Come Out Of Her My People

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by gthaywood1880

I'm so happy that this thread was started I was thinking about asking the same questions myself it has been on my mind a very long time. I may get some heat for this but the clergy/laity system was started by the RCC to keep women submissive, this is not the way Christ intended for his people to be.

Can you please provide the historical evidence the Roman Catholic church started the clergy/laity system to keep women submissive?

BTW that would make sense only if all laity were women

Why do we need a elder, district elder, bishop, suffragan bishop, bishop, presiding bishop etc. I really wish in it's early year's that the P.A.W. wouldn't have adopted an episcopal form of leadership.

Why? To be better organized? Why not?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by renee819

Let's clear this up right now, before it becomes another straw man. Read it again Prax,

Renee wrote
The Pagan, virgin birth and dying son, was started at Babel.

THE PAGAN VIRGIN BIRTH-----

I know that Jesus birth was from the virgin Mary, however, history bears out that the MYTH of a virgin birth was started by Semiramis (probably misspelled) after Nimrod was killed and she had a child. Claiming that her dead husband had come back to life. Deifying the son, and we see in history as well as the Bible, Tummaz, Adonis, and other names as a deified son.

No doubt I should have said, THE PAGAN VIRGIN BIRTH MYTH, but I wrote most of these Posts when I got a few minutes free from visiting with company. I really didn't think that I had to watch every word, but I find there were people ready to jump on the slightest pretext. It reminds me of,

.

Now that my company is gone, I'll be very careful to watch every word that I write., And as my memory isn't as good as it used to be, I might still make a few mistakes. But I believe there are a few people on here with enough love in their heart, to understand what I am saying.

The problem is you are arguing certain church practices/doctrines are PAGAN in origin and you then began to quote a source to that effect. As part of that quote your source asserted the virgin birth and the Son dying ALSO come from a pagan origin

Do you see the problem? Either it's ALL Pagan OR just because Pagans ALSO practiced it before Christianity does NOT mean if the church practices/teaches it, it is therefore wrong (guilt by association, a logical fallacy)

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by renee819

Now that my company is gone, I'll be very careful to watch every word that I write., And as my memory isn't as good as it used to be, I might still make a few mistakes. But I believe there are a few people on here with enough love in their heart, to understand what I am saying.

BTW, according to you, you were not making a statement, you were quoting a source that you believe supported your opening post regarding the church and paganism

BTW Love has nothing to do with whether or not you can post in a coherent manner

Lastly, Im not an idiot and clearly not only did you suggest it was a SIN (Paganism) to worship in church buildings you are here accusing me of not being a true christian..otherwise I would not lack "love"..that is your accusation against me here that I lack love right?

you guys understand that? If Renee is incapable of forming a coherent sentence, well you should be able to understand it anyways if you have enough Love.

Renee, I hope you can receive as good as you give to me

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by renee819

My opening statement,


And now let's see how some received this, they jumped on buildings, as a strawman, most likely not wanting to face the fact, that the Church is dying.

See? More accusations. This is called being defensive. Rather than deal with the issues of buildings and how she words things, she tries to turn it around on others in a passive aggressive manner

Do you David, see your strawmen conclusions? Some of these statements were made by Prax, and maybe others. I don't even want to remember who said what or hold any grudges. I do appreciate those that understood what I was talking about.
Seems some don't want to see the condition of the church. That way they won't have to change anything.

That is the Truth, exactly. Buildings mean nothing. We could meet in a Restaurant, a warehouse, a home, storefront, anywhere. That shouldn't be the point

And what the RCC has put into place has led to sin. It was sin in the first place, because, …
Constantine, for Political reasons, a Pagan until he died, took churches away from Pagan Priests and gave them, to the Christians. Which sounds great, but at what price? They had to compromise, agree to baptize in the Trinity

You still have not proven the RCC did any putting into place with regards to church buildings (Yes you did say that in the first post. Now if you want to admit you were wrong rather than make excuses and try to pin it on others, be my guest)

And HERE you directly use the word SIN.

I don't believe that I said that the Clergy was sin. "Which sounds great, but at what price?

No you said what the RCC put into place (as of yet unsubstantiated claims) Led to Sin and "It was sin in the first place"

So if the RCC put clergy into place (Unsubstantiated claim), it both Led to sin and was sin in the first place

The above statement needs some fixing. “To stop the martyring of Christians, He gave them buildings, or make it possible for them to have church buildings, tax exemption for the ministry, and many perks. That sounds great, but at what price?

Church buildings predate Constantine. I already posted the evidence. I went through your evidence too and as I said, I saw no direct evidence to support any of your claims about Paganism and buildings

No I did not, state that the RCC started these things.! I said, “ It was the Catholic Church that brought them in,....” You bring in, something that is already in existence. The RCC brought these things in, for political reasons to unite the Paganism, some of the OT, and Christianity, as bribes, some as policy (if they received the bribes) and as law. Not only combining the Religions, but combining Government and Religion

As I said, prove the RCC "brought them in". The RCC did not drop out of the sky over night. It gradually developed over the course of a few centuries but church buildings were already in use by Christians before Nicea

Are you taking back your assertion that church buildings are pagan?

