What constitutes matters of Brotherhood and Fellowship?

That is the reason i asked for a specific verse regarding birthdays. And since there are numerous ways to celebrate birthdays, the broad categorical denunciation of all birthday celebrations is simply misguded.Mardigras and halloween are self explanatory for their purposes I agree, that is why he accepted the Magi's worship regarding his birthThen you should ask yourself, why am I buying and eating this meat. Is it because it was offered to idols or am I worshipping with it and eating it to worship the idol as well, NO. My purpose is different, mine is to provide food for myself and my family celebrating a birthday DOES NOT have to be associated with Pagan Gods and religions, or worship of the same, even if I am using some item that they once used You cant be serious by implying that you believe the word BIRTHDAY means, wishes, cakes, candles, etc. Peg, the word birthday means 'day of your birth'Yes, they, (the magi)in their own way were celebrating the DAY this king was BORN, whether it was 2 years later or on that very dayListen Peg, it is very hard for all of us to remove all of the things we use today that were once associated with Pagan Gods. Let me ask you, do you use the words Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, thursday, Friday, Saturnday, and SUNDAY. YOU DO REALIZE THESE CAME FROM PAGAN GOD WORSHIP , correct?Normally as with birthdays the intent and purpose is waht matters Simply put the magi's visit was both a visit to celebrate him as king and the day of his birth as a king. They did this with gifts and there is no indication God was dissatified with it Now thats a riot Peg. I wont mess with that one. You sound like Archie Bunker. The other day, when in a discussion with Meathead, he said"listen meathead, what the Supreme court has to say, has nothing to do with the law" As with most error today, it is executed with the best of intent. this is very admirable, even if misguided. Im sure the Lord does not hold this inconsistency against you, as neither do I make it a matter of fellowshipI will give you one thing, you do get down to the specifics, especially distinquishing between the gift and whether it is wrapped in chritsmas paper.What about bumping up against or accidently rubbing against the tree? No Im just kidding ofcourse. I hope you take that in the same way it was offered, in fun With regard to 1 Cor 8, I agree, he was talking about a principle. The principle simply is, that I am not applying the day of someones birth, with a Pagan God, I am not worshipping a Pagan Gods birthday, I am celebrating a childs birth, for that reason only, to which there seems to be no aversion or commandment, not to do so in scriptureWhy would the angel tell the sheperds that this day in bethlehem, to you a Savior is born, if he did not want them to celebrate that event? I couldnt agree more. However, be very careful that your involvement in practices, which you deem as Pagan and unacceptable to God are not compromised by rationalization and a desire to not offend your family and friends This gets really close to splitting hairs concerning Pagan practices and your aversion to them. So the turkey is there, what is the purpose for the turkey being there, (its to celebrate Christmas)and are you technically involved or associated with a practice in that instant, that your really should not be.Are you rationalizing your behavior, when at other times, condeming the practice of Christmas. You seem to be getting dangerously closeEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

Ill repeat this one more time. If one celebrates the 'Day of their birth', not in connection with any pagan God or Pagan cerimony, there is simply nothing UNSCRIPTURAL about that practice.The angel gave instruction to the sheperds to celebrate the birth of Jesus. If there was to be no celebration, there would be no reason to announce his birth.You have mistakenly confused to two ideas that dont apply to eachother EXCLUSIVELY. you have carried the principle to farBirthdays are not worship I agree Peg and that is my point. Had we not had this instruction by Paul, JWs, today would be instructing us that this turkey was non consumable due to the fact that it was offered to idols in a pagan cerimonyYou are the modern day people Paul was speaking to back then. Dont you get that?Because there are no instructions on birthdays one way or another in scripture, youve taken the course that those people back then had taken on eating of meat offered to idols.If there was a verse by Paul or Christ saying it was ok to celebrate a birhtday as long as it was not done in connection with Pagan cerimonies, you would then jump on that ban wagonYou are the very people he is instructing?If we were to take the time and could lay it all out. It would be to easy to demonstrate that we as modern people use and apply so many things today that were once a part of pagan practicesThe practices that God condemed had mostly to do with what they did as and in worship, for worship1 Cor 10Look at the first three words Peg in this passage. "Everything is permissible", unless it directly violates scripture, as we know. We do have certain freedoms that the old Law did not allow Peg. Now read the whole passage and apply it to Christmas and birthdaysYour principles are admirable but misguided and unscripturalEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

