Going to separate churches is it ok?

[JRSut1000]

"And the man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh. What God has joined together, let not man separate." I think this speaks for itself.

 

[parsley]

I suspect that Nickey's husband's church is spiritually-focused, but so small that gossip and control are higher than they should be. This is a tendency in any small organization: small towns, family-run businesses, private schools, etc. People think they have a right to each others' dirty laundry. Maybe members are too happy with what they have, and not good at reaching out to others lovingly.

If people can look at it as a typical symptom of being too tightly knit, it doesn't need to be seen as a permanent flaw, but something that might be remedied by ministry collaborations with other churches (food cupboards, picnics, guest speakers, VBS), or inviting others into the building to change the dynamics (rent space to storefront churches, host AA and scouts).

I have found that some of the most God-focused intense believers are not good with other people. The Bible's principles encourage living at peace with God and man, so ideally if we were devoted to God, we would also be humble with other people. But that doesn't always play out as it should.

Excelling as a church should be tempered with love and consideration; in the reality of life, almost every member is going through struggles, hoping that the other (struggling) person will lift them up. Treatment by members can be one root of why a spouse feels comfortable and the other does not. It might not even be something they can explain in words.

Nickey, glad you're finding some solutions! When I was in my early 20's, a minister's wife used to confide in me about similar feelings. It was a larger church (I think) but people were very competitive and opinionated, and it grew very oppressive. Ministers live in the fishbowl where everywhere they go, people are scrutinizing.

 

[Sketcher]

I happen to agree with your stance in the OP, but as far as convincing them, I couldn't tell you how to do it. Your marriage is not their marriage. If they're doing well, no reason to mess with that. If they're not, and they decide to share it with you, maybe your suggestion of "choose one" would be better received. Of course, if one of them were to suggest that, that person ought to be ready to just start going to the spouse's church services, rather than insist the other drop what they're doing.

 

[LoricaLady]

This may sound shocking, even unbelievable, but the truth is you don't have to go to any Church at all. There were no Churches in the first century. The word Church, in English, is translated from the word "ecclesia" in the Greek which simply means body of believers. If you will check out 1st century history you will see that for once protestant, catholic & secular historians agree on something. For the 1st 123 years, and for several hundred years thereafter in spite of intense & horrific persecution, the believers met in Synagogues or in homes and they gathered on the Sabbath, i.e. Fri. eve to Sat. eve (though as is usual from ancient times, many times they hung around together into Sunday.)

 

[Bella Vita]

This may sound shocking, even unbelievable, but the truth is you don't have to go to any Church at all. There were no Churches in the first century. The word Church, in English, is translated from the word "ecclesia" in the Greek which simply means body of believers. If you will check out 1st century history you will see that for once protestant, catholic & secular historians agree on something. For the 1st 123 years, and for several hundred years thereafter in spite of intense & horrific persecution, the believers met in Synagogues or in homes and they gathered on the Sabbath, i.e. Fri. eve to Sat. eve (though as is usual from ancient times, many times they hung around together into Sunday.)

I disagree the entire reason Jesus came to Earth was to spread the gospel, set up the church, and die for our sins on the cross. He trained the disciples in the ways to run the church so that it could continue once he was gone. The first churches ever established were in houses they were called house church many people still have them today. Church does not have to be this big huge thing but it is very important to a Christians life and journey. There is scripture after scripture on the importance of church to ignore it is to ignore God's word and that is a sin.

 

[LoricaLady]

I disagree the entire reason Jesus came to Earth was to spread the gospel, set up the church, and die for our sins on the cross. He trained the disciples in the ways to run the church so that it could continue once he was gone. The first churches ever established were in houses they were called house church many people still have them today. Church does not have to be this big huge thing but it is very important to a Christians life and journey. There is scripture after scripture on the importance of church to ignore it is to ignore God's word and that is a sin.

Yes, Yeshua died for the body of believers, fulfiling the prophecy of Isaiah 53. But He never told them to set up a Church and the whole concept of Church - a big building with a cross on top where people worshipped on Sundays - is no where to be found in Scriptures and was not happening historically for centuries - particularly after the influence of Constantine and the RCC. You can check these things out easily with your Bible and the net.

Yeshua said "Think not that I have come to destroy the Law [Moses] and the prophets, but to confirm them." He said that not "one jot or tittle" will be done away with "until Heaven and earth pass away."

