[BillSPrestonEsq]

Yeah, Saul took a dump, how david described maleness, what the moabites thought Eglon was doing...

[Lightknight]

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

Yeah, Saul took a dump, how david described maleness, what the moabites thought Eglon was doing...

... but not on a toilet!!!

[Humility]

as long as it's not in the sanctuary

it'd be noisy...during the sermon.

[Lightknight]

I did find the verse that the person before was speaking of. It did sound familiar but I seemed to remember it being in a completely different context, which it was. Fortunately I found it when studying something on communion.

1Cr 11:34 And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.

If you look at that verse without context, then what he said makes good sense. But that take becomes utter rubish if you read it AT ALL in context. Because this is the prior verse.

1Cr 11:33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.

See, taking communion unworthily had been leading to sickness and death, so Paul wanted them to wait for their brothers and sisters so that they could get themselves in the proper mindset and thus take communion worthily. This could apparently take a really long time, so if someone is starving, they should eat at home rather than speed this process up. Either way, it was a meeting TO eat. Here are the verses prior to the ones mentioned above, in case anyone is wondering where I got the "unworthily" stuff from.

1Cr 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake [it], and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
1Cr 11:25 After the same manner also [he took] the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink [it], in remembrance of me.
1Cr 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
1Cr 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink [this] cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
1Cr 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of [that] bread, and drink of [that] cup.
1Cr 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
1Cr 11:30 For this cause many [are] weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
1Cr 11:31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
1Cr 11:32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.

[Becky]

Originally Posted by Lightknight

I did find the verse that the person before was speaking of. It did sound familiar but I seemed to remember it being in a completely different context, which it was. Fortunately I found it when studying something on communion.

1Cr 11:34 And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.

If you look at that verse without context, then what he said makes good sense. But that take becomes utter rubish if you read it AT ALL in context. Because this is the prior verse.

1Cr 11:33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.

See, taking communion unworthily had been leading to sickness and death, so Paul wanted them to wait for their brothers and sisters so that they could get themselves in the proper mindset and thus take communion worthily. This could apparently take a really long time, so if someone is starving, they should eat at home rather than speed this process up. Either way, it was a meeting TO eat. Here are the verses prior to the ones mentioned above, in case anyone is wondering where I got the "unworthily" stuff from.

1Cr 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake [it], and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
1Cr 11:25 After the same manner also [he took] the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink [it], in remembrance of me.
1Cr 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
1Cr 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink [this] cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
1Cr 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of [that] bread, and drink of [that] cup.
1Cr 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
1Cr 11:30 For this cause many [are] weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
1Cr 11:31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
1Cr 11:32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.

actually, Paul was rebuking them because those who came later, did not get food to eat, because those who came first ate it all. (see verse 21) it says that one goes hungry, and the other is drunk. You can fill in the pieces and figure that those who got there first where probably the rich who did not have to stay late working. When the poor who did not have much food to bring to share anyways arived, the rich had already consumed all the food they'd brought, and all the poor had was the little they'd brought, so they went hungry. We know that they are talkinga bout those who go hungry cause they are poor because of verse 22 (...or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing?)

1. people where ariving early, some later :v. 33
2. People where going hungry : v. 21
3. The church was full of devisions : v 18
4. the poor where being humiliated and going hungry : v 22

So we see Paul did NOT tell them to wait for eachother inorder to get into some proper mind set, rather so they will show love to eachother and all will be fed. It is out of a lack of love that many where growing sick and dying, because they had devisions.

[Becky]

Originally Posted by Lightknight

Depends, I remember stocking up my youth group soda machine for years. Can't tell you how many times it helped us go on mission trips. It seems to me like the people in the temple were just trying to get rich.

you are making an assumption, can you prove your assumption is correct? I mean, where does the bible say they wheren't using the money for the temple?

Further, Saul let live many animals, live stalk, and a king that he was supose to anniolate, and he said he did it for God, to give God sacrifice.. God said Obediance is better then sacrifice.

I'm not saying i think vending matchenes aren't good.. i'm just saying we need to be more carful about claiming that. It isn't so important what our good intentions are, as it is what has God commanded.

