1 Cor. 15:20-28

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Thaddaeus

New Member
Dec 22, 2007
23
0
0
80
tim from pa,
Fella, I have more scriptures than you can shake a stick at. But I'd be wasting my time trying to convince someone who can't make sense out of something that hits one straight in the face.As for verses like Jeremiah 22:30, passages in Ezekiel 17 and Ezekiel 21 that you use to disprove an earthly throne, I actually use to prove there's one.Have you been open-minded enough to look at my genealogy in my signature? I though not. The same passages you (mis)quoted are used to explain it.As for Jesus being cursed because of Jeremiah 22:30, tell me why pray tell you'd want to worship a so-called Messiah that does not have the right to reign in Judah if the need arose, but he can reign from heaven? Tell me the logic in that? Never mind I asked.
But it has never been the Gospel from the beginning. It is a man's personal interpretation of just the last 100 years. The Gospel was once given, for all, for all time, Jude 3. There is no revelation of private individuals. All false teachings are based on scripture. To say you can develop a dogma from scripture has been proven in history so many times it is making scripture of non-effect. Just how many versions of dispensationalists are there? The fact that there is more than one is proof that Scripture can be abused and that anyone can develop whatever view they desire and claim it to be scripture. This is a sign of the last times. Fifty years from now, your view will be history and there will be a much more distinctive version competing with still more alternative views, it is endless. Hardly the Gospel ONCE given. Jude 3. Hardly a Gospel that has been preserved by the Holy Spirit until the end of time. The fact it is of very recent origin and a variety of veiws could hardly be the work of the Holy Spirit either. You place individual man's interpretative ability of the Bible above the ONCE given Gospel to the Saints. You place much more emphasis on a God derived by man's thinking than the ONE revealed to us by God Himself. As for hitting someone in the face, it seems that the Gospel didn't come until you were born. You seem to forget that it has been around for 2000 years already and Dispensationalism has never been the content of Christianity ever. The very fact it is not the universal Gospel even today speaks volumes against its validity.
 

RichardBurger

New Member
Jan 23, 2008
1,498
19
0
90
Southeast USA
It was said: "If Scripture is left to opinion it becomes meaningless. It becomes a faith of one person, and you will have as many faiths as there are people's opinion, which it has become today."I suppose each person should all take their beliefs and just shove them so that we can place our eternal life in the hands of this man's interpretation (opinion) of scripture. --- Just one person he say; well we shall each, as one person, stand before Jesus. All those people you have placed your faith in will not be able to help you. You will have to account for yourself as an individual.I get the impression this man has placed his faith in the religion of his choice (his opinion) thinking it will save him.Richard
smile.gif
 

Thaddaeus

New Member
Dec 22, 2007
23
0
0
80
RichardBurger,
It was said: "If Scripture is left to opinion it becomes meaningless. It becomes a faith of one person, and you will have as many faiths as there are people's opinion, which it has become today."I suppose each person should all take their beliefs and just shove them so that we can place our eternal life in the hands of this man's interpretation (opinion) of scripture. --- Just one person he say; well we shall each, as one person, stand before Jesus. All those people you have placed your faith in will not be able to help you. You will have to account for yourself as an individual.
Except it is not my opinion, but that accepted Christianity from the Beginning as Christ gave it to us. Both Himself and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles. It is ONE faith based on ONE Lord that was given. We can either accept that faith in the Gospel of Christ as He gave it to man, or we can accept our own interpretation, our own personal faith that we develop from a Book.It is a choice we make as individuals, but we are saved as a group, the Church, the Body of Christ. Those IN Christ are unifed in faith, not thousands of faiths. Christ did not say there are many ways to come to me, nor many ways to understand who I am. If what you say, then most of the world will be saved. This includes Moslems, Hindus, Mormans and everyone else that believes in the same God you do. You have made Christ meaningless with man-made gospels, each as valid as any other. That we are even discussing is irrelevant, since whatever you believe from what I believe is still valid. Everything is valid as long as it is directed at God. But which God, who do you believe God is and how has He revealed Himself is what is important and why the distinctions. You place all importance on man's interpretation from a Book. What is important that we believe in the Giver of that Book. The ONE who is Truth. The Bible is not Truth, it is a witness to that Truth. You have made the Book the basis of truth, but more importantly, whatever any man can develop from it is valid. Yet, we know that all false teachings have been generated from scripture. You have no basis to even know or determine a false teaching. You are saying that your personal take is as valid as any other man's interpretation. How quaint and humanistic satisfying that might be. Every man can save himself simply by developing a theology that in fact saves Him. A very psychological boost if there ever was one.
 

