What would you do

[Dr. Vaughn]

It looks as if several states will begin recognizing Gay marriages.....

Whats next? Of course the next battle with be for Polygamous marriages and it will eventually pass... trust me who would have ever thought Gay Marriage would.....

So. Polygamy is no longer against the law... it's not forbidden in scripture.... what would you tell a member of your church or circle of friends that wanted you to marry them.... would you, yes or no?

If no,, what scriptures would you give them to show them they are going against Gods ordinances.....

of course your cant use the "breaking the law" argument anymore.....

Just thought it would make for interesting exchange of ideas.. trust me it is coming in our lifetime.....

You can show scriptures against Gay marriage where it is forbidden.. can we do the same for Polygamy?

and NO I DO NOT BELIEVE in Polygamy.. just up late and thinking too much

[StMark]

I'm in California

They just announced today that they will start issuing license june 17.

It's as if people have just given up the fight here- like it's hopeless.

Afterall, Millions voted it down only to have overturned by a Judge in San Francisco????



I think we might as well realize that the spirit of the anti christ is not coming.... IT"S HERE !

[Steve Epley]

Since Branham taugh polygamy what the deal and also had two homos that managed him for years. Ask anyone that knew them. They finally left started a work in Prescott that wound up being raided by the cops.

[Dr. Vaughn]

Since Branham taugh polygamy what the deal and also had two homos that managed him for years. Ask anyone that knew them. They finally left started a work in Prescott that wound up being raided by the cops.

What What What,, slow down brother... I have never met you but surely there is a fair side to you somewhere,, no matter your disdain for Bro. B..... what are you saying about him being homosexual,,, brother you have lost me

are you saying Bro. B practiced Polygamy

I know he said sinners would be better off with it to slow down the divorce rate but he said it was not for the Christian man

[Steve Epley]

What What What,, slow down brother... I have never met you but surely there is a fair side to you somewhere,, no matter your disdain for Bro. B..... what are you saying about him being homosexual,,, brother you have lost me

are you saying Bro. B practiced Polygamy

I know he said sinners would be better off with it to slow down the divorce rate but he said it was not for the Christian man

Read the post. I NEVER said Branham practiced polygamy he taught it. And he was NOT a homo but you ever hear of Gene & Leo on the tapes.

[StMark]

What What What,, slow down brother... I have never met you but surely there is a fair side to you somewhere,, no matter your disdain for Bro. B..... what are you saying about him being homosexual,,, brother you have lost me

are you saying Bro. B practiced Polygamy

I know he said sinners would be better off with it to slow down the divorce rate but he said it was not for the Christian man


He didn't say Branham was homosexual but that his ministry was led by 2 that went that way.

[Rico]

Let's just take a poll to rename AFF "Apostolics Against Branham". Every other thread is about him anyway, so let's just turn the whole thing over to being an anti Branham site. Whaddy'all say? :D

[Steve Epley]

He didn't say Branham was homosexual but that his ministry was led by 2 that went that way.

They were homos when they were managing his meetings they didn't turn that way later. It was later they had a commune and were molesting boys.

[Dr. Vaughn]

They were homos when they were managing his meetings they didn't turn that way later. It was later they had a commune and were molesting boys.

Oh man... and Bro. Branham sanctioned that?

I heard my Pastor.. Bro. Brown tell me that he and Bro. Branham talked about Leo.. and that Bro. BRanham told him the reason he let him stay around is because "this is as close to God as he will ever get"

and Bro. Branhams weakness was being to forgiving and overlooking people

I was also told by Bro. Brown that Bro. branham told him "dont ever let Billy Paul get ahold of the money, it will ruin him"

[Dr. Vaughn]

They were homos when they were managing his meetings they didn't turn that way later. It was later they had a commune and were molesting boys.

Sarah Branham.. wanna go there?

Did you ever meet her?

[Cindy]

Let's just take a poll to rename AFF "Apostolics Against Branham". Every other thread is about him anyway, so let's just turn the whole thing over to being an anti Branham site. Whaddy'all say? :D

Waaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy too late.

[nahkoe]

It looks as if several states will begin recognizing Gay marriages.....

Whats next? Of course the next battle with be for Polygamous marriages and it will eventually pass... trust me who would have ever thought Gay Marriage would.....

So. Polygamy is no longer against the law... it's not forbidden in scripture.... what would you tell a member of your church or circle of friends that wanted you to marry them.... would you, yes or no?

If no,, what scriptures would you give them to show them they are going against Gods ordinances.....

of course your cant use the "breaking the law" argument anymore.....

Just thought it would make for interesting exchange of ideas.. trust me it is coming in our lifetime.....

You can show scriptures against Gay marriage where it is forbidden.. can we do the same for Polygamy?

and NO I DO NOT BELIEVE in Polygamy.. just up late and thinking too much

Just cuz it's legal doesn't mean you have to do it. I don't *have* to drive just because I have a driver's license, it's just legal for me to do so if I choose.

FWIW, polygamy itself is not illegal. Multiple partner "marriages" are. Just like homosexuality is not illegal. And just like homosexual marriage being legal won't change anything in your bedroom, neither would polygamous marriages being legal. It's your bedroom, you do what you want there, just like the rest of the world. Just please don't tell me about it.

[Steve Epley]

Oh man... and Bro. Branham sanctioned that?

I heard my Pastor.. Bro. Brown tell me that he and Bro. Branham talked about Leo.. and that Bro. BRanham told him the reason he let him stay around is because "this is as close to God as he will ever get"

and Bro. Branhams weakness was being to forgiving and overlooking people

I was also told by Bro. Brown that Bro. branham told him "dont ever let Billy Paul get ahold of the money, it will ruin him"

Which Brown? Branham knew they were homos and did nothing that is a fact.

[Steve Epley]

Sarah Branham.. wanna go there?

Did you ever meet her?

I do remember Sarah but she was young and then she married and I have been unconnected.

[Steve Epley]

Which Brown? Branham knew they were homos and did nothing that is a fact.

Bump. Which Brown?

[SoCaliUPC]

I'm in California

They just announced today that they will start issuing license june 17.

It's as if people have just given up the fight here- like it's hopeless.

Afterall, Millions voted it down only to have overturned by a Judge in San Francisco????



I think we might as well realize that the spirit of the anti christ is not coming.... IT"S HERE !

People have not given up the fight....there is an amendment going on the November ballot.

What needs to happen...is for a few judges to be replaced. Judges are not meant to legislate from the bench. That is what they have done. The people of California have voted on several propositions throughout the last few years only to have that same court throw it out.

I tend to agree with you....the spirit is here.

[Dr. Vaughn]

she sent out a letter that blew my mind.... accusing Billy Paul and Joseph of robbing her inheritance.. she lives as a pauper now... she tells in the letter about Bro. Branham talking to Meda on his way home to preach on TRAIL OF THE SERPENT... she heard the conversation and he was going home to name names and expose even members of his own family for perverting his message... it was a pretty interesting letter

[Dr. Vaughn]

Bump. Which Brown?

Bob Brown, over in Florida

[Joelel]

It looks as if several states will begin recognizing Gay marriages.....

Whats next? Of course the next battle with be for Polygamous marriages and it will eventually pass... trust me who would have ever thought Gay Marriage would.....

So. Polygamy is no longer against the law... it's not forbidden in scripture.... what would you tell a member of your church or circle of friends that wanted you to marry them.... would you, yes or no?

If no,, what scriptures would you give them to show them they are going against Gods ordinances.....

of course your cant use the "breaking the law" argument anymore.....

Just thought it would make for interesting exchange of ideas.. trust me it is coming in our lifetime.....

You can show scriptures against Gay marriage where it is forbidden.. can we do the same for Polygamy?

and NO I DO NOT BELIEVE in Polygamy.. just up late and thinking too much

Well Doc,If you are a Doc I can't believe you would even ask a question like this.

If it's a sin to be gay then it's a sin to marry gays.

1 Cor.6:9: Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,(Homosexuals)10: Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God

If a man had more then one wife,he would not be her own.

1Cor.7
[2] Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

[James Griffin]

People have not given up the fight....there is an amendment going on the November ballot.

What needs to happen...is for a few judges to be replaced. Judges are not meant to legislate from the bench. That is what they have done. The people of California have voted on several propositions throughout the last few years only to have that same court throw it out.

I tend to agree with you....the spirit is here.

Interestingly enough, several articles came out today saying that a slim majority of the PEOPLE in California now favor Gay Marriage for the first time. IF that is the case changing judges would be irrelevant?

[Cindy]

Interestingly enough, several articles came out today saying that a slim majority of the PEOPLE in California now favor Gay Marriage for the first time. IF that is the case changing judges would be irrelevant?

oohhhhhh boy.

[Dr. Vaughn]

Well Doc,If you are a Doc I can't believe you would even ask a question like this.

If it's a sin to be gay then it's a sin to marry gays.

1 Cor.6:9: Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,(Homosexuals)10: Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God

If a man had more then one wife,he would not be her own.

1Cor.7
[2] Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

Every woman in the arrangement WOULD have her own husband.... but scripture says nothing about the man having is OWN wife

[Michael The Disciple]

I expect the same kind of judgment that hit Sodom to come to California. Saints there should be alert and praying about it.

[StMark]

I expect the same kind of judgment that hit Sodom to come to California. Saints there should be alert and praying about it.



So goes Calif. so goes the rest of the Nation.

Listen, just last year we voted overwhelmingly NO gay Marriage, and

So did most other states BUT obviously this can be side stepped

to fit the liberal agenda. So be ware, it's coming your way too

[jlogan]

Originally Posted by Joelel
Well Doc,If you are a Doc I can't believe you would even ask a question like this.

If it's a sin to be gay then it's a sin to marry gays.

1 Cor.6:9: Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,(Homosexuals)10: Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God

If a man had more then one wife,he would not be her own.

1Cor.7
[2] Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

(Dr Vaughn)Every woman in the arrangement WOULD have her own husband.... but scripture says nothing about the man having is OWN wife

:clock

jl

[Dr. Vaughn]

Originally Posted by Joelel
Well Doc,If you are a Doc I can't believe you would even ask a question like this.

If it's a sin to be gay then it's a sin to marry gays.

1 Cor.6:9: Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,(Homosexuals)10: Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God

If a man had more then one wife,he would not be her own.

1Cor.7
[2] Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

(Dr Vaughn)Every woman in the arrangement WOULD have her own husband.... but scripture says nothing about the man having is OWN wife

:clock

jl

If I have one woman as my wife.. I have my OWN wife.... then if I choose another woman she is also my own wife.. she is not the wife of another.. she is my OWN wife... never says my ONLY wife

For example:

We are all in the candy store.... candy is everywhere but its not all mine until I buy this one piece.. that piece is MY OWN CANDY... and then i decide I want this piece to... I buy it and that piece becomes MY OWN candy,... not my ONLY candy.....

[Sept5SavedTeen]

If I have one woman as my wife.. I have my OWN wife.... then if I choose another woman she is also my own wife.. she is not the wife of another.. she is my OWN wife... never says my ONLY wife

For example:

We are all in the candy store.... candy is everywhere but its not all mine until I buy this one piece.. that piece is MY OWN CANDY... and then i decide I want this piece to... I buy it and that piece becomes MY OWN candy,... not my ONLY candy.....

Reminds me of Fiddler on the Roof, "This is mine, and this is mine, and this is mine, and this is mine and this is mine... [turns and sees Motel the tailor] well this is not mine" But Reb Tevye was speaking of his five daughters...

GOD BLESS!
Bro. Alex

[Grasshopper]

It looks as if several states will begin recognizing Gay marriages.....

