brideofjc

pond,

Thanks for sneeking in there.

When I find that people do not agree with me about what the common good is I allow them and I to coexist, knowing that we are really one and in the end all things will come together.

Yes I can learn from them because I believe that they are a part of me and I am a part of them in some way. BTW here is a paragraph that I have added.

I am not “a man unto myself”. I am one who is part of the whole. Every human being is part of me, and I am part of all humanity. There is somthing that I can learn from each individual, fellow traveler, that I come in contact with.

It's your choice of course where you go, but it doesn't seem like this is a Christian place. It sounds more like a Universalist type place which if you're not Christian is a great place to go :blink: I know I attended one in my area just to see what it was all about and there is not any allegiance to the Lord Jesus Christ and they believe that all roads are going to heaven or nirvana or whatever etc etc. Since I am Christian, there is only one way to the Holy Father, and that is through his Holy Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. Hope you see the light....metaphysics is an open door for the wrong type of spirituality. Of course, to those who aren't Christian on this forum they won't get the point either...

Plenty of female HUMANS shout during sex also. I don't have any studies to cite, but can report anecdotal evidence of same. :)

Your add on is what I reply to - "The end of an error..." really belongs to TWI! LOL

Your posts are little disturbing sometimes, you know that?

But you're still the breast - rub ya!

Your signature line is a hoot! Amen to that! OMG!

Hello all! I was in TWI from 1979 to 1987. I was a regular at Waydale with the same name of Brideofjc, but then I stopped posting for a number of years to finish my education. Had to make my choices. The Lord Yeshua led me through a wonderful path away from TWI into mainstream Christianity again...it seems funny that life is rather circular, isn't it? It must be that time in my life when all things are converging and I'm getting a chance to do them again, so to speak. For instance I went to my elementary school (name hidden), and then the Lord had me go back and teach there as a sub. Other things kept coming back around in the circle and it became quite phenomenal.

My moniker? I belong in the Charismatic side of the church that is open to visions and dreams from the Lord Yeshua...and the Lord gave me three visions over about six? months...the first, He visited me (very overwhelming, just like John, I fell down, couldn't stand up); the second, He served me communion on Passover (Easter); third, I saw His hands in a vision and He put His ring on my ring finger and then I put a ring on His ring finger. Hence, Brideofjc!

Some people think that I am a nun, but I'm not. I was raised RC and I did want to be one as a little girl but that didn't happen. So, I became a priest instead. :) Anywho, when GS first opened up, I think I began to post here too, but then left again. Now I'm back...it is addictive, isn't it? Sometimes, it's just nice to be able to talk to people who have been through similar paths in life. You don't have to explain yourself...because everyone already understands.

Actually, they're second person accounts if you're referring to I Corinthians 15:6 and assuming that each of the five hundred personally told Paul. It wouyld only be 500 first person accounts if each of those 500 had written down what he had seen.

I would have to disagree with that statement. Whether you are telling an author or a newspaper reporter, you are still giving your first person report of the event even though someone else is writing the article.

Have a Blessed Christmas!

Quick! ... Someone pull out the stake to burn those damnable heretics upon!!

<_< Jaywalking poses more of a threat.

You got any matches?

I need to know if anyone knows how to write an HTML code to cause the message, "web page expired" if you try to back up your browser?

"This would be the end of Christianity as we know it..." which in my opinion is exactly what the author would wish. In order to swallow this heresy, one must throw aside every Word of the Lord God Most High. They must ascribe that the Lord Jesus was just a MAN and only a MAN and not the SON OF GOD which the Gospel of John clearly states. John was fighting against gnosticism that was creeping into the church, which coincidentally didn't believe that Jesus died, nor was there a need for a resurrection. This is nothing more than another form of the same gnosticism that is still trying to invade the church. The Scriptures are clear that Joseph and Mary fled to Egypt to escape the terror of Herod in his attempt to kill the Lord Jesus when he was approximately 18-24 months old. Do not the Scriptures attest that the Lord God Most High stated "I will call my son out of Egypt?" It does not say "India" and the Scriptures all lay first person witnesses to the transfiguration, the crucifixion, the resurrection and the Lord meeting His disciples in His new body which was now spiritual. There were over 500 first person witnesses to His ascension as well.

Write this off as HERESY!

Where's the spittoon?

I need to spit...

Maybe perhaps I should ask for the barf bag!