RichardBurger

New Member
Jan 23, 2008
1,498
19
0
90
Southeast USA
It was said; "If what you say, then most of the world will be saved. This includes Moslems, Hindus, Mormans and everyone else that believes in the same God you do. You have made Christ meaningless with man-made gospels, each as valid as any other. That we are even discussing is irrelevant, since whatever you believe from what I believe is still valid. Everything is valid as long as it is directed at God." ****A false witness! I have always said that anyone who places their faith, trust, confidence and hope in the finished work of Jesus on the cross will be saved. But very few do it. They only have faith in what they do, not what God has done. How is this making Christ meaningless. All you are doing is building a strawman that does not exist. I suggest you stick to what you believe and not express things you know nothing about.It was said: "But which God, who do you believe God is and how has He revealed Himself is what is important and why the distinctions. You place all importance on man's interpretation from a Book. What is important that we believe in the Giver of that Book. The ONE who is Truth. The Bible is not Truth, it is a witness to that Truth." ***Another false witness about me based on your strawman. Theology has never saved anyone. It only separates us from God. It was said: "You have made the Book the basis of truth, but more importantly, whatever any man can develop from it is valid. Yet, we know that all false teachings have been generated from scripture. You have no basis to even know or determine a false teaching. You are saying that your personal take is as valid as any other man's interpretation. How quaint and humanistic satisfying that might be. Every man can save himself simply by developing a theology that in fact saves Him. A very psychological boost if there ever was one." ***I cannot change the ideas you have about me. They exist in your own mind. But I will say that all you have is your opinion (belief). You say it is more but it isn't.The scriptures are God's words to us. You either believe (your opinion) they are, or you don't. I happen to believe they are God's words to everyone and that includes me. But few actually believe what they say. According to my Bible the Holy Spirit reveals the truth in God's word to every Child of God and the voice of a stranger they will not follow. My faith is in God. I am in His hands, not man's.A personal revelation:The words in the Bible are meaningless unless there is a personal revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ. While it is true that without scripture there would be no Christianity, it can never replace the INWARD revelation of the Lord that leads to salvation through a relationship.Everything we hear and read is nothing more than transmitted knowledge from one human mouth or hand to another human being's ears or eyes.Luke 24:1,32 records as much. They were with the Lord and learning of scripture with their hearts burning, but it was when HE opened their eyes that they KNEW Him.Essentially, This message is attempting to convey that the inward revelation of the Lord must come from the Holy Spirit in order for us to know Him personally. Knowing HIM, as opposed to knowing ABOUT Him.For anyone that wishes to know what I belive then see my post "An Overview of the Bilble."Richard
smile.gif
 

Thaddaeus

New Member
Dec 22, 2007
23
0
0
80
Richardburger,
The words in the Bible are meaningless unless there is a personal revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ. While it is true that without scripture there would be no Christianity, it can never replace the INWARD revelation of the Lord that leads to salvation through a relationship.
This is the crux of your error. Where does it say that the Holy Spirit is giving personal revelation to any person. II Pet 1:20 refutes that theory. But maybe you have a text that overturns it.the Apostles were given ALL Truth. John 16:13. So it the Holy Spirit gave the Apostles all Truth and they desiminated that Truth to the Early Church, what Truth would you be getting, and why would it not be manifested as a universal Gospel, rather than kept as a private knowledge as you claim.The Work of the Holy Spirit is to convict all men of their sins and lead them to that Truth, Himself.The Spirit leads to Truth, does not give additional revelation, truth through the Ages. It was given ONCE, Jude 3. Could you find a text that overturns Jude 3? Your view totally ignores it as it does the others.
 

RichardBurger

New Member
Jan 23, 2008
1,498
19
0
90
Southeast USA
(Thaddaeus;55371)
Richardburger, This is the crux of your error. Where does it say that the Holy Spirit is giving personal revelation to any person. II Pet 1:20 refutes that theory. But maybe you have a text that overturns it.the Apostles were given ALL Truth. John 16:13. So it the Holy Spirit gave the Apostles all Truth and they desiminated that Truth to the Early Church, what Truth would you be getting, and why would it not be manifested as a universal Gospel, rather than kept as a private knowledge as you claim.The Work of the Holy Spirit is to convict all men of their sins and lead them to that Truth, Himself.The Spirit leads to Truth, does not give additional revelation, truth through the Ages. It was given ONCE, Jude 3. Could you find a text that overturns Jude 3? Your view totally ignores it as it does the others.
You said: "the Apostles were given ALL Truth. John 16:13. So it the Holy Spirit gave the Apostles all Truth and they desiminated that Truth to the Early Church, what Truth would you be getting, and why would it not be manifested as a universal Gospel, rather than kept as a private knowledge as you claim."So you are saying that the Holy Spirit gave all truth to the 12 Apostles. There was not anything that would be added to it. And then came Paul with a new gospel that was hidden in God and revealed to him (Paul). But you don't really believe Paul do you?Your claim that the 12 Apostles were given ALL TRUTH is not supported by the early church history. They added many things that are not in the Bible.Amazing! You think the Holy Spirit can teach the truth to your church leaders but can't teach each and every Child of God. Your god must be weak. -- You think God has left us at the mercy of religious nuts running around and telling others that they are between them and God saying "come and do as I say and you will be saved."John 14:12-1812 "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do, because I go to My Father.13 And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.14 If you ask anything in My name, I will do it. 15 "If you love Me, keep My commandments.16 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever —17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.18 I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you. NKJVYou think that the above is just written to the 12 Apostles. It is a pity that you have such little faith in God that you do not understand that the Holy Spirit is given to each and every child of God and He will lead them to the truth in Christ. Your faith is in other men who are just like you, weak. But you will never see that. Richard
smile.gif
 

RichardBurger

New Member
Jan 23, 2008
1,498
19
0
90
Southeast USA
I do not believe that Jesus Christ came to set up just another new and improved physical organized religion run by men who can deceive themselves?I, personally, don't think so since he said that the time will come, after his death, when man will not say, let us go here, or there, to worship God, for man will worship God from within his heart, in other words, a personal worship of God whose spirit will be living within the hearts of those who love him.The following scriptures support my conclusions. Notice, in verse 28 below, how the verse acknowledges that men are weak and that the Son has been perfected forever. He did not leave us in the hands of weak human (leaders and priests). He has become our "high priest" and we need no other.Heb 7:25-2825 Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.26 For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens;27 who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people's, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.28 For the law appoints as high priests men who have weakness, but the word of the oath, which came after the law, appoints the Son who has been perfected forever.(NKJ)But there are many that will put their eternal lifes at risk by placing their faith in Men.Richard
smile.gif
 