Whats next? Of course the next battle with be for Polygamous marriages and it will eventually pass... trust me who would have ever thought Gay Marriage would.....

So. Polygamy is no longer against the law... it's not forbidden in scripture.... what would you tell a member of your church or circle of friends that wanted you to marry them.... would you, yes or no?

If no,, what scriptures would you give them to show them they are going against Gods ordinances.....

of course your cant use the "breaking the law" argument anymore.....

Just thought it would make for interesting exchange of ideas.. trust me it is coming in our lifetime.....

You can show scriptures against Gay marriage where it is forbidden.. can we do the same for Polygamy?

and NO I DO NOT BELIEVE in Polygamy.. just up late and thinking too much

Churches can set their own standards and bylaws. The only thing that might be of question is if the church tried to force a polygamous family from attending services open to the public.

As for polygamy, various Christian groups have practiced it down through history for various reasons. Many of the so called Apostolic Modalistic groups down through history also practiced polygamy. Martin Luther allowed for it and even the Catholic church allowed for it on several occasions. The Pilgrims, though monogamous in marriage, lived in close quarters where intercourse was often had while sleeping in a room or even in the same bed with other couples in the family. Some of the beds the Pilgrims used were even equipped with a wooden board dividing adult beds to separate the two couples sharing that bed to offer some semblance of privacy. The point is…accepted social morals about marriage and love making fluctuate and have fluctuated down through history.

But biblically speaking, Paul appears to indicate that every man was to have his own “wife” and a bishop couldn’t have more than one wife. So biblically one could argue that according to the New Testament monogamy is God’s perfect will for man and should be the form of union ordained by the church.

Here’s a question I always had. Let’s say you’re a missionary in a country that allows men to have more than one wife. A man comes to church and is saved and the next service he brings his five wives and 12 children. In this culture a divorced woman has little hopes of ever honorably supporting herself without resorting to prostitution. Do you force him to divorce 4 of his wives? What do you do ask that he do with the children?

[Rico]

Churches can set their own standards and bylaws. The only thing that might be of question is if the church tried to force a polygamous family from attending services open to the public.

As for polygamy, various Christian groups have practiced it down through history for various reasons. Many of the so called Apostolic Modalistic groups down through history also practiced polygamy. Martin Luther allowed for it and even the Catholic church allowed for it on several occasions. The Pilgrims, though monogamous in marriage, lived in close quarters where intercourse was often had while sleeping in a room with other couples in the family. Some of the beds the Pilgrims used were even equipped with a wooden board dividing adult beds to separate couples to offer some semblance of privacy. The point is…accepted social morals about marriage and love making fluctuate and have fluctuated down through history.

But biblically speaking, Paul appears to indicate that every man was to have his own “wife” and a bishop couldn’t have more than one wife. So biblically speaking one could argue that according to the New Testament monogamy is God’s perfect will for man and should be the form of union ordained by the church.

Here’s a question I always had. Let’s say you’re a missionary in a country that allows men to have more than one wife. A man comes to church and is saved and the next service he brings his five wives and 12 children. In this culture a divorced woman has little hopes of ever honorably supporting herself without resorting to prostitution. Do you force him to divorce 4 of his wives? What do you do ask that he do with the children?

In the same room? Right next to each other with a board separating them? Uhhhhhhhhh, I don't think I could go for that! Me and the pilgrim wife would have just had to find us a place out in the woods to partake of the marital blessing.

[Dr. Vaughn]

Churches can set their own standards and bylaws. The only thing that might be of question is if the church tried to force a polygamous family from attending services open to the public.

As for polygamy, various Christian groups have practiced it down through history for various reasons. Many of the so called Apostolic Modalistic groups down through history also practiced polygamy. Martin Luther allowed for it and even the Catholic church allowed for it on several occasions. The Pilgrims, though monogamous in marriage, lived in close quarters where intercourse was often had while sleeping in a room with other couples in the family. Some of the beds the Pilgrims used were even equipped with a wooden board dividing adult beds to separate couples to offer some semblance of privacy. The point is…accepted social morals about marriage and love making fluctuate and have fluctuated down through history.

But biblically speaking, Paul appears to indicate that every man was to have his own “wife” and a bishop couldn’t have more than one wife. So biblically speaking one could argue that according to the New Testament monogamy is God’s perfect will for man and should be the form of union ordained by the church.

Here’s a question I always had. Let’s say you’re a missionary in a country that allows men to have more than one wife. A man comes to church and is saved and the next service he brings his five wives and 12 children. In this culture a divorced woman has little hopes of ever honorably supporting herself without resorting to prostitution. Do you force him to divorce 4 of his wives? What do you do ask that he do with the children?

all I can say is RUH ROH...... you done messed up now brother.. you know better than to actually think outside the box

Some nutcase would absolutely tell them to divorce.... and then have NO SCRIPTURE for doing so.....

[Dr. Vaughn]

In the same room? Right next to each other with a board separating them? Uhhhhhhhhh, I don't think I could go for that! Me and the pilgrim wife would have just had to find us a place out in the woods to partake of the marital blessing.

OMG.. OMG OMG... I am in the floor rolling Dr. RICO

[Rico]

OMG.. OMG OMG... I am in the floor rolling Dr. RICO

I'm serious Bro! I'd go the barn, a shed, a lean to, behind a big rock, anywhere but right next to another couple!!! YIKES!! :D

[Dr. Vaughn]

I'm serious Bro! I'd go the barn, a shed, a lean to, behind a big rock, anywhere but right next to another couple!!! YIKES!! :D

In times like that lets hope you guys are more reserved like me and not toooo pentecostal in your emotions...lol

[Rico]

In times like that lets hope you guys are more reserved like me and not toooo pentecostal in your emotions...lol

Hehehe! True. Wouldn't want the whole village to know what was goin on, that's for sure! "What y'all doin behind that rock?!?!" "Nunya bidness! Get back in the house and go to sleep!!!" :toofunny

[Michael The Disciple]

Grasshopper

Many of the so called Apostolic Modalistic groups down through history also practiced polygamy.

Can you give proof of this comment or just something you heard?

[Grasshopper]

In the same room? Right next to each other with a board separating them? Uhhhhhhhhh, I don't think I could go for that! Me and the pilgrim wife would have just had to find us a place out in the woods to partake of the marital blessing.

In times like that lets hope you guys are more reserved like me and not toooo pentecostal in your emotions...lol

Yep right in the same bed. People slept very close and in very close quarters on the American frontier and their everyday living styles reflected that. The board was primarily used in adult beds to separate adult couples when they wanted privacy. During extremely cold winter nights the boards could be removed and they would sleep without separation to keep warm. The particular Pilgrim household featured in the documentary film my wife and I saw had a bed shared by the father and mother of the house on one side and their daughter and their son-in-law on the other. Apparently the family’s records and early pilgrim practice was more accommodating at times than I would have thought. I laughed and told my wife, “I couldn’t imagine having your in-laws on the other side of the board in bed right next to you. Talk about performance anxiety!” LOL

[Dr. Vaughn]

Can you give proof of this comment or just something you heard?

No Michael, its true..

also the Father of Faith practiced it.. Moses practiced it... David practiced it.. Solomon practiced it.... and it was never forbidden by God except for the leaders of the church,,, because their focus needed to be on the church and not taking care of a large family

[Grasshopper]

Can you give proof of this comment or just something you heard?

I had read about that one in a book about ancient Christian practices while tryng to study out Oneness history on my own. Most of them were also Dualists, especially the Cathars. Take in mind though...just because they were Oneness doesn't make it right. It was just a practice that arose here and there.

[Dr. Vaughn]

Yep right in the same bed. People slept very close and in very close quarters on the American frontier and their everyday living styles reflected that. The board was primarily used in adult beds to separate adult couples when they wanted privacy. During extremely cold winter nights the boards could be removed and they would sleep without separation to keep warm. The particular Pilgrim household featured in the documentary film my wife and I saw had a bed shared by the father and mother of the house on one side and their daughter and their son-in-law on the other. Apparently the family’s records and early pilgrim practice was more accommodating at times than I would have thought. I laughed and told my wife, “I couldn’t imagine having your in-laws on the other side of the board in bed right next to you. How quiet should you be? What will her parents think? Talk about performance anxiety!” LOL

thank God for the outhouse

[jlogan]

If I have one woman as my wife.. I have my OWN wife.... then if I choose another woman she is also my own wife.. she is not the wife of another.. she is my OWN wife... never says my ONLY wife

For example:

We are all in the candy store.... candy is everywhere but its not all mine until I buy this one piece.. that piece is MY OWN CANDY... and then i decide I want this piece to... I buy it and that piece becomes MY OWN candy,... not my ONLY candy.....


This veiw is very disrecpectful of women. Are you saying that the women is to be treated like a piece of candy? The man can have all the candy he wants, but the woman can only have one piece of candy? That is the porblem with this way of thinking. A women should expect her husband to respect her enough, that he too ,is hers exclusivley.

Mutual respect, this is what polygamy is missing!

jl

[Dr. Vaughn]

This veiw is very disrecpectful of women. Are you saying that the women is to be treated like a piece of candy? The man can have all the candy he wants, but the woman can only have one piece of candy? That is the porblem with this way of thinking. A women should expect her husband to respect her enough, that he too ,is hers exclusivley.

Mutual respect, this is what polygamy is missing!

jl

It was GOD HIMSELF who came up with the idea

And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if [that had been] too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

God honored it and blessed it.. who is man to curse it

[jlogan]

It was GOD HIMSELF who came up with the idea

And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if [that had been] too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

God honored it and blessed it.. who is man to curse it

I guess he approved of adultery also?
jl

[Grasshopper]

jl,

I'm not pro-polygamy but the Law of Moses required a brother to marry his dead brother's wife and raise up children in his dead brother's name...even if he were already married.

Let's remember, God permits what God desires to permit when he desires to permit it. For a time he permitted a writ of divorce if a wife just displeased her husband. However, Christ takes marriage a step higher by stating that adultery is the only justification for divorce that allows remarriage. God allowed for many things because of the hardness of man's heart and man's fallen condition. Remember with God there is his "permissive will" and his "perfect will". Polygamy was only allowed under the Law and prior by God's permissive will. His perfect will is illustrated in the monogamous relationship of Adam and Eve. One husband and one wife.

Paul indicated that monogamy was to be embraced as the Christian norm. Now as far as polygmy being "sin"??? Not sure. God never permitted "sin". Surely such families will reap complications for such an arrangement and Paul precludes the husband from being a bishop.

[Rico]

I'm not pro-polygamy but the Law of Moses required a brother to marry his dead brother's wife and raise up children in his dead brother's name...even if he were already married.

Let's remember, God permits what God desires to permit when he desires to permit it. For a time he permitted a writ of divorce if a wife just displeased her husband. However, Christ takes marriage a step up by stating that adultery is the only justification for divorce that allows remarriage. God allowed for many things because of the hardness of man's heart and man's fallen condition. Remember with God there is his "permissive will" and his "perfect will". Polygamy was only allowed under the Law and prior by God's permissive will. His perfect will is illustrated in the monogamous relationship of Adam and Eve. One husband and one wife.

God didn't permit that, MOSES did. God corrected the bad information eventually.

[Dr. Vaughn]

God didn't permit that, MOSES did. God corrected the bad information eventually.

Moses was his Prophet

[Rico]

Moses was his Prophet

So? What does that have to do with anything? Jesus even said it was MOSES who allowed the divorce, but it wasn't that way from the beginning.

[Grasshopper]

God didn't permit that, MOSES did. God corrected the bad information eventually.

Moses was God's man and God permitted Moses to set said Law.

