatly is wrong. Where is it written in God's word that a Church should only make so much money, and God deems it a sin to go beyond that? Would anyone like to provide that verse? And what is the cut off amount unto which God can bless someone with money? Verse for that?

Studyin'2Show
Mar 25th 2007, 08:08 PM
ikester7579, the way that you have worded your post, #84, it is almost impossible to reply without offending. So I will say this, who says that Joyce Meyers was blessed by God in the first place? There are a lot of successful people who are not blessed by God.

We as Christians have varying views on doctrines, but one doctrine that we need to be very clear on is, that Jesus paid the price in FULL on the cross with his shed blood. Jesus did not go to hell to be tormented and reborn there. He went to the paradise side of hell. He paid the price in full when he said that it is finished. There was nothing else to pay for after he spoke those words. I refuse to support or to follow any teacher that believes Jesus was tormented in hell because he deserved it.Really, no offense diva, but this post shows exactly why I think this discussion is one that is more of interpretation than anything else. I would never use a term like 'the paradise side of hell' but I would also not judge you for using it. I'm pretty sure I know what you mean but I don't think the idea is scripturally sound. Abraham's bosom is scriptural but it speaks not one word of Lazarus or Abraham being in 'paradise'. It says that Lazarus was now comforted but in no way does it imply paradise. I could now make a statement that someone who says that is teaching false doctrine but the fact is that it is NOT doctrine; it is an interpretation. There is nothing that gives some sort of exact accounting of exactly what happened during the 3 days and 3 nights of time. Do you think it may be because it's not really important? Maybe, what is important was told to us. Our sin debt has been paid. Period.

Someone recently commented to me that 15 chapters were used to describe every detail of the tabernacle while only one and a portion of another was used to lay out creation without any major descriptions. Do you think that may be because because when the rubber meets the road how we worship may be much more important than how creation happened? I would say the same thing of this. No scriptural detail at all is given to us. Do you think that may be because it's really not what is important?

It's not like she has built some doctrine around her interpretation of those 3 days and nights. She hasn't created the Jesus reborn in hell cult or something. If you said to her, "Hey, I don't believe Jesus went to hell or I don't believe He paid the debt in that way", I don't think she would have any trouble with that. She might explain why she feels her interpretation is correct. I don't really agree with the quote that is attribute to her in this thread but I haven't read the book it's said to come from so I don't know the exact context in which it was given. Let me put it this way, I believe God created in 6 consecutive, literal days. Some believer see it as 6 long periods, some see a long gap. Would it be appropriate for me to see this as false doctrine or would it be more appropriate for me to recognize that these are just different interpretations?

As to her money, in the verse that was quoted from Galatians it also mentions envyings as works of the flesh. Frank Peretti is a Christian author. Would anyone on this board try to make him out to be something bad because he has made a lot of money from his book sales and is able to live very well? How about Max Lucado or other Christians that have sold MILLIONS of books? I've been working on my book for almost 5 years and am only on chapter 15 so i know how difficult writing one book can be. She has written an amazing amount of books. I'm not talking about little pamphlet books either, like some ministries put out. Real books with hundreds of pages. How much should she make? Who gets to decide? You? Me? Who? Is being rich inherently sinful? Is it for us to decide who is too rich? :hmm:

God Bless!

Pilgrimtozion
Mar 25th 2007, 08:12 PM
I would agree that financial succes is not a sign of divine blessing. Then again, poverty is not a sign of divine blessing either, nor is riches per definition wrong. The Bible does not condemn being rich; instead, it tells us to be wise with our money and not set our heart on it.

One cannot condemn Joyce's ministry purely based on the fact that she has money.

divaD
Mar 25th 2007, 08:52 PM
[QUOTE=Studyin'2Show;1203811]Really, no offense diva, but this post shows exactly why I think this discussion is one that is more of interpretation than anything else. I would never use a term like 'the paradise side of hell' but I would also not judge you for using it. I'm pretty sure I know what you mean but I don't think the idea is scripturally sound. Abraham's bosom is scriptural but it speaks not one word of Lazarus or Abraham being in 'paradise'. It says that Lazarus was now comforted but in no way does it imply paradise.





Let's look at scripture and see if we can determine where paradise indeed was.


Matthew 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth


From this verse it appears that Jesus will indeed descend into the heart of the earth.


Luke 23:42 *And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
43 *And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.



Luke 16:22 *And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
23 *And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.


So we see that Jesus desended into the heart of the earth. We see that Jesus told one of the thieves on the cross that he would indeed be with him in paradise today. We then see that when the rich man dies that he opens his eyes in hell. We also see that the beggar was being comforted on the other side of the great gulf fixed. So how can this not be the paradise side of hell?

jiggyfly
Mar 25th 2007, 09:27 PM
I would agree that financial succes is not a sign of divine blessing. Then again, poverty is not a sign of divine blessing either, nor is riches per definition wrong. The Bible does not condemn being rich; instead, it tells us to be wise with our money and not set our heart on it.

One cannot condemn Joyce's ministry purely based on the fact that she has money.
You are right but Jesus did say that it is hard for a rich person to get into heaven and with that I hope you don't mind if I decide not to take a rich person's instruction. If God wants to make us rich in worldly goods than it stands to reason that He want's to make it hard for us to get into heaven. There is no biblical evidence in the new testament of any mature believers being rich or wealthy in worldly goods, the desire for such actually hinder spiritual maturity and I've never met anyone who was rich against their will.

Pilgrimtozion
Mar 25th 2007, 09:39 PM
You are right but Jesus did say that it is hard for a rich person to get into heaven and with that I hope you don't mind if I decide not to take a rich person's instruction. If God wants to make us rich in worldly goods than it stands to reason that He want's to make it hard for us to get into heaven. There is no biblical evidence in the new testament of any mature believers being rich or wealthy in worldly goods, the desire for such actually hinder spiritual maturity and I've never met anyone who was rich against their will.

With all due respect, Jiggy, but rich is a relative term. I have a piano, a desktop, a laptop, some clothes, a bed...does that make me rich? For 80% of the world, yes. So in that case, we are only speaking of degrees of riches here...

kayte
Mar 25th 2007, 09:42 PM
Really, no offense diva, but this post shows exactly why I think this discussion is one that is more of interpretation than anything else. I would never use a term like 'the paradise side of hell' but I would also not judge you for using it. I'm pretty sure I know what you mean but I don't think the idea is scripturally sound. Abraham's bosom is scriptural but it speaks not one word of Lazarus or Abraham being in 'paradise'. It says that Lazarus was now comforted but in no way does it imply paradise. I could now make a statement that someone who says that is teaching false doctrine but the fact is that it is NOT doctrine; it is an interpretation. There is nothing that gives some sort of exact accounting of exactly what happened during the 3 days and 3 nights of time. Do you think it may be because it's not really important? Maybe, what is important was told to us. Our sin debt has been paid. Period.

Someone recently commented to me that 15 chapters were used to describe every detail of the tabernacle while only one and a portion of another was used to lay out creation without any major descriptions. Do you think that may be because because when the rubber meets the road how we worship may be much more important than how creation happened? I would say the same thing of this. No scriptural detail at all is given to us. Do you think that may be because it's really not what is important?

It's not like she has built some doctrine around her interpretation of those 3 days and nights. She hasn't created the Jesus reborn in hell cult or something. If you said to her, "Hey, I don't believe Jesus went to hell or I don't believe He paid the debt in that way", I don't think she would have any trouble with that. She might explain why she feels her interpretation is correct. I don't really agree with the quote that is attribute to her in this thread but I haven't read the book it's said to come from so I don't know the exact context in which it was given. Let me put it this way, I believe God created in 6 consecutive, literal days. Some believer see it as 6 long periods, some see a long gap. Would it be appropriate for me to see this as false doctrine or would it be more appropriate for me to recognize that these are just different interpretations?

God Bless!
Hey all, I'm haven't been involved in this conversation, but have been following it along.

I just want to address the above briefly by letting you know what Joyce has said about this.

From her booklet: The Most Important Decision You Will Ever Make: A Complete And Thorough Understanding Of What It Means To Be Born Again.

"During that time He entered hell, where you and I deserved to go (legally) because of our sin...He paid the price there.…no plan was too extreme...Jesus paid on the cross and in hell….God rose up from His throne and said to demon powers tormenting the sinless Son of God, “Let Him go.” Then the resurrection power of Almighty God went through hell and filled Jesus...He was resurrected from the dead ¾ the first born-again man"

"There is no hope of anyone going to heaven unless they believe this truth. You cannot go to heaven unless you believe with all your heart that Jesus took your place. He became your substitute and took all the punishment you deserve. He bore all your sins. He paid the dept you owe...Jesus went to hell for you. He died for you. He paid for your sins." (Page 43, 1996-Edition)

So, in answer to your assumption, no, she is not fine with a disagreement of 'interpretation' on this issue. She has declared that if you do not believe that Jesus died on the cross, went to hell, was tormented by demons, was born-again and then resurrected, you have no hope of going to heaven.

This is absolutely contrary to what the Bible teaches us and diminishes the work of the cross. It is a vile teaching that Jesus died spiritually and needed to be born-again. It is in direct opposition to Who He is and what He said.

What Jesus taught:

"27 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you; 28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins." (Matthew 26:27, NASB)

"44 Now He said to them, "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and He said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem." (Luke 24:44-47, NASB)

"Therefore when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, 'It is finished!' And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit." (John 19:30, NASB)

Jesus taught that His death and shed blood was sufficient for the atonement of our sins. When Jesus said "It is finished" He was teaching an absolute truth that the payment for sin was paid in full. The Greek of "It is finished" is "tetelestai" which was a common way of saying dept paid in full, it is done.

Colossians 1:19-21
19 For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, 20 and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.

Studyin'2Show
Mar 25th 2007, 09:57 PM
So we see that Jesus desended into the heart of the earth. We see that Jesus told one of the thieves on the cross that he would indeed be with him in paradise today. We then see that when the rich man dies that he opens his eyes in hell. We also see that the beggar was being comforted on the other side of the great gulf fixed. So how can this not be the paradise side of hell?This is exactly my point, diva. This is your interpretation of these scriptures. I've heard the same scriptures interpreted differently. Does this mean that everyone who sees it differently is a false teacher on their way to the WRONG side of hell? Is this a point that should divide the body of Christ? As I said in the previous post, I believe I understand what you're saying but I would not use the term in the way you used it. Did you understand my point that since no major details are given, maybe this is not something that should be doctrinal since it is not salvational?

God Bless!

divaD
Mar 25th 2007, 10:42 PM
This is exactly my point, diva. This is your interpretation of these scriptures. I've heard the same scriptures interpreted differently. Does this mean that everyone who sees it differently is a false teacher on their way to the WRONG side of hell? Is this a point that should divide the body of Christ? As I said in the previous post, I believe I understand what you're saying but I would not use the term in the way you used it. Did you understand my point that since no major details are given, maybe this is not something that should be doctrinal since it is not salvational?

God Bless!


You're really missing the major point of the doctrinal error of Joyce Meyers and others. By holding to and agreeing to their interpretations, one is saying that the blood of Jesus was not sufficient in of itself.
Whether I choose to interpret paradise as being on the other side of hell, it is really irrelevant. The reason why is, I fully agree and believe that Jesus' shed blood was sufficient to pay the price in full, this is what brings me salvation.
Obviously Joyce Meyers and others do not believe that the shed blood was sufficient. At least this is how it appears to be.