Thaddaeus

New Member
Dec 22, 2007
23
0
0
80
RichardBurger,
So you are saying that the Holy Spirit gave all truth to the 12 Apostles. There was not anything that would be added to it. And then came Paul with a new gospel that was hidden in God and revealed to him (Paul). But you don't really believe Paul do you?
There were several more Apostles than 12. Paul is probably the chief of the Apostles. Timothy is also an apostle. Luke, Barnabas are apostles, just to name some others.
Your claim that the 12 Apostles were given ALL TRUTH is not supported by the early church history. They added many things that are not in the Bible.
It is actually the other way around. Many things that were given to them and that was taught to the early Church, is not included in the Bible. But all of the Bible is part of the early Church history and a witness to that history.Could you back up with some evidence of things that you think are not in scripture?
Amazing! You think the Holy Spirit can teach the truth to your church leaders but can't teach each and every Child of God. Your god must be weak. -- You think God has left us at the mercy of religious nuts running around and telling others that they are between them and God saying "come and do as I say and you will be saved."
Teaching and giving revelation are two very distinct aspects. You are claiming revelation. You are not claiming teaching about what was given. Philip explained the Gospel to the Enuch, he could not comprehend by himself.Just the opposite, Christ via the Holy Spirit did not leave it to individuals for that very reason. Man, individual men are sinners.History has proven that innumerable times. They all have an ego and it is quite readily made manifest to those who abuse the Bible for their own ego in thinking that they can actually interpret scripture on their own. The Holy Spirit ONLY works through the Body of Chrsit. It is the whole Body which is the Truth. The Holy Spirit works in and through individuals, but it is the consensus of the entire Body, of which Christ is the Head, that always prevails.
John 14:12-1812 "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do, because I go to My Father.13 And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.14 If you ask anything in My name, I will do it. 15 "If you love Me, keep My commandments.16 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever —17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.18 I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.
And just how does this support your view. There is nothing here that says the Holy Spirit gives you new revelation. That He is adding to that ONCE given Gospel to the Saints of Jude 3. It is actually being addressed to the Apostles and to the Church. It is a "plural you" not a singular you.
You think that the above is just written to the 12 Apostles. It is a pity that you have such little faith in God that you do not understand that the Holy Spirit is given to each and every child of God and He will lead them to the truth in Christ. Your faith is in other men who are just like you, weak. But you will never see that.
Hardly, it is written to the Apostles but more importantly for each believer. But there is absolutely nothing here to support new revelation by that Holy Spriit to the believer. NONE.
 

RichardBurger

New Member
Jan 23, 2008
1,498
19
0
90
Southeast USA
(Thaddaeus;55382)
RichardBurger, There were several more Apostles than 12. Paul is probably the chief of the Apostles. Timothy is also an apostle. Luke, Barnabas are apostles, just to name some others. It is actually the other way around. Many things that were given to them and that was taught to the early Church, is not included in the Bible. But all of the Bible is part of the early Church history and a witness to that history.Could you back up with some evidence of things that you think are not in scripture? Teaching and giving revelation are two very distinct aspects. You are claiming revelation. You are not claiming teaching about what was given. Philip explained the Gospel to the Enuch, he could not comprehend by himself.Just the opposite, Christ via the Holy Spirit did not leave it to individuals for that very reason. Man, individual men are sinners.History has proven that innumerable times. They all have an ego and it is quite readily made manifest to those who abuse the Bible for their own ego in thinking that they can actually interpret scripture on their own. The Holy Spirit ONLY works through the Body of Chrsit. It is the whole Body which is the Truth. The Holy Spirit works in and through individuals, but it is the consensus of the entire Body, of which Christ is the Head, that always prevails. And just how does this support your view. There is nothing here that says the Holy Spirit gives you new revelation. That He is adding to that ONCE given Gospel to the Saints of Jude 3. It is actually being addressed to the Apostles and to the Church. It is a "plural you" not a singular you. Hardly, it is written to the Apostles but more importantly for each believer. But there is absolutely nothing here to support new revelation by that Holy Spriit to the believer. NONE.
Thanks for your opinion but, as you can see, I do not share it.Richard
smile.gif
 

Thaddaeus

New Member
Dec 22, 2007
23
0
0
80
RichardBurger,
Thanks for your opinion but, as you can see, I do not share it.
I can see that, but I can also see that you are either unwilling or unable to defend your view? Why is that?
 

RichardBurger

New Member
Jan 23, 2008
1,498
19
0
90
Southeast USA
(Thaddaeus;55454)
RichardBurger, I can see that, but I can also see that you are either unwilling or unable to defend your view? Why is that?
Very funny! I have replied to all your replies and you say I am unwilling. That is a very good ploy used on all the forums.Get over it! There is no way for anyone to defend their views to someone that will not accept anything that is said or referenced.Frankly I have already stated what I believe and gave the scriptures that I feel suppport what I believe. I don't need to do anything else.Sorry you don't like my OP but I would not have posted it if I didn't believe it to be true.Richard
smile.gif
 