From the scriptures, brother or sister (whichever you are), not from the encycplopedia, which may echo you beliefIt is unscriptural if you are using unscriptural practices to particiapate in anything, Pagan or otherwise Celebrating ones birthday is not unscriptural or pagan, even if people once used the same symbols and items. I am not using the items for the sick teisted purpose they did. Simply provide the verse which says that it isPlease explain to me what constitues a valid birthday celebration and an invalid, unscriptural one. If it is unscriptural, 9from the NT), your task should be relatively simple, correct? Wrong again. Paul was speaking to Gentile and Jewish Christians, which were no longer under the law
and this is the very point he is trying to demonstrate. we now have have certain liberties that we did not once have, BUT DONT ABUSE THEMHe most certainly was refering to partaking part in pagan practices, by indicating that the meat that was (ONCE)offered to Pagan Gods, was ok to consume, if you were not using ot for that purpose. They thought they were participating by eating and Paul was saying , no your not Peg try and understand Pauls import. Its not a Pagan practice, if you are not doing it for that reason. What is your intent, Paul says. I could only participate in a Pagan practice today, if that was my direct intent or I broke a moral law of the NT in doing anything Pagan or otherwise.Otherwise its a harmless action, BUT DONT ABUSE IT.People shaved their heads for worship to Pagan Gods, Paul shaved and sanctified himself for a different God and different reasons. Are Pauls actions pagan, because he shaved his head here or there, for ritual reasonsActs 18:18personally I woudnt shave my head for any reason, because Im ugly enough with hair, Id hate to see what Id look like without it.The people of that day (early christians) thought that even eating the meat was a participation in those customs and actions. Paul says no no, what is the intent behind your actions?
EAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

To Peg Jaywill and ICANT I will try and get back in here as quickly as I can, I am very busy today and tommorrow, I will try and keep up by reading where we are at. see you in a few

Your one heavy dude man, your trippin me out up in this mug. Welcome with that heavy stuff and wow.EAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

Is this an indirect implication regarding my and the Chruch of Christs beliefs regarding Baptism, given what you said above yeah thats where we are at in this thread and I thnk you for following along. I hadnt seen you for a while on a post, thoght you had left us. Your imput is always insightfulEAM

No Im saying its ok to use the same symbols, if you ARE NOT participating in a Pagan cerimony or worship of Pagan Gods. Now watch, if the symbol doesnt violate a moral principle set out in the NTPagan cerimonies and the symbols had to do with the worship of their Gods. The symbol (meat or candles) Paul says are not evil in and of themselves, if used for the right purposes. In this instance, not to worship false Gods, talk to the dead, fornication, prostitution in temples, etc, etc, etc Niether am IWe have refined this portionof the discussion down to a fine point, nearly a logical empass.If indeed it is your belief that we must avoid all practices that concernor involve themselves with Pagan practices, then that would include today as well. how many things do we as modern humans today (Christians) that imulate or involve the USAGE AND PRACTICE, where the same things are used in modern pagan practices.This is not what the Apostle had in mind, look at the verse closely On the contrary, the flavor of Pauls statement is not that it is wrong, but that we should not use our LIBERTY as a weapon. or that we should not think of and use the symbols for those reasons.His deeper implication is that we should avoid these practices because they emulate these people and their practices, inclusing their symbols, not that the symbols are evil in and of themselves.We are at a time removed from such practices and they dont carry the same application or meaning as they once did. We really dont have to worry about the eating of any meat offered to idols, therefore the reference does not have to do with what is right or wrong stricly, but what influence it would have on the modern day christianity.Likewise, birthday celebrations dont have the same meaning as they once did, our purpoese are different and they violate no moral principle of the NT. Since celebrating birthdays was never wrong in the first place and it was avoided because of its conotations,we are in no harm for this very reasonToday we have adopted another practice of the same form. Once while at a youth rally, I saw a young man with a tee shirt on that that said "Air Jesus", a clear refernce to Michael Jordan. it had Jesus flying through the air with his right hand streched out.Now Im sure MJ is as good a person you would want to meet, but does this mean we have to adopt and incoorperate things of the world to get our point across.MJ is not wrong and basketball is not wrong. But is certainly wrong to equate or reduce Christ or God with some modern day trivialityThis is what Paul was talking aboutIf you wish to eat the meat, do it with the understanding that your brother may be offended. If that is the case then dont eat it, because its not that big of a deal. because there is nothing wrong with meat or the birthdayBesides this you keep refernceing BIRTHDAYS, but have not YET provided one reference in SCRIPTURE or even a reference in Pagan practices and their usage of those symbols or what they were used for. Perhaps you could provide that and what they did in this connectionI think it is perfectly alright for you to adopt such a belief concerning these things. The real question would be would you make it a matter of fellowship if others did notEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