Hi brideofjc, I think this is a wonderful topic where a person is entitled to an opinion without having to argue about it. I'd just like to hear other's well considered opinions. There's gotta be others besides my first choice.

I know that there are many diehards, especially older fundamentalists that would sooner grab their shotgun if you tried to tell them that the Apostle Paul didn't write Hebrews. After all, he was of the tribe of Benjamin and whether or not he was in the Sanhedrin, even as a junion member, he was certainly associating with them. Although not a Levite, he was a trained Pharisee and knew the laws of Moses well and all that was required for temple service. Albeit, we do know that the writer is writing to the tribes dispersed in the diaspora and indeed they are very familiar with temple rituals. Paul's family was part of the diaspora and so he was born in Tarsus outside of the homeland. Do I think he wrote it? I used to, but the evidence is pretty clear that he didn't unless he changed his writing style significantly or he indeed had an emanuensis who penned Paul's words in his own writing style. Unless they did up other papyrii that will change the scholar's minds, I wouldn't lay any bets on Paul being the auther. However, if it causes arguments in the body of Christ to say that Paul didn't write Hebrews, either be quiet or try to gently teach them that most likely he didn't.

Do I think that Priscilla wrote it? She was highly thought of in the church obviously, because they put her name first in almost every mention of her and her husband Aquila, which just wasn't done in those days. This tells us that she must have been educated, most likely wealthy and probably a leader or host of a home church in her city. It just might turn up one day in the archealogical finds, God loves to throw curve balls to those who view themselves as debunkers. As I posted before, God always has the last laugh.

Do I think having the author remain unknow invalidates what s/he had to say? NO! There is much to be learned in the book.

Bless you much.

God first

Many Voices Crying in the Dark

do you hear them

wrote 12-11-2007

Greeting in the name of Jesus Christ who sends you God’s grace, peace, and most of all his love for you personally like you care for your basic desires to live long and be loved by the ones around you.

Can you hear voices that talk to you which are all around you or do you just hear the ones you want to hear or can you understand the differ from one voice from another.

In person around living people do you hear people talk to you or are you just going around only hearing the things that matter to you.

Yes the voice of living people talking to you is one kind of voice you can hear but there is others you can hear.

Ring, ring, and ring comes a voice out of the dark what is the voice you hear its your telephone system telling you someone wants to use it to talk to you.

Bang, bang, and bang it’s the voice of your door telling you someone is hear to visit you like the dog calls out with a bark to tell you some one is here the door calls you too to let you know what happening.

Animals around you make sounds to show you what going on but we only hear a small part of what they have to say has a voice calling out to us the sound of the dog moving its tail is very low tone just like the sound of a child waving bye.

Listing and you can learn to hear more sounds than you ever dream to hear like the wind saying I am moving a cold air or warm air believe it or not there is a differ in the sound of cold air over warm air.

Once you face the truth everything around you is talking to you oxygen is saying take me in while your lights say lets us show to things around you.

That very second that you begin to talk at the things around you everything seems alive and you can hear the things that can not be seem better.

The invisible things become visible to your inner self the darkness begins to dance with the light the dead become alive the living become more real.

Today I hear the voice of the living, dead, re-living, matter, un-matter, and many other things but how many voices are you willing to hear?

Thank you, with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy.

The main voice that we should all strive to "HEAR"is that of the Living Lord God. To be true there are many voices out there besides God's; such as His enemy who strives to continually lead us away from Him. If by hearing the "dead" 2027 you mean via their words that they spoke while living, then yes, we can hear that indeed. However, even five years ago I would have laughed to scorn if someone and sometimes they did, told me that the dead could say goodbye etc... well, with TWI dupetrines (sp is correct ) well you know, after all "Are the dead alive now?" The answer to that question, of course, "Yes, if they left their way-brains behind." But back to the topic...When my Mother passed away, I had seen her earlier that day and I thank God that I stayed with her when my sister needed to go shopping. Because as it turned out, it was the last time that I got to see her.

I went to bed and after speaking with the Lord Yeshua, I suddenly felt a big hug and a very clear voice say, "I love you!" At the time, I thought it was the Lord Yeshua reassuring me of His love for me. Several hours later I was awakened by the phone ringing to hear the news from my sister, "Mom is gone! She must have died around 10-11 p.m." After the initial shock and after I began to make the necessary phone calls to other family members, I then realized that it was not the Lord Yeshua telling me that He loved me (He does, of course and He tells me often), but that it was my Mom's way of telling me goodbye as her angel was escorting her to heaven.