His apostles also followed the Law contrary to what we have been told.\

Look at Acts 15. There Paul tells non Jewish converts to abstain from blood (against Mosaic law) and the meat of strangled animals (blood still inside.) He was upholding the "Old" Testament food laws! Shortly in that chapter, having given the new believers just a few instructions, he says "Is not Moses preached every Sabbath in the Synagogues?" He said that because, as everyone then knew, since ancient times converts went to the Synagogues on Sabbaths to gradually learn the whole law of Moses.

Look at Acts 21. There James tells Paul that converted Jews are accusing him of not following the Law of Moses. (The same thing people say about him today.) Paul goes out of his way to take a Mosaic vow, paying for others to do the same, to prove that he did keep the Law.

I'm sorry ny friend, I'm not trying to be unpleaant, but I'm just telling you the truth. There were no Churches in the first century or for a very long time. People went to the Synagogues or met in homes and the day of worship was the Sabbath. "YHWH changes not". That is what the Bible and history show.

And once again, the word "Church" is a Greek translation that means body of believers. You can check that out too. It has come, in our times - not in their times - to mean a big building with a cross where people meet and worship on Sunday. This translation problem greatly confuses people.

 

[Johnnz]

It's easy to read back our concept of 'church' onto the NT story. Nevertheless our salvation is fundamentally communal, not at all in line with our modern individualism. The metaphors used in the NT are instructive - family, holy nation, children, a body, a gathering of people (ekklesia). The new commandment is to love one another as Christ loves us.

A solo Christian is really somewhat of an oxymoron. But many modern churches are not really too relational though.

John
NZ

 

[LoricaLady]

It's easy to read back our concept of 'church' onto the NT story. Nevertheless our salvation is fundamentally communal, not at all in line with our modern individualism. The metaphors used in the NT are instructive - family, holy nation, children, a body, a gathering of people (ekklesia). The new commandment is to love one another as Christ loves us.

A solo Christian is really somewhat of an oxymoron. But many modern churches are not really too relational though.

John
NZ

There is no new commandment of love given in the New Testament. Yeshua was asked which part of the Law was most important when He said, quoting the Torah, "Here O Israel...you shall love YHWH your Elohim with all your heart and mind and soul and strength...and...love your neighbor as yourself."

He was also quoting the Torah when He told us to love our enemies. Virtually the whole Sermon on the Mount is simply a repetition from the prophets.

Almost everything Yeshua said came from the "Old" Testament. As He said, "Do not think I have come to abolish the Law and the prophets, but to confirm them."

 

[Johnnz]

John 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. KJV

Since there had never been a self sacrificing Saviour to love that way, that was a new commandment. John saw it that way too.
1 John 2:8-11 Again, a new commandment I write unto you, which thing is true in him and in you: because the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth. He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now. He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him. But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes. KJV

The sermon on the mount was a vast extension of Torah, both in content and in the person delivering it, Messiah who alone would conquer sin and death, neither of which were effectively overcome by Torah, as Paul argues in Romans.

Your usage of 'confirm' does not follow translations from the KJV to more recent ones. Most have similar to the NIV- 'fulfil
Matt 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. NIV

They were fulfilled in Jesus the Jew, still living under the times of Torah when he uttered those words and was addressing Jews. When the temple veil was torn and later the temple in Jerusalem destroyed Torah keeping and its ceremonies had come to an end. Life replaced death, Spirit replaced water, inwards holiness replaced external observance, living temples replaced a central building, life had overcome death. Messiah had ushered in the kingdom of God (a royal priesthood, a holy nation,) made up of people of all nationalities, a new colony living within Empire by very different principles.

John
NZ

 

[LoverofGod'sLove]

You really should try praying for these two, a lot harder than you may have been already.

Do they also go out to eat separately?

 

[LoricaLady]

John 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. KJV

Since there had never been a self sacrificing Saviour to love that way, that was a new commandment. John saw it that way too.
1 John 2:8-11 Again, a new commandment I write unto you, which thing is true in him and in you: because the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth. He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now. He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him. But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes. KJV

The sermon on the mount was a vast extension of Torah, both in content and in the person delivering it, Messiah who alone would conquer sin and death, neither of which were effectively overcome by Torah, as Paul argues in Romans.

Your usage of 'confirm' does not follow translations from the KJV to more recent ones. Most have similar to the NIV- 'fulfil
Matt 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. NIV

They were fulfilled in Jesus the Jew, still living under the times of Torah when he uttered those words and was addressing Jews. When the temple veil was torn and later the temple in Jerusalem destroyed Torah keeping and its ceremonies had come to an end. Life replaced death, Spirit replaced water, inwards holiness replaced external observance, living temples replaced a central building, life had overcome death. Messiah had ushered in the kingdom of God (a royal priesthood, a holy nation,) made up of people of all nationalities, a new colony living within Empire by very different principles.