Studyin'2Show
Mar 25th 2007, 10:56 PM
"During that time He entered hell, where you and I deserved to go (legally) because of our sin...He paid the price there.…no plan was too extreme...Jesus paid on the cross and in hell….God rose up from His throne and said to demon powers tormenting the sinless Son of God, “Let Him go.” Then the resurrection power of Almighty God went through hell and filled Jesus...He was resurrected from the dead ¾ the first born-again man"

"There is no hope of anyone going to heaven unless they believe this truth. You cannot go to heaven unless you believe with all your heart that Jesus took your place. He became your substitute and took all the punishment you deserve. He bore all your sins. He paid the dept you owe...Jesus went to hell for you. He died for you. He paid for your sins." (Page 43, 1996-Edition)

So, in answer to your assumption, no, she is not fine with a disagreement of 'interpretation' on this issue. She has declared that if you do not believe that Jesus died on the cross, went to hell, was tormented by demons, was born-again and then resurrected, you have no hope of going to heaven.Again, with much respect, kayte, I don't see some of the things you described in this quote from the book. First, let me say that I do not agree with her interpretation, but I also don't agree with those who believe there is a gap in the creation days or that God used Darwinian evolution to create. I still understand that is their interpretation and don't consider them outside of the body of Christ because I disagree with their interpretation of scripture.

Back to the quote, I highlighted the entire portion before the '...', all of which I would think no Christian would disagree with. I would like to know what is in the '...' that might possible be what divides what you 'have to' believe to go to heaven and her further interpretation. Do you have the book so you can fill me in on what's in the '...' section?

God Bless!

Studyin'2Show
Mar 25th 2007, 11:13 PM
You're really missing the major point of the doctrinal error of Joyce Meyers and others. By holding to and agreeing to their interpretations, one is saying that the blood of Jesus was not sufficient in of itself.
Whether I choose to interpret paradise as being on the other side of hell, it is really irrelevant. The reason why is, I fully agree and believe that Jesus' shed blood was sufficient to pay the price in full, this is what brings me salvation.
Obviously Joyce Meyers and others do not believe that the shed blood was sufficient. At least this is how it appears to be.divaD, let me just say that I have yet to meet one person, either in person, on radio or tv, on the boards, or anywhere that I agree with 100% of the time. Does she believe Jesus paid the price for our sin? Does she believe that you must accept this fact in order to be saved? Her interpretation of 3 days and 3 nights that scripture is pretty much silent about, doesn't change that fact. I just feel that we need to teach new believer to do as the Bereans did, search everything out in scripture. And also to follow Christ alone and not people who say they follow Christ. If we did that we would never have to throw stones at others who may or not be believers. The world is looking at us and how we deal with each other. There are many people who although I disagree with them over different theological issues, because we agree on the salvational issues, I consider them brothers or sisters in Christ.

God Bless!

ikester7579
Mar 26th 2007, 12:17 AM
I would agree that financial succes is not a sign of divine blessing. Then again, poverty is not a sign of divine blessing either, nor is riches per definition wrong. The Bible does not condemn being rich; instead, it tells us to be wise with our money and not set our heart on it.

One cannot condemn Joyce's ministry purely based on the fact that she has money.

Money is a great tempter to fall into Satan's trap of materialism. God is not going to bless us with what can condemn us as well. For what good is a blessing that in turn turns into a curse?

So the churches that don't have much money is because it is not the thing that this church can bare. It is not a representation of how good or bad they are. Both a poverty church and a prosperous church can be filled to over flowing with the Holy Ghost. Money should not be the issue, but because people do not understand how God blesses it seems unfair as to why one gets so much and another does not. God's protection of our salvation is the main issue as to why some churches are blessed differently then others are. It all depends upon the spiritual maturity of the one who runs the church.

kayte
Mar 26th 2007, 12:55 AM
Again, with much respect, kayte, I don't see some of the things you described in this quote from the book. First, let me say that I do not agree with her interpretation, but I also don't agree with those who believe there is a gap in the creation days or that God used Darwinian evolution to create. I still understand that is their interpretation and don't consider them outside of the body of Christ because I disagree with their interpretation of scripture.

Back to the quote, I highlighted the entire portion before the '...', all of which I would think no Christian would disagree with. I would like to know what is in the '...' that might possible be what divides what you 'have to' believe to go to heaven and her further interpretation. Do you have the book so you can fill me in on what's in the '...' section?

God Bless!
Hi Studyin. :) I'm not sure what it is you're not seeing that I described...?
She said that He paid the price on the cross and in hell. She said we must believe this or we have no hope of heaven.

There is nothing in between the '...', that is just her writing style. :) She used the same '...'s in this section. You can see it flows together and wasn't interrupted to remove something that would have made it all 'okay'.

"During that time He entered hell, where you and I deserved to go (legally) because of our sin...He paid the price there.…no plan was too extreme...Jesus paid on the cross and in hell….God rose up from His throne and said to demon powers tormenting the sinless Son of God, “Let Him go.” Then the resurrection power of Almighty God went through hell and filled Jesus...He was resurrected from the dead - the first born-again man"

Just so we can be sure that this is what she teaches, here are more examples that say the same thing.

“He was pronounced guilty on the cross but He paid the price in hell.”
Joyce Meyer (What Happened from the Cross to The Throne? audio)

“There is no hope of anyone going to heaven unless they believe this truth I am presenting. You cannot go to heaven unless you believe with all your heart that Jesus took your place in hell”
Joyce Meyer (”The Most Important Decision You Will Ever Make”, 1991 pg. 3)

“God rose up from His throne and said to demon powers tormenting the sinless Son of God, ‘Let Him go.’ Then the resurrection power of Almighty God went through hell and filled Jesus. He was resurrected from the dead — the first born-again man”
Joyce Meyer (”The Most Important Decision You Will Ever Make”, 1991 pg. 36)

Then she needs to clarify how it is she comes by her information that isn't in the Bible... such as God rising up from His throne and telling demons that are tormenting Jesus to 'Let Him go'. This is utter mythology and has no scriptural basis at all.

“The Bible can’t even find any way to explain this. Not really. That’s why you’ve got to get it by revelation. There are no words to explain what I’m telling you. I’ve got to just trust God that He’s putting it into your spirit like He put it into mine.”
Joyce Meyer (What Happened from the Cross to The Throne? audio)

We're talking about how salvation here. This isn't a matter that we can agree to disagree on.

I agree wholeheartedly that there are many topics we can do that with. There is no need to divide over such things as the rapture, the gifts of the Spirit, keeping the Sabbath, etc., as long as none of those things becomes a matter of someone teaching that 'unless you believe 'this', you can not be saved.' At that point, salvation has been altered. We're then saved by believing, trusting in the atonement Jesus made on the cross plus something. See what I mean? But other than that, we're under no constraint to always agree on those issues.

However, there are things that are essentials to Christianity. Things that are absolute truths that we can not overlook. The atonement is such an issue.

This isn't 'throwing stones'. If it is, then Paul was a good stone thrower. He even blasted a few at Peter. ;) Paul publically called Peter out on the carpet for what he was doing. Why? Because Peter was building 'another gospel'. He was teaching the gentiles that they needed to believe on Jesus and 'become Jewish', even though Peter himself wasn't living in the manner he was telling them they needed to live. Praise God that Paul spoke up! Just consider the harm that could have been done (and not un-done) if Paul had kept silent and saw that as just Peters interpretation. :eek: He pointed out many others as well... by name.

Teaching that states that His death and resurrection is not sufficient is false teaching, not merely a different interpretation. We especially have to take into account that this isn't just a misunderstanding of Scripture, but a point on which we're told that we must believe it or we are not saved.

Hope I've made what I'm trying to say at least somewhat clear. :rolleyes: :lol:

Studyin'2Show
Mar 26th 2007, 01:21 AM
kayte, look at the quote in your post again. It doesn't appear that she's saying you HAVE TO believe what I'll call her interpretation of those 3 days. Look at what is actually said in the quote BEFORE the '...' What is in the '...' that the person that first put the quote online chose not to include? I don't know, do you? Read the quote again before the excluded part. Do you disagree with that portion that she is clearly saying must be believed? I really don't like quotes with missing pieces. Does anyone have the actual book to see what's in those missing portions. I worked in radio and television news for years so I know how a sound bite can give a very distorted view if you don't hear everything that was said. This is the very same thing. Show me what was said in the portion before the missing section that you don't agree. :hmm:


"There is no hope of anyone going to heaven unless they believe this truth. You cannot go to heaven unless you believe with all your heart that Jesus took your place. He became your substitute and took all the punishment you deserve. He bore all your sins. He paid the dept you owe...Jesus went to hell for you. He died for you. He paid for your sins." (Page 43, 1996-Edition)This is probably going to get me to buy the book because I really want to know what's missing and why.

God Bless!

kayte
Mar 26th 2007, 01:55 AM
kayte, look at the quote in your post again. It doesn't appear that she's saying you HAVE TO believe what I'll call her interpretation of those 3 days. Look at what is actually said in the quote BEFORE the '...' What is in the '...' that the person that first put the quote online chose not to include? I don't know, do you? Read the quote again before the excluded part. Do you disagree with that portion that she is clearly saying must be believed? I really don't like quotes with missing pieces. Does anyone have the actual book to see what's in those missing portions. I worked in radio and television news for years so I know how a sound bite can give a very distorted view if you don't hear everything that was said. This is the very same thing. Show me what was said in the portion before the missing section that you don't agree. :hmm:
This is probably going to get me to buy the book because I really want to know what's missing and why.

God Bless!
There isn't anything missing. It's all there. Why are you leaving out what follows? "...Jesus went to hell for you. He died for you. He paid for your sins." This isn't an isolated statement, as I've shown in the other quotes. Neither is it taken out of context to distort what she teaches. She's layed it out clearly. The quotes are simply quotes. You can take them and do what you will with them, but they say what they say.

It's easy enough to see that the quoted statement is in tact. You can do a search on it. I did.. and every single sight that quotes her booklet and uses that particular statement is the same. If every site omitted the same portion as you are implying, that's quite a feat and conspiracy going on. ;)

But regardless, she teaches this as shown in the compilation of quotes. Jesus did not go to hell for us to pay the price for our sin, which is exactly what she teaches in the other quotes. I don't understand what you're hoping to undo with this. We're still stuck with the difficulty of the other quotes. :)

Studyin'2Show
Mar 26th 2007, 02:22 AM
There isn't anything missing. It's all there. Why are you leaving out what follows? "...Jesus went to hell for you. He died for you. He paid for your sins." This isn't an isolated statement, as I've shown in the other quotes. Neither is it taken out of context to distort what she teaches. She's layed it out clearly. The quotes are simply quotes. You can take them and do what you will with them, but they say what they say.

It's easy enough to see that the quoted statement is in tact. You can do a search on it. I did.. and every single sight that quotes her booklet and uses that particular statement is the same. If every site omitted the same portion as you are implying, that's quite a feat and conspiracy going on. ;)

But regardless, she teaches this as shown in the compilation of quotes. Jesus did not go to hell for us to pay the price for our sin, which is exactly what she teaches in the other quotes. I don't understand what you're hoping to undo with this. We're still stuck with the difficulty of the other quotes. :)I disagree, kayte. '...'s are used when something is left out. Have you notice that each and every quote is EXACTLY the same? I have. The same italics, the same parentheses, the same everything. Somebody posted the quote somewhere and many, many, many people have done just what you did, in good faith, cutting and pasting what someone else had posted elsewhere. When someone looks up the quote now, your post will be included. It's like a vicious snowball. I've seen it happen many times before, especially on the internet. I guess I'll have to buy the book since, although everyone seems to quote it, no one seems to actually have it.