That has been a comfort to me still, to know that we can say goodbye to our loved ones before we go to rest in the Lord. So, yes, there are many voices in the night and I'm glad that I heard my Mothers' last wordsl. It's comforting to know that I will see her again some day.

Bless you for starting this thread.

I think it means he was very well versed in the OT and was good at expounding them. No more, no less.

When it comes to questions like the authorship of Hebrews, where there is insufficient external or internal evidence to draw a solid conclusion, it seem to me that the best answer is that "we can only make an educated guess".

There are several plausible possibilities, none of which include Paul as the author IMO. As far as I will stick my neck out is to say that I am pretty sure that Paul didn't write it.

Apollos is certainly plausible, so is Barbabas, Clement, Aquilla/Priscilla or even a dual authorship of Barnabas/Apollos. Here is a nicely written outline by Daniel Wallace.

Hebrews: Introduction, Argument, Outline

Thanks for the link, Goey

Sorry so long have been busy working i will have some time here soon. I am visually impaired ant it takes me hours to just type one Art. sheww But i am loving our Talk here you are meek i see and i really thank you for that.

I am also glad you have a different view on things too as the bible says "IRON SHARPENS IRON" lol I will give you the documented statements on what i have as soon as i get a day off here. I did get a lot from DR.Z He is a Greek. Look up AMG Intl. I have a audio form (was Christ God) with permission to post it (from AMG) on a web site...looking forward to getting it on the Internet. You will admire it if you like Greek. We all are on different plains of understanding and I see that now after 10 Years lol lol

God bless

Hope you had a great Thanksgiving and all of the trimmings. Hopefully, you will have some time pretty soon. Do you have the capability of voice to text on your computer? If not, you should look into either buying the program or upgrading your older computer to Vista Home Premium. I saw something on there that said something about voice to text. This would help you greatly.

Blessings

Wow amazing how you differ with William Edward Jelf, Dr Z, and many more in some areas . I am forced to go with them on what they teach here.

What are they teaching? Sorry, I never even heard of them. What books do they have? I follow Mounce, this is what was taught to me by my Greek professors. A.T. Robertson, I've heard of.

Agreed we do not even need a bible to go to heaven !! (we was just looking into it) I was just showing how accurate the Greek was remember now.

Aman and HE is also could be the Subject in Verse two, glad you see this because when you get to verse three it makes the Word creator of all things :)

You will have a hard time to prove that the Subject and the Predicate CANNOT be switched in Sect b

Really? Can you prove that it can? When you translate it into English, the Nominative case comes first and then the Direct Object, sometimes a Genitive and/or Dative are inserted inbetween. But it's always in that order. Please list the text book that you're getting this idea from, page and author. I'm curious to see it.

See was Christ God audio on Sect B in Verse one. hummmm sorry but i also see this in William E Jelfs works as well . see A.T. Robersons "A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in light of Historical Research"

If you are correct, can you document WHO you get this from that we cannot switch out The Subject with the Pred. when both have a Def. Art. in the same clause. ??

The Greek is being translated into English, therefore you must abide by English Grammar as well. If you are referring to the order that the Greeks wrote, they wrote for poetry as I said before and yes sometimes in Greek, the order may come different, but you still must translate it into English and use the proper Grammar rules for our language as well. I can see that you are hung up on the Definite article, TG let me say it again, it is not the article that makes it, it is the CASE that it was written in, this is how you determine word order.

Thanks for your concern here sorry I should have said 'tov" just use to writing as it sounds. But it does say

"thee God" pointing to the Father.

Most translators do not render the article because it is a an Accusative and not the main subject noun.

Wow not what i see at all. It is very important to see this (to me). Ok i looked again here on this section rather than tell you "I" come up with all this, it would be a lie and I just learn as the Elders teach. Seems you are disagreeing with a well known scholar here

SO??? <_<

Complete Word Study New Test page #305 "thee God " in Sect B also see Was Christ God audio in Sect B

Author?? Could you type it out please?

Hay i like how we are both learning here I have no denomination I do not even go to Church at all, or fellowship (in person) with anyone so how can I push a Denom.

Am I going with a Group when The bible shows no details that "Jesus hung on a Cross with a cross beam" in it (that i see)??

