Jonathan is telegenic and preaches at a quick clip, sometimes dressed in a chic plaid blazer or, as during a speech last fall at Liberty, while wearing black sneakers that appeared to be Allbirds, the favorite shoes of employees at Silicon Valley startups.

Allbirds?

...I will spue thee out of my mouth. Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked...

There's your problem right there...

Ernest knows. The Church is spewed (vomited) out.

And the enemies of Christ are gloating.

There's your problem right there... That’s nice to know. But the article says the the problem is: An Evangelical Battle of the Generations … And whether: To Embrace Trump or Not? What does “Ernest know” about this? Nothing, because Ernest is no longer with us – May he RIP. Dead and Buried - The Life and Sad Ending™ of Jim Varney [“Ernest”]:

Allbirds? Allbirds are really comfortable shoes that everyone in Silicon Valley is wearing. People with Allbirds tend to be techy, and are always flying drones and filming technology related reviews on YouTube. When someone wears Allbirds, people comment saying, "Dude are those Allbirds?" and they respond, "Yeah, they're so comfortable" or something like that. When you wear Allbirds, it feels like your wearing a slipper and walking on clouds. Everyone now seems to have them, and they are becoming very popular. My advice, buy a pair. ...I will spue thee out of my mouth. Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked... You are quoting Revelation 3:16 and then you say: There's your problem right there... For that to be “your” problem, we must first understand what is meant by: … … Because You Are Lukewarm I Spit You Out This verse says that if you are not fully committed to following God, you are not a Christian and God will reject you. The verse is part of the first of four visions John the Apostle will reveal in the Book of Revelations. In this vision, John saw the risen Jesus standing among seven burning lights, representing the seven churches in Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey) in the first century: Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea. Jesus tells John to deliver letters to the seven churches to encourage the churches to be faithful. This verse is part of the seventh letter, delivered to the church in Laodicea, which was the most corrupt. The people of the church in Laodicea were indifferent about whether they became better people or not because they had all they needed and wanted to be fulfilled on earth. Because of the plentiful lives they lived, the Laodiceans did not see or appreciate the importance of the poverty of their spirit. Jesus warns that He will reject those who are neutral between whether they follow God or a false god, and that there is more hope for an open enemy of God. Breaking Down the Key Parts of Revelation 3:16 #1 “So, because you are lukewarm…” Jesus was addressing this message to the church, ministers, and people, telling them that there would be more hope for a heathen than for someone who doesn’t choose whether or not to follow God. He wants people to decide whether they are with God or against God, and says that there is no excuse for being indifferent. If God is real, it is the most excellent thing. If He is not, then believing in Him is vile. We have enough information, and we should care enough for the health of our souls, to decide between the two. #2 “…neither hot nor cold…” “Hot” refers to people that follow God. “Cold” refers to those that reject God (atheists). #3 “…I am about to spit you out of my mouth.” The use of “lukewarm” and “spit you out” in this verse invokes imagery of lukewarm water turning one’s stomach and provoking vomit. Jesus is saying that lukewarm people make Him sick. By spitting those people out of His mouth, Jesus is rejecting those who do not decide whether to follow Him or reject Him. There's your problem right there. – You say. By quoting Revelation 3:16 and applying it here Jonathan Falwell – Are you then saying that since … This verse says that if you are not fully committed to following God, you are not a Christian and God will reject you. … that Jonathan is “not a Christian?” If so – Then how so? If not – then exactly what are you trying to say? Please use you own words …

The commentary at the link you provided is written by a Laodicean...so he naturally misdiagnosed himself and the rest of the Laodicean church.

The correct interpretation: the Laodicean Church is overcome with DELUSION. Read it again. Lukewarm is just the symptom...delusion is the problem.

Jesus, the Great Physician, diagnosed their illness when He said, "Because thou sayest, I am rich..."

Do you not see, Gatlin? The Laodiceans THINK they are rich...when in reality they are extremely poor.

I've used this analogy before. Imagine a beggar approaching you on the street. He's nekkid as a jaybird. But oddly, he's shouting that he's the richest man in town, and that you should admire his fine clothing. What would be your reaction? You'd immediately consider him DELUSIONAL...because he is.

But, being vomited out is not about being lost or saved...it's about losing the intimacy that the church has with Jesus Christ.