[Dr. Vaughn]

Moses was God's man and God permitted Moses to set said Law.

You mean a MAN had that much authority????? but were not supposed to follow man... GOd has ALWAYS had a man

[Rico]

Moses was God's man and God permitted Moses to set said Law.

So what? Moses was still wrong about it. Jesus made a point of correcting it.

[Rico]

You mean a MAN had that much authority????? but were not supposed to follow man... GOd has ALWAYS had a man

Yup. And now the man is Jesus.

[Grasshopper]

Moses wasn't wrong...Moses was merely governing a nation.

So? What does that have to do with anything? Jesus even said it was MOSES who allowed the divorce, but it wasn't that way from the beginning.

God permitted many things under the Law because of man’s fallen nature. The Law wasn’t designed to make a person righteous. It was designed to restrain man’s unrighteousness. For example, God allowed several different forms of “marriage” or social union in the time of the patriarchs and under the Law:

Monogamous marriage
Levitical Marriage
Polygamous Marriage
War Brides
Concubinage

Each institution had set standards and guidelines to restrain man’s sinful nature. It doesn’t mean God approved of these things, but it does show that God permitted them and governed them to prevent total moral and social chaos.

[jlogan]

jl,

I'm not pro-polygamy but the Law of Moses required a brother to marry his dead brother's wife and raise up children in his dead brother's name...even if he were already married.

Let's remember, God permits what God desires to permit when he desires to permit it. For a time he permitted a writ of divorce if a wife just displeased her husband. However, Christ takes marriage a step higher by stating that adultery is the only justification for divorce that allows remarriage. God allowed for many things because of the hardness of man's heart and man's fallen condition. Remember with God there is his "permissive will" and his "perfect will". Polygamy was only allowed under the Law and prior by God's permissive will. His perfect will is illustrated in the monogamous relationship of Adam and Eve. One husband and one wife.

Paul indicated that monogamy was to be embraced as the Christian norm. Now as far as polygmy being "sin"??? Not sure. God never permitted "sin". Surely such families will reap complications for such an arrangement and Paul precludes the husband from being a bishop.

Christianity brings mankind up to greater heights. Maybe it was allowed at one time, but just as divorce and remarrige were brought to new levels, so is marrige, and respect for one another. Sin?, depends on the definition you choose. One definition is "missing the mark". The best situation is one on one as far as marriage goes. If we go backwards to something less, then yes it can be said we are missing the mark.

jl

[Grasshopper]

So what? Moses was still wrong about it. Jesus made a point of correcting it.

Some would say Moses was wrong about Leviticus 18:22. Think about this bro.

[tstew]

I am at a loss here. It seems that more and more what I read seems less like Apostolic friends. Are we honestly debating whether polygamy is proper?

[jlogan]

Some would say Moses was wrong about Leviticus 18:22. Think about this bro.

My example still stands. In the new testament , not only are men not to lie with one another, they are not even supposed to be sissy's.:scripture

jl

[jlogan]

I am at a loss here. It seems that more and more what I read seems less like Apostolic friends. Are we honestly debating whether polygamy is proper?


No doubt about it being wrong for christians.
jl

[Grasshopper]

I am at a loss here. It seems that more and more what I read seems less like Apostolic friends. Are we honestly debating whether polygamy is proper?

I don’t think we’re debating as to whether polygamy is right. The question is, how do we respond to it if society allows it. And of course questions arise as to if God permitted it and why, especially if some say it’s adultery. Because that would make the vast majority of biblical patriarchs and men of God in the OT adulterers. It’s just a discussion bro.

[Rico]

Moses wasn't wrong...Moses was merely governing a nation.



God permitted many things under the Law because of man’s fallen nature. The Law wasn’t designed to make a person righteous. It was designed to restrain man’s unrighteousness. For example, God allowed several different forms of “marriage” or social union in the time of the patriarchs and under the Law:

Monogamous marriage
Levitical Marriage
Polygamous Marriage
War Brides
Concubinage

Each institution had set standards and guidelines to restrain man’s sinful nature. It doesn’t mean God approved of these things, but it does show that God permitted them and governed them to prevent total moral and social chaos.

I hear what you are saying. But Jesus didn't say God allowed the divorce. He specifically said Moses allowed it because of the hardness of people's hearts.

[Grasshopper]

My example still stands. In the new testament , not only are men not to lie with one another, they are not even supposed to be sissy's.:scripture

jl

True. But we're now challenged to define "sissy". Most in the world would call Jesus, Stephen, and Paul sissies for never fighting back when attacked, stoned, and persecuted. The Bible appears to teach a message like what my mother taught me..."It takes more of a man to walk away from a fight."

Do we define manhood according to the world's definitions or the Bible's?

[Rico]

Some would say Moses was wrong about Leviticus 18:22. Think about this bro.

Not interested in what some would say. I am talking about what JESUS said.

[Grasshopper]

I hear what you are saying. But Jesus didn't say God allowed the divorce. He specifically said Moses allowed it because of the hardness of people's hearts.

And Moses was commissioned by God to govern the people as a law giver. So by default, the entire body of Law was permitted by God and God even acted on it in judgment when it was violated.

[Grasshopper]

Not interested in what some would say. I am talking about what JESUS said.

My point is that if we interpret Christ’s teachings to indicate that Moses was wrong about divorce (as I thought you proposed)….then we open the possibility of Moses being wrong about other things as well.

[Rico]

And Moses was commissioned by God to govern the people as a law giver. So by default, the entire body of Law was permitted by God and God even acted on it in judgment when it was violated.


I didn't say God didn't let it stand when Moses said it, did I? I said he was wrong about it and Jesus made it right when He came to Earth.

[Rico]

My point is that if we interpret Christ’s teachings to indicate that Moses was wrong about divorce (as I thought you proposed)….then we open the possibility of Moses being wrong about other things as well.

Not necessarily. I don't see where Jesus corrected anything else Moses did. Do you? Acknowledging the fact that divorce is something Moses allowed, but not God, based on the words of Jesus, does not amount to a door being opened for everything that Moses said to be questioned.

[Baron1710]

I didn't say God didn't let it stand when Moses said it, did I? I said he was wrong about it and Jesus made it right when He came to Earth.

I hate to say it but the 'hoper is right on this. Moses didn't get to make it up as he went along. God told Moses to put it in there.

[Baron1710]

Not necessarily. I don't see where Jesus corrected anything else Moses did. Do you? Acknowledging the fact that divorce is something Moses allowed, but not God, based on the words of Jesus, does not amount to a door being opened for everything that Moses said to be questioned.

He tossed the whole Mosaic Law...thus a New Covenant.

[Rico]

He tossed the whole Mosaic Law...thus a New Covenant.

So now the Ten Commandments mean zilch? BTW, I get what you are saying.

[Baron1710]

So now the Ten Commandments mean zilch? BTW, I get what you are saying.

The New Covenant has some similarities to the Old, much like two contracts may have similar language. Nine of the ten commandments are repeated in the NT but really we just have one commandment.

[Rico]

The New Covenant has some similarities to the Old, much like two contracts may have similar language. Nine of the ten commandments are repeated in the NT but really we just have one commandment.

I agree, but it's still a sin to commit murder, adultery, etc., whether the NT mentions them or not. Can't remember where it is (Hebrews?) that talks about the Law being a schoolmaster to make us aware of our sins. I don't see them throwing out the OT Law, so much as affirming its intended purpose.

[Baron1710]

I agree, but it's still a sin to commit murder, adultery, etc., whether the NT mentions them or not. Can't remember where it is (Hebrews?) that talks about the Law being a schoolmaster to make us aware of our sins. I don't see them throwing out the OT Law, so much as affirming its intended purpose.

I see Paul tossing it out as far as a law that needs to be obeyed it has fulfilled its purpose and now is done. Complete. Finished.

Gal. 3:19Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

24Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

[Cindy]

I see Paul tossing it out as far as a law that needs to be obeyed it has fulfilled its purpose and now is done. Complete. Finished.

Gal. 3:19Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

24Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

So it is no longer a sin to lie, cheat, steal, kill, worship idols?

[Rico]

I see Paul tossing it out as far as a law that needs to be obeyed it has fulfilled its purpose and now is done. Complete. Finished.

Gal. 3:19Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

24Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

I agree in the sense that we all know it took Christ to fulfill the Law, but there is still a huge wealth of information contained in the Law that can give us insight into what pleases and displeases God. Righteousness can be found by sy studying the Law. I know that our righteousness is by faith, but our faith establishes the Law, according to Paul:

31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
Romans 3:31 (KJV)

[Dr. Vaughn]

Some would say Moses was wrong about Leviticus 18:22. Think about this bro.

ooooooh smooth as silk brother.. I like your style

[Dr. Vaughn]

My example still stands. In the new testament , not only are men not to lie with one another, they are not even supposed to be sissy's.:scripture

jl

weak response

[Baron1710]

So it is no longer a sin to lie, cheat, steal, kill, worship idols?

Hmmm I don't know...can you find prohibitions against those things in the New Covenant? Also don’t confuse the Mosaic Law with the entire OT, clearly not the same. the point that Paul makes in Galatians is that the Mosaic Law is an interruption in between the promise to Abraham and the coming of Christ.

[Dr. Vaughn]

And Moses was commissioned by God to govern the people as a law giver. So by default, the entire body of Law was permitted by God and God even acted on it in judgment when it was violated.

Now DATS what I'm talking about... nothing personal... logic and scripture are beautiful things

[Cindy]

Hmmm I don't know...can you find prohibitions against those things in the New Covenant? Also don’t confuse the Mosaic Law with the entire OT, clearly not the same. the point that Paul makes in Galatians is that the Mosaic Law is an interruption in between the promise to Abraham and the coming of Christ.

Yes I can. I was just referring to the ten commandments. Do you believe they are no longer commandments?

[Dr. Vaughn]

I hate to say it but the 'hoper is right on this. Moses didn't get to make it up as he went along. God told Moses to put it in there.

RIGHT YOU ARE and God said to Moses... "if a man have more than one wife...... and loves one more than the other"

[Dr. Vaughn]

He tossed the whole Mosaic Law...thus a New Covenant.

I disagree my friend.. he came NOT TO DO AWAY with the LAW of MOSES... he simply enhanced that law to its spiritual application

[Dr. Vaughn]

I agree, but it's still a sin to commit murder, adultery, etc., whether the NT mentions them or not. Can't remember where it is (Hebrews?) that talks about the Law being a schoolmaster to make us aware of our sins. I don't see them throwing out the OT Law, so much as affirming its intended purpose.

If thats the case then you MAKE THE CASE for Polygamy.... they argue just as you do that you cant throw out the OT.. bye the way i agree

[Baron1710]

Yes I can. I was just referring to the ten commandments. Do you believe they are no longer commandments?

The Ten Commandments as a covenant applied to Israel. Do we still follow nine of the ten yes because they either predate or outlive the Mosaic Law.

[Dr. Vaughn]

Yes I can. I was just referring to the ten commandments. Do you believe they are no longer commandments?

Now theres a question that begs an answer... because if you answer in the affirmitive.. then Polygamy wins.. because GOD instituted it in the OT... and NEVER did away with it

[Dr. Vaughn]

The Ten Commandments as a covenant applied to Israel. Do we still follow nine of the ten yes because they either predate or outlive the Mosaic Law.

Whoooa... pre-date or outlive the Mosaic law???? It was MOSES that wrote that brought the commandements....

[Baron1710]

Whoooa... pre-date or outlive the Mosaic law???? It was MOSES that wrote that brought the commandements....
I'm not following you? Can you clarify?

