Curious About Freeper's Views Of Joyce Meyer

onedoug ^ | 12 DEC 2001 | onedoug

[onedoug]

"You got me plum-hypnotized," Elmer Gantry says to Sister Sharon Falconer in that film/novel.

Is that the case with me over Joyce Meyer?

She seems pretty good at down-home preachin'. And while not a classic beauty, she yet ministers out a fair amount sex appeal, along with the word.

(I think, ultimately, it's those Texas/Missouri eyes.)

I post this to philosophy since, as I know she has a fair amount of, at least internet detractors, it yet seems that her ability to project the Word, is as anchored in the integrity of faith as any other TV preacher I can recall.

...Except perhaps the late Bishop Fulton J Sheen.

In short though, Meyer lately fascinates me, and I'm curious what other Freepers may think. Particularly Evangelicals!

Thanks, and Merry Christmas to All!

[NATE4"ONE NATION"]

One thing I disagree with a lot of modern teachers on is the "nobody's perfect" opinion. I think that makes striving for a pure heart optional and I don't think scripture teaches that. By pure heart, I mean an undivided heart -- not divided in loyalty between God and .. whatever.

AMEN!

[Dixielander]

New Age? Hardly. Joyce to me is the Christian version of Dr. Laura. I endorse and greatly admire both of them. Women like those two will hasten the death of PC!

[week 71]

You just explained why the Rapture theory is so popular among many Christians - the whole fantasy of God being the great "Calgon, take me away". Toil, trouble, persecution, oh no, not for ME! I'm driving my Range Rover to soccer practice, when things get tough God will zap me away and let the car crash into some pathetic lost soul.

I'm not gonna comment on when the harpazo rapture is because I know I'll open up a hornets nest, however, If folks got out of the Left Behind series and into the Word, they will fair better when the world goes to the pot. And it looks like it may be headed that way soon!

[PleaseNoMore]

I have always had reservations about the rapture doctrine. I have many dear wonderful Godloving people in my life that really believe in it. Yet, others I know that are just as sincere don't.

I have always understood and believed that God would make a way of escape for those who are His but not necessarily via rapture. I believe that my Lord is capable of seeing me through what is to come on this earth.

I am no biblical scholar but I pray for His Spirit to reveal these things to me that I don't understand. I am always learning. The rapture is one of those doctrines that confounds me. I haven't been convinved or convicted that the doctrine is sound yet, I won't hastily discard the teachings of those better learned than I am. I simply do my best to use discernment when I listen to the teachings of any man.

As for Joyce Meyers, I have found that she is very common sensical in her teachings. As a woman, I find her teachings to be beneficial in my everyday life. For example, I have a problem with my mouth. I do not have my tongue under control. She has had some very practical advice in that area that has helped me. Lining her practical teachings up with what the Word says helped me make sense of my lack of dicipline in that area and helped me reconcile my problem biblically. I am still working on it though!

[week 71]

You sound very down to earth, like you are honestly endeavoring to get to know Jesus and His Word. Whatever one decides on the rapture really doesn't affect their salvation. It may affect how they live their lives. Christians should not have the escape mentality nor should they ignore the imminent return (meaning He could come back now, even as you read this). Seek righteousness and holiness and always watch.

As for Joyce, as you may have read my previous posts, I think one should Act 17:11 any teacher of the word. I Acts 17:11 my own pastor.

[bleudevil]

TV and religion is a strange mix. I'm inclined to think that almost anybody who'd put on a TV show like hers or have a web page that looks like this: Life in the Word is either strangely self-involved, or weirdly exploitative.

Very well said! I too looked her up after seeing this thread and was bemused by her Web site.

[LS]

I know what I am quoting and I know what PETER was quoting and it was Isaiah, and it most certainly is translated "healed" and the Hebrew words were "sicknesses" and "infirmities."

[LS]

Absolutely not. God says it is appointed once for man to die. It is not appointed for man to get sick. I don't ever recall a single instance of Jesus having so much as a cold, and He's our model. Now, IN THE GARDEN, indeed man didn't die, and if you notice, it took a while for sin to whittle down man's years to our current lifespan, but the Biblical standard is 120 years, so that's what I'm counting on. However, getting out of that appointment is not possible, with or without faith, although, come to think of it, two men DID!

[bleudevil]

Skeptical.

Some info on Meyer

[week 71]

"...who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return;when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously;who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we having died to sins, might live for righteousness-by whose stipes you were healed. For you were like sheep going astray..."

I guess I'll just have to take Peter's exposition of Isaiah 53 over the Faith teachers. I still see nothing about physical healing. It just makes me wonder how many verses they take COMPLETELY out of context and feed to their sheep who lack knowledge.

Have faith in Jesus and not faith in faith. Seek the master and not what is on the master's table. And Godspeed on your journey.

[week 71]

Just in case you are still uncertain what we are healed from; it is sin as evident in the very sentence Peter writes. Peter interprets the passage for us.

[onedoug]

If Christ took our sins to the cross, in effect becoming sin it/himself, that might be seen as hell; the three days in the sepulchre as the culmination of Jesus' earlier temptation in the wilderness.

Not immediately sure of the scriptural allusions, but the resurrection completing - and yet continuing - that circle, through us, seems quite compelling.

Thanks for your links. FR is such a great tool for learning. (From whence I might dig back into scripture, eh?)

[11th Earl of Mar]

"...who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return;when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously;who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we having died to sins, might live for righteousness-by whose stipes you were healed. For you were like sheep going astray..."

I guess I'll just have to take Peter's exposition of Isaiah 53 over the Faith teachers. I still see nothing about physical healing. It just makes me wonder how many verses they take COMPLETELY out of context and feed to their sheep who lack knowledge.

Have faith in Jesus and not faith in faith. Seek the master and not what is on the master's table. And Godspeed on your journey.

LS, you are right.

W17, 'just in case you are still uncertain what we are healed from' it is sickness as evident in the very sentence Isiah writes. Matthew [Matt. 8:17] interprets the passage for us. Jesus "healed all who were sick, in order that what was spoken through the prophet might be fulfilled, 'He Himself tool our infirmaties and careried away our diseases.'"

Isaiah 53 SURELEY includes physical healing... 'the Bible tells me so.'

[oregon conservative]

I agree, According to scripture a woman isn't allowed to teach and preach to men. Not my own opinion just what the Holy Bible says. 1 Timothy 2: 11-12

[11th Earl of Mar]

the bible states that a women is not to preach

Phillip the evangelist had four virgin daughters who were 'prophetesses.' How could this allowed in the early church if your theory is correct?

[week 71]

W17, 'just in case you are still uncertain what we are healed from' it is sickness as evident in the very sentence Isiah writes. Matthew [Matt. 8:17] interprets the passage for us. Jesus "healed all who were sick, in order that what was spoken through the prophet might be fulfilled, 'He Himself tool our infirmaties and careried away our diseases.'"

I NEVER said Jesus doesn't still heal! I'm just not going to allow sloppy interpretation to back that fact up. It is exceptionally sloppy to quote that passage in order to buttress the fact of healing. To say it supports physical healing is being willingly ignorant, and ignoring Peter's correct interpretation, not matter what the Faith teachers teach.

[11th Earl of Mar]

To say that II Peter EXCLUDES physical healing is exceptionally sloppy theology. Isaiah 53 backs it up as does Matthew 8:17.

BTW, the case for healing does not rest on II Peter 2:24 or any one single verse. It is a Biblical truth found throughout the Bible and throughout God's dealings with man.

[Paulus Invictus]

Another religious scam. Follow the money!