Ive gathered the flavor in the preceeding posts on what you are regarding as Church. however, let me clarify that you believe a person can be excommunicated for moral or doctrinal reasons but not at the same time be out of favor or fellowship from God. If I am incorrect please correct me.Isnt it actually God doing the disfellowshiping and not usSince God has inspired his word and it is direct revelation from him to us regarding his principles, would you still regard this as man disfellowshiping man, or God doing this through his word.You are ocrrect man does not have this authority, but wouldnt you say he has empowered us to judge others through his word. Not that we are judging them but the Word does."Judge not according to appearance BUT JUDGE RIGHTEOUS JUDGEMENT" We would do this by his word"If we sin willfully after we have recieved a knowledge of the TRUTH, there remains, NO MORE A SACRIFICE FOR SIN"IF WE (Christians) walk in the light as he is in the light WE HAVE FELLOWSHIP one with another and the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin."Would not the opposite be true, if we do not walk in the light and we sin willfully and continuously, a lose of fellowship with God?Im certainly not trying to be judgemental here, just a few thoughtsIf I missed what you said please correct me.I guess I should have clarified in the OP and I did not, that what I meant by fellowship was not only man to man, brother to brother, but fellowship with God and the things he deems as necessary to maintain that fellowship. Also what reasons we could cite doctrinally that would cause us to remove that fellowship, that is considering him or her wayward or backslidden.Thanks as alwaysEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

hello and welcome. And I hope you are serious. You may have to get serious about debate if you wish to stay here, because some of us are quite serious about Jesus being God and most of us try and be very specific and accurate both with logic and information.Its a trademark of this websiteEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

Im afraid it is, as i will demonstrate as we go along. I am confident however that we can find common groundI was hoping you and I could go through the whole process on this website and never disagree on one single thingWell it probably doesnt matter between us since we are brothers any how. but it certainly matters as to the false doctrine to which that involves and its implications twords people Those are scary words and scary thoughts arent theyIll start a reply to your last post as soon as possibleEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

lets start he Jayswill. i think you are probably a very loving and consilliatory person. You want and hope for the best in things and people. So its no doubt that you have adopted this calvanistic teaching for that very reason.Ive often said its easier to refute Atheistic and Catholic doctrine than it is to refute Calvinism, becasue Calvinism gets real close to t he truth and is almost indistinquishable from it, unless you have been trained to recognize its weaknessesFor example in 1 cor 5:5 in should be easy enough to see that this is the purpose, that you turn one over to Satan, not that that will always be the result. Your reading into the verse something you as a very good person wants to see happenSecondly, you are correct in assuming he did not become unborn as you put it. This why nothing is required but repentance, not rebaptism or being born again, so to speak.He is an erring child of God Everything relates to redemption. One is either in a correct relationship with God or he is not. A person certainly has every opportunity in this lifetime to correct or mend their behavior, but there is a sin UNTO DEATH. There is no reason to believe this relates only to non-believersNow a person certainly has unforgiven sin and unconfessed sin. But as we know this is taken care of if we are doing our best to maintain a relationship with Christ. If however one WILFULLY AND KNOWINGLY ignores what they know to be true, "Him that knoweth to good and doeth it not it is sin""For if we sin wilfully after we have recieved a knowledge of the truth, THERE REAMINS NO MORE A SACRIFICE FOR SIN"There is no reason to believe this applies to only non Christians, when this writer and so many others speak to Christians in the same mannerThe scriptures make a clear distinction between unconfessed sin and wilfull deliberate sin its not necessary for Christ to die again for a person that is already his child. repentance as in the Prodigal is all that is requiredHere is the problem you have with that manner of thinking. You and no Calvanist can provide me with any scripture, that says or implies that WE OURSELVES AS CHRISTIANS AND FREE THINKING PERSONS cannot remove ourselves from that status by wilfull disobedienceIn fact that is what the scriptures directly state time and time again1 John 5 here a clear distinction is made between unconfessed sin and wilfull unrepentant sin of the brother. That sin even by a brother can and has lead up even to death. he is not here speaking about non-christiansThe opposite would be ridiculous. To say that God would maintain and accept our wilfull disobedience in direct oppositon to his will, knowingly and usher us into heaven or into his grace is simply beyond reason. Again there is clear distinction between unconfessed, omission and wilfull disobedienceNor am I implying that a person is unborn or can be born again. The prodigal amde a choice to come back. In fact it could have been just the opposite, he could have stayed and ided in that conditionThe indirect implication and logical conclusion of the doctrine of ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED, regardless of how one acts, even unto death, implies that God ackowledges and accepts wilfull sin, especially from his childrenWell start here, I hope I havent made you angry already, I know that temper of yours, ha haEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