WHERE, did I ever say, that the RCC invented church buildings????

Ah and you gathered there because the Roman Catholics invented man made buildings?

Church buildings = sin, according to your statement here.

WHO invented them then?

Do you David, see your strawmen conclusions? Some of these statements were made by Prax, and maybe others. I don't even want to remember who said what or hold any grudges. I do appreciate those that understood what I was talking about.
Seems some don't want to see the condition of the church. That way they won't have to change anything.

My statements were quoting your words and then responding TO them. Why would you need to hold a grudge against me for doing that? It was YOU that attacked me personally.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by houston

Straw man?

You have to be a true Christian with enough Christian Love to understand her words...to understand what she REALLY meant

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Rudy

One issue home assembly has here in the U.S. is lack of evangelism and missionary work. Apostleship = church planting maybe?

I agree with the 'apostleship = church planting', assuming the church planting is primarily evangelistic ie consisting of a 'missionary' (the 'bible term' would be 'apostle') preaching in an area to the unsaved, they become converted, and the missionary organizes them into a distinct ecclesia, maintaining oversight of the church until they are able to have organic eldership, then the missionary moves on. Or the missionary may 'move on' as soon as he judges the new church is capable of sustaining itself at least temporarily while he is busy in the next church planting endeavor.

In other words, like the apostle Paul did it.

As for lack of evangelism, while this certainly may be true of Oneness groups I have noticed a proliferation of either Baptistic or Reformed and to an extent Charismatic house churches springing up. Some of them are big on street preaching/open air preaching (well, the Baptist ones anyway).

Unfortunately, I think the Oneness Pentecostal movement has already been left behind by current move of God. I could be wrong, but I think that is what we are seeing... which was actually warned about many decades ago, back in the 20s, by one of the 'original Pentecostal pioneers' (Bartleman).

Anyway, God will raise up children unto Abraham from even the stones on the street corner if He chooses to...

[Rudy]

Yes, There seems to be street healings as well. Thomas Fisher is one that seems to be legit---youtube.

[houston]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I agree with the 'apostleship = church planting', assuming the church planting is primarily evangelistic ie consisting of a 'missionary' (the 'bible term' would be 'apostle') preaching in an area to the unsaved, they become converted, and the missionary organizes them into a distinct ecclesia, maintaining oversight of the church until they are able to have organic eldership, then the missionary moves on. Or the missionary may 'move on' as soon as he judges the new church is capable of sustaining itself at least temporarily while he is busy in the next church planting endeavor.

In other words, like the apostle Paul did it.

As for lack of evangelism, while this certainly may be true of Oneness groups I have noticed a proliferation of either Baptistic or Reformed and to an extent Charismatic house churches springing up. Some of them are big on street preaching/open air preaching (well, the Baptist ones anyway).

Unfortunately, I think the Oneness Pentecostal movement has already been left behind by current move of God. I could be wrong, but I think that is what we are seeing... which was actually warned about many decades ago, back in the 20s, by one of the 'original Pentecostal pioneers' (Bartleman).

Anyway, God will raise up children unto Abraham from even the stones on the street corner if He chooses to...

Current move of God?

[renee819]

Originally Posted by Esaias

From the COOLJC(otAF), Inc.'s website -

http://www.cooljc.org/?page_id=7

"William L. Bonner became the third presider in 1973 and reign to 1995. He is now the Chief Apostle."

Notice how the 'presider's are said to 'reign'. Also notice they have Mr Bonner identified as the 'Chief Apostle.

Compare with Scriptural teachings regarding:

1. The use of religious titles.
2. Wanting to have 'pre-eminence' (aka Diotrephes, anyone?)
3. 'Reigning' (ie 'lording it over', ruling as the gentiles do, etc).

Here we have the hierarchical clergy system imported into Christianity by what would later become the catholic church, being emulated quite nicely (with modern updates, of course) by an 'apostolic' denomination.

I wonder why they don't just call their leader a 'pope'?

Esaias, I didn't watch that one. I watched some on how House Churches function. I tried to find a Pentecostal House Church on U tube, I didn't find any.

[renee819]

I did not start this Thread to attack anyone personally. I feel like that I was the one being attacked. I guess this subject can't be discussed on this Forum.

I know that most Pentecostals and Apostolics have the right foundation, as long as they stick to the Apostles Doctrine in the book of Acts. However, I can see that we are being destroyed, by a system, foreign to Acts. And yes, I attacked the system. But the greater message of my Post was ignored.

The reason that I said that we might have to start home churches, is that any dedicated saint that has done their homework can see some of the problems. And then, can that member go to their Pastor and say, “Pastor, I see by the Word of God that we need to make some changes.” Do you think for a minute that Pastor will even listen?
They would be received about like my Post was received on here.