What's the deal with Joyce Meyer?

[Ex-Episcopalian]

I would like to know what FReepers think of Joyce Meyer, the prolific speaker, author and teacher. I write book reviews for my church, and I worked on a review of "God Is Not Mad At You". A friend at church told me that Meyer's theology is very controversial, so I asked my pastor about it. He said that he would not want to promote a book by Meyer because of some things she has said, for example, Jesus went to hell to pay for our sins, was forgiven by God, and was the first born-again man. I know that is wrong because the payment for our sins was full and final on the Cross, Jesus did not have to be forgiven for anything, and was certainly not born again. We are born again. Any comments on this or on Meyer in general? Thank you.

[Steve_Seattle]

The "Catholic Church" doesn't even exist as a centralized economic entity. The Vatican has its assets, the various religious orders have their assets, the individual archdiocese have their assets, and there are probably hospitals, orphanages, etc., that have separate assets.

Are you suggesting that the churches and schools of a typical archdiocese constitute "excessive wealth and property" simply because they could be closed and sold for a lot of money? Well, so could Protestant churches and institutions.

As for the Vatican, it could sell all its art and donate the proceeds to the poor worldwide, and the money would be gone in a matter of weeks, if not days.

[LurkingSince'98]

“The Pope rules the Vatican and runs the Catholic Church” was a huge pile of steaming horse manure.

if you are Catholic you have to be the most poorly catechized Catholic I have seen post on FR, and I have read some real doozies.

I would be ashamed of myself if I posted such tripe, but your mileage obviously varies.

Ad Majoram Dei Gloriam
Lurking’

[Trapped Behind Enemy Lines]

To deny the Pope doesn’t exercise awesome power and authority is simply ridiculous. Once again I have no problem with this. It’s fine with me. And if you study history you will know that the Papacy once ruled over much of Italy for many centuries. Let’s not pretend the Pope isn’t a very powerful person who can and does excercise enormous power. Pope JPII for example was extremely influential in bringing down Communism in Eastern Europe.

Some people don’t like the Catholic Church. Fine. Don’t attend Mass. Don’t contribute to the Church. Stay away. Fine. Others may not like Joyce Meyer. Fine. Don’t watch her on TV. Don’t contribute to her ministry. You can avoid church. You can avoid religion. But you CANNOT avoid government when they stick their hand in your wallet.

I am a practicing Catholic. But that does not mean I have to agree with EVERYTHING the Church does or every thing a Catholic leader says. In fact, I have found myself in much disagreement with much of what the new Pope has said recently, particularly on the topic of economics. If the Church wants to excommunicate me for having the audacity to think for myself, then so be it.

[paulist]

So disagreement with someone is equal to hate? Typical liberal argument tactic and not worthy of a Freeper. The shame is on you.

[Gamecock]

Well there is the Jersey Hot Tub Bishop.

[hwkbeer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFG7cXOLiQQ

There is ample evidence online for anyone who cares to look.

[CTrent1564]

Trapped:

The Pope as the Bishop of Rome is the First Bishop among equals and has a primacy in terms of teaching the faith. that does not mean he can do what he wished with respect to Church property such as the Great Cathedrals of Rome and the religious works of art done by the great Catholic artist down thru the centuries. When those works were done, the Pope’s contracted with the artist like Michelangelo, etc to do works of art for the Glory of God and to beautify the Churches. They were not done for personal property of the Pope to sell to the highest bidder. The works of art in the Vatican are not Stocks to be traded on the NYSE.

The Pope does not own those ,those institutions such as the Vatican Newspaper, radio are used to promulgate the faith

[imardmd1]

I know there are many different interpretations of that scripture, and I still struggle with it. It very clearly states a woman’s hair is her covering, and long hair is her glory.

There are many "interpretations" (which are not interpretations at all, but excuses) mostly for those who do not wish to recognize that a female is to have something other than longer hair down upon her head, to diminish her natural beauty when praying or telling others of God and His Son in situations acceptable to The Holy Ghost.

When thinking this out, consider 1 Corinthians 11:6 --

"For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered."

Now, it doesn't make much sense that if her hair is her cover, that it should be cropped close or shaved off, eh? No, the veil or mantilla or serviette, or something placed over her tresses to hide them, cannot be her hair. It must be something else. (Though one suspects that it should not be something wrought with a beauty to equal or surpass the glory of her own hair.)

Thayer's lexicon gives the underlying verb "to cover" (Strong's #2572) in the Greek of verses 5, 6, 7, and 13 as follows:

καλύπτω
kaluptō
Thayer Definition:
1) to hide, veil
1a) to hinder the knowledge of a thing
Part of Speech: verb

When uncovered or covered is spoken of here, think of a United States Marine, who never refers his(her) cap as a "hat"--it is always referred to as a "cover."

Why?