BTW, look at the first part of the quote. Do you think all five sets of '...'s are in the book? I'll let you know once I get the book.

God Bless!

Pilgrimtozion
Mar 26th 2007, 06:47 AM
Just another side question: this hell-thing - how long ago was it that this book was written, that she taught this, and does she continue to teach it? Because I know there are plenty of witch-hunters out there who will take anything anybody said however long ago and turn it into a reason to condemn them as heretics.

Pilgrimtozion
Mar 26th 2007, 06:50 AM
Reminds me of a Petra-song:

We're on another witch hunt
Looking for evil wherever we can find it
Off on a tangent, hope the Lord don't mind it
Another witch hunt
Taking a break from all our gospel labor
...

There's a new way to spend all our energies
We're up in arms instead of down on our knees
Walking over dollars trying to find another dime
Never mind the souls 'cause we really haven't got the time

Not that I'm applying this to anybody here...the song just popped into my head and it's something that is done sometimes. We can be so eager to find and identify evil that we forget what it's really all about.

ikester7579
Mar 26th 2007, 04:11 PM
Just another side question: this hell-thing - how long ago was it that this book was written, that she taught this, and does she continue to teach it? Because I know there are plenty of witch-hunters out there who will take anything anybody said however long ago and turn it into a reason to condemn them as heretics.

Most of Joyce's mistakes were made early on in her ministry. I don't see any repeat of them. And I watch her on tv. 10-20 times a week. Not because I consider her my main tv preacher. But because lots of times she is the only thing on to watch. Because compared to what is own secular tv, I'd rather watch Joyce. But if I saw that she was teaching false stuff all the time, then I would not listen.

Example: I don't believe in the Calvinist Doctrine. But some do. But if Joyce was to teach this 5% of the time she was preaching. I would not watch it. Also, I don't believe in the osas only doctrine. But, I also know that a lot of people who love the Lord do believe this. And I will watch them preach I have studied this subject enough to be able to decern the good from the bad. So it does not bother me to listen because this is only about 5-10% of the actual issue. But doctrines that affect all of the word of God, to where your whole view has to be changed in order to believe it. I stay away from those. Calvinism requires one to change their whole view of how everything works concerning salvation (not an attack on that belief, just an example).

Because I beieve in osas and no osas working together, because I find verses to support both. Do I condemn all preachers who only teach one or the other only? Nope. Man will never find the perfect preacher because man himself is imperfect. Trying to judge someone on something that is impossible to acheive is condemning them even before they even try. Which means that most here are prejudgeing Joyce, and using perfection as an excuse. Because if they applied the same standard to their own preachers, they too would fell the test.

kayte
Mar 26th 2007, 08:07 PM
Just another side question: this hell-thing - how long ago was it that this book was written, that she taught this, and does she continue to teach it? Because I know there are plenty of witch-hunters out there who will take anything anybody said however long ago and turn it into a reason to condemn them as heretics.
The real issue isn't how long ago she taught this, it's has she ever recanted and made a public statement that it's wrong. She hasn't.

The booklet was published in 1991. She revised one chapter in '96, but it still says the same thing.

Witch hunt? I guess that's one way to look at it. Another would be that we're called to contend for the faith... meaning we need to know the Truth so we can know the false and stand against it, thereby protecting those that are new in Christ or weak in faith. Also enabling us to lead the lost to Truth.

Jude 3 Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.

The atonement is vastly important, isn't it? Is it worth contending for? I think so.

Is it that this particular teaching doesn't really bother you, or that the name of one of it's teachers has been used? :confused

Since this is turning into a typical witch hunter/heresy hunter type conversation, I'm bowing out now. You all have a good day. :)

Studyin'2Show
Mar 26th 2007, 09:07 PM
I've read the 'quote' over and over and even if you truly believe that ...s are something she wrote in the booklet and not representing what whoever first posted the quote online chose to leave out, it still just says you have to believe Jesus paid the price for your sin for you to go to heaven. Not that you have to believe He went to hell and paid the price by being tortured by demons, so you can go to heaven. BTW, cut and paste a portion of the quote, put it in quotations and do a Google search. Every quoted section is the exact same thing. :hmm:

The bottom line here is that no one, as far as I can tell, really knows what is in the booklet because no one here actually HAS it. Every reference I have seen on this seems to be from someone who has not actually seen the booklet. Come on folks! Is this a guilty 'til proven innocent forum. Nowhere have I found a pdf file or anything that can be verified. However, I have found a used book seller that I can buy it for a bit more than $5. I tried the library but they have her full books, not this small booklet. So, I'll buy it since no one has it but it will take a while for me to get it (I'm not springing for express shipping:D).

God Bless!

Pilgrimtozion
Mar 26th 2007, 09:18 PM
Kayte,

My intention was not to depict the people in this thread that disagree with Joyce as witch-hunters. I was attempting to point out my own wariness in believing things that I read about ministers on the web, since there are many people out there who take joy in simply trying to find something bad to say about a Christian minister, perhaps twist it a little, and then present it on the web. Simply put, I am not quick to trust minister-exposing material on the web.

Another reason I brought it up is because it could have happened years ago and the person may have totally changed their mind. Since none of Joyce's recent preaching, teaching, or writing has even referred to this concept of her teaching of hell in the least, I am personally not concerned about it. I enjoy listening to Joyce and I still learn from her from time to time.

Anyway, that is just for the sake of clarification. I apologize if anybody felt like I was calling them a witch-hunter!

Benjamin

godsgirl
Mar 26th 2007, 09:53 PM
Something I have noticed in the Body of Christ-especially those of the, "I hate WOF" varitity-they think nothing of condemning another basically because they disagree with them doctrinely-I just think that it's a sad comentary on the Body of Christ-how quickly some-and they are usually all of the same ilk-condemn those who disagree with them.

jiggyfly
Mar 26th 2007, 10:31 PM
Something I have noticed in the Body of Christ-especially those of the, "I hate WOF" varitity-they think nothing of condemning another basically because they disagree with them doctrinely-I just think that it's a sad comentary on the Body of Christ-how quickly some-and they are usually all of the same ilk-condemn those who disagree with them.

Guess I'm in good company then, look at what brother Paul said.
Galatians 1:8&9
8 Let God’s curse fall on anyone, including myself, who preaches any other message than the one we told you about. Even if an angel comes from heaven and preaches any other message, let him be forever cursed. 9 I will say it again: If anyone preaches any other gospel than the one you welcomed, let God’s curse fall upon that person.

Studyin'2Show
Mar 26th 2007, 10:59 PM
Guess I'm in good company then, look at what brother Paul said.
Galatians 1:8&9
8 Let God’s curse fall on anyone, including myself, who preaches any other message than the one we told you about. Even if an angel comes from heaven and preaches any other message, let him be forever cursed. 9 I will say it again: If anyone preaches any other gospel than the one you welcomed, let God’s curse fall upon that person.Paul is speaking of another gospel. I don't see another gospel being preached. The gospel is the 'good news' that Christ has paid the price for our salvation. I do not see anything showing that she is preaching anything other than that we must accept that sacrifice to be saved. So, yes, I will speak against anyone preaching a different gospel. This ain't it! It is just a simple difference in interpretation.

God Bless!

jiggyfly
Mar 26th 2007, 11:35 PM
Paul is speaking of another gospel. I don't see another gospel being preached. The gospel is the 'good news' that Christ has paid the price for our salvation. I do not see anything showing that she is preaching anything other than that we must accept that sacrifice to be saved. So, yes, I will speak against anyone preaching a different gospel. This ain't it! It is just a simple difference in interpretation.

God Bless!
Thank you for your opinion but I must disagree with you. False teaching is false teaching and good news is good news.

Studyin'2Show
Mar 26th 2007, 11:37 PM
Thank you for your opinion but I must disagree with you. False teaching is false teaching and good news is good news.Duly noted! :D I will let you know when I get the booklet so I can fill in the '...' blanks!

God Bless!

ikester7579
Mar 27th 2007, 11:44 AM
Thank you for your opinion but I must disagree with you. False teaching is false teaching and good news is good news.

I'd like to know of any preacher that preaches the absolute truth with no mistakes, no wrong doctrines, and no lies.

Can someone please name the person? And then prove it?

Joyce, Hagee, or who ever is not our way to heaven. Christ is. Therefore their teachings cannot condemn us unless we are not decerning it.

Example:
1) How many here believe osas? Did you know Hagee is a no-osas preacher? So now do you condemn him as a false teacher because he disagrees with your doctrine?

2) Kent Hovind believes osas, and is in jail for tax evasion. Now do I condemn him because I disagree with him on these issues? Nope.

Now notice above I made the words I, you and your red. What does I, you, and your have to do with following God's word?

In other words, all this makes it: My judgement, my opinion, and my doctrine. So where is God in all this? Or are we using God for justification for what we do?

Example: My judgement: I condemn Joyce here are the verses. Which by the way I will ignore the verses that contridict my judgement. Because it's my opinion that she is wrong.

Can the truth of God's word be found, when the supposed truth we relay, requires us to ignore or deny any other part of God's word?

What parts are being ignored?
How about the verses that warns us against such judgement against the bretheren?
How about verses that show how we are supposed to correct the bretheren?

So how can we claim to have more truth when we refuse to follow it ourselves? We condemn Joyce because she is not following God's word to a T. Then we do the samething? So who's sin is worse, and by what verse could you prove it? And does one sin justify another?

jiggyfly
Mar 27th 2007, 09:05 PM
I'd like to know of any preacher that preaches the absolute truth with no mistakes, no wrong doctrines, and no lies.

Can someone please name the person? And then prove it?

Joyce, Hagee, or who ever is not our way to heaven. Christ is. Therefore their teachings cannot condemn us unless we are not decerning it.

Example:
1) How many here believe osas? Did you know Hagee is a no-osas preacher? So now do you condemn him as a false teacher because he disagrees with your doctrine?

2) Kent Hovind believes osas, and is in jail for tax evasion. Now do I condemn him because I disagree with him on these issues? Nope.

Now notice above I made the words I, you and your red. What does I, you, and your have to do with following God's word?

In other words, all this makes it: My judgement, my opinion, and my doctrine. So where is God in all this? Or are we using God for justification for what we do?

Example: My judgement: I condemn Joyce here are the verses. Which by the way I will ignore the verses that contridict my judgement. Because it's my opinion that she is wrong.

Can the truth of God's word be found, when the supposed truth we relay, requires us to ignore or deny any other part of God's word?

What parts are being ignored?
How about the verses that warns us against such judgement against the bretheren?
How about verses that show how we are supposed to correct the bretheren?

So how can we claim to have more truth when we refuse to follow it ourselves? We condemn Joyce because she is not following God's word to a T. Then we do the samething? So who's sin is worse, and by what verse could you prove it? And does one sin justify another?

Where has someone condemned Joyce? Some here have exposed the error of her teaching, some have defended her teaching and yet some seem to be offended that anyone even reject her teaching.

Acts 17:10-12
10 That very night the believers sent Paul and Silas to Berea. When they arrived there, they went to the synagogue. 11 And the people of Berea were more open-minded than those in Thessalonica, and they listened eagerly to Paul’s message. They searched the Scriptures day after day to check up on Paul and Silas, to see if they were really teaching the truth. 12 As a result, many Jews believed, as did some of the prominent Greek women and many men.