The Laodicean church caused a patient Savior to finally reach a point where He could no longer stomach them. So He spewed them out.

But we have not lost our salvation. Christ still maintains intimacy with us...albeit one-on-one.

Notice that intimacy continue here in the following verses:

As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent. Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

Jesus is knocking on the door of the church! Those who are fed up with the delusion will be the ones who hear Him knock, and He will come in to their presence and sup with them.

All Christians (myself included) at this present time are spewed out , as evidenced by the condition of the church.

Some of us are fortunate enough as to come out of the delusion, but it is still painful to be without the sweet fellowship of the church.

So, if Jonathan was a Christian before...he is a Christian now.

These are my own words. I have told you exactly what the Scripture says.

You've gotten hold of some poor exegesis. That’s entirely possible. The commentary at the link you provided is written by a Laodicean. And that is only your personal opinion. But this thread is not a discussion on someone is the link’s critical explanation or interpretation of a text, especially of scripture. This article is quite the piece on the decisions facing Liberty University over the coming weeks and months. Why do these disputes about Liberty University's future matter? Because: So goes Liberty, so goes the evangelical world. It is a massively influential institution among white evangelicals, who make up about one in four voters in the US. Jonathan is conservative, but did not support Trump like his brother. His supporters hope he'd help steer Liberty - and evangelical Christians - in a new direction. Evangelicals across the country are facing a generational divide as young people leave the church, saying they’re turned off by its politics. This leaves Liberty University with a sticky question: should it soften its support for Trump? And this is what the article is about – and what I am interested in. However, I do thank you – anyway – for your comments and opinion on someone your perceive as a Laodicean.

Falwell: Liberty University lawsuit is excuse to shame him By Associated Press – June 4, 2021 Falwell claims in a court filing that much of Liberty’s suit serves only to keep shaming him after a provocative photo of him came to light and revelations surfaced of his wife’s extramarital affair, The News & Advance in Lynchburg reported Thursday. Falwell claims the suit focuses on his wife’s personal life while not addressing his “actions as the leader of Liberty.” “The rehashing of these events and protected defamation of Falwell through litigation serves one mission — ruining Falwell’s reputation through mischaracterization of events and public shaming through out-of- context pictures filed in a public complaint,” according to Tuesday’s filing in Lynchburg Circuit Court. Falwell’s departure in August came after a news outlet published an interview with a man who said he had a years-long sexual relationship with Becki Falwell and that Jerry Falwell participated in some of the liaisons as a voyeur. Falwell denied the report. Story continues here …

Struggle at Liberty University: politics or purity by Michael Sean Winters – Jun 2, 2021 Maggie Severns, at Politico, penned an excellent essay looking at the struggle going on at Liberty University, the evangelical school founded by the late Rev. Jerry Falwell. At issue is whether the school will continue along the hyper-politicized iteration of evangelical higher education, associated closely with Donald Trump and pursued by its now disgraced former chancellor, Jerry Falwell Jr., or aim for an educational culture focused more on the evangelical faith that inspired its founding. The personification of the more strictly religious, less political route is Jonathan Falwell, who has served as pastor of Thomas Road Baptist Church since his father's death. The human drama at work in the tale — Jerry Jr.'s sordid sex drive leading to blackmail allegations involving a pool boy having sex with Jerry's wife — is almost Shakespearean, but in a vulgar sort of way, combining pathos and bathos in equal parts. We now know why Jerry Jr. was not offended by Trump's obscene remarks about women in the "Access Hollywood" tapes! But the difference in style between the two brothers reflects a tension present in their father's decision to begin a Christian college all the way back in 1971. Story continues here …

Liberty University in turmoil as students revolt against continuing relationship with Trump: report By Tom Boggioni – June 01, 2021 According to a report from Politico, Liberty University is becoming ground zero in the fight among a segment of evangelical Christians who want to distance themselves from former president Donald Trump and those who want to mix his style of pugnacious conservatism with Christianity. While Trump-supporting Jerry Falwell Jr. has been ousted by the university following a sex scandal involving a former pool attendant and Falwell's wife, some trustees at the school are still in the Trump camp and that has some school administrators and students up in arms. Writing, "Now, 14 years after Jerry Falwell Sr. died and nine months after Jerry Jr. was ousted in a scandal, Liberty is enmeshed in a debate that could have profound implications for the nation's religious right," Politico's Maggie Severns added, "Liberty's ultimate path will influence the greater evangelical world, which is having its own reckoning with the post-Trump Republican Party. With more than 100,000 students, Liberty has long been one of a small handful of top cultural institutions for evangelicals, its board studded with famed pastors and movement leaders. Observers believe that even a small change in direction at Liberty could signal shifting winds among one of Republicans' most important voting blocs." While the university trustees are considering handing over the reins to another Falwell, Jonathan, who doesn't have the close ties to the one- term president, some trustees are still Trump's corner. Story continues here ...