[bkstokes]

In the same room? Right next to each other with a board separating them? Uhhhhhhhhh, I don't think I could go for that! Me and the pilgrim wife would have just had to find us a place out in the woods to partake of the marital blessing.

:toofunny:toofunny :happydance

[Dr. Vaughn]

I'm not following you? Can you clarify?

How can something pre-date... the one who brought in into being?

[Cindy]

The Ten Commandments as a covenant applied to Israel. Do we still follow nine of the ten yes because they either predate or outlive the Mosaic Law.

Thanks, I did not understand your previous post.

[Baron1710]

Now theres a question that begs an answer... because if you answer in the affirmitive.. then Polygamy wins.. because GOD instituted it in the OT... and NEVER did away with it

Polygamy loses because Jesus clearly pointed to Genesis as how God intended it and establishes the Genesis example for normative in the NT. Therefore monogamy both predates and outlives the law.

[jlogan]

weak response

weaker yet!
jl

[Baron1710]

How can something pre-date... the one who brought in into being?

Madison authored the Constitution but that doesn't mean he can't write about the state of the law prior to the Constitution. Beyond that God inspired the OT so Moses is not restricted to speaking only about the law.

[jlogan]

Polygamy loses because Jesus clearly pointed to Genesis as how God intended it and establishes the Genesis example for normative in the NT. Therefore monogamy both predates and outlives the law.


:iagree


jl

[bkstokes]

Now theres a question that begs an answer... because if you answer in the affirmitive.. then Polygamy wins.. because GOD instituted it in the OT... and NEVER did away with it

What say you -- From the beginning it was not so -- God made them man and female. NOT FEMALES. God frowns on polygamy

[Dr. Vaughn]

Polygamy loses because Jesus clearly pointed to Genesis as how God intended it and establishes the Genesis example for normative in the NT. Therefore monogamy both predates and outlives the law.

Polygamy only loses if scripture condemns it... Divorce wasn't in the beginning either and yet its not sin......so again where do you PROVE to someone that they will die lost and go to hell for living in Polygamy

[Dr. Vaughn]

What say you -- From the beginning it was not so -- God made them man and female. NOT FEMALES. God frowns on polygamy

I don't see him frowining in this verse

As a reward for his obedience to God....... here is his reward

And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom,

Take it up with Jehoviah.. it was sooo from not long after the beginning

[Baron1710]

Polygamy only loses if scripture condemns it... Divorce wasn't in the beginning either and yet its not sin......so again where do you PROVE to someone that they will die lost and go to hell for living in Polygamy

First don't assume I said you would go to hell. I didn't, and certainly some polygamist will be in heaven, but that doesn't mean that is Gods plan for the NT church.

[Dr. Vaughn]

First don't assume I said you would go to hell. I didn't, and certainly some polygamist will be in heaven, but that doesn't mean that is Gods plan for the NT church.

ruh roh.... now your on my stomping ground........ I have people screaming OT praise scriptures at me..... as an excuse for why they have church the way they do..... with NO NT scriptures at all ........

So are you saying... that GOD SET a better order for the NT church than what they prevously had?? I bet you don't believe that applies to scriptural church services though

[Baron1710]

ruh roh.... now your on my stomping ground........ I have people screaming OT praise scriptures at me..... as an excuse for why they have church the way they do..... with NO NT scriptures at all ........

So are you saying... that GOD SET a better order for the NT church than what they prevously had?? I bet you don't believe that applies to scriptural church services though

I bet you have no idea what I believe about it, but nice try.

[jlogan]

I don't see him frowining in this verse

As a reward for his obedience to God....... here is his reward

And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom,

Take it up with Jehoviah.. it was sooo from not long after the beginning

God was reminding David that he exalted him to be king. The custom was for kings to inherit his predessors harem. God was simply saying I put you in this position, not condoning polygamy.
jl

[Dr. Vaughn]

I bet you have no idea what I believe about it, but nice try.

Brother.. in all fairness that was not an answer

[Dr. Vaughn]

God was reminding David that he exalted him to be king. The custom was for kings to inherit his predessors harem. God was simply saying I put you in this position, not condoning polygamy.
jl

WOW... talk about context destruction!!!

What part of "I GAVE THEE: did you not read brother.....

[Baron1710]

Brother.. in all fairness that was not an answer

Your right...it wasn't an answer. You wrong in your assumption of what I believe.

[jlogan]

WOW... talk about context destruction!!!

What part of "I GAVE THEE: did you not read brother.....

K&D
2Sa_12:7-8
The parable was so selected that David could not suspect that it had reference to him and to his son. With all the greater shock therefore did the words of the prophet, “Thou art the man,” come upon the king. Just as in the parable the sin is traced to its root - namely, insatiable covetousness - so now, in the words of Jehovah which follow, and in which the prophet charges the king directly with his crime, he brings out again in the most unsparing manner this hidden background of all sins, for the purpose of bringing thoroughly home to his heart the greatness of his iniquity, and the condemnation it deserved. “Jehovah the God of Israel hath said, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul, and I gave thee thy master's house and thy master's wives into thy bosom.” These words refer to the fact that, according to the general custom in the East, when a king died, his successor upon the throne also succeeded to his harem, so that David was at liberty to take his predecessor's wives; though we cannot infer from this that he actually did so: in fact this is by no means probable, since, according to 1Sa_14:50, Saul had but one wife, and according to 2Sa_3:7 only one concubine, whom Abner appropriated to himself. “And gave thee the house of Israel and Judah;” i.e., I handed over the whole nation to thee as king, so that thou couldst have chosen young virgins as wives from all the daughters of Judah and Israel. מְעַט וְאִם, “and if (all this was) too little, I would have added to thee this and that.”
jl

[Dr. Vaughn]

K&D
2Sa_12:7-8
The parable was so selected that David could not suspect that it had reference to him and to his son. With all the greater shock therefore did the words of the prophet, “Thou art the man,” come upon the king. Just as in the parable the sin is traced to its root - namely, insatiable covetousness - so now, in the words of Jehovah which follow, and in which the prophet charges the king directly with his crime, he brings out again in the most unsparing manner this hidden background of all sins, for the purpose of bringing thoroughly home to his heart the greatness of his iniquity, and the condemnation it deserved. “Jehovah the God of Israel hath said, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul, and I gave thee thy master's house and thy master's wives into thy bosom.” These words refer to the fact that, according to the general custom in the East, when a king died, his successor upon the throne also succeeded to his harem, so that David was at liberty to take his predecessor's wives; though we cannot infer from this that he actually did so: in fact this is by no means probable, since, according to 1Sa_14:50, Saul had but one wife, and according to 2Sa_3:7 only one concubine, whom Abner appropriated to himself. “And gave thee the house of Israel and Judah;” i.e., I handed over the whole nation to thee as king, so that thou couldst have chosen young virgins as wives from all the daughters of Judah and Israel. מְעַט וְאִם, “and if (all this was) too little, I would have added to thee this and that.”
jl

You render a commentators opinion as your source?

I will stay with the Word... I GAVE THEE THY NEIGHBORS WIVES>.. and you know how I know he took the,...... God said they were in Davids BOSOM

[jlogan]

You render a commentators opinion as your source?

I will stay with the Word... I GAVE THEE THY NEIGHBORS WIVES>.. and you know how I know he took the,...... God said they were in Davids BOSOM


How about another commentator ?

JFB

2Sa 12:8
I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives — The phraseology means nothing more than that God in His providence had given David, as king of Israel, everything that was Saul’s. The history furnishes conclusive evidence that he never actually married any of the wives of Saul. But the harem of the preceding king belongs, according to Oriental notions, as a part of the regalia to his successor.

Clarke
2Sa 12:8
Thy master’s wives into thy bosom - Perhaps this means no more than that he had given him absolute power over every thing possessed by Saul; and as it was the custom for the new king to succeed even to the wives and concubines, the whole harem of the deceased king, so it was in this case; and the possession of the wives was a sure proof that he had got all regal rights. But could David, as the son-in-law of Saul, take the wives of his father-in-law? However, we find delicacy was seldom consulted in these cases; and Absalom lay with his own father’s wives in the most public manner, to show that he had seized on the kingdom, because the wives of the preceding belonged to the succeeding king, and to none other.


2Sa 12:11 Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.
2Sa 12:12 For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.

You cannot say God gave( as in a good gift ) Just as he allowed David to be king , He was procaiming the coming judgement. In no way condoning polygamy.

jl

[Dr. Vaughn]

How about another commentator ?

JFB

2Sa 12:8
I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives — The phraseology means nothing more than that God in His providence had given David, as king of Israel, everything that was Saul’s. The history furnishes conclusive evidence that he never actually married any of the wives of Saul. But the harem of the preceding king belongs, according to Oriental notions, as a part of the regalia to his successor.

Clarke
2Sa 12:8
Thy master’s wives into thy bosom - Perhaps this means no more than that he had given him absolute power over every thing possessed by Saul; and as it was the custom for the new king to succeed even to the wives and concubines, the whole harem of the deceased king, so it was in this case; and the possession of the wives was a sure proof that he had got all regal rights. But could David, as the son-in-law of Saul, take the wives of his father-in-law? However, we find delicacy was seldom consulted in these cases; and Absalom lay with his own father’s wives in the most public manner, to show that he had seized on the kingdom, because the wives of the preceding belonged to the succeeding king, and to none other.


2Sa 12:11 Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.
2Sa 12:12 For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.

You cannot say God gave( as in a good gift ) Just as he allowed David to be king , He was procaiming the coming judgement. In no way condoning polygamy.

jl

Perhaps this means no more than......

now theres a sure source for you....

What's wrong with reading it like it reads???

[jlogan]

Speaking of context , the scripture you referred to about David, had nothing to do with the fact that polygamy was right or wrong. It was about Davids position , his disrespect of that position, his sin, and judgement.

Show me a scripture were it was OK!
What does God think?
Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
Mat 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain (G1417
δύο
duo
doo'-o
A primary numeral; “two”: - both, twain, two.shall be one flesh? )
Mat 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Not male and females! One man one woman become one flesh. That and that alone is God's design.


jl

[jlogan]

Perhaps this means no more than......

now theres a sure source for you....

What's wrong with reading it like it reads???

?

jl

[Baron1710]

The reality is God did not intend for polygamy to be the norm. He doesn't outright forbid it in the NT. One who wishes to please God ought not practice polygamy. However I think we would be hard pressed to show that God was so displeased with Polygamy that he punished for it. For example he punished Sodom for its sin, and yet under David Israel was blessed while David practiced polygamy and David was punished when he committed adultery. There does seem to be a hands off approach by God for Polygamy yet punishment for adultery or homosexuality.

[Grasshopper]

He tossed the whole Mosaic Law...thus a New Covenant.

I was always taught that there was a distinction between the "Law of God" and the "Law of Moses".

[Grasshopper]

The Ten Commandments as a covenant applied to Israel. Do we still follow nine of the ten yes because they either predate or outlive the Mosaic Law.

I assume you're talking about the Sabbath Law. I believe the Sabbath blessed and sanctified prior to the 9....

Genesis 2:1-3
1Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

Only 6 days passed in all creation before God sanctified the Sabbath.

[Grasshopper]

What say you -- From the beginning it was not so -- God made them man and female. NOT FEMALES. God frowns on polygamy

Jesus was talking about divorce not marriage itself in form or function. Here's a question...if divorce wasn't so since the beginning...is it wrong for a polygamous man with 5 wives to divorce 4?

[Grasshopper]

First don't assume I said you would go to hell. I didn't, and certainly some polygamist will be in heaven, but that doesn't mean that is Gods plan for the NT church.

Good answer.