Could it be so if I use Dr Lamsa, Taz Russel, Dr Wierwill, and many more. These cult like leaders I use there works to look at another view point. I am open here very much and I see a lot of people doing a lot of stuff to 'not accept Christ as God". And when I thought Christ was just a a Creature I could say the same about guys like me lol lol So we are forced to go with truth if we want it. Here is what I take as truth

"the Word has always been toward The Father" And the Greek proves it lock stock and barrel.

"Pros" is rendered with the nearest noun and it is the Accusative, therefore you must translate it accordingly. The proper preposition of "Pros" can be translated as such:

Genitive of Advantage = "IN"

Locative of Place = "AT"

Adverbial Accus. of Measure = "WITH"

Accus. of Purpose = "SO THAT, FOR THE PURPOSE OF

Accus. of Comparison = "WITH"

Accus of Relationship = "WITH, AGAINST"

There are TWO possible options (please don't choose another just to be contrary ) and that is Comparison or Relationship, which should be translated as "WITH" not TOWARD as you list it.

We are just going to spin our wheels unless you start documenting stuff, by well known and reliable scholars, so i could examine them. Otherwise i am like you and need statements here.

Do you have any AT Roberson, or Jelfs works, What about Dr Z you should have him.

I have Mounce, Mantey. Never heard of Dr. Z or Jelfs. You need to document too, just don't list a book and a page # that I have no access to, type it out or something or if there's an online version or something....

GOD BLESS YOU

I thought that God did have a problem with Solomon's lifestyle.

OTOH - there is a difference between being the King of a nation and being a minister.

In the first testamental period, there were two people that had the Holy Spirit, i.e. The King and The Prophet.

So both were God's ministers to do good to the people and to teach God's laws so that God could bless

the nation.

That was Dragnet, not Hawaii 5-0.

And it's not illegal to solicit donations.

It's the morals in question.

Oh, Well..........I don't watch a whole lotta tv.

So Meyer gives a sermon for "giving". Giving to whom? Suprise ! Give to Joyce of course. Then shes says that sowing and reaping is a "law" puting it in the same category as the 10 commandments - law. Then she says that stingy people are unhappy - all of this implying that if you don't give you are not only breaking a law, you are stingy and unhappy. So "give your best offereing she says". Then after telling them that they would be breaking a law and will be unhappy if they don't give ( to her), by playing on the fears which she created, she attempts to get someone to write a check for tens of thousands of dollars. Hey, worth a shot huh?

Typical Word-Faith sermon. However, a once sentence statement (man in jeans) cannot honestly be construed as the focus. It is a small part of the context. More was written about the sermon, which you conveniently gloss over. I take it that you must believe in that that twisted word-faith swill?

The journalist does not need to use any special tacticts other than stating simple facts. The con job is self-evident even if the statements about the man in jeans and the woman in the wheelchair were completly ommited from the article. But, it seems if it were up to you, you would supress or alter the facts by ommission to pain your lady in a more positive light . Leave out the fact that someone is in a wheelchair, or that a man happens to be weaing jeans. God forbid, that someone might accidentally get the wrong impression! You focus on trivial facts such as the man in jeans or the lady in a wheelchair in your zeal to portray the journalist as evil, while you ignore or condone the spiritual and monetary con job going on.

I totally disagree that "It's between her and the Lord and no one else" . That kind of thinking suggest that we should turn a blind eye to evil and injustice. Would you defend a murderer in the same manner? -- A rapist? -- A burglar? -- A shoplifter? -- A crooked politician? - Corporate fraud? --- Oh, that's beween them and God - none ya business!

Or........ are only women preachers that bilk their flocks exempt?

But I did notice Goey that you LEFT OUT and glossed over my statement about the journalist being fair...if you're going to have a balanced unbiased article, then list both or all types of people. However, if the person who gathered all of these snippets together in one place for the reading public's enjoyment, if they lifted it out of the original context then the yellow journalism award goes to that person. Despite what you may think, when you present a biased one-sided report it is called yellow journalism. Journalists know full well how to inflame the public by what they write, especially if they've been at it for a long time.

As far as some of the other evildoers you mention, crooked politician...no the journalists flame them too. Whatever happened to unbiased reporting...like the opening line of Hawaii 5-0 - "Just the facts, Ma'am!"