And that is only your personal opinion.

But it is the correct one.

Because: So goes Liberty, so goes the evangelical world.

Do you mean bangin' the pool boy and snagging a pair of those Allbirds...yes, there goes the evangelical world.

Jonathan is conservative, but did not support Trump like his brother.

Well, who DOES this Jonathan guy support?

This leaves Liberty University with a sticky question: should it soften its support for Trump? And this is what the article is about – and what I am interested in.

You're not going to get much cohesive thought out of a bunch of spewed out, poor, blind, and naked Christians, evangelical or otherwise.

This is the evangelical church at this present time...literally!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEIuXb1c9rQ

And that is only your personal opinion. But it is the correct one. And that too is ONLY another OPINION. You saying it is correct one does not in any manner make it a correct one. For that is simply a display of arrogance in its best form. An opinion is a judgment based on facts, an honest attempt to draw a reasonable conclusion from factual evidence. The article in link was written by the Editor in Chief at ConnectUS. She wrote about: “Revelation 3:16 Meaning of Because You Are Lukewarm I Spit You Out” on December 19.2019. Where she specifically said in her explanation and commentary on Revelation 3:16: This verse says that if you are not fully committed to following God, you are not a Christian and God will reject you. The verse is part of the first of four visions John the Apostle will reveal in the Book of Revelations. In this vision, John saw the risen Jesus standing among seven burning lights, representing the seven churches in Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey) in the first century: Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea. Jesus tells John to deliver letters to the seven churches to encourage the churches to be faithful. This verse is part of the seventh letter, delivered to the church in Laodicea, which was the most corrupt. The people of the church in Laodicea were indifferent about whether they became better people or not because they had all they needed and wanted to be fulfilled on earth. Because of the plentiful lives they lived, the Laodiceans did not see or appreciate the importance of the poverty of their spirit. Jesus warns that He will reject those who are neutral between whether they follow God or a false god, and that there is more hope for an open enemy of God. Breaking Down the Key Parts of Revelation 3:16 #1 “So, because you are lukewarm…” Jesus was addressing this message to the church, ministers, and people, telling them that there would be more hope for a heathen than for someone who doesn’t choose whether or not to follow God. He wants people to decide whether they are with God or against God, and says that there is no excuse for being indifferent. If God is real, it is the most excellent thing. If He is not, then believing in Him is vile. We have enough information, and we should care enough for the health of our souls, to decide between the two. #2 “…neither hot nor cold…” “Hot” refers to people that follow God. “Cold” refers to those that reject God (atheists). #3 “…I am about to spit you out of my mouth.” The use of “lukewarm” and “spit you out” in this verse invokes imagery of lukewarm water turning one’s stomach and provoking vomit. Jesus is saying that lukewarm people make Him sick. By spitting those people out of His mouth, Jesus is rejecting those who do not decide whether to follow Him or reject Him. In order to show me the facts upon which you base your opinion – the one you call “a correct one” – I ask that you now parse the explanation the author gave and show me how you analyzed it into its parts to validate your opinion. Show me where she was wrong, but most of all – Show me the evidence you based your alleged “correct opinion” on that the Editor in Chief, Natalie Regoli whose bio states that she is … … a child of God, devoted wife, and mother of two boys. She has a Masters Degree in Law from The University of Texas. Natalie has been published in several national journals and has been practicing law for 18 years. You stated here: The commentary at the link you provided is written by a Laodicean…...so [s]he naturally misdiagnosed [her]self and the rest of the Laodicean church. I remind you that the definition of Laodicean is: A person with a halfhearted attitude toward religion or politics. And ask that you please show me on what basis you formed your alleged “correct opinion” that Natalie Regoli is – as you say – “a Laodicean.” Assuming that you cannot do this, I will therefore provide you with 11 more articles written by Natalie Regoli upon which you can gather evidence to support your claim: I Am the Way the Truth and the Life Meaning (KJV) 20 Strong Prayers for Healing of Cancer for a Friend A Fool and His Money Are Soon Parted Meaning (KJV) 25 Strong Prayers for a Baby Boy Come Boldly to the Throne of Grace Meaning (KJV) 15 Powerful Prayers for Healing after Surgery God Resists the Proud Meaning (KJV) 10 Powerful Prayers for Abused Children To Be Absent from the Body Is to Be Present with the Lord Meaning (KJV) 10 Powerful Prayers for the Forgiveness of Others I read these articles, and I can find nothing – NOTHING – in any of them that backs up your “correct opinion” that Natalie Regoli is a Laodicean – “A person with a halfhearted attitude toward religion or politics.” After learning about this lady, I feel certain she can defend herself against being proclaimed a “Laodicean” by you – if we contact her here. So, I again ask that you please justify your “correct opinion” and show where your opinion is a judgment based on facts – an honest attempt to draw a reasonable conclusion from factual evidence. And that is only your personal opinion. But it is the correct one. A big problem I have found among Christians is so many think they are always right. You think this now – And all I ask is that you prove it.