[Baron1710]

I assume you're talking about the Sabbath Law. I believe the Sabbath blessed and sanctified prior to the 9....

Genesis 2:1-3
1Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

Only 6 days passed in all creation before God sanctified the Sabbath.

Watch closely grasshopper he only sanctified the SEVENTH day, that Seventh day for he rested (ceased to work) on that day. Then He uses that as an example for the Sabbath for the Children of Israel which he says is a sign between Him and Israel, a sign by definition is unique. There is not a single verse that indicated the Sabbath was observed before it was given to Israel.

[Baron1710]

Jesus was talking about divorce not marriage itself in form or function. Here's a question...if divorce wasn't so since the beginning...is it wrong for a polygamous man with 5 wives to divorce 4?

Yes.

[Dr. Vaughn]

The reality is God did not intend for polygamy to be the norm. He doesn't outright forbid it in the NT. One who wishes to please God ought not practice polygamy. However I think we would be hard pressed to show that God was so displeased with Polygamy that he punished for it. For example he punished Sodom for its sin, and yet under David Israel was blessed while David practiced polygamy and David was punished when he committed adultery. There does seem to be a hands off approach by God for Polygamy yet punishment for adultery or homosexuality.

Very balanced, very fair and presented masterfully... congrats

ole Lyle would give you a b+

[Dr. Vaughn]

Jesus was talking about divorce not marriage itself in form or function. Here's a question...if divorce wasn't so since the beginning...is it wrong for a polygamous man with 5 wives to divorce 4?

I love your questions brother

[Grasshopper]

God was reminding David that he exalted him to be king. The custom was for kings to inherit his predessors harem. God was simply saying I put you in this position, not condoning polygamy.
jl

But David had more than one wife...and he was only rebuked for being with Bathsheba outside of marriage. Why didn't issue a rebuke for adultery before Bathsheba?

[Baron1710]

Very balanced, very fair and presented masterfully... congrats

ole Lyle would give you a b+

Got news for ya, Lyle never gave me anything less than an A. but usually it took me between 5 and 7 hours to complete his assignments, not 5 min.

[Dr. Vaughn]

But David had more than one wife...and he was only rebuked for being with Bathsheba outside of marriage. Why didn't issue a rebuke for adultery before Bathsheba?

Ok.. if were picking players for the next debate team.. I pick the Hopper.... man he's good

[Dr. Vaughn]

Got news for ya, Lyle never gave me anything less than an A. but usually it took me between 5 and 7 hours to complete his assignments, not 5 min.

well,, I did get a B+ on my Serpent Seed thesis.. lol.. and in here I can't even get a D

[Grasshopper]

The reality is God did not intend for polygamy to be the norm. He doesn't outright forbid it in the NT. One who wishes to please God ought not practice polygamy. However I think we would be hard pressed to show that God was so displeased with Polygamy that he punished for it. For example he punished Sodom for its sin, and yet under David Israel was blessed while David practiced polygamy and David was punished when he committed adultery. There does seem to be a hands off approach by God for Polygamy yet punishment for adultery or homosexuality.

You beat me too it. lol

[Grasshopper]

Watch closely grasshopper he only sanctified the SEVENTH day, that Seventh day for he rested (ceased to work) on that day. Then He uses that as an example for the Sabbath for the Children of Israel which he says is a sign between Him and Israel, a sign by definition is unique. There is not a single verse that indicated the Sabbath was observed before it was given to Israel.

Clearly God himself observed it as a rest from creative activity...

And the Ten Commandments are the Law of God...not the Law of Moses. Are we to honor the Ten Commandments or are they just Ten Previously Enforced Suggestions? lol

[Grasshopper]

Yes.

I concure. I'd only restrict him from serving as a bishop.

[Baron1710]

Clearly God himself observed it as a rest from creative activity...

And the Ten Commandments are the Law of God...not the Law of Moses. Are we to honor the Ten Commandments or are they just Ten Previously Enforced Suggestions? lol

I believe all 613 commandments belong in the same category they were all given to Israel. The Sabbath itself was said to be a sign between Israel and God. Those commandments are not so unique to their time, most were laws man instinctively know.

Again God ceased work on the seventh day of his creation and blessed THAT day not every seventh day from then forward.

[Dr. Vaughn]

I concure. I'd only restrict him from serving as a bishop.

I think some perspective on the whole Bishop thing might be in order as well... It is encumbent upon us to remember the context here as well... Paul mentions many times that he would rather ministers not marry but remain single as he is so that they might not be burdened down with having to provide for a family, they could focus on the work of God more completely.....

it is with this same mindset that a BISHOP or ruler of the church if he is going to marry should not take more than ONE WIFE,, wit the same principles applying.. it would divert him from the work of the church....

as one can imagine servicing and taking care of 10 wives could keep one busy

[Baron1710]

I concure. I'd only restrict him from serving as a bishop.

Wow grasshopper you are finally growing up and learning to agree with me, soon I will have you voting for McCain.

[Dr. Vaughn]

I believe all 613 commandments belong in the same category they were all given to Israel. The Sabbath itself was said to be a sign between Israel and God. Those commandments are not so unique to their time, most were laws man instinctively know.

Again God ceased work on the seventh day of his creation and blessed THAT day not every seventh day from then forward.

Baron, I understand where you going and I somewhat concur.. i just get real leery of one of GODS Covenants not being everlasting.. he is the God that keepeth Covenant.. and while I do follow you... I am not comfortable with "this covenant is still good, this one is not"

He is a God of Covenant

[Dr. Vaughn]

Wow grasshopper you are finally growing up and learning to agree with me, soon I will have you voting for McCain.

McCain had my vote.. until he showed his colors in the John Hagee deal... he turned on that man quicker than anything to please the media.... it showed a tremendous character flaw to me.......

Everything John Hagee said was scripturally correct

[Baron1710]

Baron, I understand where you going and I somewhat concur.. i just get real leery of one of GODS Covenants not being everlasting.. he is the God that keepeth Covenant.. and while I do follow you... I am not comfortable with "this covenant is still good, this one is not"

He is a God of Covenant

New Covenant trumps the Old.

Jeremiah 31:31
"The time is coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.

Luke 22:20
In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

[Dr. Vaughn]

New Covenant trumps the Old.

Jeremiah 31:31
"The time is coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.

Luke 22:20
In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

Baron... present the scripture where he did away with the old.. I understand making a new covenant.... just as I would make a new morgtage on my house but the old would still be in place.... on this subject I am not versed so I am in no position to argue it... but I am trying to come to some conclusions on the matter

[Baron1710]

Baron... present the scripture where he did away with the old.. I understand making a new covenant.... just as I would make a new morgtage on my house but the old would still be in place.... on this subject I am not versed so I am in no position to argue it... but I am trying to come to some conclusions on the matter

If you and I have a contract and then we have another contract on the same topic then the new one supercedes the old.

If you ADD a mortgage to your home then you have two mortgages. If one mortgage buys out the other, pays it off, then you have one new mortgage with new possibilities.

Jesus didn't just add to the old Covenant he made a New One. He did with the New what the Old could never do.

Hebrews 8:13
By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

[Dr. Vaughn]

If you and I have a contract and then we have another contract on the same topic then the new one supercedes the old.

If you ADD a mortgage to your home then you have two mortgages. If one mortgage buys out the other, pays it off, then you have one new mortgage with new possibilities.

Jesus didn't just add to the old Covenant he made a New One. He did with the New what the Old could never do.

Hebrews 8:13
By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

Why would he say,.,, he did not come to destroy that old law?

[Dr. Vaughn]

Why would he say,.,, he did not come to destroy that old law?

Did God not call that old covenant an everlasting covenant? those are pretty big words

[Baron1710]

Hebrews 9:15
For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

Luke 24:44
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

Matthew 5:17
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.


Putting this passage in context looking at all the times Jesus fulfilled something from the OT, he is not saying it won't go away, Hebrews is clear we have a better covenant and the Old one is becoming obsolete. How would Jesus destroy the prophets in that verse? He has Come not to lay it to waste but to complete it, He paid off the mortgage to borrow from your previous example and established a new one.

[jlogan]

But David had more than one wife...and he was only rebuked for being with Bathsheba outside of marriage. Why didn't issue a rebuke for adultery before Bathsheba?

It was a loophole. If you were married to one, if you wanted someone else, you didn't commit adultery, you just married her too.:happydance

jl

[Baron1710]

It was a loophole. If you were married to one, if you wanted someone else, you didn't commit adultery, you just married her too.:happydance

jl

Unless she was already married then you committed adultery, then murder, then married her.

[bkstokes]

Hey This Is Great They Have Placed Branhamism Here With All The Other Cults -- Way To Go Admin!

[Joelel]

Every woman in the arrangement WOULD have her own husband.... but scripture says nothing about the man having is OWN wife

Really,read again.1Cor.7
[2] Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

[Joelel]

Many things changed from the old covenant to the new.One wife,not four or five.1Tim.3
[2] A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

[Grasshopper]

I believe all 613 commandments belong in the same category they were all given to Israel. The Sabbath itself was said to be a sign between Israel and God. Those commandments are not so unique to their time, most were laws man instinctively know.

Again God ceased work on the seventh day of his creation and blessed THAT day not every seventh day from then forward.

You can believe that if you like. But here's a mistake I believe most people make. The "Law of God" was etched in stone by the very hand of God and given to Moses. These were the Ten Commandments. These laws are immutable moral laws. The remaining 603 laws are the "Law of Moses". These laws included social, civil, and ceremonial laws that governed society in ancient Israel. Here's another detail to consider...each of these 603 laws can be classified under one of the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments were the eternal "Law of God" and served as the foundational principles behind each law in the "Law of Moses". When Christ sealed the New Covenant with his blood he didn't abolish the "Law", i.e., the immutable "Law of God". In fact look closely at what Jesus said regarding the Law (the Law of God),

Matthew 5:17-19
17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus himself states the the law (the Law of God, the Ten Commandments) isn't abolished, in fact if any of us teach a man that it's OK to violate the least of them...that man will find himself relegated to being least in the Kingdom of God.

Now...what about the Fourth Commandment? It reads...

Exodus 20:8-11
8Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Bro...that's FOUR verses. That's the longest commandment in the Ten Commandments. I know the Law of Moses added to this commandment some very burdensome requirements such as not lighting a fire in one's home on the Sabbath, one couldn't travel further than a Sabbath day's journey, one was even stoned for picking up sticks on the Sabbath, etc. All of these laws were designed to prevent anything that could be considered "work" on the Sabbath, the laws had no other individual significance. This was the "Law of Moses" to Israel and was done away with at the Cross. But what remains regarding the un-abolished fourth commandment, what does it command?

-We are to remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy (separate).
-We are to work six days and rest on the seventh. Notice it states "rest". We are not to perform any industrious pursuit, labor, or work for gain on the Sabbath. We instead are to worship God and enjoy the fruits of our labor.
-It's a house hold day of rest for one's entire home.
-We are to know that it was blessed and sanctified at creation.

Bro...that second point up there shows that it was commanded that our rest is to be on the SEVENTH day of the week...that's Saturday.

So here is where most people say,

"Show me where the Apostles met and worshiped the Lord on Saturday!!! The BIBLE says they met on the FIRST day, that's Sunday!"

Then they give this proof text....

Acts 20:7
7And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

On the surface to the casual observer this might appear to settle the issue. But if looked at closely...it doesn't. Here's why...