Yes, indeed, God Forbid, Goey that someone might be flaming someone without warrant, without knowing the true facts! If you think that Joyce Meyers is bilking the public...most people have a telephone and know how to dial 9-1-1. Do avail yourself of every legal injunction that you and your lawyers can dream up. Instead of just flaming her...you just might win your case.

In the Complete Word study New Testament With Greek Parallel PG 865 #44

So English is not going to carry what is here unless you add words.

I asked myself a question if the "Word is God" then when is God not eternal"

Yes, it does, you translate it with the word "was." You're making it more difficult than it need be.

Look again at this tense on the word "een" in JN 1:1

In fact is is said to be derived from the word "EIMI" in the I AM.

This is not how I understand it. The Def Art. has nothing to do with a word being a noun or a verb, the Art. makes the Subject sometimes. But not always because when the Subject and predicate both have Def. Art. they are interchangeable. look at our verse here.

The subject in 1:1a,b,c is "Ho logos" The Word.

JN 1:1B

"kia ho logos een pros ton theon " we can switch out the subject with the predicate here. "kia ton theon een ho logos"

NO, YOU CAN'T!Ho Logos is in the nominative and therefore it is the subject. Period. You cannot switch it around to suit you or any denominational leanings. "Tov Theon" is in the Accusative and therefore it is THE DIRECT OBJECT.Period!

The Def. Art does not determine a noun

Further look here in sect C

"kia theos een ho logos"

Is not 'theos' God. Is he not a noun this section, where is the ART. here??

Yes, theos is a noun. The article is left out (my mistake earilier) because John is highlighting Ho logos which is the subject of 1:1c. Just because theos comes first in the Greek wording does not make it the subject. The nominative is the subject and if you look carefully, The Word is in the nom. case in all three sections.

Look the ART. modifies a noun lets look again here in Sect B

"and the Word was toward the God"

This word 'theon" has a ART. before it, and therefore modifies "theon" it is 'ton theon" or, "tou theou".

It is not "Tou theou" elsewise God would have had John write it as such. I cannot CAUTION you enough to not attempt to change the Greek so that it reads the way that you want it to read.

The Bible is saying in Sect b: "GOD" no, "a God" no, but "THEE God", Yes

Because the Word (logos) is not "Thee God" in this Section, but the Word (logos) is God in sect C. So "tou" [Art.] is needed for the word to Fit with no contradictions. The word is saying to me here in a paraphrase:

"and the Word has always been toward the Father"

The correct trans: "and the Word was with God." Again, it is not "tou", it is "ton" in the accusative, not the genitive.

Now It would be wise to look at this too:

"when a word does not have a DEF Art.in front of it, it brings forth the person or thing spoken about, general character".

This is why in section C, the logos is 'theos", not "ton theon". Here we see "theos" meaning "God in his fullness"

And from my position I see God in his fullness means "Father Son Spirit" these all three make up 'theos"/"elohim"

Just what I see here.

Glad we brought this out to look at Def. Art. a bit and wow I do know it takes a very skilled Grammarian here and I take a back seat and learn, as the elders of the holy Catholic [universial] Church teaches.

So true and you know what here it does even more. Changes form to indicate distinctions in case, tense, mood, number, voice, and others

in its pronouns, they change form to show whether they are used as subjects, this Dialect is very complex.

Hay God bless

You should look in your Greek closer, I see several problems. You said "Straight from the Greek" Imposable you left out a Def. Art. before the word "theon" in Sect b. And added another "the" in Sect A, and scrambled up

Sect. C.

When you are trans, you don't need to trans every article, otherwise it would become redundant in the English. Greek grammar requires that all nouns have an article before it, this is what provides the inflection within the language. The article and the noun must agree in tense, mood and gender. If you translated every single article it would be so boring you wouldn't be able to stand to read it in the English.

Ex: In (article added for clarity here) "the" beginning was THE word, and THE word was with THE God, and THE word was God.

Other verses are even worse than this one if you trans every article into English. Therefore, sometimes for clarity they are left out. It doesn't mean that you are ignoring them.

1) where is your word support for "the" in "in beginning" ?

clarity in the English. See above.

2) Why did you leave out the word "the" in " with THE God" ?

I just covered that above. Putting it into English is redundant, this is why it is left out by translators.

3) Why did you scramble up the words [you quoted] "and the Word was God" ?

They are not scrambled. "logos" has the article, while "theos" does not. Therefore, it is the primary noun and must come first in the trans.

4) Why did you put the word "een" [has always been] in the past tense ?