Because: So goes Liberty, so goes the evangelical world. Do you mean bangin' the pool boy and snagging a pair of those Allbirds... Nope, I mean nothing of the kind. How do you come up with these wildly strange suppositions? Jonathan is conservative, but did not support Trump like his brother. Well, who DOES this Jonathan guy support? You will need to ask “this Jonathan” that question. Would you like to have his contact information? You're not going to get much cohesive thought out of a bunch of spewed out, poor, blind, and naked Christians, evangelical or otherwise. I have often times have trouble getting cohesive thoughts out of Christians that are not “spewed out, poor, blind, and naked.” here are Christians who have very STRONG opinions on just about everything: how to vote, how to raise children, how to date, how to stay married, and how to interpret Scripture. Christians often will back up their “correct opinions” with Scripture. But how many of those subjects are CORRECTLY addressed in the Bible – And still just their OPINION. Whey they try justification – Again, it’s only their OPINION. This is the evangelical church at this present time...literally! www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEIuXb1c9rQ With the utmost respect, I say to you: I have no interest is seeing a video about how “the evangelical church at this present time...literally!” So, I will pass on the video …

This verse says that if you are not fully committed to following God, you are not a Christian and God will reject you.

Her statement is complete error.

Being committed is not a condition of being a Christian.

"Fully committed"...what is that? And what does that even look like in the life of a believer?

Natalie the Laodicean has made the classic error: equating commitment to salvation. Rubbish.

All she has done is create doubt in the mind of the believer. "Am I committed enough?" What if I not committed enough to be a Christian? Can't you see? Natalie is doing what the devil does...creating doubt. Preachers have brow beat their flocks for centuries by suggesting they are lukewarm...because they are not "fully committed". Natalie has gone one step further. She is saying "You ain't no Christian if you ain't fully committed". Heresy.

I remind you that the definition of Laodicean is: A person with a halfhearted attitude toward religion or politics.

Where did you come up with this colossal pile of nonsense?

"Laodicea" means "laos"=people "dicea"=decision, or decide. The idea here is that "the people decide"...instead of God.

In the case of the Church at Laodicea, the people in the church have decided that they are rich, that they have need of nothing.

Wiki confirms their rich religious wealth and position:

Laodicea very early became a seat of Christianity and a bishopric. The Epistle to the Colossians mentions Laodicea as one of the communities of concern for Paul the Apostle. It sends greetings from a certain Epaphras from Colossae, who worked hard for the Christians of the three Phrygian cities of Colossae, Laodicea and Hierapolis. Asking for greetings to be sent to the Laodicean Christians, the writer requests that his letter be read publicly at Laodicea (Colossians 4:16) and that another letter addressed to the Laodiceans (see Epistle to the Laodiceans) be given a public reading at Colossae. Some Greek manuscripts of the First Epistle to Timothy end with the words: "Written at Laodicea, metropolis of Phrygia Pacatiana".

Hey, sounds a lot like Liberty University, which even you recognize as being of great importance to national religious (and political) power.

