ChurchHopping.com

[xenia]

In other words, speculation.

 

[BenAdam]

Yes , Rick made a good point .

Even so , I see no reason to declare one group or another as a "home" . We are all brothers and sisters . Why should I decide to spend time with some while spending no time with everyone else ?

Because, that is what we have been taught for decades. Silly rabbit.

 

[Rick Otto]

Why do you say that, Xenia?

 

[New_Wineskin]

Because, that is what we have been taught for decades. Silly rabbit.

Yeah . Ok . Any other reason ?

 

[xenia]

I said it is speculation because:

1. You have no Scripture to support your definition
2. No church history history supports the use of this term to describe church hierarchy
3. You quote Watchman Nee as an authority who himself is specualting as well as
4. Scofield, who was also speculating.

Find me an early church father, say, someone writing 1800+ years ago who supports this theory.

Nicolaitan could just as easly mean a group of people who followed a false teacher name Nicholas.

The safest thing to say about the term "Nicolaitan" is that no one knows what it means for sure.

 

[Rick Otto]

Well,
First, assumptions made do not become truer in time, just older. Having said that...
If it was going to be some guy named Nicholas, a respectably ancient speculator we can turn to is Iraneus, yes?

"3. The Nicolaitanes are the followers of that Nicolas who was one of the seven first ordained to the diaconate by the apostles.302"

If ya check out that footnote, it mentions that other primitive authorities disagree.


PERGAMOS "Satan's seat" refers to the temple of Zeus and center of Aesculapius, the serpent entwined around a tree stump to give it life (represents the resurrected Nimrod, the sun god; the source of various pagan fertility concepts), that was located there. Pagan cults had settled there after being driven out of Babylon by the Persians. R. A. Anderson of the Adventists points out that "when the king of Pergamos bequeathed his kingdom to the Romans, the whole cult transferred to Rome" (Unfolding the Revelation, p.24) He also mentions that "Antipas' was said to be a martyr baked in a brass bull, and that the name significantly enough means "anti-pope"
The doctrine of"Baalam" (Numbers 24:14, 25:1, 31:16; 2 Peter 2:15, Jude 11).—moral compromise. v.15: "So" (KJV) or "thus"(NAS)— houtos ουτως—Strong #3779 means "in this way"— "you also have them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans". So this doctrine of the Nicolaitans is connected with the doctrine of Baalam—compromise.

The word Nicolaitans(#3532) means "of Nicolas". There is a Nicholas mentioned in Acts 6:5 as a proselyte of Antioch; one of the seven chosen to serve Hellenist widows, and Strong's Concordance ASSUMES this apostate group is associated with HIM by defining him as "a heretic" (#3531) and cross-reference Bibles refer the Acts verse with these two Revelation passages, even though he is never mentioned as starting an apostate group. (Raul Reese in his book on the seven churches (which takes the '7 eras' position) suggests the Greek "niko"(priest) + "laos"(laity), signifying the corrupt hierarchical system).
MY position would be that the '7 eras position' is figuratively correct, but only loosely so, because all seven conditions could be found thruoghout the church in each age. The 'contemporaneous position' is literaly tru, but Jesus uses metaphor or symbology, to frame the entire discourse on the churches, using 7 stars & 7 candlesticks. So careful consideration is certainly in order, even of ancient authorities like Eusebius & Iraneus. It helps to understand their relationships with the papacy, when considering their pronouncements of who's who & what's what.
Speculation isn't always a bad thing & may even be a sometime nevcessary thing, especialy when it's properly informed. In fact, "Informed Consent" is what is valued when one speculates whether surgery will save or end one's life, no?