RichardBurger

New Member
Jan 23, 2008
1,498
19
0
90
Southeast USA
(Thaddaeus;55382)
RichardBurger, There were several more Apostles than 12. Paul is probably the chief of the Apostles. Timothy is also an apostle. Luke, Barnabas are apostles, just to name some others. It is actually the other way around. Many things that were given to them and that was taught to the early Church, is not included in the Bible. But all of the Bible is part of the early Church history and a witness to that history.Could you back up with some evidence of things that you think are not in scripture? Teaching and giving revelation are two very distinct aspects. You are claiming revelation. You are not claiming teaching about what was given. Philip explained the Gospel to the Enuch, he could not comprehend by himself.Just the opposite, Christ via the Holy Spirit did not leave it to individuals for that very reason. Man, individual men are sinners.History has proven that innumerable times. They all have an ego and it is quite readily made manifest to those who abuse the Bible for their own ego in thinking that they can actually interpret scripture on their own. The Holy Spirit ONLY works through the Body of Chrsit. It is the whole Body which is the Truth. The Holy Spirit works in and through individuals, but it is the consensus of the entire Body, of which Christ is the Head, that always prevails. And just how does this support your view. There is nothing here that says the Holy Spirit gives you new revelation. That He is adding to that ONCE given Gospel to the Saints of Jude 3. It is actually being addressed to the Apostles and to the Church. It is a "plural you" not a singular you. Hardly, it is written to the Apostles but more importantly for each believer. But there is absolutely nothing here to support new revelation by that Holy Spriit to the believer. NONE.
I suppose I am getting old. I seem to have let your idea of "NEW REVELATION" slip by.The only new revelation was given to Paul, a new gospel that was hidden in God and revealed to Paul by Jesus Himself.If you read Jude 1:1-7 in context you see that the writer is saying that there were already those that would pervert the Gospel slipping into the group. It is my opinion that that is what happened to the early church which you say cannot be wrong. The perversion was that they were adding man's works to the gospel. They did not believe salvation was now a free gift. And your church that you are so proud of doesn't believe it either.Richard
smile.gif
 

Thaddaeus

New Member
Dec 22, 2007
23
0
0
80
RichardBurger,
Get over it! There is no way for anyone to defend their views to someone that will not accept anything that is said or referenced
that is not called defending. That is called evangelization. You are simply putting forth your opinion, assertions, but give no evidence of those assertions. I'm not asking you to believe what I am saying. I am just pointing out what the Gospel has always meant. Historical Christianity.
Frankly I have already stated what I believe and gave the scriptures that I feel suppport what I believe. I don't need to do anything else.
What you believe is not in question. What the Bible actually states and what the understanding has always been is what is in question. If what you say it so, then the Mormon, the JW are just as correct as you are. They have simply stated what they believe regarding the Bible. But I'll bet you disagree, why? Why would you disagree when they are making the very same claim as you are?
Sorry you don't like my OP but I would not have posted it if I didn't believe it to be true.
it has nothing to do with what I like or dislike. As I stated, it has nothing to do with what you believe it to be. It is what those verses have always been understood in historical Christianity. the Gospel once given as Jude 3 claims. Nothing in scripture ever states that individuals receive additional revelation in time. Yet you made the claim, but can give no evidence for such a claim. How come?After all Joseph Smith makes that very same claim. He even wrote his revelation down, Did you do that with yours? Has it been published as Gospel Truth? Can you verify it, can Joseph Smith?
If you read Jude 1:1-7 in context you see that the writer is saying that there were already those that would pervert the Gospel slipping into the group. It is my opinion that that is what happened to the early church which you say cannot be wrong. The perversion was that they were adding man's works to the gospel. They did not believe salvation was now a free gift. And your church that you are so proud of doesn't believe it either.
Paul made that claim as well, and history has proven them correct. In fact, most, if not all false teachings have originated from within the Church itself. That would be quite logical. But there is a vast difference in what the Church believed and accepted and what individuals wrote, or taught for a time. Can you find evidence that historical Christianity, the Church in the early days ever adopted Judaism, or Gnosticism, or eventually some of the other heresies. By the way, they were claimed hereses by the Church because they were not that Gospel that Jude is speaking about. If you say the Church has error, then you need first to show that Christ is in error. The Biblical definition of the Church is Christ. Christ is the Head, over the Body. We as individual members are part of that Body, but has the Body ever been in error. Or are you just pointing out where individuals have been in error and they gathered some adherents for a time? Can you verify by history what things men were adding to the Church in the early days? You mention salvation as not a free gift. Can you cite historical references where this teaching has become the dogma in the early Church. If you can do that, then we have a discussion, and some evidence regarding your assertions.
And your church that you are so proud of doesn't believe it either.
What Church do you think I belong to that you can make such an assumption? Actually, it would not matter what Church I belonged to anyway. An atheists can make and point out these historical facts as well as I can. After all, there are volumes of this stuff to support by facts, not opinion.
 

