Suggested thread 4th Ave in Franklin Tn: William Hall

Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:32 pm

January 14th, 2015, 10:50 pm #1

Patrick Mead in his latest short stays in churches is probably the boaster that HE would take a female preaching intern: why not, he just makes up stuff as he goes with a Bible title.

The Video has been shut down of the preaching lady maybe she would put it back up. We have hacked 4th since Halal took it over and spend a fortune building a recording studio and making this historic building into a theater for performing arts or not too artsy. I believe he boasted about being the first to accept one of LU's Lady Leader's new preaching ministers. Daughters of Eve as their avowed mother dominating males.

They were called down and took down the performance.

http://www.faughnfamily.com/open-letter ... ch-christ/

Here is some of Patrick Meads sermons: I want to get at that dancing with God where David's naked dance is a pattern.

http://www.fourthavenuechurch.org/teaching/

This is my opinion of Patrick's preaching



<font face="arial" size="4">All comments welcomed. William Hall suggested this thread
</font>
Last edited by Ken.Sublett on January 14th, 2015, 10:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:32 pm

January 15th, 2015, 12:38 am #2

This is a link to Patrick Mead's dissertation and history of the tragic using of a godly young woman. Whatever the elders intention it is the THEOLOGY of LU and the avowed purpose to train so many females that they can be forced into churches. I am quite certain that there could have been minimally sensitive ways of getting the experience without boasting of the first to dare acquire a female preaching intern.

When older females and fairly illiterate professors push for something they know is going to sow discord the are not to be trusted.

http://travelingmead.net/

This includes the elders "rationale" which proves that they trust false teachers and do not bother to understand the three or four reasons Paul and others listed.

Women as the triple goddesses before they allowed a dead or impotent male into the act were always the sorcerers claiming to speak to the gods when they fell into charismatic ecstasy through drugs usually induced with music.

This was the problem in Corinth and it is well documented outside of the Bible.

Paul silences the MALES because they permitted wrath or an ORGY as Adam did not watch over Eve (Evah, Virus, Venum, Venus) and she fornicated with Satan and claimed A NEW PARADIGM

The SINGULAR PURPOSE "that we all be SAFE and come to a knowledge of the truth." That is the WORD, logos or regulative principle which all of the theo-logs REPUDIATE.

And contrary to the women (Lectio-divina, spiritual formation) there is ONE GOD THE FATHER and One Mediator the MAN Jesus Christ.

I KEEP repeating that because there must be at least one preacher or "scholar" who can read whole thought patterns.

I will review the elder's white paper but they have already gone off the deep end with musical idolatry which historically was males PERFORMING THE ROLES OF WOMEN.






Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:32 pm

January 15th, 2015, 1:31 am #3

Jay Guin points to this long dissertation and a comment is made proving that these people don't NEED Scripture:

In fact, take a moment to pick up your Bible and read First Corinthians 14 and leave out vv.34,35. It flows much better, doesn’t it? The thought isn’t broken up and Paul gets to finish his point. These reasons, among others, are why so many people who spend their lives studying these manuscripts believe Paul didn’t write those two verses.”

1Cor. 14:32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
1Cor. 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
1Cor. 14:36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
1Cor. 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

However, if you put the verses back in it reads better than Patrick Mead's claimed authority to quote it like he likes it.

1Cor. 14:32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
1Cor. 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

Even feminists understand the Mad Women of Corinth and the evidence is that women have just lost their jobs as witches or sorcerers. Historically both men and women were silent and reverent when the elder PREACHED the Word by READING it and maybe discussing THAT read portion. Only those "just out of paganism" would feel the need to INTERPRET the text.

1Cor. 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
1Cor. 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.


The reason the WOMEN are to be silent and sedentary? That would also apply to the very rare male which Paul identifies as the superapostles claiming that Paul's messages were not WORTHY of a wage.

1Cor. 14:36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
1Cor. 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual,
let him acknowledge that the things
that I WRITE unto you are the COMMANDMENTS of the Lord.