[Lightknight]

It has two points. The physical and the spiritual. Else you are ignoring the following part.

1Cr 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of [that] bread, and drink of [that] cup.
1Cr 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
1Cr 11:30 For this cause many [are] weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
1Cr 11:31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
1Cr 11:32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.

[Lightknight]

Originally Posted by Becky

you are making an assumption, can you prove your assumption is correct? I mean, where does the bible say they wheren't using the money for the temple?

Further, Saul let live many animals, live stalk, and a king that he was supose to anniolate, and he said he did it for God, to give God sacrifice.. God said Obediance is better then sacrifice.

I'm not saying i think vending matchenes aren't good.. i'm just saying we need to be more carful about claiming that. It isn't so important what our good intentions are, as it is what has God commanded.

Because Jesus praises those who willingly give money to the church (see the widow with her mite, who Jesus praised for her amazing willingness to give all she had. Even if it was only a little it was amazing). If they were performing a public service and giving the proceeds to the temple, then they would not be considered thieves.

[PartTimeLurker]

Hey all, just popping in to throw another angle into the mix

I don't know what answer I am leaning towards with this info, or whether it even changes anything, but I was speaking to a Messianic Jewish friend who is very knowledgable in Jewish history and culture (obviously), and he pointed out to me two important things that are almost "lost in translation" in this story.

1. Most people think that the moneychangers were in the temple proper, where sacrifices were made and such. They were in fact in the outer courts, where pretty much everyone was allowed and where Peter preached after Pentecost. I'd say that that would be more akin to vending machines and bookshops in the foyer than to product placement in the sanctuary or something like that.

2. Was money changing actually unacceptable? I don't think so, because there is a lot of mention in the OT (sorry no refs. at the moment) of buying animals for sacrifice and even giving money in sacrifice, and the outer courts of the temple were obviously the place to buy and exchange money for sacrifices. It was like that from the start.

I believe that the act of money changing was not the problem, but the fact that they were theiving and ripping people off was what Jesus had a problem with. It was called a "den of theives", not a "house of commerce". It wasn't that consumerism came and corrupted everything, but that corrupt people came and used the system for dishonest gain.

As I'm sure you know, God does not have a problem with money, but He does have a *huge* problem with weighted scales and dishonest gain. The *love* of money is the root of all evil, not money itself.

Just my .02 cents anyway...

-- Nathan

[frontier]

The *Act* is not the issue but the *attitude* of doing. You are always out of context, Lightnight.

[Lightknight]

Originally Posted by frontier

The *Act* is not the issue but the *attitude* of doing. You are always out of context, Lightnight.

Considering you only have two posts, I can justifiably say that you are always misunderstanding me. Though can I assume that you have a different user account if you're willing to state that I'm always out of context?

Anyways, time to quote myself and show you how you misunderstood me.


If they were performing a public service and giving the proceeds to the "temple"

It is to be assumed that if they are just performing a public service and giving the proceeds to the temple that their hearts are in it. I think there's not a person alive who's familiar with the widow's mite who doesn't realize tht it was her heart that Jesus loved, since a widow's mite is the smallest amount a person can give. He loved her for it because she gave her all to God. Does that make better sense?

[Gandralph]

yeah that's funny lightnight but yeah that sounds kinda messed up to sell stuff in God's house but yeah i get hungry at church alot so yeah it goes both ways and i luv my dog

ok ha ha that's cool um yeah steve 562 is doing his homework

[H.M. Murdock]

Originally Posted by Lightknight

Because Jesus praises those who give money to the church (see the widow with her mite). If they were performing a public service and giving the proceeds to the temple, then they would not be considered thieves.

Those who give money to the church, or those who care about the people that together comprise the church? I find it extremely hard to swallow that Jesus should praise a man based on his financial activities.

[Lightknight]

Originally Posted by H.M. Murdock

Those who give money to the church, or those who care about the people that together comprise the church? I find it extremely hard to swallow that Jesus should praise a man based on his financial activities.

Read post 26 as an explanation of what I meant. I assumed we would all recognise the moral value of the woman giving the mite as a thing of the heart seeing as he wasn't praising her for giving a large sum of money. He's more into quality than quantity

I'll go ahead and edit that post to avoid a repeat of this.