SIG
Mar 27th 2007, 11:23 PM
FWIW: http://www.pfo.org/wan-star.htm

ikester7579
Mar 27th 2007, 11:25 PM
Where has someone condemned Joyce? Some here have exposed the error of her teaching, some have defended her teaching and yet some seem to be offended that anyone even reject her teaching.

Acts 17:10-12
10 That very night the believers sent Paul and Silas to Berea. When they arrived there, they went to the synagogue. 11 And the people of Berea were more open-minded than those in Thessalonica, and they listened eagerly to Paul’s message. They searched the Scriptures day after day to check up on Paul and Silas, to see if they were really teaching the truth. 12 As a result, many Jews believed, as did some of the prominent Greek women and many men.

Women should not preach, right? Condemned.

SIG
Mar 27th 2007, 11:29 PM
Even better-- Clearly, MANY apologetics ministries are not too happy with her doctrine:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=doctrine+of+joyce+meyer&btnG=Google+Search

jiggyfly
Mar 27th 2007, 11:44 PM
Women should not preach, right? Condemned.
So, brother Paul condemned Joyce meyer? I don't think that is condemnation. There's a lot of men I don't think should be preaching either but that doesn't mean that I condemn them. I don't think Joyce shouldn't preach because she is a female, I don't think she demonstrates enough spiritual maturity and character to be a leader. Some of her teachings are false, so she is spreading lies within the body of Christ, whether it is because of ignorance or deception is of no matter. I just advise others, when asked, not to listen to her.

Studyin'2Show
Mar 28th 2007, 09:15 PM
I think that the bottom line is that we, as believers, have the responsibility to be discerning, no matter who is preaching.

I Thessalonians 5:21 - Test all things; hold fast what is good.

Eat the meat, spit out the bones! Sometimes when listening to Christian radio, I hear a song that I don't agree with. They may be singing about a concept or singing about a difficult time in life or something. Well, scripture says that we shouldn't sing songs to a heavy heart; so I don't. What I do is make sure that I'm aware so I'm not just singing words I feel are contrary to what I believe. I don't stop listening to that musician or to the Christian station. I want to be discerning in all things.

Everything I have ever heard, with my own ears, from Joyce has been biblical. I have seen some quotes that are of things I don't feel are biblical but are rather an opinion. Anyone who says they know for sure what Jesus did or what exactly happened during those three days and three nights is working on opinion not biblical fact because there are no verses that say exactly what happened. I feel these quotes are clearly her opinion in that particular matter but that doesn't change the fact that I believe she is leading many people to the word of God. I have heard her say not to follow her, but to follow Christ. I rarely listen to her now because, as I said before, I feel she is more for newer believers; but if I do, I will continue to test everything in the word and to discard anything that I feel doesn't line up with what I've seen come from God. That's pretty much all I can say. I think this topic has probably gone about as far as it can go without beginning too get to negative. There are obviously very differing opinions in this and that's ok.

It takes all kinds. Some people come to Christ in a cathedral, some in a small church; I actually have a very close friend that came to Christ in a crackhouse. Really! There are people on this thread that have said they came watching someone like Joyce or some other tv minister and now maybe they don't agree with all their opinions or doctrine. What is important is that they came. Nine years ago when I was doing cocaine and would NEVER go to a church, I ran across Joyce and her message lifted me up, encouraged me that maybe, just maybe God did love me. Maybe, just maybe Christ could do something with my crazy mixed up life. A few months later when my mother encouraged me to read the Bible like a book, my heart had been softened by this funny lady with the shiny clothes. Go figure! If you don't like Joyce, don't watch. If you do watch, ANYONE, be discerning and test all things. What more is there to say? :dunno:

Realist1981
Mar 28th 2007, 10:12 PM
I think that the bottom line is that we, as believers, have the responsibility to be discerning, no matter who is preaching.

I Thessalonians 5:21 - Test all things; hold fast what is good.

Eat the meat, spit out the bones! Sometimes when listening to Christian radio, I hear a song that I don't agree with. They may be singing about a concept or singing about a difficult time in life or something. Well, scripture says that we shouldn't sing songs to a heavy heart; so I don't. What I do is make sure that I'm aware so I'm not just singing words I feel are contrary to what I believe. I don't stop listening to that musician or to the Christian station. I want to be discerning in all things.

Everything I have ever heard, with my own ears, from Joyce has been biblical. I have seen some quotes that are of things I don't feel are biblical but are rather an opinion. Anyone who says they know for sure what Jesus did or what exactly happened during those three days and three nights is working on opinion not biblical fact because there are no verses that say exactly what happened. I feel these quotes are clearly her opinion in that particular matter but that doesn't change the fact that I believe she is leading many people to the word of God. I have heard her say not to follow her, but to follow Christ. I rarely listen to her now because, as I said before, I feel she is more for newer believers; but if I do, I will continue to test everything in the word and to discard anything that I feel doesn't line up with what I've seen come from God. That's pretty much all I can say. I think this topic has probably gone about as far as it can go without beginning too get to negative. There are obviously very differing opinions in this and that's ok.

It takes all kinds. Some people come to Christ in a cathedral, some in a small church; I actually have a very close friend that came to Christ in a crackhouse. Really! There are people on this thread that have said they came watching someone like Joyce or some other tv minister and now maybe they don't agree with all their opinions or doctrine. What is important is that they came. Nine years ago when I was doing cocaine and would NEVER go to a church, I ran across Joyce and her message lifted me up, encouraged me that maybe, just maybe God did love me. Maybe, just maybe Christ could do something with my crazy mixed up life. A few months later when my mother encouraged me to read the Bible like a book, my heart had been softened by this funny lady with the shiny clothes. Go figure! If you don't like Joyce, don't watch. If you do watch, ANYONE, be discerning and test all things. What more is there to say? :dunno:

Shepherd's chapel
Dont listen to them no more but I started believing in the Lord through Pastor Murray's teachings. There teaching if far out there. I had no idea what pre tribulation or post tribulation meant but he talks about his stand against Pre Trib alot. He also talks about Kenitites/Cainites. I still don't know what he is talking about on that one. Once I found out their errors I stopped listening to him.

I'm pretty much the same as you. When I've listened to Joyce she seems to be legit. She tends to get off subject alot though. Talking about her dress or other things in her life. Her teachings seem biblical to me.

Navaros
Mar 30th 2007, 04:17 AM
I used to watch Joyce Meyer but I stopped after one day when I was watching she was giving a sermon on backsliding.

She said in a very casual tone something like: "You know what abortion is? It's backsliding." She went on to repeat this sentiment a couple of times.

She was smiling about it and telling it as if it was a joke. She presented this statement in a lighthearted, "Let's all have a good chuckle about this" kind of way. It is difficult for me to express with words on a forum just how disturbing and unbiblical that Joyce's presentation of that statement was. She was definitely making light of how horrendous and evil "abortion" is.

After having seen Joyce do that, I was convinced that her ministry is not based on good soil that the Lord would approve of.

ikester7579
Mar 30th 2007, 05:03 AM
I used to watch Joyce Meyer but I stopped after one day when I was watching she was giving a sermon on backsliding.

She said in a very casual tone something like: "You know what abortion is? It's backsliding." She went on to repeat this sentiment a couple of times.

She was smiling about it and telling it as if it was a joke. She presented this statement in a lighthearted, "Let's all have a good chuckle about this" kind of way. It is difficult for me to express with words on a forum just how disturbing and unbiblical that Joyce's presentation of that statement was. She was definitely making light of how horrendous and evil "abortion" is.

After having seen Joyce do that, I was convinced that her ministry is not based on good soil that the Lord would approve of.

A lot of women already feel bad enough about having an abortion. If a preacher makes them feel as if they have not only committed a horrendous sin, but that they will never be forgiven for it (as some I have seen imply). These women will always feel guilty when healing should be taking place. And some will "never" accept Christ because they feel they are tainted, and Christ would never forgive them.

Abortion is a horrendous act. But if you only focus on that one thing, then you will separate some from Christ for that reason. Because some have already done it before they knew it was wrong. Should you preach a guilt and judgement sermon to them? If you love them as Christ does, you would not. Joyce may have stumbled onto discussing a subject she was not prepared to handle. And tried to bow out of it before she got to deep.

So do we pre-judge when we don't know why she did or said what she said? What if the word abortion popped out of your mouth before you realized it in front of a bunch of women you don't know? How would you handle it?

Studyin'2Show
Mar 30th 2007, 08:45 PM
I used to watch Joyce Meyer but I stopped after one day when I was watching she was giving a sermon on backsliding.

She said in a very casual tone something like: "You know what abortion is? It's backsliding." She went on to repeat this sentiment a couple of times.

She was smiling about it and telling it as if it was a joke. She presented this statement in a lighthearted, "Let's all have a good chuckle about this" kind of way. It is difficult for me to express with words on a forum just how disturbing and unbiblical that Joyce's presentation of that statement was. She was definitely making light of how horrendous and evil "abortion" is.

After having seen Joyce do that, I was convinced that her ministry is not based on good soil that the Lord would approve of.I actually think I saw that but it wasn't ABOUT abortion at all. I was about backsliding. It's like digging up your seed and wondering why your plant isn't growing. You see, that was what the reference to abortion was about. But, of course, it's your choice what you want to watch and what you don't but in that case it really had nothing to do with a child being aborted.

God Bless!

StevenC
Mar 31st 2007, 12:41 AM
The same applies to everyone in the kingdom of God, I thought we were to avoid the appearance of evil.:confused

If one does not show fruit of denying self and taking up their cross then they are not following Jesus, period.

A quote from one of those articles you linked too, "But Ms. Meyer doesn't hide the fact that she does very well. "I'm living now in my reward," she told an audience in 2003."

Now while I don't suggest we believe what the media tells us, if the article is only partly true it is a little disturbing..

-Steven

Studyin'2Show
Mar 31st 2007, 01:27 AM
This is why I can not stand threads that are bashing the character of those not present to defend themselves. Especially when the things we're looking at are most often on the internet. Last year there was a thread on John Hagee and I really don't like him very much but I felt the need to defend him. I just think there are much better things for us to be doing than talking about people. I may be wrong but it sure feels like gossip to me.

I completely understand that we want to make sure no one is led astray by false teachers. I totally get that we want to warn new believers so they will not follow after false doctrine. Can't we more effectively do that by teaching them to test all things in the word? To be discerning? To be led by the Spirit? To follow Jesus alone? Several people have mentioned that Jesus called religious leaders vipers. This is so true, but He did it to their faces, not behind their backs. Right to their faces. In the temple, turning over tables, with them right there to hear what He had to say. Like I said, this completely feels like gossip, or what gossip would be if any of us actually knew her, and as far as I know gossip is wrong, even if it's right. Chew on that for a while. Again, I'll say, I think there are a lot more important things for us to be doing for the kingdom.

God Bless!

Navaros
Mar 31st 2007, 03:56 AM
I actually think I saw that but it wasn't ABOUT abortion at all. I was about backsliding. It's like digging up your seed and wondering why your plant isn't growing. You see, that was what the reference to abortion was about. But, of course, it's your choice what you want to watch and what you don't but in that case it really had nothing to do with a child being aborted.


Even so, she still mentioned "abortion" casually as in a way that presents it as a lighthearted matter and a "joke" to be laughed at.

The question that matters is, does God ever think "abortion" is something funny or to be taken lightly? Of course the answer is no, so there is never really any legitimate excuse to joke about it or take it lightly as Joyce Meyer did in this case.