The PROOF in all of the "women" passages is to silence female, uncovered prophesiers (1 Corinthians 11:5) who claimed inspiration. Feminists and effeminate have invented a NEW PARADIGM so they can read the text any way they wish--and extort money from you too.

Jay Guin and the progressives are Just Jesus and deny that Paul wrote the commandments of God. If they deny that Paul was being guided into all truth like the older apostles then why wouldn't the get a real job and let the faithful "teach that which has been taught.

From here, this writer justified any invented form of baptism.

None of them understand that Christ breathed (spirit) and the prophets defined the future REST FROM RELIGION both inclusively and exclusively including the MUSIC thing as well as BAPTISM which the progressives dispute.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:32 pm

January 16th, 2015, 2:19 am #4

I have done a quick partial review of the fourth Avenue elders document on women.

http://www.piney.com/Fourth.Avenue.Chur ... Women.html
Quote
Like
Share

Justly
Justly

January 16th, 2015, 6:17 pm #5

Patrick Mead in his latest short stays in churches is probably the boaster that HE would take a female preaching intern: why not, he just makes up stuff as he goes with a Bible title.

The Video has been shut down of the preaching lady maybe she would put it back up. We have hacked 4th since Halal took it over and spend a fortune building a recording studio and making this historic building into a theater for performing arts or not too artsy. I believe he boasted about being the first to accept one of LU's Lady Leader's new preaching ministers. Daughters of Eve as their avowed mother dominating males.

They were called down and took down the performance.

http://www.faughnfamily.com/open-letter ... ch-christ/

Here is some of Patrick Meads sermons: I want to get at that dancing with God where David's naked dance is a pattern.

http://www.fourthavenuechurch.org/teaching/

This is my opinion of Patrick's preaching



<font face="arial" size="4">All comments welcomed. William Hall suggested this thread
</font>

William Hall, under what condition(s) is it permissible for a woman to speak from the pulpit in the assembly?
Quote
Share

Scripture
Scripture

January 16th, 2015, 6:33 pm #6

Two other questions:

What is the difference between small group discussion and worship?

When does a small group become an assembly?
Quote
Share

Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:32 pm

January 16th, 2015, 6:51 pm #7

I am not a lawyer but when does seeking legalistic loopholes become legalism?

When I brush up on my old 1920s algebra and radio books I am seeking information as a disciple. It never occurs to me to challenge documents.

NONE of the hired roles have any intention of PREACHING the Word by READING the Word for Doctrine and Comfort. God bless their hearts you can get a degree at LU learning how to read the text by using your imagination? Or by Divination!

That may be why Jesus translates our spirits into a heavenly kingdom and LOCKS UP the tiny Little Flock to protect them from the WORLD.
Last edited by Ken.Sublett on January 16th, 2015, 6:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Justly
Justly

January 16th, 2015, 7:04 pm #8



Superheterodyne receiver history-- patented in 1901.


This form of receiver is based around the idea of mixing signals in a non-linear fashion.

If the shoe fits...
Quote
Share

Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:32 pm

January 17th, 2015, 3:25 am #9

Patrick Mead in his latest short stays in churches is probably the boaster that HE would take a female preaching intern: why not, he just makes up stuff as he goes with a Bible title.

The Video has been shut down of the preaching lady maybe she would put it back up. We have hacked 4th since Halal took it over and spend a fortune building a recording studio and making this historic building into a theater for performing arts or not too artsy. I believe he boasted about being the first to accept one of LU's Lady Leader's new preaching ministers. Daughters of Eve as their avowed mother dominating males.

They were called down and took down the performance.

http://www.faughnfamily.com/open-letter ... ch-christ/

Here is some of Patrick Meads sermons: I want to get at that dancing with God where David's naked dance is a pattern.

http://www.fourthavenuechurch.org/teaching/

This is my opinion of Patrick's preaching



<font face="arial" size="4">All comments welcomed. William Hall suggested this thread
</font>
Feminists scholars try to strip 1 Corinthians 14 of clear statements about women: they appeal to Clement of Alexandria but as usual no one reads the originals. What Clement said was that both WOMEN and MEN had the liberty to BE SILENT. They both had the liberty--if they wanted to go and teach--to be martyrs.

