Joyce Meyer

[Ttalkkugjil]

That would be chicken feed for most secular business executives. A private jet is a good tool for someone like her who does a lot of travelling as part of her ministry. No waiting in airports and having to put up with cancellations and delays. The money she would be saving by having the private jet might offset a lot of the cost of having it. I think a lot of the criticism of her in terms of her income and material assets comes out of just sheer envy!

Here's what I think - no teacher/preacher should be living on such largesse. Really leads to questioning of her motives. Is she truly in it for God, or is she really in it for her own luxurious life.

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

Just like most senior secular business executives, and we don't go around criticising them - and yet many of these companies over price their products and cheat their customers big-time! But the criticisers of Christian ministries are very silent about that! Perhaps because they have a handsome shareholding in some of those companies and get their dividends paid!

Perhaps because said business executives don't claim to be doing teaching for God while they live high off the hog.

 

[jiminpa]

Yes, a big. fat. paycheck.

...and there's the real problem...jealousy.

"Joyce makes millions, and she doesn't sound trumpets about how much she gives away." Oh no, how dare she make money by God's grace and her own hand, and get paid for it! A good man leaves an inheritance to his children's children, but I guess that's not important anymore. But why is it wrong for Joyce Meyer to make millions, and give away more than any of us know, but no one questions the unbelievers in the pulpit who really are in it solely for their own gain, and literally teach unbelief? And I"m talking about fakes who are more popular among evangelical Christianity than Joyce Meyer is.

 

[Romans 8]

but no one questions the unbelievers in the pulpit who really are in it solely for their own gain, and literally teach unbelief? And I"m talking about fakes who are more popular among evangelical Christianity than Joyce Meyer is.

I'm not sure if that's a good comparison given the evidence that's been presented.

But I will say, if one can discern the falsehoods which Meyer brought to the table, then there's probably no harm done. It appears no one in this thread is so naive that they can't figure out the good from the bad, because no one here is arguing against the evidence submitted. But those who are new Christians or, are without the skills of discernment are liable to delusion. And therefore, I wouldn't recommend her. I think that's a logical conclusion right?

God Bless.

 

[jiminpa]

I'm not sure if that's a good comparison given the evidence that's been presented.

But I will say, if one can discern the falsehoods which Meyer brought to the table, then there's probably no harm done. It appears no one in this thread is so naive that they can't figure out the good from the bad, because no one here is arguing against the evidence submitted. But those who are new Christians or, are without the skills of discernment are liable to delusion. And therefore, I wouldn't recommend her. I think that's a logical conclusion right?

God Bless.

But now you are making the best argument against your own position. One of Joyce's main teachings is for those listening to her to study the Bible for themselves. Yes, she offers her insights and her study guides, as starters to get people more into the bible themselves.

 

[Romans 8]

But now you are making the best argument against your own position. One of Joyce's main teachings is for those listening to her to study the Bible for themselves. Yes, she offers her insights and her study guides, as starters to get people more into the bible themselves.

So because she tells you to fact check her she's got free reign to teach false doctrines? That doesn't even make sense. In trying to "win" the argument you're digging yourself deeper in a hole.

 

[jiminpa]

Unlike the sources quoted in this thread who declare themselves as the infallible keepers of all truth, but use worldly techniques to present factual but untrue accusations against those with far more sound doctrine than they themselves promote, (yes I called them accomplices of the Accuser), Joyce Meyer admits that she is imperfect and still has more to learn, and encourages people to read the Bible beyond her teachings and grow in the faith themselves. That means that anyone who actually follows what she teaches has the potential to outgrow her, and that is what she is encouraging.

CARM and Hank H., and Johnny Mac can't afford for their zombie hoards to read outside of their teachings and outgrow them, because they would lose anyone who does, and they're not about that.

 

[jiminpa]

So because she tells you to fact check her she's got free reign to teach false doctrines? That doesn't even make sense. In trying to "win" the argument you're digging yourself deeper in a hole.

No, first her teaching is no more perfect than anyone else who isn't writing directly from God for the purpose of establishing scripture, but better than any of her critics that I have ever read, most of whom would have a hard time providing evidence that they aren't the wolves Jesus warned us about, mostly because they are wolves. Second, the bulk of her teaching is dead on and profitable. These people have scoured decades of her words and come up with a handful of out of context clips that are questionable at worst, and actually scriptural mostly.

Joyce teaches that she isn't a sinner anymore, she'd better not be. I expect a Bible teacher to be a new creature, born again by the blood of the Lamb, no longer a slave to sin. Too bad that is the exception for teachers in evangelicalism.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

Yes thanks .we know the scripture.
And as i said i agree with pauls reasoning.
But as i also said .. This is Pauls own declaration of what HE personaly disallowed And why.
Paul is not moses. He is writing a letter NOT a new law book.
It is of interest that many things he wrote he repeated to many differing groups.. But not this issue.
Nor head covering either.

Pauls writings are the word of God written. You cannot downgrade scripture.

 

[jiminpa]

Pauls writings are te word of God written. You cannot downgrade scripture.

So I should compel my neighbor who can't stop with one drink to drink some wine? That's in Paul's instructions too.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

So I should compel my neighbor who can't stop with one drink to drink some wine? That's in Paul's instructions too.