In regards to ikester7579's post, I would remind that God is not a respecter of persons. God and Jesus would tell everyone the truth, not hide, diminish or sugarcoat the truth for the sake of the feelings of the offender.

After having read some of the posts in this thread from respected posters in response to my previous post, I gave Joyce Meyer another quick watch this morning. I noticed how her audience was roaring and giving her thunderous applause simply for her saying things that are not at all applause-worthy. She said, "I don't like to invite people to my house. I don't want people at my house. I just don't." Then the audience erupts in thunderous applause and cheers for no reason. This is just one example of this happening during this broadcast, but it happened constantly after just about every single sentence she said. Most of the other sentences which were likewise not applause-worthy.

I wonder why the audience was doing this - is it because they are seeing Joyce Meyer as an idol of sorts simply because she is a woman and women preachers are not all that common, especially on television?

Whatever the reason is, it seems to me that the constant applause simply because Joyce Meyer has spoke a sentence is indicative of something going on there that is not of God.

It also comes to mind that a long time ago when I was watching Joyce Meyer, she was talking about how (obscenely) expensive her dress was, and then said that it's none her congregation's business how much it costs since they didn't pay for it. But when I think about that, I do not understand how it is that they didn't pay for it. Doesn't her income come from their pockets?

chisel
Mar 31st 2007, 06:31 AM
On a local radio station they play the 'Grace to you' programmes, usually with John McArthur at seven in the morning untill 7:30, then it's 15 minutes of Joyce Meyer.

I loved John McArthur's series called 'A tale of two sons' and he painted such a beautiful picture of Gods love and His grace for a sinful mankind.
The next 15 minutes of Joyce and her loud and arrogant barking cuts through me like a knife.
"I just picked up a newspaper and it said I'm the wealthiest women in [whatever] suburb. Am I blessed or what? Amen?"
And the congregation shouted: "YEAH!!!!"

I can't stand it when people use 'amen?' as a prompt for the crowd to acknowledge and honour your punchline and I can't stand prosperity teaching.

Sorry to the Joyce Meyer fans out there, but that is my honest feeling about her.

Lars777
Mar 31st 2007, 08:06 AM
The Word teaches us in that if we have ought against a brother or sister in Christ we need to take it up with them !

There are many teachers and pastors that I do not totally agree with for one reason or another....but refuse to speak ill of them.

People like Joel Osteen....Ken Copeland and Joyce are always mocked because of what they preach and the money they spend and the things they have.

But at the same time I know this .......I do not know them personally.
I do not know how much money they take in or how much is spent on other things like television and radio and outreaches they support.

We do not know ALL the facts concerning any pastor or preacher......But this I do know......The Father is in control......He knows what is going on and what is being taught....And He alone will deal with them......not you and not me.

We do have a right not to agree with what there teaching and therefore that is why the Father gave us teachers......preachers......pastors......all plural....more than one.

Last time I checked.......Joel.....Ken....Joyce preach Christ first.....Christ is the only way to the Father......anything else after that you may either like or dislike but the truth is thousands upon thousands are coming to Christ through them.

So what they say.....what they wear.....how much money they spend they will one day be accountable to the Father........not you and not me.

I know my Father enough to know He is in total control and I not need to add my opinion about any pastor or preacher.

We just do not have all the facts to draw any conclusions concerning anyone but our ownselves.....

The bottom line is one of lifting them up to the Lord in prayer rather than speak ill of them in any fashion.......If you do not like what they say turn them off and do not tune in again......but pray over it lift them up before the Lord.

To me not one pastor or preacher is perfect....they are just like you and me.
They need the grace and mercy of the Father just as we do.

The Father has every right to speak ill of each and every one of us......we were a dirty vile self righteous people......but yet He remembers that no more.

Never brings it up and spends all His time telling us and showing us how much He loves us.....He sent His Son to prove it!

And if The Father feels that way about us then we are able to feel that way about everyone as well.

Just in case you might have forgotton Jesus sees each and every word typed and posted in all forums.....and the attitude behind each post.....now I ask you to go back over all the posts that you have posted here in this topic and others and see if the words and attitude you chose is one that would come out of the mouth of our Lord or the heart of our Lord.

I bet you will be suprised.

Duane Morse
Mar 31st 2007, 08:19 AM
The Word teaches us in that if we have ought against a brother or sister in Christ we need to take it up with them !

There are many teachers and pastors that I do not totally agree with for one reason or another....but refuse to speak ill of them.

People like Joel Osteen....Ken Copeland and Joyce are always mocked because of what they preach and the money they spend and the things they have.

But at the same time I know this .......I do not know them personally.
I do not know how much money they take in or how much is spent on other things like television and radio and outreaches they support.

We do not know ALL the facts concerning any pastor or preacher......But this I do know......The Father is in control......He knows what is going on and what is being taught....And He alone will deal with them......not you and not me.

We do have a right not to agree with what there teaching and therefore that is why the Father gave us teachers......preachers......pastors......all plural....more than one.

Last time I checked.......Joel.....Ken....Joyce preach Christ first.....Christ is the only way to the Father......anything else after that you may either like or dislike but the truth is thousands upon thousands are coming to Christ through them.

So what they say.....what they wear.....how much money they spend they will one day be accountable to the Father........not you and not me.

I know my Father enough to know He is in total control and I not need to add my opinion about any pastor or preacher.

We just do not have all the facts to draw any conclusions concerning anyone but our ownselves.....

The bottom line is one of lifting them up to the Lord in prayer rather than speak ill of them in any fashion.......If you do not like what they say turn them off and do not tune in again......but pray over it lift them up before the Lord.

To me not one pastor or preacher is perfect....they are just like you and me.
They need the grace and mercy of the Father just as we do.

The Father has every right to speak ill of each and every one of us......we were a dirty vile self righteous people......but yet He remembers that no more.

Never brings it up and spends all His time telling us and showing us how much He loves us.....He sent His Son to prove it!

And if The Father feels that way about us then we are able to feel that way about everyone as well.

Just in case you might have forgotton Jesus sees each and every word typed and posted in all forums.....and the attitude behind each post.....now I ask you to go back over all the posts that you have posted here in this topic and others and see if the words and attitude you chose is one that would come out of the mouth of our Lord or the heart of our Lord.

I bet you will be suprised.
Yes, well, try to go to any of them with a perceived problem and see how far you will get.

Think you will get a personal answer back?
?

So, then, that having failed there is no alternative than to bring it before the congregation - because any that are above the pastors are in it with them, since they were the ones that placed them in the position they are in.

And so, bringing it to the actual people that are taught by them is the only way to bring them to light.




"People like Joel Osteen....Ken Copeland and Joyce are always mocked because of what they preach and the money they spend and the things they have."

That's a laugh.
They are not mocked, they are warned against - and for good reason.

Duane Morse
Mar 31st 2007, 08:38 AM
Part 2:
1) Where is it written that Satan will bless someone?
2) Where is it written that Satan has ever blessed someone?
3) If Joyce's ministry gets millions of dollars, can you prove, and back it up with scripture, who is blessing Joyce? If it's Satan, prove that Satan has ever blessed anyone using scripture.


Would this qualify?:

Mt 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
Mt 4:9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.


Lu 4:5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, showed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.
Lu 4:6 And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.
Lu 4:7 If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.


All you have to do, is worship Satan - to have this world as your oyster.

Duane Morse
Mar 31st 2007, 09:08 AM
Unlike us, Christ knew that those not against us are for us. Now would you say that Joyce does what she does in Christ's name, or in Satan's name? And if you respond for Satan, then I have another verse.

""26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?""

So does Joyce's ministry bring people to salvation or not? If so, it cannot be of Satan because he will not run a ministry that will allow souls to be saved.

He can, however, run a ministry that leads souls to believe they are saved - yet are not.

And how does Satan's kingdom stand?


That verse about 'a kingdom divided can't stand' seems to be misunderstood in this case.

Satan's kingdom is utterly divided, because it is made up of those which wish to rule themselves, as well as others... Of course it can not stand.
Only the kingdom of God stands.


All this talk of how some of the teaching is so very Biblical...

Never forget...




The most effective lie is 9/10 truth.

And an even better lie would be 99/100 Truth.

Faithwalker
Mar 31st 2007, 11:19 AM
There is no alternative than to bring it before the congregation...bringing it to the actual people that are taught by them is the only way to bring them to light.

Amen!



They are not mocked, they are warned against - and for good reason.


Amen!


All you have to do, is worship Satan - to have this world as your oyster.

Amen!



The most effective lie is 9/10 truth.

And an even better lie would be 99/100 Truth.


Amen!!!

How can it be, when the Apostle Paul warned against false teachers, no one questions he was speaking the very Word of God, (cause its written in the Bible) yet if anyone follows his example, they are rebuked?

Thank God there are still watchmen upon the walls sounding the warning!


2Co 11:4 We told you about Jesus, and you received the Holy Spirit and accepted our message. But you let some people tell you about another Jesus. Now you are ready to receive another spirit and accept a different message...Anyway, they are no more than false apostles and dishonest workers. They only pretend to be apostles of Christ.

Luk 21:36 Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.- Jesus

Navaros
Mar 31st 2007, 02:15 PM
The Word teaches us in that if we have ought against a brother or sister in Christ we need to take it up with them !

There are many teachers and pastors that I do not totally agree with for one reason or another....but refuse to speak ill of them.

People like Joel Osteen....Ken Copeland and Joyce are always mocked because of what they preach and the money they spend and the things they have.


I notice this sentiment brought up a few times now, that we should talk to the people in error or deliberately misleading Christians directly. That would be nice if we could - I'm sure a ton of Bible-believing Christians would love to do that, but would not be given the opportunity to do so. If and when Joyce Meyer and the others will allow any Bible-believing Christian access to them to take issue with them about any false doctrine they may have promoted, then it might become a legitimate thing to only take it up with them directly.

Joyce Meyer and others do not directly speak to the people they hold sway over via television and radio, yet they are still able to shape the thoughts and behaviours of those people via public saturation everywhere. Not to mention that they eagerly solicit money directly from people who they have never met nor spoken to directly.

Therefore it is only right for Christians to criticize any biblically incorrect message that they are teaching in a similarly public way.

In my view to not speak ill of false doctrine when one knows it to be false doctrine is doing a dis-service to God.

The name of Christ is often profaned with all manners of false gospels. For example, some well-known ministers exploit their congregation to live gluttonous lifestyles for themselves. Even though their congregation is very poor. There is a recent documented case of this happening in Toronto.

Others use the name of Christ to run financial scams that steal the life savings from hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands of people. Sadly, the only reason these scams work is because the innocent well-meaning Christians by default have feelings against questioning anyone who proclaims the name of Jesus, which opens the door for those well-meaning Christians to be horribly taken advantage of.

My point is that someone proclaiming the name of Jesus does not automatically mean that they can be trusted or should not be criticized. There are many wolves in sheeps clothing, as the Bible warns about. Joyce Meyer does not breach the gospel to as large of a degree as these above examples, but the point remains that using the name of Christ should not give one carte blanche to be immune to legitimate, godly criticism from other Christians. When well-meaning Christians start giving carte blanche to anyone proclaiming the name of Christ, that's when things like the aforementioned disasters take place.