And we “do not cast that which is holy before dogs, nor pearls before swine;” but with all possible self-restraint, and with all discretion, and with all fear of God, and with earnestness of mind we praise God. For we do not minister where heathens are drinking and blaspheming in their feasts with words of impurity, because of their wickedness.

Therefore do we not sing psalms to the heathens,
<font color="#FFFFFF">.....
nor do we read to them the Scriptures,
.....that we may not be like common singers,
.....either those who play on the lyre,
.....or those who sing with the voice,
.....or like soothsayers, as many are,
.....who follow these practices and do these things, that they may sate themselves with a paltry mouthful of bread,
.....and who, for the sake of a sorry cup of wine,
.....go about “singing the songs of the Lord in the STRING land” of the heathen, and doing what is not right.

But see what it says also concerning those holy men, the prophets, and concerning the apostles of our Lord. Let us see whether any one of these holy men was constantly with maidens, or with young married women, or with such widows as the divine apostle declines to receive.


Clement traces all of the falls in the Old Testament to women. They were despised by godly women as setting females over them is also despised.

In contrast men like Rick Atchley and his disciples dismiss or demote the DEACONS as co-teachers with the elders to someone to call if your roof starts leaking. In their place they heap on a host of female ministers (rationaled as deaconesses) and violate minimal caution. No wonder that preachers get shotguned and wives get Anti-freezed.
</font>
Quote
Like
Share

William Hall
William Hall

January 17th, 2015, 7:39 am #10

Two other questions:

What is the difference between small group discussion and worship?

When does a small group become an assembly?
Perhaps I will respond in more detail later. But Scripture's post places me at a somewhat disadvantage because I know nothing of small groups. I think that he means small groups that meet on Sunday evening in place of a corporate assembly at a defined meeting place, or church. Didn't they grow out of the so-called Cross Roads Movement? It just happens that I have never been associated with a congregation that did/does small groups so I know nothing of small group discussions. Zones are not quite the same thing. In discussions I have heard both the positive and negative aspects of small groups, and I have no personal opinion regarding them. So I have to respond with a question: are, or are they not, an assembly?

It is my understanding that the Greek which we would translate "assembly" has a more formal meaning than just getting together, or as our Constitution grants us, "the right of the people peaceably to assemble." If even though the group is small the purpose is to assemble as saints, have church, share the Lord's Supper, etc., then why would a small assembly meeting as a house church not be subject to the same liberties and restrictions as a larger group meeting in a church or rented hall or wherever? However, if the purpose of the small group is to get together as friends with common interests and to discuss the details of those interests, primarily religious in nature though the discussion may be, and yet the meeting is not "having church", then the ladies have some right to participate more directly. For instance, some women are named with their husbands for the good that they did in the early church, some individually, some named specifically as troublemakers, and at least one who named as sharing in her husband's lies and deceits to her own death. Women were commended for the churches that met in their homes, for the teaching that they gave to a man, and for the good that they did.

It is just as important not to bind more than the Lord has bound as it is to ignore clearly what has been commanded. Do the scriptures forbid a woman from all teaching? Of course not. Does the context of I Cor. and I Tim. forbid women to ask or answer questions in a public adult Bible class? I argue that is not the context of I Cor. and I Tim.

Certainly a group meeting on, say, Tuesday in your home would have a different atmosphere with more freedoms than church. But even there probity would/should prevail. Decency, sobriety, decorum, etc.,are not given up because the day is named after a Scandinavian mythic diety. No matter where or when, "all things are to be done decently and in order." In this discussion I would emphasize "all." So now I have to wonder: what parts of I Corinthians 14 and I Timothy 2 do you not understand or how do you dispute them?

Thank you for your response and making me think a bit.
Quote
Share