Pauls writings are as authoritative as what Jesus said, All scripture is God given, God breathed:
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Pauls writings are 100 % scripture.

This is off topic on this thread however.

 

[ItIsFinished!]

Pauls writings are the word of God written. You cannot downgrade scripture.

Amen.
I remember that post (the one you quoted) when it was posted .
I was like , "What!!!"

 

[Romans 8]

No, first her teaching is no more perfect than anyone else who isn't writing directly from God for the purpose of establishing scripture, but better than any of her critics that I have ever read, most of whom would have a hard time providing evidence that they aren't the wolves Jesus warned us about, mostly because they are wolves. Second, the bulk of her teaching is dead on and profitable. These people have scoured decades of her words and come up with a handful of out of context clips that are questionable at worst, and actually scriptural mostly.

Joyce teaches that she isn't a sinner anymore, she'd better not be. I expect a Bible teacher to be a new creature, born again by the blood of the Lamb, no longer a slave to sin. Too bad that is the exception for teachers in evangelicalism.

When I said "no one in this thread is so naive they can't figure out the good from the bad", it was obviously not applying to you.
The evidence I listed is outright apostasy. Given your reply here it's evident that the two of us fundamentally disagree on the basics of what Christianity teaches.

I reiterate, if Meyer truly moved on and understood her previous teachings were incorrect, she would address them. Anyone can say, "I make mistakes".

I'm getting the feeling this is all bouncing off your ear before it enters the eardrum, so let's just happily disagree.

 

[jiminpa]

Pauls writings are as authoritative as what Jesus said, All scripture is God given, God breathed:
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Pauls writings are 100 % scripture.

This is off topic on this thread however.

It is very on topic. Some of us are trying to reconcile the meaning of scripture verses a futile attempt to blindly follow the letter of the law irrespective of the full meaning. You stated that every word Paul penned in his letters is to be carried out as God's breath. It is not reading for the meaning that makes the scriptures seem contradictory. God placed Deborah in authority over Israel, as judge and as commander of the army, but God forbids women from being in authority, which is it? It can't be both. I guess the Bible must be contradictory, except that it's not. You have to place it all in full context, and when I say full context I mean the whole of scripture. That's quite a bit more work than seeing a verse and clamping onto it. So if you take one statement by Paul out of context you may come to one conclusion, but if you take it in the full context of scripture you draw a completely different one. Since the verses about women holding authority and speaking in the assembly are being applied to Joyce Meyer without considering context, a discussion of context applies to a thread on Joyce Meyer as a teacher.

 

[jiminpa]

When I said "no one in this thread is so naive they can't figure out the good from the bad", it was obviously not applying to you.
The evidence I listed is outright apostasy. Given your reply here it's evident that the two of us fundamentally disagree on the basics of what Christianity teaches.

I reiterate, if Meyer truly moved on and understood her previous teachings were incorrect, she would address them. Anyone can say, "I make mistakes".

I'm getting the feeling this is all bouncing off your ear before it enters the eardrum, so let's just happily disagree.

1. How do you know she didn't? These wolves have gone over years, and years, and years of her teachings to find any ones that they could criticize regardless of context, and it wasn't much. Do you really think that these accusers of the brethren would publish any retraction she made. It would blow their whole gig. Then they might have to find honest work, and that's not going to happen.

2. The only egregious one was the "little gods" one, and I can still see drawing that conclusion early on.

3. Some of those "heresies" are actually what the bible teaches, but we've been so trained by Catholicism and the semi-Catholicism of the reformation that we won't stand for what the bible actually says. That and the wolves know she's far more biblical than what they spew, but they have a schtick and it's very profitable.

 

[Romans 8]

So if you take one statement by Paul out of context you may come to one conclusion, but if you take it in the full context of scripture you draw a completely different one. Since the verses about women holding authority and speaking in the assembly are being applied to Joyce Meyer without considering context, a discussion of context applies to a thread on Joyce Meyer as a teacher.

Can you reply with your evidence for this? As far as I know, no one mentioned "women's authority" thus far.

 

[jiminpa]

When I said "no one in this thread is so naive they can't figure out the good from the bad", it was obviously not applying to you.

Thanks. It's nice to know I'm so loved.

 

[Romans 8]

1. How do you know she didn't?

Have you got evidence to the contrary? I'm all ears.

These wolves have gone over years, and years, and years of her teachings to find any ones that they could criticize regardless of context, and it wasn't much. Do you really think that these accusers of the brethren would publish any retraction she made. It would blow their whole gig. Then they might have to find honest work, and that's not going to happen.

"These wolves"? The wolves have big teeth and the sheep are the fluffy ones.

2. The only egregious one was the "little gods" one, and I can still see drawing that conclusion early on.

I disagree.

3. Some of those "heresies" are actually what the bible teaches, but we've been so trained by Catholicism and the semi-Catholicism of the reformation that we won't stand for what the bible actually says. That and the wolves know she's far more biblical than what they spew, but they have a schtick and it's very profitable.

Care to state your case?

 

[jiminpa]

Can you reply with your evidence for this? As far as I know, no one mentioned "women's authority" thus far.

Or you could check back in the thread for yourself.

 

[Romans 8]

Or you could check back in the thread for yourself.

You're conflating different arguments from other threads. This is a waste of time.