Nothing wrong with this, until this wealth and power begin to affect Christians spiritually. Christ sees His church with clarity. And what He is seeing right now is nauseous. Frickin' clowns with plaid sports coats and Allbirds. (honk honk)

Natalie is a Laodicean (and a hairy tick), and the entire church is spewed out. It's flopping on the ground like a fish out of water.

This verse says that if you are not fully committed to following God, you are not a Christian and God will reject you. Her statement is complete error. He says – She says. Prove she is wrong. Being committed is not a condition of being a Christian. Is it not asThomas Brewer said here when speaking about Revelation 3:16 … … God will not abide a lukewarm Christianity or a heart that is only partially His. I understand you are saying that you do NOT need be “fully committed to following God to be a Christian or that God will abide a lukewarm Christianity from a heart that is only partially His. If this not what you are saying – Then what are you saying? "Fully committed"...what is that? And what does that even look like in the life of a believer? It can be explained to you here perhaps much better than I can: The biblical concept of commitment and what does it mean for our faith lives. Continuing on … Natalie the Laodicean has made the classic error: equating commitment to salvation. Rubbish. You say that, but you need to prove that – So far, you are not doing so. I doubt one could find words any more confusing and controversial than those uttered by Jesus in Revelation 3:15-16 to the church at Laodicea. Christians have expressed either befuddlement or revulsion, and sometimes both throughout time – at what our Lord says to this wayward congregation. And this will not change. You have your understanding as to the meaning of Revelation 3:15-16 while others have their understanding. You having your understanding doesn’t mean that your understanding is right. You have not proven you are right and that she is wrong. You have only shown that you have YOUR understanding … I remind you that the definition of Laodicean is: A person with a halfhearted attitude toward religion or politics. Where did you come up with this colossal pile of nonsense? Here in the Oxford dictionary. You now have a problem with the Oxford dictionary? Natalie is a Laodicean ... That still remains simply your opinion – And you are entitled to it. But, nothing you have stated has proven this to be true.

Prove she is wrong.

I did. You would not accept it.

I understand you are saying that you do NOT need be “fully committed to following God to be a Christian or that God will abide a lukewarm Christianity from a heart that is only partially His.

We are saved by grace, through faith...not by commitment, or lack thereof. What you and Natalie are suggesting is that we are saved by "works righteousness".

Natalie is the poster child for the verse that says, "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."

But Natalie has decided (laos-dicea) that it's ok if she overlooks this verse, and proceeds to instruct us with her error.

Prove she is wrong. I did. You would not accept it. You did not. You gave me your interpretation and opinion which I would not accept. Natalie has a right to her interpretation since the sacred status of the Bible rests entirely upon the conviction that it is a receptacle of divine revelation. The understanding of the Bible as the word of God, however, has never generated one uniform hermeneutical principle for a universal interpretation. The Bible can be interpreted through a literal interpretation, a moral interpretation and a a third type hat interprets the biblical narratives as having a second level of reference beyond those persons, things, and events explicitly mentioned in the text. I have read there are 30,000 Protestant denominations in the world. That is an amazingly great number. It is even more amazing that all these denominations claim to have the same source from which they form their doctrinal standards. While each particular denomination employs the same Bible as the other and yet – in reality, each is doctrinally separate and distinct in do sp many ways from one another. Interpreting Scripture is the process of personal discovering what God through his human authors intended the biblical text to mean and effect. To this end, I unfortunately continue to run into OVERBEARING Christians talking to me about the Bible. I have that right to interpretate – the same as you also have that right. I however will never excuse Christians who evangelizes in a dogmatic way. I believe that every single person on earth needs to know God, but I also believe there’s a right way and a wrong way of spreading His message. I realize that most believers who push too hard are coming from a kind place. There are many times when they care so deeply for people that they are overzealous in in talking to them. That overzealousness does understandably strike people the wrong way. It is indeed unfortunate that some Christians are so excited about the message and so desirous of everyone else to know Christ that they oftentimes come across as overbearing. I will forgive them for that and not become distracted by their dogmatic ways. Knowing, experiencing and reflecting to others the love of God is one of the most beautiful things one can experience. It should never be done in an overbearing manner. Think about it …

What you and Natalie are suggesting is that we are saved by "works righteousness". I have never suggested anything. Stop with your continuing presumptions. I merely posted an article by Natalie.. I never at any time said that I either agree or disagee with Natalie. Get that straight …

But Natalie has decided (laos-dicea) that it's ok if she overlooks this verse, and proceeds to instruct us with her error. And conversely, you have decided that Natalie is absolutely wrong and then you have proceeded to try and instruct us that your interpretation is the only correct one. I must inform you – watchman – it cannot work that way with me. I need no one to interpretate for me …

Natalie is the poster child for the verse that says, "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.". Cherry picking Scripture is a condition for you being addicted to this particular activity.