This is a little offtopic but since the name was mentioned I feel it prudent to point out that Joel Osteen is criticized because he does not preach Christ at all, he merely uses the name of Christ as trimming that he occassionally sprinkles onto his motivational speaking seminars (which he might call sermons, but they are not really sermons). Joel Osteen is a motivational speaker, not a gospel preacher. That is why he has the largest "church" in America. It's not because he's the best gospel preacher ever. It's simply because he tells people what they want to hear rather than what the content of the Bible entails, and then rubber stamps the name of Christ onto it for the sake of giving the appearance of preaching the gospel.

Faithwalker
Mar 31st 2007, 03:43 PM
Amen Navaros!

Eze 33:6 But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned, and the sword come, and take any person from among them; he is taken away in his iniquity, but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand.


Act 20:26 I therefore declare to you today that I am not responsible for the blood of any of you, for I never shrank from telling you the whole plan of God. Pay attention to yourselves and to the entire flock in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers to be shepherds of God's church, which he acquired with his own blood. I know that when I'm gone savage wolves will come among you and not spare the flock. Indeed, some of your own men will come forward and distort the truth in order to lure the disciples into following them. So be alert! Remember that for three years, night and day, I never stopped warning each of you with tears.

Studyin'2Show
Mar 31st 2007, 04:43 PM
And so it goes! The verse about the watchman tells US to to watch and be aware. Not to go on talking about one another. I absolutely agree that we must test all things and on hold on to what is good. The only thing I don't agree with is gossiping.

Proverbs 17:9 - He who covers a transgression seeks love, But he who repeats a matter separates friends.

Proverbs 10:12 - Hatred stirs up strife, But love covers all sins.

Listen to how I would say something mentioned in this thread against Joyce with which I somewhat agree. I'd say something like - The word 'amen' translated means 'so be it'. When you say 'amen' you are in essence agreeing with what was said before. Be very careful when people ask for an 'amen' that you are not saying it to something you don't agree with. Many times people will say "Amen?" as if seeking you to say it as well. Be cautious because words are extremely important. See no one has been bashed yet the point has been made about something that many preachers do.

The watchman must indeed watch and warn, but remember, the Bible does not contradict itself. If you feel Joyce's doctrine is false then speak against the DOCTRINE. I would never have even gotten into the discussion if there had been no name on it. God would not tell us not to gossip and then tell us it's ok to talk about PEOPLE! When Paul spoke of a person by name it was to exhort them that they be corrected with love, like Peter and John Mark. It was always the doctrine and false teaching he spoke harshly about telling people to beware. Talk about the doctrine you either agree or disagree with. Warn the flock about the doctrines with which to beware, sure! It is about our own personal walk with Messiah. This, however, is a very PUBLIC place. As I've said before, nothing about a person bash thread ever feels right to me. Ever! That's my two cents!

P.S. BTW, Joyce does not actually have a congregation. She is not a pastor. She and her husband attend a particular chuch in St Louis, I think when they are in town and sometimes she will preach there but she is not the pastor. Just thought I'd clear that up. :D

ikester7579
Mar 31st 2007, 06:06 PM
Would this qualify?:

Mt 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
Mt 4:9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.


Lu 4:5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, showed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.
Lu 4:6 And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.
Lu 4:7 If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.


All you have to do, is worship Satan - to have this world as your oyster.

Having the world is not a blessing. And did Satan say: In God the Father's name I give these things to you? He cannot bless someone in God the Father's name.

Satan is what? The Father of lies. So was he lying when he told Jesus this?

The kingdoms he promised Jesus were the kingdoms that were given to him upon being cast out of heaven. To give them to Jesus, he would be giving up his position as being the prince of them (prince of the air). Someone who wants to take the throne of God, is now going to give up his own throne and position? The lie reveals itself in two ways here.

1) "Worship me" means he does not intend to dethrone himself.
2) To give his own kingdoms to Jesus, he would not be worthy to worship. Because he would become like any other demon.

And to prove this even further:

mt 12:26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?

So to give all that he owns to Christ (his kingdoms), how does Satan maintain his position in those kingdoms? He maintains it because he never intended to give them away.

So when Joyce leads someone in the sinner's prayer to Christ, in Jesus name. Is she, or is she not doing the work of Satan?

No one has answered that question yet.

Remember, you can only be for or against God, there is no other way. And against means only one thing. So which is it? Because if people are going to imply that Joyce is against God, why not go the rest of the way and commit to what is actually being implied?

Anyone?

divaD
Mar 31st 2007, 08:13 PM
Having the world is not a blessing. And did Satan say: In God the Father's name I give these things to you? He cannot bless someone in God the Father's name.

Satan is what? The Father of lies. So was he lying when he told Jesus this?

The kingdoms he promised Jesus were the kingdoms that were given to him upon being cast out of heaven. To give them to Jesus, he would be giving up his position as being the prince of them (prince of the air). Someone who wants to take the throne of God, is now going to give up his own throne and position? The lie reveals itself in two ways here.

1) "Worship me" means he does not intend to dethrone himself.
2) To give his own kingdoms to Jesus, he would not be worthy to worship. Because he would become like any other demon.

And to prove this even further:

mt 12:26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?

So to give all that he owns to Christ (his kingdoms), how does Satan maintain his position in those kingdoms? He maintains it because he never intended to give them away.

So when Joyce leads someone in the sinner's prayer to Christ, in Jesus name. Is she, or is she not doing the work of Satan?

No one has answered that question yet.

Remember, you can only be for or against God, there is no other way. And against means only one thing. So which is it? Because if people are going to imply that Joyce is against God, why not go the rest of the way and commit to what is actually being implied?

Anyone?



Please don't take this as anything personally against Joyce Meyer, but who do you think all the warnings that are seen in the NT are implying towards? Athiests? Non-believers?
We're warned of wolves in sheep's clothing. We're warned of false prophets and teachers. Jesus said in Matthew 7:21-22:

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 *Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?


Was he talking about athiests and non-believers?
As we can see, these warnings are to make us aware of some of those that profess to know God.

Faithwalker
Apr 1st 2007, 02:25 AM
And so it goes! The verse about the watchman tells US to to watch and be aware. Not to go on talking about one another. I absolutely agree that we must test all things and on hold on to what is good. The only thing I don't agree with is gossiping.

The watchman must indeed watch and warn, but remember, the Bible does not contradict itself. If you feel Joyce's doctrine is false then speak against the DOCTRINE. I would never have even gotten into the discussion if there had been no name on it. God would not tell us not to gossip and then tell us it's ok to talk about PEOPLE! When Paul spoke of a person by name it was to exhort them that they be corrected with love, like Peter and John Mark. It was always the doctrine and false teaching he spoke harshly about telling people to beware. Talk about the doctrine you either agree or disagree with. Warn the flock about the doctrines with which to beware, sure! It is about our own personal walk with Messiah. This, however, is a very PUBLIC place. As I've said before, nothing about a person bash thread ever feels right to me. Ever! That's my two cents!


Act 13:8 But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith.

Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

2Ti 4:14 Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works: Of whom be thou ware also; for he hath greatly withstood our words.

Just thought I would clear up the idea its not alright to name names of those teaching false doctrines. Sounds to me like some people are being talked about there, not just their 'doctrine.'

ikester7579
Apr 1st 2007, 05:15 AM
Please don't take this as anything personally against Joyce Meyer, but who do you think all the warnings that are seen in the NT are implying towards? Athiests? Non-believers?
We're warned of wolves in sheep's clothing. We're warned of false prophets and teachers. Jesus said in Matthew 7:21-22:

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 *Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?


Was he talking about athiests and non-believers?
As we can see, these warnings are to make us aware of some of those that profess to know God.

If God be the only being that has absolute truth, then what does that make the rest of us? So who is worthy to stand behind the pulpit if we are all liars because we do not have complete absolute truth? If God requires perfection in this, then no body is. But that's not how it is done now is it?

So how are imperfect beings supposed to some how know perfect judgement enough to know how to judge people on spiritual things such as preaching? For the judgement unto itself becomes imperfect because we do not have the knowledge of God on these issues. So to what knowledge do we judge? It's not knowledge, but our own opinions which is a form of gossip.

People judge other people from the outside, and how does God judge? From within, correct? This is why we are supposed to look for God's approval through blessings and gifts of power. For even Christ said:

mk 9:39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.

Does Christ lie? So if Joyce prays for someone in Christ's name, and they become healed. the power to heal comes through Christ. And Joyce cannot even lightly speak evil of christ and do these things, or did Christ lie about this? Let's do this a different way.

Mark 9:38 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.

39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.

40 For he that is not against us is on our part.

So let us apply this to the one who we judge on this thread.

And I came to Christ saying: Master I saw Joyce casting out devils in thy name, and she does not believe like we do, so we forbad her because she does not follow our doctrine completely.

But Jesus said: Forbid her not: For there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.

For he that is not against us is for us.

Now some might say that those verses only refer to the male gender so it does not apply to Joyce. But you would be wrong.

1) Woman was made from the man's flesh.
2) God considers man and woman one flesh when married.

This is even more confirmed in the book of Job. When Satan ask to do more to Job, and God laid out the rules and said that Satan could not kill Job. But yet Satan killed his whole family except his wife. Now why was the wife spared when the wife was not even mentioned as one that Satan could not touch? Here again it is because they are one flesh in marraige so the rule that applied to Job, also applied to his wife. So when God said that Satan could not kill Job, it also applied to his wife, and Satan knew this.

So if marraige is mentioned, the the word man applies also to the woman because they are of one flesh.

divaD
Apr 1st 2007, 02:47 PM
If God be the only being that has absolute truth, then what does that make the rest of us? So who is worthy to stand behind the pulpit if we are all liars because we do not have complete absolute truth? If God requires perfection in this, then no body is. But that's not how it is done now is it?

So how are imperfect beings supposed to some how know perfect judgement enough to know how to judge people on spiritual things such as preaching? For the judgement unto itself becomes imperfect because we do not have the knowledge of God on these issues. So to what knowledge do we judge? It's not knowledge, but our own opinions which is a form of gossip.

People judge other people from the outside, and how does God judge? From within, correct? This is why we are supposed to look for God's approval through blessings and gifts of power. For even Christ said:

mk 9:39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.

Does Christ lie? So if Joyce prays for someone in Christ's name, and they become healed. the power to heal comes through Christ. And Joyce cannot even lightly speak evil of christ and do these things, or did Christ lie about this? Let's do this a different way.

Mark 9:38 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.

39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.

40 For he that is not against us is on our part.

So let us apply this to the one who we judge on this thread.

And I came to Christ saying: Master I saw Joyce casting out devils in thy name, and she does not believe like we do, so we forbad her because she does not follow our doctrine completely.

But Jesus said: Forbid her not: For there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.

For he that is not against us is for us.

Now some might say that those verses only refer to the male gender so it does not apply to Joyce. But you would be wrong.

1) Woman was made from the man's flesh.
2) God considers man and woman one flesh when married.

This is even more confirmed in the book of Job. When Satan ask to do more to Job, and God laid out the rules and said that Satan could not kill Job. But yet Satan killed his whole family except his wife. Now why was the wife spared when the wife was not even mentioned as one that Satan could not touch? Here again it is because they are one flesh in marraige so the rule that applied to Job, also applied to his wife. So when God said that Satan could not kill Job, it also applied to his wife, and Satan knew this.

So if marraige is mentioned, the the word man applies also to the woman because they are of one flesh.



My issue with Joyce Meyer is not because she is a woman and because she teaches. My issue is what she teaches. And that is the teaching that states Jesus went to Hell to be tormented because he deserved it.
She needs to publically denounce that teaching and repent of it. If she is not willing to do that, then she at least needs to provide scripture for this theory.