 

[Rick Otto]

I was wonderin' what part exactly is speculation, 'cause the translation seems in order as far as Nikao=conqueror(of) + laitan= the people(laity).
Jesus Himself makes THIS reference in preface, and might refer to the Nikolas in Acts, but only if that guy was considered an apostle.
Rev2:2 I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:

Um, as far as scripture references from Watchman Nee & Scofield, I would agree that Nee is more direct w/his references, but they BOTH give scripture, so I'm left wondering what you mean by:
"1. You have no Scripture to support your definition"

At any rate Xenie, the only references to "priest" &"priests" in the NT (KJV), are about Judaic, not Christian priests.
And the one Nicolas mentioned in Acts6:5, is identified as a "proselyte" - again, a Judaic term, not a Christian one.
As such, he would be an unlikely candidate for a promiscuous leader of any description plus he was chosen by trustworthy men.
The people mentioned in preface to condemnation, by Jesus, specificaly include false, self-proclaimed apostles... and THAT doesn't fit the description of the Nicolas in Acts at all.

Again:

Rev2:2 I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:

Xenia,
You say no church history supports this definition.

I presume by this, you are unaware that "To the victor goes the spoils" & that amongst those spoils is the priviledge of entering one's own self-serving version of history as the "Official History". So OF COURSE you won't find a self-incriminating definition supported by church hierarchy!(chuckles).

Now back to your accusation of no supporting scripture... what's up with that?
Is it only safe to say "no one knows what it means for sure" because You're not sure??

 

[BenAdam]

Yeah . Ok . Any other reason ?

Because if you do, you have a Jezebel spirit. Shall I continue?

 

[Rick Otto]

Aaaaaaarrrrrrggggghhhhh!

Was takin' that altar call too much like walkin' the plank?(LOL)

 

[New_Wineskin]

Because if you do, you have a Jezebel spirit. Shall I continue?

Hey !!

That's part of the previous reason .

How about this ... since people *say* that the Scriptures are soooo important for doctrine ... are there passages that say that one should meet with some at the exclusion of others or less committment to them than others ?

 

[BenAdam]

Hey !!

That's part of the previous reason .

How about this ... since people *say* that the Scriptures are soooo important for doctrine ... are there passages that say that one should meet with some at the exclusion of others or less committment to them than others ?

you are confusing the issue with legitimate questions, stop it!!!

 

[FLANDIDLYANDERS]

Wasn't Jezebel a sister of Jesus?

 

[New_Wineskin]

you are confusing the issue with legitimate questions, stop it!!!

Sorry .

I think that I have an illegitimate question ... If you wear checkered pants at a meeting , does one still get their ticket punched as having obeyed the law of attendance ?

 

[New_Wineskin]

Wasn't Jezebel a sister of Jesus?

In another life .

 

[BenAdam]

Sorry .

I think that I have an illegitimate question ... If you wear checkered pants at a meeting , does one still get their ticket punched as having obeyed the law of attendance ?

only if they are high waters at a Pentacostal meeting (that is just a joke people, no harm meant)

NW in all seriousness, I have heard every reason to not fellowship with people outside your church, except scriptural ones. It is usually heavy handed authoritarianism.

 

[New_Wineskin]

only if they are high waters at a Pentacostal meeting (that is just a joke people, no harm meant)

NW in all seriousness, I have heard every reason to not fellowship with people outside your church, except scriptural ones. It is usually heavy handed authoritarianism.

I agree . It is another way of keeping track of people and making sure that they are being controlled .

What gets me is that I am always hearing "book , chapter , verse" and I am finding so very few doctrines accepted by these people to have much if any Scriptural support . Of course , the idea of "book , chapter , and verse" is never supported by those demanding it , either . Another thing that gets me is that these people are not even checking for Scriptural support even though they are always telling others to do so with doctrines . This mindset is quite disturbing , It is a major issue of why I won't look for a group for committment .

 

[christandisrael]

Church hopping is necessary in order for one to find the right church. How else would a person know what church is suited for them? If a person hops two churches and both lack in the fellowship that that person needs, what good is it for a person to go and never grow spiritually? If needs aren't met, the church is of no use to the person.

The real church is God's spiritual building and the only way that you can be considered part of the ecclesia is to live for Christ and love the brethren and non-brethren.