We are saved by grace, through faith...not by commitment, or lack thereof. Yes. But you downplay commitment and you need to remember that Christians have made a personal commitment to accept Jesus’ sacrifice as an atonement for our sin. That commitment is accepted since he paid the price in place of those who believe in him – and in doing so – Christians also give life back to Him for His service. Personal commitment to God is an ongoing process. Do not downplay commitment …

You gave me your interpretation and opinion which I would not accept.

My position on these verses is the same position as, say, Liberty University.

Natalie's position (that one must be "fully committed" in order to be a Christian) would get her thrown out of Liberty U.

She states:

"This verse says that if you are not fully committed to following God, you are not a Christian and God will reject you".

This is crazy talk. This would never be accepted at Liberty or any other evangelical institution or church.

She has in error of evangelical doctrine.

Cherry picking

How is the use of this verse "cherry picking"?

But you downplay commitment

Nope. I just don't make commitment a condition of salvation.

Personal commitment to God is an ongoing process.

Yes. Sometimes our commitment is high...sometimes low. It does not affect our salvation.

So, when Christ spews out the church, that doesn't mean we have been eternally rejected. It simply means Christ is fed up with our delusional bs. He said He would spew us out one day. That day has arrived.

But you downplay commitment … Nope. I just don't make commitment a condition of salvation. Okay. So if you don’t and another person does: Then does that mean you are right and they are wrong – Or that they are right and you are wrong? It means neither. It simply means that you each have your own belief. And that’s fine, for it is the way it should and must be. Key in “conditions for salvation” in the search mode of your browser and you will get a multitude of responses – each different in degree from the other. So, we should learn from this, that no one has the answer. Each and every one only has their belief. No Christian should try to force their belief on anyone – and a Christian should stop condemning other Christians for their belief. This I believe. So, I ask: Why does a Christian condemn another believer? Remembering that we all stand before the judgment of God. One answer that that many Christians seem to have the idea that their job is to evaluate others and point out errors and shortcomings. A Christian’s job is not to condemn other Christians or chastise them for their belief. We can share truth with an attitude of humility, respect, and concern for other's well-being. Name-calling – or characterization – should not be happening among Christians. This I believe. I find those who are in the habit of putting down others do so in an attempt to elevate themselves. Since God has already elevated us in Christ – we therefore don't need to fall into this trap.

Natalie is the poster child for the verse that says, "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." That is a most ridiculous statement and extremely chauvinistic when you apply Scripture in this manner. In the newly formed Christian congregation in the first century men were the ones given the responsibility to teach. All of the apostles of Jesus were men. Men were the ones that took the lead in congregational worship. It was only in the Christian congregation that women were not permitted to teach; that responsibility was given to men. In today’s world, other Scripture is used for a different arrangement that functions very well when everyone works together to worship God. Scholars/theologians Richard and Catherine Kroeger, believe Paul did write the epistle of 1 Timothy. They present a case for interpreting 1 Timothy 2:12 as a refutation of false teaching, rather than as a narrow restriction on women's role. Their research leads them to conclude that Paul was addressing a particular problem localized in the Church at Ephesus where Timothy was pastor of the multicultural congregation. A primary example of this paradigm permeates the book they co-authored, I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11–15 in Light of Ancient Evidence. The book presents the Kroegers' well-documented research which sheds new perspectives to this difficult biblical text. They present considerable evidence concerning newly discovered issues and problems Paul was addressing. They argue that the verse must be interpreted in light of careful exegesis of Greek word usage, the Greco-Roman customs and laws of the day, and the outside influences on the Christian churches of the 1st Century. While holding firm to a literal approach to 1 Timothy 2:11– 15, the Kroegers' research argues from the background of changes in the Greek language since the 1st century, Roman empire customs at the time the Apostle Paul wrote 1 Timothy, and the problems that the church in Ephesus was facing with pagan religions. The Kroegers maintain that gnosticism was taking hold of the Christians at Ephesus, and the women, being given less to no education in those days, were more prone to be misled by gnostic beliefs. Those authors present the case that those women with gnostic influence were trying to pass on those erroneous beliefs to others in the Church at Ephesus. Hence, their conclusion is that 1 Timothy 2:12 is a time-and-place refutation of false teaching, not a universal Christian principle for all time. Christian men should not demean women …