RichardBurger

New Member
Jan 23, 2008
1,498
19
0
90
Southeast USA
(Thaddaeus;55477)
RichardBurger, that is not called defending. That is called evangelization. You are simply putting forth your opinion, assertions, but give no evidence of those assertions. I'm not asking you to believe what I am saying. I am just pointing out what the Gospel has always meant. Historical Christianity.
And you are just putting forth your opinion and have not given any evidence of those assertions just as you claim I am doing. Your saying your church has always taught the original gospel is no proof at all. It is just your opinion.(Thaddaeus;55477)
What you believe is not in question. What the Bible actually states and what the understanding has always been is what is in question. If what you say it so, then the Mormon, the JW are just as correct as you are. They have simply stated what they believe regarding the Bible. But I'll bet you disagree, why? Why would you disagree when they are making the very same claim as you are?
If their claims were actually backed up by the scriptures their claims would be valid. In the end it has always been what people see the scriptures saying that they believe. What you want others to do is to place their fate (faith, trust, confidence) in the hands of early church writers who were just as apostate. The main criteria for a writing to be include in the Bible was, did the writer actually meet and know Jesus. Your early church writers do not meet this requirement.(Thaddaeus;55477)
it has nothing to do with what I like or dislike. As I stated, it has nothing to do with what you believe it to be. It is what those verses have always been understood in historical Christianity. the Gospel once given as Jude 3 claims. Nothing in scripture ever states that individuals receive additional revelation in time. Yet you made the claim, but can give no evidence for such a claim. How come?
It has everything to do with what a person believes, some believe in the work of Jesus (God) on the cross for their salvation while some believe in a physical, man ran, church organization to save them. The gospel was complete as taught by Paul and nothing needs to be added to it. But Paul’s gospel was not the one revealed to the 12. Paul’s gospel was hidden in God before the world began while the gospel the 12 taught was revealed by the prophets all through the scriptures. Your church MUST reject this since it claims to have its authority through the 12 Apostles. The same Apostles that agreed with Paul that he should go to the Gentiles and they to the Jews. The early church you claim is based on the wrong Apostles.(Thaddaeus;55477)
After all Joseph Smith makes that very same claim. He even wrote his revelation down, Did you do that with yours? Has it been published as Gospel Truth? Can you verify it, can Joseph Smith?
I gave the scriptures that support what I said. Where are yours that support that the church will never be apostate. You mentioned Jude 3 but I think you are wanting to say Jude 1:1-5. I will deal with it at the end of this writing.(Thaddaeus;55477)
Paul made that claim as well, and history has proven them correct. In fact, most, if not all false teachings have originated from within the Church itself. That would be quite logical. --- But there is a vast difference in what the Church believed and accepted and what individuals wrote, or taught for a time. Can you find evidence that historical Christianity, the Church in the early days ever adopted Judaism, or Gnosticism, or eventually some of the other heresies. By the way, they were claimed hereses by the Church because they were not that Gospel that Jude is speaking about.
So you think that now it just can’t happen anymore, right? Tell me, do you think Ignatius, Justin, and Irenaeus wrote the truth based on the Historical teachings of the church you claim? (Thaddaeus;55477)
If you say the Church has error, then you need first to show that Christ is in error. The Biblical definition of the Church is Christ. Christ is the Head, over the Body. We as individual members are part of that Body, but has the Body ever been in error. Or are you just pointing out where individuals have been in error and they gathered some adherents for a time? Can you verify by history what things men were adding to the Church in the early days?
Your assumption that your church is Christ is rejected. The physical body is a sinful body. Your claim that the church of His Body is a physical body is rejected. I wrote a post about this on this forum titled “Physical and Spiritual churches defined:” I know you won't accept that post either, but many do.. (Thaddaeus;55477)
You mention salvation as not a free gift. Can you cite historical references where this teaching has become the dogma in the early Church. If you can do that, then we have a discussion, and some evidence regarding your assertions.
If a person is required by your church to do physical things, any physical things, to gain salvation then the salvation your church preaches is not free. The following is Catholic dogma. Please tell me the ones, if any, that your church claims. Prayers for the dead were introduced in 310 The lighting of candles in 320 The worship of saints about 375 The mass was adopted in 394 The worship of Mary began to develop about 432 Priests began to assume distinctive robes in 500 The doctrine of purgatory was introduced in 593 Worship in Latin (since repealed) was mandated in 600 Claims to Papal Supremacy took firm foot in 606 Feasts in honor of the Virgin Mary began in 650 The custom of kissing the Pope's foot was introduced in 709 The worship of images and relics was authorized in 788 The invention of holy water was about 850 The canonization of saints was formalized in 993 Feasts for the dead were introduced 1003 'The celibacy of the priesthood was declared 1074 The dogma of Papal infallibility was announced 1076 Prayer beads were introduced in 1090 The doctrine that there are seven sacraments was introduced in 1140 The sale of indulgences began 1190 The wafer was substituted for the loaf in 1200 The dogma of transubstantiation was adopted 1215 Confession was instituted 1215 The adoration of the Wafer began 1220 'The Ave Maria was introduced 1316 The cup was taken from the laity in 1415 Purgatory was officially decreed In 1439 Roman tradition was placed on the same level as Scripture 1546 The Apocrypha was received into the Canon 1546 The immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary was announced 1854 'The doctrine of the temporal power of the Pope proclaimed 1864 The personal corporeal presence of the Virgin in heaven 1950(Thaddaeus;55477)
What Church do you think I belong to that you can make such an assumption? Actually, it would not matter what Church I belonged to anyway. An atheists can make and point out these historical facts as well as I can. After all, there are volumes of this stuff to support by facts, not opinion.
Yes they can and they will see that your historical church has persecuted and murdered many during its existence on this earth.Jude 1-51 Jude, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, To those who are called, sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ: 2 Mercy, peace, and love be multiplied to you. Contend for the Faith3 Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.4 For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ. Old and New Apostates5 But I want to remind you, though you once knew this, that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.NKJVI see nothing in the above that proves you correct. Jesus Christ is the faith that was "once for all delivered to the saints" --- Not your church.
 

