Binding and loosing

[Floatingaxe]

Peaceafire,

I did a study on Liberty Savards book "Breaking the Power" My entire life was turned upside down and inside out and completely rearranged, but I am thriving from it. It was like a new life for my husband and I and it was what saved our marriage. She came to our church last year as the key speaker for our womens conference. We just didn't want her to leave.

Its great that you have experienced her teaching, but it is still a concept that people find hard to grasp. embraced in its fullness though it is much easier to understand. Somtimes when I share the basic concept or use it people are thrown off, because they are so used to one way of thinking.

Have you read any of her other books?

[Northern lass]

I know this is not your question, but this is what I do, and it delivers!

Try speaking into people's lives... Remember, what you speak with your tongue, will happen..

Many times I will bind and loose things when in prayer, but speaking into a person's life is just as powerful.

Also remember, the Holy Spirit is there to petition for you before the Father, because He knows our hearts and knows what it is we are trying to say. Many times words will fail me in prayer, and then I just ask the Holy Spirit to take over (actually all the time, but I think you get the picture).

Please will you explain what you mean by "speaking into people's lives"?

[peaceafire]

Peaceafire,

I did a study on Liberty Savards book "Breaking the Power" My entire life was turned upside down and inside out and completely rearranged, but I am thriving from it. It was like a new life for my husband and I and it was what saved our marriage. She came to our church last year as the key speaker for our womens conference. We just didn't want her to leave.

Its great that you have experienced her teaching, but it is still a concept that people find hard to grasp. embraced in its fullness though it is much easier to understand. Somtimes when I share the basic concept or use it people are thrown off, because they are so used to one way of thinking.

Have you read any of her other books?

I am still working through the strongholds book though the concepts seemed somewhat foreign at first I really feel the Lord is speaking to me through this book and suggested scritpure, to follow in this path of learning to bind and loose. I am working through the stage where I am still examining beliefs that may be blocking me from receiving, I look forward to the continued blessing of her instruction and reading further studies she may have that keep me in Gods word. That has been the biggest blessing so far I am in His word daily. Halleluyah! \o/ Glory to God for His great plans

[Fiosh]

5:4 And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, you shall receive a crown of glory that fades not away.

Here Peter calls himself a servant:

2pe 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

Amazing, Jesus and the other Apostles were not aware of Peter's exalted position. Peter was not aware of it. For those who know the Scriptures and history, they know where this 'notion' of 'lordship' came from, and it definitely was not from God or the Scriptures. Read Revelation for it delineates the 'falling away' and the rise of the 'man of sin' who would exalt himself above his brethren, and thus above God.

God Bless,

Dennis

Howdy Pilgrim!

As KansasDad said, the Pope is a sinner and can err. He is ONLY infallible in very specific circumstances, when teaching the faithful on matters of faith and morals.

His is not an "exalted" position. In fact, one of the official titles of the pope is "Servant of the servants of God".

Peace,

Fiosh

[Pilgrim7]

Fiosh,

Yes he is a sinner just like all of us. He also is not 'infallible on anything', just like all of us. He is not the 'Holy Father', not the 'Vicar of Christ' nor the head of 'Christ's church'.

He is not the 'successor of Peter'. but of the 'Pontifex Maximus', the High Priest of 'Sol Invictus', Roman Paganism, of which Julius Caesar was the originator as He was the first Roman Emperor to also be 'High Priest' and to be worshiped as God.

He wears the same 'costume' that the 'Pontifex Maximus' wore, especially that 'silly fish hat'. That was a 'hand me down' from the 'High Priest of Dagon', the 'fish God'.

The first official 'pope' was appointed by Constantine, after 320 AD. Up until then the Bishops of the main population centers controled the 'church'. Yet the 'Bishop of Rome' was more ambitious than the others, and decided to take over, thus the Holy??? Roman Empire and utter confusion and despotism. The True Christians had to go into hiding from your 'Popes' just to keep from being martyred.

I would advise some study of history that has not the 'Imprimatur' on it.

PS: Calling oneself 'Holy Father' Vicar of Christ' and saying that one is 'infallible at anytime' is exalting oneself above all, in fact it borders on Blasphemy. Even a child can understand that. I sure if I stated that I was infallible at times, you would think that I was exalting myself and you would be right.

God Bless,

Dennis

[cjrose]

From what I understand and have been taught concerning this verse, we're given authority in Jesus' name to bind demonic influences and loose things like spiritual protection, Holy Spirit drawing people to Jesus, etc....

Of course, there are certainly many people here who I'm sure know more about it than I do!

billie, you are more wise than you believe

[cjrose]

Anything that Jesus bestowed upon His disciples is available to us, His disciples now! I refute any of this teaching that you purvey. It is absolute blindness to the truth of Jesus Christ and why He came. I rebuke and bind that in the Name of Jesus Christ!

Axe, you continually englighten me as I seem to connect with the same mindset as you. Thank you dear sis

[Kansasdad]

Fiosh,

Yes he is a sinner just like all of us. He also is not 'infallible on anything', just like all of us. He is not the 'Holy Father', not the 'Vicar of Christ' nor the head of 'Christ's church'.