So, when Christ spews out the church, that doesn't mean we have been eternally rejected. It simply means Christ is fed up with our delusional bs. Jesus was addressing a specific audience at only a given time in the past. It is not Jesus saying He is fed up with our delusional bs – It is you saying to us, that is what Jesus means. But you don’t know what Jesus really means – you only believe you do. So, what did Jesus exactly mean when He said He'd spit the lukewarm Christians from His mouth for being neither hot nor cold? Could it be that Jesus was drawing on the geography of the area to make a detailed point to specific audience only at that given time? And Perhaps Jesus used the fact that near Laodicea there were hot springs, (likely from some geothermal activity) and cold streams, while the water in Laodicea was supplied via aqueduct and apparently lukewarm at air temperature. Yes, this could easily be possible … It could be since the imagery of hot is healing and soothing, cold is refreshing and clean, but lukewarm is neither – it is bland or distasteful. Applied to the subject of faith, hot is zealous and evangelistic, cold is encouraging and caring. Both are beneficial and positive. But lukewarm is passive and indifferent – spiritually sick. Lukewarm is not the living water that Jesus talked about… He said He would spew us out one day. Where did Jesus say that? Cite: Book, chapter and verse – Please. Even if you can show that Jesus said he would “spew us out one day” – Who do you think you are to say: That day has arrived. In religion, a false prophet is a person who falsely claims the gift of prophecy or divine inspiration, or to speak for God, or who makes such claims for evil ends. [Emphasis Added].

Rethinking

Don't cha love that word..."rethinking".

This is liberal speak for "we'll decide".

Scholars/theologians Richard and Catherine Kroeger

Disgusting liberals...

Here's what happens when you break God's laws concerning the roles of men and women...

Looks like you'd feel right at home at Park Slope United Methodist Church.

Christian men should not demean women …

We don't demean them...we protect them. Liberals, such as yourself, are the ones who truly demean women.

Where did Jesus say that?

Cite: Book, chapter and verse – Please.

It's right there in the verse...

So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

Jesus says "I am about to..."

"About to" speaks of a future impending time.

So simple even a child could understand it. Why, then, are you struggling? Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

You stated that: Natalie is the poster child for the verse that says, "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.". I replied by saying that: Cherry picking Scripture is a condition for you being addicted to this particular activity. You then asked: How is the use of this verse "cherry picking"? I shall answer by reminding you that Natalie was discussing what John the Apostle revealed a vision in the Book of Revelations. And specifically, the verse is part of the first of four visions John the Apostle will reveal in the Book of Revelations. You went away for the Book of Revelations and went to the Book of Timothy where you specifically “cherry picked” a verse you tried to use as a “put down” on poor little ole Natalie. So you knowingly took q verse out of context – And that is why it is so blatantly obvious that you “cherry picked” Scripture – “Once Again.” Context is crucial for understanding any passage of Scripture. You – watchman – of all people should fully realize this is especially true when the verse, taken out of its context, is easily misunderstood. This verse is especially prone to misinterpretation and controversy, so it needs to be carefully understood and carefully interpreted. Furthermore, this provocative statement actually begins with an assumption about women which was foreign to ancient culture: encouraging the teaching of women. This idea ran in direct contrast to most cultural and religious traditions of the time. In traditional Judaism, women were not allowed to study the Law. Paul's words here, then, start by following the pattern of Jesus, who taught women as part of His ministry (John 4:27–30; 11:28–30; 19:25). The truly controversial part of the verse has served as the basis for much debate among Christians. From the context of the Greek language, Paul's prior comments, and the culture of the time, it is clear that Paul does not mean that women are to remain "silent," meaning soundless, as in some older translations. The same root Greek word, hesuchios, is used in several places where total silence is clearly not implied (1 Timothy 2:2; 1 Thessalonians 4:11; 1 Peter 3:4). Rather, the term implies a peacefulness, or stillness, or calmness. In that time, religious expressions could be loud, showy, and hysterical. This is exactly what Paul wishes to avoid. Perhaps the most important context to understand is that of verses 9 and 10, where Paul encouraged women not to dress in flashy, showy ways. Instead, they were to dress modestly. This verse presents the same basic principle, as applied to actions, rather than to clothes. The goal is peacefulness and self-control. The idea of submissiveness, as used here, is also easily misunderstood. In Ephesians 5:21–33, Paul used the analogy of Christ and the church along with husband and wife in marriage. Mutual submission, or service to one another, was encouraged. Paul emphasized a woman's submissiveness in 1 Timothy 2:11 but also teaches men to do the same toward their wives elsewhere. Now, you really didn’t need to ask – How is the use of this verse "cherry picking"? – Did you …