sure he did you just werent paying attention. Mark 16:16. He that is believes and is Baptized SHALL be saved, he that believeth not is condemned.If you dont do these things what would the opposite , you will not be saved.Belief is a precondition to baptism, the proper candadate for Baptism to BE VALID IS ONE THAT BELIEVES. If the person does not believe, dunking someone in water is not baptism and not valid. This why Christ left baptism off of the latter part of the statement.Question. is it necessary to believe to be properly baptized, Yes or NoQuestion. If a person is dunked in water not believing Christ, does this constitute a scriptural baptism in Christ?Question. Can a person obey christ and be saved in Mark 16:16 without believing and being baptized?You know you ole Calvinist cannot stand against us Campblites, ha haYou should have paid closer attention to his argument, Brother AIll get to the theif and the rest later It is you you ole calvinist that is subtracting form Gods word, ha ha, just alittle fun there, but you are indeed subtracting form his wordEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

He meant that on one or anything BUT YOURSELF AND YOUR FREWILL could take this gift away from you, but you can No there is not but you can be taken away by the judge and finally executed out of their control, while still there son, correctWhen did you cease to be their son, even by the sin unto death. Even in death you are still their dead sonEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

You are correct brother jaywill, but let us get through this preliminary issues, then we will tackel your much deeper ones. You bring up some interesting points that needs addressingIll get to your latest post as quickly as possibleI was joking about your temper, by the wayEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

In the first part of the verse you ole Calvinist you. Belief proceeds baptism, but Baptism is clearly a part of the requirements set out by Christ here in this verse. baptism, confession and repentance are all a part of the belief or faith process, they are not seperate from it, there a part of itBaptism, confession and repentance are AN ACT OF FAITH OR BELIEF. Its all the same ICANT, with faith and belief as its sourceAgain it would make no sense to repeat baptism in the second half of the statement if someone doesnt believe in the first place.I guess he thought people would be smart enough to see that, I guess not. Ha HaLet me try it with illustration, Ill move real slow (ha ha again).if I said to you ICANT, drive by my house and take me to the store and Ill give you ten dollars and then followed it by saying, but if you dont come pick me up I will not give you ten dollars.Now, do I need to be redundant and say both phrases, If you dont come pick me up AND YOU DONT DRIVE ME TO THE STORE, I will not give you ten dollars. It should be obvious that if you are not coming by, you are certainly not going to drive me to the store.The passage is the same sort of illustrationThe word AND in the sentence is a coordinating conjunction. The two items belief and baptism bring about salvation. Actually God does, but this is the method he has chosenthus peter told the People on the day of pentecost the very same thing. "Repent and be baptized in order to recieve remission of sins". Acts 2:38 Two conditions that bring about salvation or forgiveness of sinsIf it is a requirement in scripture to be baptized and other verses tell us what it is for, salvation and forgiveness of sins Acts 2:38,Are you going to ignore the pattern the Apostles set outAre you going to cherry pick scripture and ignore all it has to say about the purpose of Baptism?
EAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.