He is not the 'successor of Peter'. but of the 'Pontifex Maximus', the High Priest of 'Sol Invictus', Roman Paganism, of which Julius Caesar was the originator as He was the first Roman Emperor to also be 'High Priest' and to be worshiped as God.

He wears the same 'costume' that the 'Pontifex Maximus' wore, especially that 'silly fish hat'. That was a 'hand me down' from the 'High Priest of Dagon', the 'fish God'.

The first official 'pope' was appointed by Constantine, after 320 AD. Up until then the Bishops of the main population centers controled the 'church'. Yet the 'Bishop of Rome' was more ambitious than the others, and decided to take over, thus the Holy??? Roman Empire and utter confusion and despotism. The True Christians had to go into hiding from your 'Popes' just to keep from being martyred.

I would advise some study of history that has not the 'Imprimatur' on it.

PS: Calling oneself 'Holy Father' Vicar of Christ' and saying that one is 'infallible at anytime' is exalting oneself above all, in fact it borders on Blasphemy. Even a child can understand that. I sure if I stated that I was infallible at times, you would think that I was exalting myself and you would be right.

God Bless,

Dennis

So then would you say that the Bishops of the church before 320 AD were true followers of Christ? Would you say that before 320 AD the Church leaders had knowledge taught to them by the Apostles?

[Pilgrim7]

Kansas Dad,

Some were some weren't. They were in the process of the 'falling away' spoken of by Paul and the establishment of the 'man of sin' who would elevate himself above his brethren and thus put himself on a level with God.

The Bishop of Rome, because Rome ruled the world, thought he should be ruler of the church. Thus he arrogantly usurped the leadership position and eventually assumed the 'title' pope.

He did this by 'converting most of the Pagans' in Rome by changing all the Pagan Temples into 'Catholic churches' and christianizing most of the Pagan festivals and beliefs into 'Catholic doctrine'. They were not converted in heart, but only in name. This gave him power and Rome supplied the military might necessary to put him into power.

Most of Catholic doctrine is just Pagan doctrine, changed slightly, with new names so that the Pagans would seem to be christian, when in fact, they were still Pagan. It is a facinating study to study the Old Pagan beliefs and to see their parallel in Catholic doctrine.

God bless,

Dennis

[Kansasdad]

Kansas Dad,

Some were some weren't. They were in the process of the 'falling away' spoken of by Paul and the establishment of the 'man of sin' who would elevate himself above his brethren and thus put himself on a level with God.

The Bishop of Rome, because Rome ruled the world, thought he should be ruler of the church. Thus he arrogantly usurped the leadership position and eventually assumed the 'title' pope.

He did this by 'converting most of the Pagans' in Rome by changing all the Pagan Temples into 'Catholic churches' and christianizing most of the Pagan festivals and beliefs into 'Catholic doctrine'. They were not converted in heart, but only in name. This gave him power and Rome supplied the military might necessary to put him into power.

Most of Catholic doctrine is just Pagan doctrine, changed slightly, with new names so that the Pagans would seem to be christian, when in fact, they were still Pagan. It is a facinating study to study the Old Pagan beliefs and to see their parallel in Catholic doctrine.

God bless,

Dennis

Ok I don't think your acconting of history is quite accurate but I am not going to argue that point here. I will give you the assumption that anything after 320 AD from the Catholic church is suspect. ( I don't agree with it but I will go along with that conjecture)

Here Paul tells the Corinthians, "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6).

So in the most forceful of language Paul could use, he tell us that there is more to his message then what he wrote. We are commanded in the name of Jesus Christ to also hold on to his oral teachings. This is a command, How are we going to do this? The only way is to look to those very early church leaders, who were taught by Paul and the other Apostles.

You have suggested that some were followers of Jesus's teachings and some were not. Therefore it would seem imperative to establish who the players are and which ones were teaching the same message as the Apostles.

Here are early church leaders that I could find,

Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, (A.D. 98). We have Clement who was writing around 98 AD. Lets see Christ resurection took place around 37 AD.

Ignatius, To the Trallians, (A.D. 110).

Hegesippus, Memoirs, fragment in Eusebius Ecclesiatical History, (A.D. 180).

Tertullian, Prescription against the Heretics, 33 (A.D. 200).

Origen, Commentary on Matthew (post A.D. 244).

Cyprian, To the Lapsed, 1 (A.D. 250).

Firmilian, To Cyprian, Epistle 75[74]:16 (A.D. 256).

Notice that every one of these early Church leaders were writing at least 100 years before your date of 320AD. Therefore by your conjecture had nothing to do with the Catholic Church.

Now by your assertion in order to follow what the Bible tells us we must do, remember Paul did not give this as a suggestion it was a command in the name of Jesus Christ, We absolutely must determine if these early church leaders were in fact teaching what the Apostles taught them.

Are you familiar with any of these early Christian leaders? I will do a little more research and give you some historical background a little later.

God Bless,

K.D.