I didn't, John did via the HS. "nv (AIN)" is an imperfect active indicative 3rd sing. It is trans as a past tense without any definitive time. If the word had a definitive time then you would trans as "I was eating...WHEN" This would put a time marker on the word. Imperfect tense has no time markers. It only describes something that happened but doesn't tell you when."

If it is so easy why add, and scramble, and subtract, place in the wrong case, these words ??

Add and subtract for clarity on the articles. The Greek language because of its beauty and tendencies toward poetry often times required the so-called scrambling of it's words by its writers. The Greeks placed a weighty importance on the "hearing" of their language and so they would "scramble" if you will the words. They sometimes also put the most important aspect at the back of a sentence for "effect". Here, the last two words are THE WORD. When you know that John was arguing against gnosticism all of this makes sense.

here it is "from the Greek" putting "een" in the present tense, because we see it in past with your rendering and it is not either past or present in Greek.

In Beginning is the Word and the Word is with the God and God is the Word

This makes as much science as putting that word "een" in the past to me.

I'm going down your post, again read above. Imperfect is a "past". There is no such tense in the Greek that leaves it nebulous as to present and/or past. The Greek is a highly inflected language and it will either be in the present, past, future, perfect, pluperfect etc.

the reason this is so important because the inspired Dialect of the NT. is pure and spotless "Holy" "ios". in Set C, it makes the Word a Person. Therefore it is not a "written word" or a "word of speech", but "a person". Some sects has tried to dance around this for years and the word is very clear that "ho logos" in JN 1 is a person, the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. But this is another debate.

This verse "paraphrased" to ENG for a clear understanding of what is seen in the Greek, therefore It is not a Translation at all.

paraphrased would be something like this: "In the beginning was Jesus Christ and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God." This is a paraphrase where you completely add entirely new words not in the Greek to make your point.

"BEFORE ANY BEGINNING HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE WORD AND THE WORD HAS ALWAYS BEEN WITH THEE GOD AND GOD HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE WORD THIS PERSON HAS ALWAYS BEEN IN THE BEGINNING WITH THEE GOD."

Just what I see here. look at your Greek in this Verse, see what is going on here. You are a wise man and I really enjoy talking to you, Hope to hear form you after the Holidays. You should look this up in the Greek.

I know we got off topic here sorry :(

I did look at my Greek in my UBS4 edition, and I translated it the way it should be translated.

PS, I'm a woman.

God Bless

BrideofJC posted: No, I don't know what's in her heart. But I do know about how much money her and her family are taking out of the ministry. And by several accounts, in her conferences, more time is spent pitching/selling books & tapes and asking for money than is spent actually teaching/preaching. One does not have to see directly into the heart to understand a big focus in her "ministry" .

On the other hand, YOU seem to know what's in folks hearts when they question the legality, ethics and morality of TV ministers making huge personal profits by selling what they say is the Word of God. You say that those that raise concerns and questions have a "spirit of jealousy". Isn't that the Lord's Domain? You exempt yourself of course. Not surprising.

I looked several times. It's simply not there. Your inference is bogus and unrelated to the actual content of the article. The fact that you made the inference and conjured up images of a poor, destitute, street woman in your mind is telling.

The sentene before spoke of a middle aged man in "worn jeans". Does that neccessisarily mean the man couldnt afford new jeans? No, Lot of people, myself included, prefer to wear worn jeans. We can ever buy the pre-worn. It seems to me that if the writer of the article can describe a man in "worn jeans", then that writer, if a "yellow journalist" would have been much more descriptive of the woman in the wheelchair. The writer was not.

I challenge you to make an intelligent and cogent argument showing how and where that article implied or suggested that the lady in the wheelchair was either poor, unable to pay her bills, or living on the streets as you inferred. Make your case. Don't just declare it by fiat.

Im betting that you won't do it becasue you can't do it.

It seems your writing here is more "yellow" (biased) than journalist you accuse of such.

Meyer then delivered her sermon for giving. She told them that some Christians are worried that if they give it all, they will end up with nothing. If they give, she said, they can expect much more in return.

“Sowing and reaping is a law,” Meyer told the Buffalo audience. “If you sow, you will reap. I believe stingy people are very unhappy people. I want you to give your best offering. I believe one person could write one check to cover all of the expenses of this one conference.”