It is because when in uniform, the "cover" denotes his submission to, and an agent of, his authority--the "power" (Gk = ἐξουσία)issuing his orders and to which he owes explicit, minutely observed obedience.

Thus a Christian female obedient to Scripture and deliberately placing a cover down upon her head (and over its hair) shows not only her submission to The Godhead and His subordinately designated males, but also to the angels (both good and bad, including Satan) thus warning them of the mighty power The Godhead will confer upon her in praying and prophesying where it is her calling to do so.

Unfortunately, a rather inauspicious translation of verse 15 confuses the issue for the unwary or ignorant, by giving the English word "covering" to describe a completely different function of the female's hair:

"But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering."

The first century Koine-speaker would not have been confused at all, as you are, because the Greek word here is different, not connected with the theological sense of identification. It is Strong's #4018, for which the word "vesture" or "mantle" is the correct interpretation:

περιβόλαιον
peribolaion
per-ib-ol'-ah-yon
Neuter of a presumed derivative of G4016; something thrown around one, that is, a mantle, veil: - covering, vesture.

That is, a female's hair is a thing of beauty, and something to keep her neck and shoulders protected from heat, cold, and bruising. Periballeho literally means 'something thrown about one," like a wrap, or a scarf.

Now, the feminists do not like the idea that a woman should be expected, merely by the "accident" of birth as a female, to be required to be under the authority of designated males, nor to accede to it by an external symbolism like a bonnet or mantilla. But that is God's plan for the conduct of His churches in assembly, for the government of marriage and the family, and for representing Him as a gospel-bearing agent and nurturer to both unbelievers as well as demons.

Perhaps you might not be old enough to recall that throughout the ages, up until, say, the late sixties, women in any church service would usually be found covered. Does this explanation now make that passage a little more understandable to you?

With respect --

[imardmd1]

Nylons were without seams long before pantyhose. I was married in 1957, and my wife wasn’t wearing WWII syocking then, betcha.

[tioga]

I read a few of her books, but found some disturbing things in them and quit reading anything by her. I wouldn’t even give the books away, I chucked them. Can’t recall what was bothering me about her, but I do recall shuddering and saying I would not read another word by her.

[imardmd1]

sin nature -- two nouns

sinful (human) nature

tempted

tested

(Jesus' perfect response vs Adam's)

Being God He cold not/cannot sin. But He submitted to The God treating Him as though He were Sin personified. Thus The God vented upon Jesus the totality of His righteous wrath upon His Son, Who stood in my place.

[imardmd1]

This is pious, but uninspired. It is not Holy Scripture.

[Wiser now]

I am old enough to remember when hats were a requirement in the Catholic church although few women still wore hats to our Protestant church.

[imardmd1]

Sometimes the two letter word IF makes all the difference in the instruction. It does NOT say anything about IF a woman desire the office of a bishop.

Nor does it offer any incentive that she should. Just immediately before that, in the letter (without chapter and verse divisions):

1 Tim. 2:11-14

"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.
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being
deceived was in the transgression."

This fully rejects your proposition. God has never made a woman the overseer of any of His religious enterprises since the moment before Eve was made.

Only recently have women presumed to claim that ordination, and have done it without His help and only through weak men relinquishing it to Satan who seduced Eve.

[imardmd1]

Jesus said to the thief, "Today you will be with me in paradise"

This Paradise is also known as Abraham's Bosom, a region of Hell that was transported to and joined to Heaven when He scended:

This is a kind of heuristic time-line illustrating the disposition of humans that have died.

(1) Before the Cross-death, Sheol/Hell/Hades consisted of two widely separated compartments. One is Abraham's Bosom/Paradise (Lk. 16:23), and the other was/is Lowest Hell. It is Paradise to which the souls of those humans knowing, trusting, and obeying The God and His Messiach were sent until the day of Jesus' ascension as High Priest, Redeemer, and Reconciler brought that portion with Him, and joined it to Heaven, so they now are the same. He "led captivity captive" (Eph. 4:8-10). It is to that sphere now which the souls of regenerated believer-disciples retire, to come forth with Lord Jesus The Christ at his appearing.

(2) But the lower Hell has all the souls of those humans deceived and blinded by Satan, and having clung to the Devil's ways died and were transported to that hot region until the day of their Judgment at the Great White Throne (Rev. 20:11), followed by their banishment into the Lake of Fire.

(3) On this chart, you will see a red line going down from the Cross, into Paradise, then taking with it the region of Paradise (colored blue) into Heaven. Paul described a man who was caught up (spiritually, I suppose) into the third heaven (2 Cor. 12:2), into Paradise (verse 4). So it was said to exist and be joined in Paul's lifetime, and still is today, then.

(4) As regarding the physical bodies of all dead ones, they are counted to be in "the grave"; buried, or somehow gathered together when cremated or nuked, I guess. Until, that is, when the souls and spirits of faith-saved humans will be joined to a new and (as was intended for Adam and Eve) a never-dying tripartite person, in unity and fellowship with The Godhead.