Studyin'2Show
Apr 1st 2007, 04:39 PM
Act 13:8 But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith.

Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

2Ti 4:14 Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works: Of whom be thou ware also; for he hath greatly withstood our words.

Just thought I would clear up the idea its not alright to name names of those teaching false doctrines. Sounds to me like some people are being talked about there, not just their 'doctrine.'
Just to clear things up, I didn't say or imply that it is wrong to name people who have done wrong. Look at these scriptures again. The first and the last DO NOT speak of someone's doctrine but of someone's actions, historically, toward the group that Luke writes of and toward Paul. It speaks of their actions toward the speaker. Has Joyce done any actions toward you to which you can fairly be a witness against her or are you referring to her doctrine? If someone assaults your neighbor or does something evil against them or even against you, by all means, name them! As for Peter, once again, Paul is talking about his actions against him and the non-Jewish believers; not his doctrine as a false teacher. Paul is exhorting Peter with love. Do you wish to exhort Joyce with love? By all means, do so. There are a few things I would tell her, in love, if I had the opportunity. We are not talking about things to exhort her in love, are we? Nor are we talking of some evil she has done to you which you must bear witness to. Come on, it's like apples and oranges! I believe we may agree on some levels with the premise, where we disagree is with the process.

God Bless!

ikester7579
Apr 1st 2007, 06:03 PM
My issue with Joyce Meyer is not because she is a woman and because she teaches. My issue is what she teaches. And that is the teaching that states Jesus went to Hell to be tormented because he deserved it.
She needs to publically denounce that teaching and repent of it. If she is not willing to do that, then she at least needs to provide scripture for this theory.

And for all we know, this just maybe the test God is taking her through. So who are we to judge what God is trying to fix? For if her ministry is being blessed by God, then God is with her. Which means she will have trials and tribulation. So while God is walking her through her test, what help are we as we stand by and condemn her? Are we helping God, or hendering God?

For can you prove through scripture:

1) That God will bless a ministry that He does not approve of?
2) And that miracles in His name can be peformed when God is not in it?

And then do we have the knowledge of God to see within the heart of Joyce?

For our judgement of Joyce to be Godly and just, we would have to have access to this same information that God has access to. Does anyone here have this ability? So to what end do we do this judgement when it is neither Godly or just based on how God would judge us?

When we get to heaven, how would we want God to judge us? From how we look upon the outside, or from what is within our hearts?

Ramon
Apr 1st 2007, 06:10 PM
Well where do you think Jesus went after he died. He said that he had not ascended to his Father on the resurrection day. In some versions of Isaiah 53 it says "the suffering of his soul" so this could mean that he did in fact go to Hades/Sheol.

Jesus also referred to the sign of Jonah. Jonah was in the depths of the earth and then was freed when the whale vomited him up. Does this mean that Jesus was also in the depths of the earth (Hell) and was "vomited" out with his resurrection?

divaD
Apr 1st 2007, 06:29 PM
[QUOTE=ikester7579;1214067]And for all we know, this just maybe the test God is taking her through. So who are we to judge what God is trying to fix? For if her ministry is being blessed by God, then God is with her. Which means she will have trials and tribulation. So while God is walking her through her test, what help are we as we stand by and condemn her? Are we helping God, or hendering God?

For can you prove through scripture:

1) That God will bless a ministry that He does not approve of?
2) And that miracles in His name can be peformed when God is not in it?



Why do you assume that if a ministry is successful, that it is blessed by God? Why not just say it for what it is? Some ministries are blessed by the people sending them money. This doesn't necessarily have to be of God.
Most of these prosperity teachers are just plain con artists, doing so in the name of God. This doesn't mean that Jesus knows them.
I see a lot of banners on tv and outside of huge churches, where the pastor/teacher's name is in larger letters than Jesus's name. Why is that? Do they think that their names are exalted above the name of Jesus?
I noticed in an earlier post in this thread, that it was stated that Joyce Meyer said she was living in her reward. Maybe that's the answer. She chooses to accept a reward that is temporary instead of waiting for rewards that are everlasting.

divaD
Apr 1st 2007, 06:34 PM
Well where do you think Jesus went after he died. He said that he had not ascended to his Father on the resurrection day. In some versions of Isaiah 53 it says "the suffering of his soul" so this could mean that he did in fact go to Hades/Sheol.

Jesus also referred to the sign of Jonah. Jonah was in the depths of the earth and then was freed when the whale vomited him up. Does this mean that Jesus was also in the depths of the earth (Hell) and was "vomited" out with his resurrection?



I don't think anyone is denying that Jesus descended into the heart of the earth. But there was a paradise side and a torment side. Jesus told the thief on the cross that he would be with him in paradise today.

Ramon
Apr 1st 2007, 06:45 PM
I don't think anyone is denying that Jesus descended into the heart of the earth. But there was a paradise side and a torment side. Jesus told the thief on the cross that he would be with him in paradise today.


true. hmmm that adds more to this discussion defiantly. :hmm:

Studyin'2Show
Apr 1st 2007, 08:33 PM
I noticed in an earlier post in this thread, that it was stated that Joyce Meyer said she was living in her reward. Maybe that's the answer. She chooses to accept a reward that is temporary instead of waiting for rewards that are everlasting.This is one of those things I mean. First, whether she said this or not, we don't know because our only reference is that someone on the internet said so. Next, if she said something close to this, I'd really have to hear the EXACT quote in context to be able to say what was meant by it. I have heard her speak about the 'abundant life' Jesus has given us. There are many things like power and authority over the wiles of the enemy that He has said He has given us - IN THIS LIFE! Yet, there are MANY believers living defeated lives as if we have been given nothing for this life and have to wait for heaven to see victory. This is not biblical and is leaving many believers to continue a life in defeat. So, you see, it is very important to understand the context of what was said. Which is why we, as believers should test all things in the word, but not waste our time with things we can not verify.
God Bless!

ikester7579
Apr 1st 2007, 08:53 PM
[

Why do you assume that if a ministry is successful, that it is blessed by God? Why not just say it for what it is? Some ministries are blessed by the people sending them money. This doesn't necessarily have to be of God.
Most of these prosperity teachers are just plain con artists, doing so in the name of God. This doesn't mean that Jesus knows them.
I see a lot of banners on tv and outside of huge churches, where the pastor/teacher's name is in larger letters than Jesus's name. Why is that? Do they think that their names are exalted above the name of Jesus?
I noticed in an earlier post in this thread, that it was stated that Joyce Meyer said she was living in her reward. Maybe that's the answer. She chooses to accept a reward that is temporary instead of waiting for rewards that are everlasting.


I never said that being successful is God's blessing. Whether it be a multi-million dollar church, or a 50 cent open air church. Neither can use Christ's name and do a deception on purpose and have the power of Christ in that ministry. Money does not make a church. Whether God approves, and the Holy Ghost is there is what makes a church. You can't put a price on a church that is spirit filled.

And I have yet to see any indication that Joyce's ministry is not spirit filled. And maybe someone would like to give an example of where it is not?

divaD
Apr 1st 2007, 09:06 PM
This is one of those things I mean. First, whether she said this or not, we don't know because our only reference is that someone on the internet said so. Next, if she said something close to this, I'd really have to hear the EXACT quote in context to be able to say what was meant by it. I have heard her speak about the 'abundant life' Jesus has given us. There are many things like power and authority over the wiles of the enemy that He has said He has given us - IN THIS LIFE! Yet, there are MANY believers living defeated lives as if we have been given nothing for this life and have to wait for heaven to see victory. This is not biblical and is leaving many believers to continue a life in defeat. So, you see, it is very important to understand the context of what was said. Which is why we, as believers should test all things in the word, but not waste our time with things we can not verify.
God Bless!


For what it's worth, no matter how I may be coming across, I am in no way judging any man or any woman. Only Christ has that authority. God is the only one who is able to truly discern the heart, thoughts and intentions of man.

Years ago I used to follow the likes of Robert Tilton, Oral Roberts etc. I thank God that he opened my eyes to what they really are. I have never regretted not following or supporting them anymore. That said, Christ is still their judge, not me. But I do have a right not to follow or support them if I don't feel right about them in my spirit.

Studyin'2Show
Apr 1st 2007, 09:56 PM
For what it's worth, no matter how I may be coming across, I am in no way judging any man or any woman. Only Christ has that authority. God is the only one who is able to truly discern the heart, thoughts and intentions of man.

Years ago I used to follow the likes of Robert Tilton, Oral Roberts etc. I thank God that he opened my eyes to what they really are. I have never regretted not following or supporting them anymore. That said, Christ is still their judge, not me. But I do have a right not to follow or support them if I don't feel right about them in my spirit.I completely respect your position. Which is why I keep saying that it is sooooo important that every believer test everything in the word of God. You're fairly new here on the board, and welcome by the way! :D I've been here for a bit more than a year and as I said before, the threads that are against a particular person just leave a really bad taste in my mouth, so to speak. I have absolutely no trouble with threads debating doctrine, some of which if you have seen a particular person, you would know that they fit into a particular category. Speak against the doctrine, yes! I, as I've said before, have only followed after Christ but I have heard of many who have followed after a particular person. This, I believe, is a problem and should be warned against. Jesus told us to keep our eyes on Him. I think if we do that, we won't need anyone to 'warn' us about a particular person.

God Bless!

Faithwalker
Apr 2nd 2007, 12:01 AM
Just to clear things up, I didn't say or imply that it is wrong to name people who have done wrong. Look at these scriptures again. The first and the last DO NOT speak of someone's doctrine but of someone's actions, historically, toward the group that Luke writes of and toward Paul. It speaks of their actions toward the speaker. Has Joyce done any actions toward you to which you can fairly be a witness against her or are you referring to her doctrine? If someone assaults your neighbor or does something evil against them or even against you, by all means, name them! As for Peter, once again, Paul is talking about his actions against him and the non-Jewish believers; not his doctrine as a false teacher. Paul is exhorting Peter with love. Do you wish to exhort Joyce with love? By all means, do so. There are a few things I would tell her, in love, if I had the opportunity. We are not talking about things to exhort her in love, are we? Nor are we talking of some evil she has done to you which you must bear witness to. Come on, it's like apples and oranges! I believe we may agree on some levels with the premise, where we disagree is with the process.

God Bless!

The first...

You said:


If you feel Joyce's doctrine is false then speak against the DOCTRINE. I would never have even gotten into the discussion if there had been no name on it.

Act 13:6 "They went through the whole island as far as Paphos, where they found a Jewish occult practitioner and false prophet named Bar-Jesus. He was associated with the proconsul Sergius Paulus, who was an intelligent man. He sent for Barnabas and Saul because he wanted to hear the word of God. But Elymas the occult practitioner (that is the meaning of his name) continued to oppose them and tried to turn the proconsul away from the faith. ( a little 'doctrinal- perverting the ways of the Lord'- debating going on there?)

But Saul, also known as Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked him straight in the eye and said, "You are full of every form of deception and trickery, you son of the devil, you enemy of all that is right! You will never stop perverting the straight ways of the Lord, will you? "

Now i`m rather confused about when you think its alright to name names...only when someone has 'done' wrong, (and only to me, or when i`ve personally witnessed it) but never when they have spoken wrong (or falsely)????