A middle-aged man wearing worn jeans pulled a wad of $20 bills from his pocket and placed them in an offering envelope. An elderly woman in a wheelchair wrote out a check for $100.

Right here is what I was speaking about. "Meyer delivers sermon...(1 snippet)" "Sowing and reaping...one person could cover expenses....(2nd snippet)" Now here they focus on middle aged man (who cares what age they are?) and no less he's wearing worn jeans (again, whether you choose to buy worn jeans or they simply wore out, this journalist is attempting to highlight and make it seem that this man (whether he can or not isn't the point) is giving money to Joyce when perhaps he should be saving for retirement and buying himself new clothes. Next part of the same snippet, "an elderly woman" (again why highlight the age? Part of setting it up to look bad for Joyce. She's conning the middle aged and the elderly into giving her money. No, once again the inference is obvious. This journalist knows the right tactics to color his target. If the journalist was going to be fair about the whole thing...leave out the age and their dress OR also point out in your article the rich executive businesswoman wearing 5th avenue clothing and impeccably coifed hair etc etc. No, my argument was just fine, you just simply don't want to admit it.

If you don't like Joyce...don't watch her or bother to follow her. I do the same on my TV...if I don't like the program, I click my remote to another channel. All done...no more problem. Whether or not Joyce has money or not, I'm not the one who will stand and be judged because of her...she'll have to stand there herself. Perhaps, she is doing the Lord's will. I don't know. That's between her and the Lord and no one else.

You're contradicting yourself, darlin'. :)

You said Jesus never reproved anyone for calling him rabbi and I showed you where he did. Not only that, he put us all on the same level and part of one whole - each one equally important.

Regarding pleas for money - the folks I know who are genuinely interested in helping folks offer something of value - I see nothing of value on your site - just pleas for money and a book for sale. Given the condescending attitude with which you post here, I tend to think that your book is no value either.

If you really want to help folks - why not donate your time? There are plenty of organizations that could use some help - the last thing we need is yet another ministry. I have several lay ministers in my family. They never asked for offerings or money and they have never lived off the tithes of their respective churches. So don't tell me you need to ask for money, honey. I know true ministers don't - they don't need to.

Give and it shall be given to you .... what are you giving, other than threats of hell, condemnation and being spit out of some guy's mouth? Is that really how one brings a person to the lord? That's behavior your god approves of?

No thanks. I'll take my chances.

Threats of hell? Condemnation? Where did I post that? Being spit out of The Lord's mouth was another poster's comment regarding Joyce. I simply reminded him that it might be him and not Joyce. Please read more carefully. I do donate my time.

Goey: First of all, Meyer did not choose to release the records. They only became public records after she sued to regain tax exempt status. Then after the records became public and her salary known, she took a large cut in salary due to the pressure of public opinion. my guess is for appearance sake. However, at the same time she took the pay cut, she started collecting huge royalties from the sale of her books and tapes, basically bringing her personal income back up close to the 900K per year range.

[/b]

Goey: You have no clue at all what anyone is or is not willing to work for or what their calling may or may not be. All were not "called" to be mnisters that live a lavish lifestyle made possible by the tithes and donations of their "flock". Some have certainly been called to other things, so it is errant and might I say unthinking to assume that because they are not striving to run a world wide ministry that they are "inactive" or "unwilling" or have a spirit of jealousy.

There are other Christian activities beside being a rich mass media "minister", many of which may be even more noble. So it does not necessarily follow that inactivity/ jealously is the cause of the alleged "flame". Have you ever actually considered that it may not please God for someone to become weathy by selling his Word for personal gain? And that it may be even more unpleasing to sell something other than his Word in His name for personal profit? Or does pleasing God even matter to you as long as the coffers and pews are full and the money is rolling in?

I recall a verse that says something like: Freely you have received so also give freely. It seems that modern Christianity has become so twisted that many now believe the opposite. Something like: Pay and make 'em pay and make a nice profit while you're at it .

If your ministry is of God and you are truly called, I wish you well and Godspeed. However if you seek to gain personal wealth from your ministry and /or knowlgly teach something other than God's Word to itching ears, I hope your ministy fails miserably and God deals with you justly.

But you have just made my point for me. Do you know what is in Joyce Meyers' heart? Isn't that the Lord's domain? And yes, when people wantonly flame someone because they have a successful ministry...where is their heart. Why don't they just say, God Bless, I hope you're really doing the work of the Lord, and then just leave it at that.