In the days of the Bible, the Jewish Calendar that Paul and Luke used was lunar...not solar. That means the Jewish day began at sundown...not sunup. If they met together here in verse 7 on the "first day of the week" and Paul preached and "continued his speech until midnight" that should tell us that they had gathered Saturday evening at sundown, the very beginning of the first day of the week,...and Paul then preached until midnight. ;)

So this proof text actually demonstrates that Paul and these believers gathered together on Saturday evening for food and worship as they closed their Sabbath observance.

We see that the Apostles rutinely engaged in ministry in the synagogues on the Sabbath:

Acts 13:14
But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down.

Acts 13:42
And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.

Acts 13:44
And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.

Acts 16:13
And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither.

Acts 17:2
And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

Acts 18:4
And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.

It's a historical fact that the Catholic Church moved the Christian time of gathering to Sunday to distinguish Christians from Jews.

Now...I'm not saying it's wrong to meet on Sunday...but this is a Commandment and the Law of God wasn't abolished. I'm bound to teach it and not teach men to break it. It's meant to be a day of rest and personal devotion, even if your church officially meets on Sunday.

You may disagree...and I might be wrong. But that's my understanding.

Behold I shew you a mystery...

Luke 15:8-9
"8Either what woman having ten pieces of silver, if she lose one piece, doth not light a candle, and sweep the house, and seek diligently till she find it? 9And when she hath found it, she calleth her friends and her neighbours together, saying, Rejoice with me; for I have found the piece which I had lost."

It was customary for a man to give a woman he was betrothed to a head dress of ten silver coins. These coins represented the covenant of their betrothal, much like the Ten Commandments signified the foundational principles of Jehovah's covenant with His people. Here, the bride-to-be lost one of those ten coins...she searched frantically until she found it. Why? Because should her groom come back and she not have her complete head dress, she would suffer shame and humiliate her groom. She searched frantically until she found it because of her love for the groom...not the value of the coin. I wonder if any of us has lost one of the ten?

God bless.

[Dr. Vaughn]

You can believe that if you like. But here's a mistake I believe most people make. The "Law of God" was etched in stone by the very hand of God and given to Moses. These were the Ten Commandments. These laws are immutable moral laws. The remaining 603 laws are the "Law of Moses". These laws included social, civil, and ceremonial laws that governed society in ancient Israel. Here's another detail to consider...each of these 603 laws can be classified under one of the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments were the eternal "Law of God" and served as the foundational principles behind each law in the "Law of Moses". When Christ sealed the New Covenant with his blood he didn't abolish the "Law", i.e., the immutable "Law of God". In fact look closely at what Jesus said regarding the Law (the Law of God),

Matthew 5:17-19
17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus himself states the the law (the Law of God, the Ten Commandments) isn't abolished, in fact if any of us teach a man that it's OK to violate the least of them...that man will find himself relegated to being least in the Kingdom of God.

Now...what about the Fourth Commandment? It reads...

Exodus 20:8-11
8Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Bro...that's FOUR verses. That's the longest commandment in the Ten Commandments. I know the Law of Moses added to this commandment some very burdensome requirements such as not lighting a fire in one's home on the Sabbath, one couldn't travel further than a Sabbath day's journey, one was even stoned for picking up sticks on the Sabbath, etc. All of these laws were designed to prevent anything that could be considered "work" on the Sabbath, the laws had no other individual significance. This was the "Law of Moses" to Israel and was done away with at the Cross. But what remains regarding the un-abolished fourth commandment, what does it command?

-We are to remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy (separate).
-We are to work six days and rest on the seventh. Notice it states "rest". We are not to perform any industrious pursuit, labor, or work for gain on the Sabbath. We instead are to worship God and enjoy the fruits of our labor.
-It's a house hold day of rest for one's entire home.
-We are to know that it was blessed and sanctified at creation.

Bro...that second point up there shows that it was commanded that our rest is to be on the SEVENTH day of the week...that's Saturday.

So here is where most people say,

"Show me where the Apostles met and worshiped the Lord on Saturday!!! The BIBLE says they met on the FIRST day, that's Sunday!"

Then they give this proof text....

Acts 20:7
7And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

On the surface to the casual observer this might appear to settle the issue. But if looked at closely...it doesn't. Here's why...

In the days of the Bible, the Jewish Calendar that Paul and Luke used was lunar...not solar. That means the Jewish day began at sundown...not sunup. If they met together here in verse 7 on the "first day of the week" and Paul preached and "continued his speech until midnight" that should tell us that they had gathered Saturday evening at sundown, the very beginning of the first day of the week,...and Paul then preached until midnight. ;)

So this proof text actually demonstrates that Paul and these believers gathered together on Saturday evening for food and worship as they closed their Sabbath observance.

We see that the Apostles rutinely engaged in ministry in the synagogues on the Sabbath:

Acts 13:14
But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down.

Acts 13:42
And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.

Acts 13:44
And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.

Acts 16:13
And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither.

Acts 17:2
And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

Acts 18:4
And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.

It's a historical fact that the Catholic Church moved the Christian time of gathering to Sunday to distinguish Christians from Jews.

Now...I'm not saying it's wrong to meet on Sunday...but this is a Commandment and the Law of God wasn't abolished. I'm bound to teach it and not teach men to break it. It's meant to be a day of rest and personal devotion, even if your church officially meets on Sunday.

You may disagree...and I might be wrong. But that's my understanding.

Behold I shew you a mystery...

Luke 15:8-9
"8Either what woman having ten pieces of silver, if she lose one piece, doth not light a candle, and sweep the house, and seek diligently till she find it? 9And when she hath found it, she calleth her friends and her neighbours together, saying, Rejoice with me; for I have found the piece which I had lost."

It was customary for a man to give a woman he was betrothed to a head dress of ten silver coins. These coins represented the covenant of their betrothal, much like the Ten Commandments signified the foundational principles of Jehovah's covenant with His people. Here, the bride-to-be lost one of those ten coins...she searched frantically until she found it. Why? Because should her groom come back and she not have her complete head dress, she would suffer shame and humiliate her groom. She searched frantically until she found it because of her love for the groom...not the value of the coin. I wonder if any of us has lost one of the ten?

God bless.

Hopper, that was a wonderful post and really has me considering having a Saturday night service at our place....

blessings

[Dr. Vaughn]

If there is one thing I try desperately is to have integrity & honesty. When I have been proven wrong I am not ashamed to admit it.

Perhaps my experience in Pentecost with out of control emotions caused me to go to the other extreme in an effort to be pleasing to the Lord.

While I maintain that "The day of Pentecost" cannot be used a biblical reference for out of control emotions and the term "drunk as ye suppose" has been grossly misued to justify Pentecostal extremism.......I do stand corrected and abolish my previous position that it is wrong to "do your thing" in the house of God......

You guys have successfully proven to me that since Paul did not CONDEMN those OT worship practices then we must not do the same..... However, I still maintain that Pentecost is not as obedient to Paul's teaching on Church Order as they should be.... and Pastors should try much harder to keep chaos which it typically found in Pentecost to a minimum..... Although, I do not see the purpose of running around isles and running the backs of pews, nor do I see it ever happening in the NT... I will no longer condemn it nor those who participate in it.... and issue a public apology and repent for having done so....

Blessings to all
Bro. Vaughn

[Rico]

If there is one thing I try desperately is to have integrity & honesty. When I have been proven wrong I am not ashamed to admit it.

Perhaps my experience in Pentecost with out of control emotions caused me to go to the other extreme in an effort to be pleasing to the Lord.

While I maintain that "The day of Pentecost" cannot be used a biblical reference for out of control emotions and the term "drunk as ye suppose" has been grossly misued to justify Pentecostal extremism.......I do stand corrected and abolish my previous position that it is wrong to "do your thing" in the house of God......

You guys have successfully proven to me that since Paul did not CONDEMN those OT worship practices then we must not do the same..... However, I still maintain that Pentecost is not as obedient to Paul's teaching on Church Order as they should be.... and Pastors should try much harder to keep chaos which it typically found in Pentecost to a minimum..... Although, I do not see the purpose of running around isles and running the backs of pews, nor do I see it ever happening in the NT... I will no longer condemn it nor those who participate in it.... and issue a public apology and repent for having done so....

Blessings to all
Bro. Vaughn

Sweet. :thumbsup

[Grasshopper]

If there is one thing I try desperately is to have integrity & honesty. When I have been proven wrong I am not ashamed to admit it.

Perhaps my experience in Pentecost with out of control emotions caused me to go to the other extreme in an effort to be pleasing to the Lord.

While I maintain that "The day of Pentecost" cannot be used a biblical reference for out of control emotions and the term "drunk as ye suppose" has been grossly misued to justify Pentecostal extremism.......I do stand corrected and abolish my previous position that it is wrong to "do your thing" in the house of God......

You guys have successfully proven to me that since Paul did not CONDEMN those OT worship practices then we must not do the same..... However, I still maintain that Pentecost is not as obedient to Paul's teaching on Church Order as they should be.... and Pastors should try much harder to keep chaos which it typically found in Pentecost to a minimum..... Although, I do not see the purpose of running around isles and running the backs of pews, nor do I see it ever happening in the NT... I will no longer condemn it nor those who participate in it.... and issue a public apology and repent for having done so....

Blessings to all
Bro. Vaughn

Good post! No doubt there are excesses in Pentecostal worship. I don't know about all the Pentecostal calisthenics I see at times. Certainly speaking in tongues at the time of prayer and worship is fine. It can be explained to any visitor. But the PREACHING should be of greater priority. I've been to services where they had a "blow out"and nobody preached. I personally don't like that. I believe there should be some form of Word brought to the people, even if real short. I don't like the spastic out of control rolling, jerking, eyes rolling in the back of the head kinda stuff. If you've never seen this in churches you've attended, thank God. I see nothing wrong with dancing in worship...but sometimes I think we need to be admonished to silence the tongues, sit down, and HEAR THE WORD OF THE LORD.

God bless yall.

[Steve Epley]

If there is one thing I try desperately is to have integrity & honesty. When I have been proven wrong I am not ashamed to admit it.

Perhaps my experience in Pentecost with out of control emotions caused me to go to the other extreme in an effort to be pleasing to the Lord.

While I maintain that "The day of Pentecost" cannot be used a biblical reference for out of control emotions and the term "drunk as ye suppose" has been grossly misued to justify Pentecostal extremism.......I do stand corrected and abolish my previous position that it is wrong to "do your thing" in the house of God......

You guys have successfully proven to me that since Paul did not CONDEMN those OT worship practices then we must not do the same..... However, I still maintain that Pentecost is not as obedient to Paul's teaching on Church Order as they should be.... and Pastors should try much harder to keep chaos which it typically found in Pentecost to a minimum..... Although, I do not see the purpose of running around isles and running the backs of pews, nor do I see it ever happening in the NT... I will no longer condemn it nor those who participate in it.... and issue a public apology and repent for having done so....

Blessings to all
Bro. Vaughn

I appreciate this Dr. Vaughn.

[Grasshopper]

Hopper, that was a wonderful post and really has me considering having a Saturday night service at our place....

blessings

The church I attend has Sunday services like everyone else...but on Saturdays we have men's prayer and we men go out to have breakfast. I make Saturday my day of rest with family devotions and family altar. We cook out in the summer and have people over and on occasion have a home Bible study. We do NOTHING relating to the work we do for profit. The Sabbath is a rest that can be observed even without a church "service". My personal conviction after studying the Sabbath is that it is a gift to man...a time to rest and refresh. A gift from God. And we do well to keep it if at all possible.

[Steve Epley]

The church I attend has Sunday services like everyone else...but on Saturdays we have men's prayer and we men go out to have breakfast. I make Saturday my day of rest with family devotions and family altar. We cook out in the summer and have people over and on occasion have a home Bible study. We do NOTHING relating to the work we do for profit. The Sabbath is a rest that can be observed even without a church "service". My personal conviction after studying the Sabbath is that it is a gift to man...a time to rest and refresh. A gift from God. And we do well to keep it if at all possible.