(5) In contrast, for the faithless element of humanity, they will be rejoined to their old, corrupted bodies for judgment, the whole of whoich and whom will then endure torment together with their chosen fathe Satan, and his demonaic spirits, forever, in the Lake of Fire, now intensified by one's possessing a hurting body. Sad . Sad. Sad.

Well, you can make out some of the rest. This illustration is found at the Happy Heralds site, where you can find much more descriptive text on this doctrine.

[Just mythoughts]

Nor does it offer any incentive that she should. Just immediately before that, in the letter (without chapter and verse divisions): 1 Tim. 2:11-14 "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. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." This fully rejects your proposition. God has never made a woman the overseer of any of His religious enterprises since the moment before Eve was made. Only recently have women presumed to claim that ordination, and have done it without His help and only through weak men relinquishing it to Satan who seduced Eve.

I do not recall suggesting there was incentive. See now there is no quarrel about what is required to have an orderly arranged church service. But it does require a learned man for the woman to be taught. Whether that be a husband or a pastor/teacher. And no church service is going to be teaching the Word if there is a congregation men and/or women chatting and whispering during the lesson.

I do not have a problem with what is Written here. It makes common sense. The problem arises when there is no learned man in the Word to teach. And some men are going to have a real tough time accepting that it is not unheard of for the LORD to use a woman. Deborah comes to mind. There were no men willing to take/do the job and Deborah did.

And as it is Written in Acts 2:17 (And this has not happened yet.) And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, 'I will pour out My Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

18 And on My servants and on My handmaidens I will pour out in those days of My Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke;

20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the LORD come:

21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be saved.'

This is Peter quoting Joel 2:28-31 and on Pentecost day... (means fifty) after the Crucifixion where they gathered wherein the promise of the Holy Spirit was fulfilled and demonstrated by the voice heard was heard in each attendees own language. Also described in Luke 24.

God does not require woman to be subjected to men described in ITimothy 1:9-10. The man is suppose to be to the woman as Christ was/is to the Church. Then there is NO reason why the woman would not consider submitting. Pretty lofty requirement for the menfolk.

Notice how Paul warns the 'body of Christ', the church as to what to be alert to and for... Now this would include the menfolk as well.

IICorinthians 11:1 Would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly: and indeed bear with me.

2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtility, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. ........

See it is not just the woman that will have the propensity for deception.

[21twelve]

I was just reading in a Lenten thing about Jesus’ baptism - with similar questions raised - by John himself. “Why do YOU need to be baptized?!”

I forget what the guy wrote (some old famous guy like C.S. Lewis or something) - but he ran with the idea of babtism not being so much of a rebirth - but a death to the old self. A drowning, or flood (think Noah’s) of the old self. Paul saying something like “And so I die daily...”

The idea that Jesus, the man, died daily of his “bent towards sin”. With His ultimate death on the cross. And then of course His victory.

I don’t care for Joyce Meyers, but the idea of Jesus being forgiven is perhaps more of semantics?

Just recalled a verse:

2 Corinthians 5:21

New International Version (NIV)

21 God made him who had no sin to be sin[a] for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

But in the footnote says it the sin[a] might mean “a sin offering”.

However the wording - Jesus was filled with our sin, paid the price - separation from God (yeah - I don’t know how that works either!) - but was also raised from the dead (forgiven?), and shares that victory and forgiveness with us - his brothers and sisters.

[21twelve]

“Consider Adam, who was created without a sin nature, yet was able to sin, and did sin. When created, Adam was fully human without sin. Being fully human does not mean having a sinful nature.”

Thanks for that. A very simple (I need that!) explanation.

[imardmd1]

Look every pastor/preacher has some quirky hangup about some scripture or piece of theology and then there some who operate too much in error. I don’t think JM has reached that point.

Look, here are my quirky things about such a woman pretending to represent The God:

(1) Persistently defiant to Scripture by teaching (with amplification, one presumes) in public, rather than learning in silence in her own Scripturally-organized assembly of believers or at home from her husband (1 Timothy 2:11, 1 Cor. 14:35)
(2) Forbidden to do such publicly or privately (1 Tim. 2:12)
(3) Prophesying and/or praying neither shorn bald nor applying the precept of covering her head and hair with spiritual cover, thus dishonoring husband, Christ, and The God (1 Cor. 11:5,6)
(4) Clothed in the attire of a man for these purposes (Deut. 22:5)

Don't accuse me of judging. This is just agreeing with well-known, and often-rejected, determined Will of The God. Those who take her counsel will, in the end, find themselves spiritually bankrupt. IMHO.

By what standard do you evaluate Ms Meyer's advice? (Just curious --)

[redleghunter]

Awaiting replies to your post. I have no comments. You quoted Scriptures and in the proper context.