Kinda like that even today, people are still flaming Swaggart...what is it....20 years later for his sins? If only we could know what these people's sins were as well. Swaggart had the misfortune of being in the public eye. So does Joyce.

This is laughable. I read the article. This is what was stated:

"A middle-aged man wearing worn jeans pulled a wad of $20 bills from his pocket and placed them in an offering envelope. An elderly woman in a wheelchair wrote out a check for $100."

Nowhere is there anything that assumes or implies that the lady was poor, unable to pay her bills, or living on the street. It was a simple statement of fact of what was observed. " A lady in a wheelchair worote out a check for $100." That's it, nothing more.

A statement cannot make an inferrence. By definition the "inferrence" is made by by the person hearing the statement. A statement can only imply something. You apparantly don't understand the difference between imply and infer. (Critical Thinking 101). What seems to have happened is that YOU inferred an implication based upon nothing at all, except possibly your own zeal to errantly or falsely portray a simple statement of fact as "yellow journalism".

This is a classic example of intellectual dishonesty or errant logic. Whether intentionally dishonest or not, only you would know.

Look at the other snippets surrounding that....i.e. (paraphrase) Joyce gets rich while those who are her donors basically get poorer and poorer. No the inference was correct. I didn't lift it out of its context.

Ummmm, Janice, where did you get ordained and what Bible are you using? Is it missing scriptures? :unsure: And why do none of your cohorts want to be associated with your website?

Matthew 23 addresses this:

v5 - But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,

v6 - And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,

v7 - And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.

v8 - But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, [even] Christ; and all ye are brethren.

v.10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, [even] Christ.

Rabbi simply is for those in that day and today for that matter of someone who is learned in the Scriptures. This is what Master means as well in the Greek. Kurios is used for Master/Lord which means obviously that they are over you, most likely in training, authority etc etc.

My opinion.

The health and wealth ministries use their wealth and good health and big numbers as proof that they are the right way. But since not everyone winds up healthy and or wealthy, then they have to have plan B--"That person is not walking right in their believing." Condemnation moves in, compassion goes out the window. People who are poor or ill deserve it due to their lack of faith etc.

People start pretending they have health and wealth they don't really have. Appearance--great clothes, cars etc, becomes important. Charitable causes then suffer, because followers are spending tons to keep up with the Jones Believers. Then they can no longer have real friends, because a friend will know the truth...so they have to have a pedestal of godly leadership authority to stand upon, where they breathe higher aire then the rest of the peons...

Brides website had more pleas for money than does my writing business website. I just have a sale page link!

I believe there are two links the last time I looked. Asking for prayer, volunteers, etc offends you. I believe then you know the choices available.....

Have you ever met the Lord brideofjc?

If you haven't then how could you make him Lord.

Your idea of who you think he is may differ greatly from who is.

Try Romans 10:9-10, that will start you, the HS then comes to reside and you meet the

Lord on a very personal basis. Hope you have.

God is not about money...duh....

or is that doh..lol...doe ......dough.....

Really? Perhaps you should check out how many times money is referenced in the Bible,

both good and bad.

As I said to Belle, if you have some new and improved ideas on how to run a charity

without money, do tell!

quote( Bride)

Again, how do you know they will be spit out? What if you are? My Bible says that the ones that will be spit out are the Christians who are lukewarm. What are you doing for the Lord, if I may ask?

Wow, your God is going to spit out his own family members? Niiice.

And people don't get why the wicked unbelievers don't see the all powerful love of God.

Please see Revelation 3, but if you're burning hot for the Lord there is no worry, eh?

Seems to me that having enough non-profit dollars to purchase a multi-million dollar compound means someone has been made merchandise of..... seems to be Janice's goal, too, especially since she's got pleas for donations or purchases of her book on every page of her website, yet no teachings or other information. <_<

Well, Belle, then you must tell me which field that God is raining down pennies from heaven and I'll go there. I do not know of any charity that runs on air. But perhaps you have some new and improved ideas for those attempting to serve the Lord Jesus Christ.

Heck, even on Dot's thread in the Open section one woman says Joyce is her "Mother in the word" - gag me! -

There's plenty in the Bible that warns of people like this for those who want to see it.

This is from only five days ago:

Sounds to me like she's way beyond "non profit" status and can afford to pay taxes and should be paying taxes. Imagine how many government programs could benefit from the taxes on her business.