Thaddaeus

New Member
Dec 22, 2007
23
0
0
80
RichardBurger,
And you are just putting forth your opinion and have not given any evidence of those assertions just as you claim I am doing. Your saying your church has always taught the original gospel is no proof at all. It is just your opinion.
except that has been recorded in history in every century since then. I have not claimed it as opinion. You have. There lies the first difference. But I can give you a lot of sources that you can use to verify what I am saying, including the Canons, the Liturgy, the Councils, the writings of those Saints who were proclaimed as such ONLY because they were faithful to the original teachings of the Apostles. It is what has always been handed down. That is what Tradition means and it is the word used in Scripture as well. But there is a huge difference from the Tradition that Paul and all the other Apostles taught than what has developed as tradition. I have done enough reading of the Church Fathers to know that what you are asserting, has not ever even been published, let alone has ever been the Gospel once given.
If their claims were actually backed up by the scriptures their claims would be valid. .
Why would their claims not be backed up by Scripture. Scripture IS Tradition. Where do you think it came from. You were not left a book or can you point out when that book arrived? By the time the Canon was determined, the Church is already in the 4th century. It is the Church that gave you the Bible as you know it.
In the end it has always been what people see the scriptures saying that they believe.
That has only been a phenonomon of the last 50 to 100 years. It is true that many people prior to that, which includes all the heretics believed what they personally interpreted it to mean, but that does not make it the Gospel once given, back to Jude 3.
What you want others to do is to place their fate (faith, trust, confidence) in the hands of early church writers who were just as apostate.
What you want others to do is to place their fate (faith, trust, confidence) in the hands of early church writers who were just as apostate.[/quote] Actually the most early ones ONLY. They amounted to about 8 writers, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter, and Jude. We could add the OT writers as well, since the Church adopted the early Greek Septuigent as the OT Scriptures.
The main criteria for a writing to be include in the Bible was, did the writer actually meet and know Jesus. Your early church writers do not meet this requirement
You don't think the NT qualifies. I can see why we are having such difficulty, we must be using two different Books.But on the other hand, do you qualify? You are writing about the Bible, 2000 years from when it was written, (NT), yet you say those that recorded some of that early teaching did not know what they were doing, but you do?
It has everything to do with what a person believes, some believe in the work of Jesus (God) on the cross for their salvation while some believe in a physical, man ran, church organization to save them.
Some believe is witches as well. So what. But if we are discussing the NT along with the OT, then we are speaking about the Gospel once given. It does pertain to what a person believes, but does one believe the Gospel of Christ as He gave it, and preserved it, or dow one believe what each person can devise from their own interpretation of what the Bible means. I don't put any trust in man. But I do have faith in Christ and His promises recorded in Scripture. We either accept Him at His word, or we put our faith in ourselves.
The gospel was complete as taught by Paul and nothing needs to be added to it.
Yes, I agree with you wholeheartedly, but why then are you objecting to the recording of what He taught as well as others? You have added some views that cannot be corroborated in history as a meaning of what you state. So, if Paul actually taught these things, they should be recorded in every century since He lived. He did not teach the Gospel in a vacuum, or do you not think that the Early Church diseminated the Gospel following Paul's death and the other Apostles, John being the last of the Originals. That Christ actually lied about preserving that Gospel? or His Body?
But Paul’s gospel was not the one revealed to the 12.
No, it was actually the other way around. But again, can you prove from history, solid recorded history that what you say is actually correct? the Bible does not even support that view.
Paul’s gospel was hidden in God before the world began while the gospel the 12 taught was revealed by the prophets all through the scriptures. Your church MUST reject this since it claims to have its authority through the 12 Apostles. The same Apostles that agreed with Paul that he should go to the Gentiles and they to the Jews. The early church you claim is based on the wrong Apostles.
Now, here is a very large assertion. Can you back it up with any historical facts. Can you even show from Scripture itself that we have two Gospels that Jude 3 is speaking about? Can you show that what Paul was preaching was actually different from that of Matthew, James, Jude, Luke, who by the way was a disciple of Paul's.
I gave the scriptures that support what I said. Where are yours that support that the church will never be apostate. You mentioned Jude 3 but I think you are wanting to say Jude 1:1-5. I will deal with it at the end of this writing.
What (or Who) the Church itself is, is Christ--and those grafted into His own Life and Being. He is the Head of that Church. He rules over the Body. We as members, as an ecclessia make up that Body. Christ said that He is the ONLY way. No man comes to the Father but by ME. So, that means we must be a part of that Body over which He rules. A Church, a body which He established here on earth for us humans. The Body of Christ cannot be bad, fallen, or rotten. Individuals can be really rotten, but the Body cannot err, since it is the Holy Spirit that dwells and works within that Body to uphold both the Gospel entrusted to that Body and the Body itself. Do you think Christ can be apostate? Do you think that Christ needs to be reformed? change, improved upon? Did Christ give His Church, the Apostles, the foundation of that Church and imcomplete Gospel? Does it say that He will either continue to give revelation in the future and especially to individuals along the way? Can you support that assertion which you made earlier? Jesus taught in John 16:13 "He (The Spirit of Truth or the Holy Spirit) will guide you (plural "you") into all the truth..." Jesus first spoke thesewords to his disciples who would latter be the Apostles. They were concerned because Jesus told them of His departure from this world. They wondered who would lead them when Jesus was gone? Who would instruct them in the way they should go? For three years Jesus taught and guided them. So Jesus comforts his disciples by promising to them that he would not leave them orphans, but he would send the Spirit of truth (John 14:18). For Jesus would send them another comforter, the Holy Spirit, who would guide them into ALL the truth(John 16:13).
So you think that now it just can’t happen anymore, right? Tell me, do you think Ignatius, Justin, and Irenaeus wrote the truth based on the Historical teachings of the church you claim?
What cannot happen, false teachings? it happens all the time but not as often, nor with the sway of earlier days. Not many attempt to put forth their great ideas after 2000 years. Not a single individuals teachings has ever impacted the Gospel once given, meaning, no man has changed that Gospel once given. Including Irenaeus, Ignatius, Justin and a host of others. Their explanations, their recordings have not been objected to by the Ecclessia in their time as others were rejected. It is the consensus of the ecclessia, the working of the Holy Spirit through the Body of Christ that has preserved both the Body and the Gospel. Can you show otherwise?
Your assumption that your church is Christ is rejected. The physical body is a sinful body.
so you do not believe Christ assumed our human natures, thus you are rejecting Christ or just rejecting that He was also man? I'm not sure just what you are rejecting.
Your claim that the church of His Body is a physical body is rejected. I wrote a post about this on this forum titled “Physical and Spiritual churches defined:” I know you won't accept that post either, but many do..
But can you show and even prove that from Scripture. You are saying that Christ was not man, never was Incarnated. the Church here on earth is the extension of His Incarnated Person, Christ. I think you mean a organizational church. But that could be wrong. There is a Spiritual Church as well, it is called the Trimumphant Church and we are joined with them as well. The Church is NEVER separated. How can Christ be separated? Do you believe Christ can be separated? I have not read it as yet, but the fact you separate the words, you are not following Scripture itself, let alone history and how the early Church saw or defined that Church.
If a person is required by your church to do physical things, any physical things, to gain salvation then the salvation your church preaches is not free.
But which aspect of salvation are we speaking about. Christ's saving work on the Cross or the offer He gives to each human being to either believe Him or reject Him. Maybe you have those two aspects confused also.Part I of II.
 