God is all wise and if in HIs divine plan thought man needed a day to rest I would say it is a good idea not a commandment as practiced in OT foreshadowing the eternal rest we have in Him.But the practical part seemslike good advise to me.

[Rico]

Good post! No doubt there are excesses in Pentecostal worship. I don't know about all the Pentecostal calisthenics I see at times. Certainly speaking in tongues at the time of prayer and worship is fine. It can be explained to any visitor. But the PREACHING should be of greater priority. I've been to services where they had a "blow out"and nobody preached. I personally don't like that. I believe there should be some form of Word brought to the people, even if real short. I don't like the spastic out of control rolling, jerking, eyes rolling in the back of the head kinda stuff. If you've never seen this in churches you've attended, thank God. I see nothing wrong with dancing in worship...but sometimes I think we need to be admonished to silence the tongues, sit down, and HEAR THE WORD OF THE LORD.

God bless yall.


I'm kinda with ya on what you are saying, but only to a certain degree. I agree that things can, and sometimes do, get out of hand. I've seen people who were obviously faking a "blessing". I've seen people act one way when the pastor was in town and another way when he wasn't there. I've seen things get artificially pumped up by the worship leader up front. I've seen lots of stuff go on that shouldn't be going on.

However, I've seen many more instances of honest to goodness worship and exuberant praise. I've seen God use people to usher in a powerful spirit of worship. I've seen God use the huckabuck to break spirits that were trying to dominate the service. I've seen people use praise and worship to break the strongholds the enemy has had on them. I've seen much more good things come from the apostolic hoedown than bad.

I think the key is to be sharp enough to know what direction the Spirit wants to go in. If God is desiring a loud joyful noise kinda praise then we need to go in that direction. If the Spirit is calling out for a time of crying out for the lost, then we need to go in that direction. If the Spirit is desiring a quiet time of reflection then we need to go in that direction. Everything we do in a service needs to be directed towards giving God what He wants from that service.

Also, I hear what you are saying about not liking the blowouts with no preaching. However, sometimes God accomplishes His purpose for a service through a blowout and doesn't need the preaching to get it done. Again, the direction any service takes needs to be the direction God wants it to go in. As soon as we start making up our minds that services need to be this way or that way we start overriding God's sovereignty in His "house". We need to remember that He is the Head and we are His body. The body is subject to the direction of its head. When the body starts to function without direction from its head then the body becomes spastic, unpredictable, unreliable, and of no use.

[Grasshopper]

Good stuff Rico...Paul said let all things be done to edify. If it edifies...it glorifies. I can accept that.

[Dr. Vaughn]

RICO - only one disagreement... I see the local church as a training center, traning believers for the work of the ministry... this is our purpose coming together... and should that equipping and training not take place.. to me we have sort of missed the purpose for the service...... honestly in places such as prayer meetings.. home meetings,, when we're alone we can worship God..... and yes even in the setting of the local church.. but if the church and pastor fails to realize the purpose for our gathering then we have indeed gathered in vain....

You see... maybe we arn't from the same background.... but when I was coming up... we tried to figure out ways to get a shout going so we would not have to endure "please turn in your Bibles"

Not being critical but the same mindset seems to be prevelant in Pentecostal & Apostolic circles... again I criticize no where.. I sincerely have a passion for scriptural church services... thanks bro

[Rico]

RICO - only one disagreement... I see the local church as a training center, traning believers for the work of the ministry... this is our purpose coming together... and should that equipping and training not take place.. to me we have sort of missed the purpose for the service...... honestly in places such as prayer meetings.. home meetings,, when we're alone we can worship God..... and yes even in the setting of the local church.. but if the church and pastor fails to realize the purpose for our gathering then we have indeed gathered in vain....

You see... maybe we arn't from the same background.... but when I was coming up... we tried to figure out ways to get a shout going so we would not have to endure "please turn in your Bibles"

Not being critical but the same mindset seems to be prevelant in Pentecostal & Apostolic circles... again I criticize no where.. I sincerely have a passion for scriptural church services... thanks bro

Bro. Vaughn, I agree with you that the church is our training center. It's that and more. Teaching people the importance of following God's direction in a service, allowing them to experience successes and failures while learning how to follow the leading of the Spirit, and reinforcing the truth that God's grace is sufficient (whether we succeed or fail), will produce the maturity you speak of.

[Dr. Vaughn]

Bro. Vaughn, I agree with you that the church is our training center. It's that and more. Teaching people the importance of following God's direction in a service, allowing them to experience successes and failures while learning how to follow the leading of the Spirit, and reinforcing the truth that God's grace is sufficient (whether we succeed or fail), will produce the maturity you speak of.

Fair enough Brother

[Joelel]

If there is one thing I try desperately is to have integrity & honesty. When I have been proven wrong I am not ashamed to admit it.

Perhaps my experience in Pentecost with out of control emotions caused me to go to the other extreme in an effort to be pleasing to the Lord.

While I maintain that "The day of Pentecost" cannot be used a biblical reference for out of control emotions and the term "drunk as ye suppose" has been grossly misued to justify Pentecostal extremism.......I do stand corrected and abolish my previous position that it is wrong to "do your thing" in the house of God......

You guys have successfully proven to me that since Paul did not CONDEMN those OT worship practices then we must not do the same..... However, I still maintain that Pentecost is not as obedient to Paul's teaching on Church Order as they should be.... and Pastors should try much harder to keep chaos which it typically found in Pentecost to a minimum..... Although, I do not see the purpose of running around isles and running the backs of pews, nor do I see it ever happening in the NT... I will no longer condemn it nor those who participate in it.... and issue a public apology and repent for having done so....

Blessings to all
Bro. Vaughn

One day right after I received the Holy Ghost in March of 1970 I laid on the floor speaking in tongues about 30 min. and didn't even know it,so it was not my flesh.I was in an other church about 6 months later,I was just think the preacher was false and all of a sudden the Holy Ghost jerked me our of my seat straight up over a pew and I landed in the isle on my back and lost my shoe. I sat up to get my shoe and the Holy Ghost knocked be back again.This time I stayed laying in the isle a while.Well I learned to watch what I think.I didn't even say anything,I was just thinking.Believe me I was not in the flesh.I had no control,the Holy Ghost taught me. Oh well,the Holy Ghost teaches me many things but many on this forum and others just mock.

[Grasshopper]

One day right after I received the Holy Ghost in March of 1970 I laid on the floor speaking in tongues about 30 min. and didn't even know it,so it was not my flesh.I was in an other church about 6 months later,I was just think the preacher was false and all of a sudden the Holy Ghost jerked me our of my seat straight up over a pew and I landed in the isle on my back and lost my shoe. I sat up to get my shoe and the Holy Ghost knocked be back again.This time I stayed laying in the isle a while.Well I learned to watch what I think.I didn't even say anything,I was just thinking.Believe me I was not in the flesh.I had no control,the Holy Ghost taught me. Oh well,the Holy Ghost teaches me many things but many on this forum and others just mock.

I personally don't mock to mock you. When I received the Holy Ghost I spoke in tongues and wept and sobbed and lost track of time too. However, you said something that does trouble some of us...

I had no control,the Holy Ghost taught me.

I too have been prompted by the Holy Ghost to run, dance, shout, praise, and worship. I've even been used in a couple of the spiritual gifts. BUT, each time I was in control, I was just surrendered and yielding to the prompting of God's Spirit. I've personally never felt "out of control" with God moving me, knocking me, bumping me, rolling me (though I've felt the Holy Ghost prompt me to roll several times), or holding me down. There was one occasion where the power of God was so strong we worshiped and praised at the altar service and the glory truly came down brother. I virtually collapsed in exhaustion from worship and the power of God rested upon me so strongly...I don't want to move or get up. I just lay there speaking in tongues. I could have chosen to stop and get up to go back to my seat...but my soul didn't want to, I just wanted to bask in God's presence.

Sometimes when people say they weren't in any control, I have to wonder...was it the Holy Ghost? I ask this because I only find one place in Scripture where a person is moved and flopped around and had absolutely no control over it...

Mark 9:14-27
14And when he came to his disciples, he saw a great multitude about them, and the scribes questioning with them.
15And straightway all the people, when they beheld him, were greatly amazed, and running to him saluted him.
16And he asked the scribes, What question ye with them?
17And one of the multitude answered and said, Master, I have brought unto thee my son, which hath a dumb spirit;
18And wheresoever he taketh him, he teareth him: and he foameth, and gnasheth with his teeth, and pineth away: and I spake to thy disciples that they should cast him out; and they could not.
19He answereth him, and saith, O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him unto me.
20And they brought him unto him: and when he saw him, straightway the spirit tare him; and he fell on the ground, and wallowed foaming.
21And he asked his father, How long is it ago since this came unto him? And he said, Of a child.
22And ofttimes it hath cast him into the fire, and into the waters, to destroy him: but if thou canst do any thing, have compassion on us, and help us.
23Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.
24And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.
25When Jesus saw that the people came running together, he rebuked the foul spirit, saying unto him, Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee, come out of him, and enter no more into him.
26And the spirit cried, and rent him sore, and came out of him: and he was as one dead; insomuch that many said, He is dead.
27But Jesus took him by the hand, and lifted him up; and he arose.

Sometimes there's very strong demonic activity in church services. Not everything manifested in a church service is of the Holy Ghost. There's been some who sincerely thought something was the Holy Ghost and it wasn't. This is where discernment becomes very important. What happened to you may ave been the Holy Ghost, I wasn't there, so I really can't judge in your case.

I do have a question for the readers here. I know that in the Bible we see the power of the Holy Ghost demonstrated so powerfully that men speak with tongues, prophesy, interpret tongues, etc. But is there any scriptural examples of men rolling on the ground, jerking, juking, or flopping uncontrollably under the power of the Holy Ghost?

[Dr. Vaughn]

One day right after I received the Holy Ghost in March of 1970 I laid on the floor speaking in tongues about 30 min. and didn't even know it,so it was not my flesh.I was in an other church about 6 months later,I was just think the preacher was false and all of a sudden the Holy Ghost jerked me our of my seat straight up over a pew and I landed in the isle on my back and lost my shoe. I sat up to get my shoe and the Holy Ghost knocked be back again.This time I stayed laying in the isle a while.Well I learned to watch what I think.I didn't even say anything,I was just thinking.Believe me I was not in the flesh.I had no control,the Holy Ghost taught me. Oh well,the Holy Ghost teaches me many things but many on this forum and others just mock.

respectufylly, I have never seen a scriptural example where the Holy Ghost caused anyone to lose control of their being.... I do not doubt this happened to you..... but I do believe all things must line up with scriptural precedence... before anyone jumps down my throat about this... I give the same test to the people in Lakeland, Fl thats barking like dogs....... we must have scriptural precedence to allow certain things in our meetings.....

[Dr. Vaughn]

I personally don't mock to mock you. When I received the Holy Ghost I spoke in tongues and wept and sobbed and lost track of time too. However, you said something that does trouble some of us...



I too have been prompted by the Holy Ghost to run, dance, shout, praise, and worship. I've even been used in a couple of the spiritual gifts. BUT, each time I was in control, I was just surrendered and yielding to the prompting of God's Spirit. I've personally never felt "out of control" with God moving me, knocking me, bumping me, rolling me (though I've felt the Holy Ghost prompt me to roll several times), or holding me down. There was one occasion where the power of God was so strong we worshiped and praised at the altar service and the glory truly came down brother. I virtually collapsed in exhaustion from worship and the power of God rested upon me so strongly...I don't want to move or get up. I just lay there speaking in tongues. I could have chosen to stop and get up to go back to my seat...but my soul didn't want to, I just wanted to bask in God's presence.