John
NZ

As I correctly stated, when Yeshua replied that we are to love YHWH and love others He was responding to a question about the Law. And He quoted the Law.

Yes it is a new commandment to love as He loved us because He had not yet come to die for our sins. But to love YHWH with all our hearts and souls & resources & to love others as ourselves, even to love our enemies, is in the Torah. Check it out.

I disagree with your comments on "confirm". How can the Torah be done away with? Does that mean I now get to worship other gods, murder (so abortion is okay now?), commit adultery? And, again, we are told to love YHWH and love our neighbors and our enemies in the Torah. So which is it? Done away with or still in effect?

And what about Acts 15 where Paul is telling new non Jewish converts to refrain from blood - straight out of the food laws of Moses, then assumes they will be in the Synagogue on the Sabbaths to learn the rest of the Law of Moses, as it shows a little later in that passage.

And why do you suppose that Paul took a Mosaic vow, at James' direction, to show that he DID keep the Law of Moses, as seen in Acts 21? (In your KJV you will see "Moses" though more modern translations eliminate it.)

And in Acts why did the apostles meet, Jewish business as usual, on the high holy day of Shavuot (what the RCC changed to Pentecost, but which never falls on the true day, just as Easter never really falls on the true Resurrection day and just as "Good Friday" never coincides with when Yeshua really died, at Passover) if they were no longer keeping the Law that tells them to keep the high holy days?

And why did the Holy Spirit come down on them while they were celebrating that high holy day?

And back to the original point. What evidence do you have that the early believers met in Churches?

 

[Boidae]

As I correctly stated, when Yeshua replied that we are to love YHWH and love others He was responding to a question about the Law. And He quoted the Law.

Yes it is a new commandment to love as He loved us because He had not yet come to die for our sins. But to love YHWH with all our hearts and souls & resources & to love others as ourselves, even to love our enemies, is in the Torah. Check it out.

I disagree with your comments on "confirm". How can the Torah be done away with? Does that mean I now get to worship other gods, murder (so abortion is okay now?), commit adultery? And, again, we are told to love YHWH and love our neighbors and our enemies in the Torah. So which is it? Done away with or still in effect?

And what about Acts 15 where Paul is telling new non Jewish converts to refrain from blood - straight out of the food laws of Moses, then assumes they will be in the Synagogue on the Sabbath to learn the rest of the Law of Moses, as it shows a little later in that passage.

And why do you suppose that Paul took a Mosaic vow, at James' direction, to show that he DID keep the Law of Moses, as seen in Acts 21? (In your KJV you will see "Moses" though more modern translations eliminate it.)

And in Acts why did the apostles meet, Jewish business as usual, on the high holy day of Shavuot (what the RCC changed to Pentecost, but which never falls on the true day, just as Easter never really falls on the true Resurrection day and just as "Good Friday" never coincides with when Yeshua really died, at Passover) if they were no longer keeping the Law that tells them to keep the high holy days?

And why did the Holy Spirit come down on them while they were celebrating that high holy day?

And back to the original point. What evidence do you have that the early believers met in Churches?

I'll continue going to church Lorica, but thanks.

 

[LoricaLady]

I'll continue going to church Lorica, but thanks.

I got countless and incalcuable blessing from when I went to Church - the more Bible believing the Church was, the more so. So, though I now do not go to Church (since I no longer believe Sunday is the Sabbath) I know it can still be of great benefit to people. (But in case you are wondering, though, I am still growing - I believe ever more so - in relationship with YHWH and study of the Word.)

 

[Boidae]

I got countless and incalcuable blessing from when I went to Church - the more Bible believing the Church was, the more so. So, though I now do not go to Church (since I no longer believe Sunday is the Sabbath) I know it can still be of great benefit to people. (But in case you are wondering, though, I am still growing - I believe ever more so - in relationship with YHWH and study of the Word.)

I don't doubt that you're not growing, but I choose to stay in church with my wife who loves going to church and worshiping God with other Christians.

I'm not going to get into the Saturday or Sunday debate as no one ever gets the other person to see their side.

 

[lemon-aid stand]

honestly.. this is startling.. i am not sure that there is an answer that will suit everyone involved.. as this involves more than the man and his beloved.. nope.. two families are in the mix..the fault lies with the man's father as he did not set the example for his son..and the man being the head of the household.. the head of the woman.. yes, it really says this in the bible.. .. lol..Christ being the head of the man, and the man likewise is the head of the woman..