Thaddaeus

New Member
Dec 22, 2007
23
0
0
80
RichardBurger,Part II of II.
The following is Catholic dogma. Please tell me the ones, if any, that your church claims.
Not being Catholic but I can let you know what the early Church did and what the Churches that make up Orthodoxy does and believes today.
Prayers for the dead were introduced in 310
II Maccabees 12:39-45. This was written even before Christ was on this earth.
The lighting of candles in 320
this is a carryover from the OT. Again, your dates are way off. Might as well add incense.
The worship of saints about 375
We don't worship anyone but Christ. I don't know of anyone who does. Even the RCC do not worship saints, that I am aware of. You might want to cite references here.
The mass was adopted in 394
the Eucharist which is what the early Church practiced is described in the NT in several places and still practiced today. Mass is just another word the RCC uses.
The worship of Mary began to develop about 432
We do venerate Mary, but do not worship her. The RCC does treat here differently, somewhat, but again, I do not think they worship her, but you can surely supply references for your claim.
Priests began to assume distinctive robes in 500
do you mean 500 BC, it was really much earlier than even that. In the Early Church, this was not practiced for maybe 350 years while the Church was being severely persecuted. For the most part they did not have places of workship that were stationary, unless you want to call Catacombs stationary.
The doctrine of purgatory was introduced in 593
The early Church never had such a doctrine. The Rcc did not either until it was made a dogma at the Council of Lyons , I believe.
Worship in Latin (since repealed) was mandated in 600
The early Church never used Latin, even in Rome until after the fall of Rome in the west. But then, at that time Latin was the language of the west.
Claims to Papal Supremacy took firm foot in 606
they may have been spoken of by some bishops of Rome, but was not established until the split from the Church in 1054. the Church, the early Church to the present has never had a Papacy.
Feasts in honor of the Virgin Mary began in 650
That date may be correct, but so what. We have feasts for a lot of people, Peter and Paul among many other saints. So what. Protestants do the same with Martin Luther, that I am aware of, but maybe some others as well.
The custom of kissing the Pope's foot was introduced in 709
could be, but so what. Paul and almost every writer of the NT Books indicate that we should great each other with a kiss. Have you not read your ending verses to each Book. By the way, in the East this Christian custom has become the practice of the secular soceity as well. Watch, even Moslims have adopted it.
The worship of images and relics was authorized in 788
I think you might be referring to the Council of 787, the Seventh Ecumenical Council. It did not deal with the worshipping of Icons, but the veneration of same. You might want to actually do a little study so you at least know what you are speaking about.
The invention of holy water was about 850
Nice word, invention, wrong date again as well. But the epiphany of Jesus, or what is known as Jesus's Baptism in the Jordan is the consecration of water for purposes holy. It is why water is also used in baptism itself. Every sacrament has a physical manifestation. Might as well mention bread and wine also, since that is what Christ used at the Last Supper when He instituted the New Covenant in His Blood and Body.
The canonization of saints was formalized in 993
I think you have that date wrong as well. but then so what, whatever date. Does Scripture forbade this practice of remembering saints and Holy men, who lived lives to be examples for the rest of us.
Feasts for the dead were introduced 1003
I'm not even sure just what you are refering here. Possibly funerals?
'The celibacy of the priesthood was declared 1074
Again an RCC thing, not of the original Church.
The dogma of Papal infallibility was announced 1076
Obviously it was not in the early Church, but then again, it is not in the Church today either.
Prayer beads were introduced in 1090
Again, an RCC practice, but then again, so what. Does scripture deny them. Do you even know what they are?
The doctrine that there are seven sacraments was introduced in 1140
it was much earlier than that. The Church practiced all of them from the beginning. I don't know when baptism, chrismation, the Eucharist, confessions, laying on of hands, Consecration or Holy Orders, Holy Unction, marriage and Penance was not part of the early Church.
The sale of indulgences began 1190
The date could be right, but it deals with the RCC, not the early Church.
The wafer was substituted for the loaf in 1200
Again, could be right on the date, but once again, RCC, not the early Church.
The dogma of transubstantiation was adopted 1215
Again RCC and the date may or may not be correct. But once again, has nothing to do with the early Church or Orthodoxy.
Confession was instituted 1215
You are really off on this one. This is in Scripture again. Paul refers to it constantly. Even the confession to others to whom we transgressed, as the Lord's prayer asks. What Bible are you reading. Why would confession be unscriptural?
The adoration of the Wafer began 1220
I didn't know they actually adored the wafer, but again, not relevant to the early Church.
'The Ave Maria was introduced 1316
Again, RCC, but just what would be your objection here. Is this condemned in Scripture?
The cup was taken from the laity in 1415
again a RCC practice and not the early Church again.
Purgatory was officially decreed In 1439
you have given two dates for this, which one is correct? Again, not of the early Church and ONLY understood by the RCC. But I think the date is 1274 at the Council of Lyons.
Roman tradition was placed on the same level as Scripture 1546
That might be the official date, but they practiced it long before that. but what has this to do with Scripture and the early Church?
The Apocrypha was received into the Canon 1546
the so-called "Apocrypha" was part of the Greek Septuagint and was accepted but not listed as Canon by the Early Church and the Councils.
The immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary was announced 1854
Yes, it was, but so what again. It is an RCC dogma, which was never part of the early Church nor Orthodoxy today.
'The doctrine of the temporal power of the Pope proclaimed 1864
Wow, have you got that date incorrect. The Roman Bishop declared Himself supreme over Emperors way back in 800 with Charlemagne. He himself is a secular monarch which led to the idea of an ecclessiastical monarch as well.
The personal corporeal presence of the Virgin in heaven 1950
The RCC made this dogma long before this date. The understanding, what is known as the Assumption of Mary is a pietistic understanding among a host of Orthodox. It has never become dogma. It is not necessary for salvation. But again, so what. Does the Bible deny this? Has it happened in the past?You do a very poor job of even listing some events almost all of which was intended to be RCC. But you have given no refutation of them from Scripture. You simply list them.Of those that pertains to Orthodox and even most Oriental Orthodox could you cite scriptural objections to same? then might I add some of my own not knowing just how the Church you attend, since I do not know, actually worships. But I can assure you other than Lutheran and Episcopal Churches none use a Liturgy, the same as the early Church. None use an alter, none use a bishop or presbyter to preside. The function of a minister as he is used in most protestant churches is not mentioned in scripture. Most if not all practice baptism as understood in the early Chruch, None practice nor have the understanding of the Eucharist as described in the Bible. And there are many more, I'm sure.
Yes they can and they will see that your historical church has persecuted and murdered many during its existence on this earth.
Can you document that with history, not just your opinion.
I see nothing in the above that proves you correct. Jesus Christ is the faith that was "once for all delivered to the saints" --- Not your church.
But they are one and the same. Christ is that Church. He is the Head, over Christ's Body. that sounds like Christ is the Church, to me. It is both the Church and the Gospel that is being preserved.
 