Sometimes when people say they weren't in any control, I have to wonder...was it the Holy Ghost? I ask this because I only find one place in Scripture where a person is moved and flopped around and had absolutely no control over it...

Mark 9:14-27
14And when he came to his disciples, he saw a great multitude about them, and the scribes questioning with them.
15And straightway all the people, when they beheld him, were greatly amazed, and running to him saluted him.
16And he asked the scribes, What question ye with them?
17And one of the multitude answered and said, Master, I have brought unto thee my son, which hath a dumb spirit;
18And wheresoever he taketh him, he teareth him: and he foameth, and gnasheth with his teeth, and pineth away: and I spake to thy disciples that they should cast him out; and they could not.
19He answereth him, and saith, O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him unto me.
20And they brought him unto him: and when he saw him, straightway the spirit tare him; and he fell on the ground, and wallowed foaming.
21And he asked his father, How long is it ago since this came unto him? And he said, Of a child.
22And ofttimes it hath cast him into the fire, and into the waters, to destroy him: but if thou canst do any thing, have compassion on us, and help us.
23Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.
24And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.
25When Jesus saw that the people came running together, he rebuked the foul spirit, saying unto him, Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee, come out of him, and enter no more into him.
26And the spirit cried, and rent him sore, and came out of him: and he was as one dead; insomuch that many said, He is dead.
27But Jesus took him by the hand, and lifted him up; and he arose.

Sometimes there's very strong demonic activity in church services. Not everything manifested in a church service is of the Holy Ghost. There's been some who sincerely thought something was the Holy Ghost and it wasn't. This is where discernment becomes very important. What happened to you may ave been the Holy Ghost, I wasn't there, so I really can't judge in your case.

I do have a question for the readers here. I know that in the Bible we see the power of the Holy Ghost demonstrated so powerfully that men speak with tongues, prophesy, interpret tongues, etc. But is there any scriptural examples of men rolling on the ground, jerking, juking, or flopping uncontrollably under the power of the Holy Ghost?

NONE - we only have example of demonic posession that leads to this.. the boy casting himself in the fire, uncontrollably....

The writer said something that causes pause.... he basically said God was using him to try and correct the Pastor.... since that is not the place of the those "under authority" I am wondering why God would try to disrupt the service to bring Chaos and correction the Pastor publically

[Praxeas]

respectufylly, I have never seen a scriptural example where the Holy Ghost caused anyone to lose control of their being.... I do not doubt this happened to you..... but I do believe all things must line up with scriptural precedence... before anyone jumps down my throat about this... I give the same test to the people in Lakeland, Fl thats barking like dogs....... we must have scriptural precedence to allow certain things in our meetings.....
I have. One example was King Saul lying naked on the ground prophesying all night long. Another was Daniel falling on his face as though dead and that same thing happened to John

[Praxeas]

respectufylly, I have never seen a scriptural example where the Holy Ghost caused anyone to lose control of their being.... I do not doubt this happened to you..... but I do believe all things must line up with scriptural precedence... before anyone jumps down my throat about this... I give the same test to the people in Lakeland, Fl thats barking like dogs....... we must have scriptural precedence to allow certain things in our meetings.....
It's odd that some describe it as "barking like dogs" but how do we know that is what they were doing? I have heard it was more like grunting. Have you ever heard someone travail or groan while praying? Even the early methodists did this 200 years before Topeka

[Dr. Vaughn]

I have. One example was King Saul lying naked on the ground prophesying all night long. Another was Daniel falling on his face as though dead and that same thing happened to John

Sorry, I didn't realize they had the baptism of the Holy Ghost...... my bad

[Dr. Vaughn]

It's odd that some describe it as "barking like dogs" but how do we know that is what they were doing? I have heard it was more like grunting. Have you ever heard someone travail or groan while praying? Even the early methodists did this 200 years before Topeka

It's not for the public assembly, no matter what it is.. hog grunting or barking,, only demons operate in the animalistic realm... so hog grunting or dog barking should be reserved for a prayer closet

[Praxeas]

Sorry, I didn't realize they had the baptism of the Holy Ghost...... my bad
WHAT Spirit caused King Saul to do that? What Spirit caused Daniel to do that? And YES John had the baptism of the Holy Spirit...your bad.

[Praxeas]

It's not for the public assembly, no matter what it is.. hog grunting or barking,, only demons operate in the animalistic realm... so hog grunting or dog barking should be reserved for a prayer closet
Again it's YOU that puts the spin "hog grunting or dog barking" on it. And it is YOU that arbitrarily assigns what is not for a church meeting.

You have no bible and you are unable to refute my points and counter arguments to your points as evidenced by the fact that you ignore my posts, even after I bump them. You make excuses that I make personal comments, when all I did was respond to your posts not to you personally and you can't make the excuse that you did not see them since I see you noticed me bumping them up

[Dr. Vaughn]

WHAT Spirit caused King Saul to do that? What Spirit caused Daniel to do that? And YES John had the baptism of the Holy Spirit...your bad.

Were ANY OF THESE PEOPLE in the local assembly of training and equipping believers when this happened to them? Or where they alone with God... exactly where this should happen

[Praxeas]

Were ANY OF THESE PEOPLE in the local assembly of training and equipping believers when this happened to them? Or where they alone with God... exactly where this should happen
More obfuscation.

These men were under the control of the Spirit...no a demonic spirit like you have tried to insinuate...no voodoo here. It was the Spirit of God. Can you refute that or not?

[Joelel]

I personally don't mock to mock you. When I received the Holy Ghost I spoke in tongues and wept and sobbed and lost track of time too. However, you said something that does trouble some of us...



I too have been prompted by the Holy Ghost to run, dance, shout, praise, and worship. I've even been used in a couple of the spiritual gifts. BUT, each time I was in control, I was just surrendered and yielding to the prompting of God's Spirit. I've personally never felt "out of control" with God moving me, knocking me, bumping me, rolling me (though I've felt the Holy Ghost prompt me to roll several times), or holding me down. There was one occasion where the power of God was so strong we worshiped and praised at the altar service and the glory truly came down brother. I virtually collapsed in exhaustion from worship and the power of God rested upon me so strongly...I don't want to move or get up. I just lay there speaking in tongues. I could have chosen to stop and get up to go back to my seat...but my soul didn't want to, I just wanted to bask in God's presence.

Sometimes when people say they weren't in any control, I have to wonder...was it the Holy Ghost? I ask this because I only find one place in Scripture where a person is moved and flopped around and had absolutely no control over it...

Mark 9:14-27
14And when he came to his disciples, he saw a great multitude about them, and the scribes questioning with them.
15And straightway all the people, when they beheld him, were greatly amazed, and running to him saluted him.
16And he asked the scribes, What question ye with them?
17And one of the multitude answered and said, Master, I have brought unto thee my son, which hath a dumb spirit;
18And wheresoever he taketh him, he teareth him: and he foameth, and gnasheth with his teeth, and pineth away: and I spake to thy disciples that they should cast him out; and they could not.
19He answereth him, and saith, O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him unto me.
20And they brought him unto him: and when he saw him, straightway the spirit tare him; and he fell on the ground, and wallowed foaming.
21And he asked his father, How long is it ago since this came unto him? And he said, Of a child.
22And ofttimes it hath cast him into the fire, and into the waters, to destroy him: but if thou canst do any thing, have compassion on us, and help us.
23Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.
24And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.
25When Jesus saw that the people came running together, he rebuked the foul spirit, saying unto him, Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee, come out of him, and enter no more into him.
26And the spirit cried, and rent him sore, and came out of him: and he was as one dead; insomuch that many said, He is dead.
27But Jesus took him by the hand, and lifted him up; and he arose.

Sometimes there's very strong demonic activity in church services. Not everything manifested in a church service is of the Holy Ghost. There's been some who sincerely thought something was the Holy Ghost and it wasn't. This is where discernment becomes very important. What happened to you may ave been the Holy Ghost, I wasn't there, so I really can't judge in your case.

I do have a question for the readers here. I know that in the Bible we see the power of the Holy Ghost demonstrated so powerfully that men speak with tongues, prophesy, interpret tongues, etc. But is there any scriptural examples of men rolling on the ground, jerking, juking, or flopping uncontrollably under the power of the Holy Ghost?

Most of my ministry is so over powered by the Holy Ghost I have no control.When the Holy Ghost moves in control I lay hands on people and they are healed,devils are cast out,they fall on the floor as dead people with babies in their arms and no one catches them and the baby stays in their arms and no one ever gets hurt and I never got hurt.I guess when God is in control to do things, things happen,and is different from all these preachers praying for people and they never get healed or delivered.When God's in control things happen.Believe what you like.


2Pet.1
[21] For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

[Dr. Vaughn]

More obfuscation.

These men were under the control of the Spirit...no a demonic spirit like you have tried to insinuate...no voodoo here. It was the Spirit of God. Can you refute that or not?

Can you refute this was not done in the local training center called the church? It is not for public display

[Dr. Vaughn]

Most of my ministry is so over powered by the Holy Ghost I have no control.When the Holy Ghost moves in control I lay hands on people and they are healed,devils are cast out,they fall on the floor as dead people with babies in their arms and no one catches them and the baby stays in their arms and no one ever gets hurt and I never got hurt.I guess when God is in control to do things, things happen,and is different from all these preachers praying for people and they never get healed or delievered.When God's in control things happen.Believe what you like.

Ok,, your just joking right? your not being serious.. your playing,, right?

[Praxeas]

Can you refute this was not done in the local training center called the church? It is not for public display
Now you are just trying to avoid answering.

Your non-answer suggests to me that you see the writting on the wall and are now trying to find another angle. The Spirit of God DOES infact control peoples bodies or actions at times.

Then you made another logical fallacy by calling "the church" the local training center to bolster you false claim that church is and can ONLY be a place of learning and not also worship or corporate prayer or any other thing...the thing you have been asserting all along but failing to prove. And I have several times disproven or ripped apart your assertions only to be ignored.

[Praxeas]

Ok,, your just joking right? your not being serious.. your playing,, right?
Sounds kinda personal Dr V....apparently it's not just us.

[Praxeas]

BTW there is no "center"...in the bible. They worshipped and met in houses...most typically probably held no more than 12 members or more...the Corinthian church was therefore made up of several house churches. Churches met for various reasons as I have already proven which included teaching, prayers, worship and other things to edify one another like the gifts of the Spirit and fellowship.

[Joelel]

Ok,, your just joking right? your not being serious.. your playing,, right?

No joking or foolish talking,that is sin.Guess you need to see the Holy Ghost move.

[Joelel]

Ok,, your just joking right? your not being serious.. your playing,, right?

How about laying hands on someone and they fly though the air about 15 feet and they never get hurt.How about leaping 20 ft.on one leg and never fall.Guess you need to see the Holy Ghost move,no control.

[Dr. Vaughn]

BTW there is no "center"...in the bible. They worshipped and met in houses...most typically probably held no more than 12 members or more...the Corinthian church was therefore made up of several house churches. Churches met for various reasons as I have already proven which included teaching, prayers, worship and other things to edify one another like the gifts of the Spirit and fellowship.

"they met in the TEMPLE daily"

[Praxeas]

"they met in the TEMPLE daily"
They met in the Jewish temple....you think they held bible studies there for only believers? They witnessed to the Jews. But what about the believers NOT in Jerusalem?