Looks like you'd feel right at home at Park Slope United Methodist Church.

Nah, that’s just you pulling shit statements out of your ass – Again.

We don't demean them...we protect them.

Why do you feel women need to be protected?

… such as yourself, are the ones who truly demean women.

More of your “shit talk” – Because you can show no place where I have ever demeaned women.

But irrational statements are nothing new coming from you.

Please – PLEASE – try to stick to facts and logic …

Character assignation as a last resort is an ad hominem attack is an attack on someone – when the attacker feels the necessity to defend himself from the accusation of being hypocritical or ignorant.

Where did Jesus say: “He said He would spew us out one day.” Cite: Book, chapter and verse – Please. It's right there in the verse... So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth. Jesus says "I am about to..." The New International Version (NIV) is a translation of the Bible developed by more than one hundred scholars working from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. Biblical Translations of Revelation 3:16: NIV: “So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.” NLT: “But since you are like lukewarm water, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth!” ESV: “So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.” KJV: “So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.” NKJV: “So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth.” The NIV Bible is the only Bible where “about to” was added to the verse. Why are you using New International Version (NIV) of the Bible where more than one hundred scholars decided to add in “about to” when no others did? Have you now become an avid fan of “New International [Global]” things? It might appear so … You go on to say: "About to" speaks of a future impending time. Nah – About to: speaks of: Ready to, on the verge of. So simple even a child could understand it. Perhaps a simple child could understand it – If, you brow beat him enough in you customary manner. Why, then, are you struggling? I am struggling with nothing. I am merely observing you groveling – and i thoroughly enjoy watching you do it. Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Only with the stuff you try to write. And I will continue to challenge your interpretations and suppositions when they are wrong – As most usually are.

Why do you feel women need to be protected?

Wow. Your comment is sad and pathetic.

Men protect women because God made them the "weaker vessel". We do not receive instruction from them. Men lead. Period.

Any aberration from this and society crumbles...as it is now.

Since you are King James Only*...

Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel...

*en.wik ipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Only_movement

There are 33,000 Protestant denominations and as of the early 21st century, Christianity has approximately 2.4 billion adherents. Therefore, the number of different interpretations of the Bible among this vast multitude of humanity is incalculable – with each Christian having their own interpretation of the Bible, There is no one among the 2.4 billion adherents to Christianity who can universally say what is absolutely right or wrong. Although, some foolish persons will occasionally try. The Holy Spirit never provides an unambiguous interpretation of every given Scripture. Each time a person reads the Bible, they have to interpret what they read. The many ways different people go about making sense of the Bible and some will be influenced by their frames of reference and cultural expectations. Interpreting simply means making sense of a text. It is not a special skill reserved only any one individual to say: His way is the only way and the right way. Please make an effort to fully understand this. Since I see that you have nothing more of value to contribute to the discussion and that you have now turned your efforts into a personal attack on me, I will therefore depart this thread tout suite. As I do, I will paraphrase the remark spoken by HAL from the “I'm Sorry, Dave Scene” in the movie Space Odyssey – when I say: “Continuing this exchange can serve no useful purpose.” So, good day to you, Sir – I wish you well.

I saw this post as I was shutting you off. It is unworthy of a response. You are really one strange person – in your beliefs …

I am leaving again … If you want to send me another goodbye note on PM – then do it quickly. And I am sure you will watch intently for my return.

I saw this post as I was shutting you off.

It is unworthy of a response.

You are really one strange person – in your beliefs …

Whatever...