Ok, I have never heard the false prophet Bar-Jesus preach, or witnessed him doing any wrong for that matter... therefore according to your conclusion (unless i`m still confused) not only should Paul have avoided any mention of this mans name, he also needs some definate correction, because he named him, instead of just saying dont listen to this or that teaching by whats-his-name, or anyone-else who perverts the way of Christ. Then his idea of 'exorting in love'...!

So, lets pretend for a moment, Paul just wrote his letter in this thread titled "Bar-Jesus" instead of "Joyce Meyer"
What would your response be to him?

Studyin'2Show
Apr 2nd 2007, 01:17 AM
Act 13:6 "They went through the whole island as far as Paphos, where they found a Jewish occult practitioner and false prophet named Bar-Jesus. He was associated with the proconsul Sergius Paulus, who was an intelligent man. He sent for Barnabas and Saul because he wanted to hear the word of God. But Elymas the occult practitioner (that is the meaning of his name) continued to oppose them and tried to turn the proconsul away from the faith. ( a little 'doctrinal- perverting the ways of the Lord'- debating going on there?)

But Saul, also known as Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked him straight in the eye and said, "You are full of every form of deception and trickery, you son of the devil, you enemy of all that is right! You will never stop perverting the straight ways of the Lord, will you? "

Now i`m rather confused about when you think its alright to name names...only when someone has 'done' wrong, (and only to me, or when i`ve personally witnessed it) but never when they have spoken wrong (or falsely)????

Ok, I have never heard the false prophet Bar-Jesus preach, or witnessed him doing any wrong for that matter... therefore according to your conclusion (unless i`m still confused) not only should Paul have avoided any mention of this mans name, he also needs some definate correction, because he named him, instead of just saying dont listen to this or that teaching by whats-his-name, or anyone-else who perverts the way of Christ. Then his idea of 'exorting in love'...!

So, lets pretend for a moment, Paul just wrote his letter in this thread titled "Bar-Jesus" instead of "Joyce Meyer"
What would your response be to him?The scripture you chose absolutely proves my point! Paul spoke to Bar-Jesus TO HIS FACE! Just as Jesus did in the temple overturning tables and to the scribes and pharisees. If you want to go to Joyce and look her straight in the eye to tell her what you feel the Holy Spirit is telling you about her, go to it! That is what the Bible tells us to do when we have something against someone. Not to get together and talk about their errors or their flaws without them present to respond. I've said that I don't disagree that believers need to be careful what they accept as doctrine. I understand your message, I don't agree with the method.

God Bless!

jiggyfly
Apr 2nd 2007, 03:27 AM
The scripture you chose absolutely proves my point! Paul spoke to Bar-Jesus TO HIS FACE! Just as Jesus did in the temple overturning tables and to the scribes and pharisees. If you want to go to Joyce and look her straight in the eye to tell her what you feel the Holy Spirit is telling you about her, go to it! That is what the Bible tells us to do when we have something against someone. Not to get together and talk about their errors or their flaws without them present to respond. I've said that I don't disagree that believers need to be careful what they accept as doctrine. I understand your message, I don't agree with the method.

God Bless!
Matthew 16:1-12
1 One day the Pharisees and Sadducees came to test Jesus’ claims by asking him to show them a miraculous sign from heaven.
2 He replied, “You know the saying, ‘Red sky at night means fair weather tomorrow, 3 red sky in the morning means foul weather all day.’ You are good at reading the weather signs in the sky, but you can’t read the obvious signs of the times!* 4 Only an evil, faithless generation would ask for a miraculous sign, but the only sign I will give them is the sign of the prophet Jonah.” Then Jesus left them and went away.

5 Later, after they crossed to the other side of the lake, the disciples discovered they had forgotten to bring any food. 6 “Watch out!” Jesus warned them. “Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
7 They decided he was saying this because they hadn’t brought any bread. 8 Jesus knew what they were thinking, so he said, “You have so little faith! Why are you worried about having no food? 9 Won’t you ever understand? Don’t you remember the five thousand I fed with five loaves, and the baskets of food that were left over? 10 Don’t you remember the four thousand I fed with seven loaves, with baskets of food left over? 11 How could you even think I was talking about food? So again I say, ‘Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.’ ”
12 Then at last they understood that he wasn’t speaking about yeast or bread but about the false teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

I don't see where the pharisees were present during this warning, if you do then please show me.

3John1:9&10
9 I sent a brief letter to the church about this, but Diotrephes, who loves to be the leader, does not acknowledge our authority. 10 When I come, I will report some of the things he is doing and the wicked things he is saying about us. He not only refuses to welcome the traveling teachers, he also tells others not to help them. And when they do help, he puts them out of the church.

Here again I don't see a face to face encounter but a letter to the church.

Studyin'2Show
Apr 2nd 2007, 10:24 AM
Matthew 16:1-12
1 One day the Pharisees and Sadducees came to test Jesus’ claims by asking him to show them a miraculous sign from heaven.
2 He replied, “You know the saying, ‘Red sky at night means fair weather tomorrow, 3 red sky in the morning means foul weather all day.’ You are good at reading the weather signs in the sky, but you can’t read the obvious signs of the times!* 4 Only an evil, faithless generation would ask for a miraculous sign, but the only sign I will give them is the sign of the prophet Jonah.” Then Jesus left them and went away.

5 Later, after they crossed to the other side of the lake, the disciples discovered they had forgotten to bring any food. 6 “Watch out!” Jesus warned them. “Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
7 They decided he was saying this because they hadn’t brought any bread. 8 Jesus knew what they were thinking, so he said, “You have so little faith! Why are you worried about having no food? 9 Won’t you ever understand? Don’t you remember the five thousand I fed with five loaves, and the baskets of food that were left over? 10 Don’t you remember the four thousand I fed with seven loaves, with baskets of food left over? 11 How could you even think I was talking about food? So again I say, ‘Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.’ ”
12 Then at last they understood that he wasn’t speaking about yeast or bread but about the false teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

I don't see where the pharisees were present during this warning, if you do then please show me.

3John1:9&10
9 I sent a brief letter to the church about this, but Diotrephes, who loves to be the leader, does not acknowledge our authority. 10 When I come, I will report some of the things he is doing and the wicked things he is saying about us. He not only refuses to welcome the traveling teachers, he also tells others not to help them. And when they do help, he puts them out of the church.

Here again I don't see a face to face encounter but a letter to the church.You guys keep giving scripture verse that absolutely prove the point I'm attempting to make. In the passage concerning the Pharisees and Sadducees, whose name does Jesus mention? No one's as far as I can see. Start a thread titled, "tv preachers' and don't name names but simply talk about things they say that you feel are unbiblical and that should be warned against. No problem at all. That doesn't seem to go against what I see in scripture.

This next scripture is good as well to show us a pattern. John is speaking of someone that has, by their action, done something against John, personally, and those who are with John. There is no conflict biblically with John or anyone that had been wronged by the actions of this man, being a witness against this person's actions; whether in person, by letter, or in a court of law. That's what being a witness is about. Telling what someone has done. John is not merely speaking of Diotrephes' doctrine or something he heard about second hand. We have to compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges. Tell me that Joyce said bad things about you or that she put you out of a church for something. See, this would be you giving true witness against her. What we've seen in this thread is not that. Very few posts are even about first hand experiences with what she has said or written. I hope you can see that none of the scriptures seen here give us permission to speak negatively of a person who has done or said nothing concerning us. I keep saying, speak about the doctrine; warn about the doctrine! Discuss the scriptures, debate the interpretation; fine! But, as I've said before, threads like this just feel so unlike anything I've seen modeled by my Saviour, which is why every time I see one I get into it. Just to defend those who are not here to defend themselves.

God Bless!

Faithwalker
Apr 2nd 2007, 11:29 AM
I have read nowheres in scripture where we are to defend false teachers. The man or woman who are teaching falsehoods are as false as the words he or she speaks, wether present or absent, wether they have taught us personally, or are merely known to be teaching someone else falsehoods.

If you can show scripture that tells me your personal "feelings" about this matter should be the rule, then by all means share, but as I understand your position, a man couldnt accuse the devil himself of any wrong doing in a public forum, unless he were here, and he had lied to them personally. Must we only condemn lies, but never the father of them>? I find neither Jesus Christ, nor any of his disciples to be in agreement with you.

The man or woman who opens the scripture, and gets on a soapbox, wether its you or I, or someone greater, opens themselves up to the scrutiny of the same book they are preaching from, by those who are as familiar with it, and thats the way God ordained it should be, else the scripture itself wouldnt be filled with the same sort of scrutiny of those who we are only told about, but have never personally encountered.


"But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness. And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some" (2 Timothy 2:16-18).

Now you undestand they didnt overthrow my faith, and I dont know what 'profane and babbling' doctrines they are being accused of, but we have here their names on record...why? Care to tell Timothy hes not "modeling the Saviour"?

Here we understand the necessity of exposing religious error. If we do not, the faith of some will be overthrown. May we never be so concerned with the reputation of, and the love and admiration for, the false teacher, that we are willing to allow the souls of those he or she may lead astray to be endangered. amen.

Studyin'2Show
Apr 2nd 2007, 11:59 PM
Listen, Faithwalker, it is not my intention be in conflict with any of my brothers or sisters in Christ over this issue. I have posted scripture already that says that we should not speak ill of people. I have also said that being a witness of something that you are testifying of is very different than what we have seen in this thread. Paul was warning Timothy of something he had heard with his own ears that clearly goes against the gospel. The gospel is good news, saying that the resurrection has past is bad news because it would mean that we missed it! This is a different gospel. What we've been speaking of is not a different gospel. What it may be is a different interpretation. Another poster spoke of belief in the Paradise side of hell, that is not my interpretation but I recognize that she has not spoken of a different gospel with this belief. I, personally, do not believe that Jesus was tortured by demons in hell. According to prophecy, He was to crush the head of the serpent and that's what I believe. However, I also, recognize that because someone interprets scripture in this way, does not mean they have preached some different gospel if they are still preaching the same gospel, that Jesus has come and paid the price for our salvation. That's like if someone pays $50 for you to attend a banquet and someone says they paid with one $50 bill and another says, no they paid with 2-20s and a 10. Does that really change that the bill has been paid for you? In my opinion, no! If you feel certain docrtines are wrong, what would be the problem with speaking against the doctrine or the interpretation.

BTW, it is not my intention to spare someones reputation. It is my concern to defend the word of God. Gossip is spoken of often in scripture and it doesn't hurt the person spoke of, it hurts the person speaking it. Our words are very important.

God Bless!

ChristsCourage
Apr 3rd 2007, 12:08 AM
I think the topic of Joyce Meyer has been talked to death. If a mod could close this topic that would be great. Thanks. We don't need anymore talk about Joyce. We know it's wrong to watch, or listen to her. That has been pointed out too many times. Thank you.:2cents:

jiggyfly
Apr 3rd 2007, 12:13 AM
I think the topic of Joyce Meyer has been talked to death. If a mod could close this topic that would be great. Thanks. We don't need anymore talk about Joyce. We know it's wrong to watch, or listen to her. That has been pointed out too many times. Thank you.:2cents:

I totally agree, I'm sick of hearing about Joyce, good and bad.

Studyin'2Show
Apr 3rd 2007, 12:37 AM
I would most definitely third the motion to let this topic be over. There are much better, more edifying topics that are awaiting. However, this is not my forum so, I'll leave that to the Bible Chat mods.

God Bless!

Pilgrimtozion
Apr 3rd 2007, 09:25 PM
I feel there is indeed not much more to be said at this point in time. I'll go ahead and close this one.