RichardBurger

New Member
Jan 23, 2008
1,498
19
0
90
Southeast USA
Thaddaeus, I have never been on any forum on which a person has distorted what I believe in these multiple ways for their own purpose, and in the many ways you are doing it. I will no longer reply to you. It is senseless for me to continually to have to defend myself from your false statements and accusations as to what I believe.All anyone on this thread has to do is to see my many posts to know what I believe. They will see a great difference in what I really believe and what you say I believe. Your assertions are ridiculous and it is foolish for me to continue.I feel sorry for you Thaddaeus. You have placed your faith, trust, confidence in your early churches writers who led the early church into apostasy. Your assertion that I do not believe the scriptures that are written in the Bible is ridiculous just as your assertions that all the writers in your early church, that are not in the Bible, are inspired by God.Your claim that your church gave us the Bible is a claim made by the RCC/OC so now we know, for sure, what church you are really talking about. The truth is that God gave us the Bible. If the RCC had not done it, it would have been accomplished by God through other persons. Don’t forget that God used a pagan king to rebuild the Temple and, IMHO, He used an apostate early church to preserve the scriptures as well.To assert that your physical, man ran, organized church is Christ shows who you and your church really are. Your church has made itself to be God. When you said that your church was Christ I couldn't help but remember that Satan wants to be God.
 

Thaddaeus

New Member
Dec 22, 2007
23
0
0
80
Richardburger,
Thaddaeus, I have never been on any forum on which a person has distorted what I believe in these multiple ways for their own purpose, and in the many ways you are doing it. I will no longer reply to you. It is senseless for me to continually to have to defend myself from your false statements and accusations as to what I believe.All anyone on this thread has to do is to see my many posts to know what I believe. They will see a great difference in what I really believe and what you say I believe. Your assertions are ridiculous and it is foolish for me to continue.
How have I distorted what you believe? You can believe whatever you wish to believe, no one can stop you.However, when you say that a certain text means such and such, that is a much different position. What the Bible means does not depend on your opinion. It has had a very particular meaning for a very long time. It has not changed in 2000 years. But that does not deny that many men have given their opinions on what they desire, think, want, or intellectually devise the Scriptures to mean for them. The Holy Spirit did not give us a Book, and a Book that is not a systematic theological treatise. It is a recorded story of God's interaction with man on this earth. What you believe is not false, it is what you believe. But to claim it as accurate understanding of scripture when it does not either align with Scripture as it has always been understood, and does not even align with all the many thousands of views for those who use the very same principle of interpretation as you do.
I feel sorry for you Thaddaeus. You have placed your faith, trust, confidence in your early churches writers who led the early church into apostasy. Your assertion that I do not believe the scriptures that are written in the Bible is ridiculous just as your assertions that all the writers in your early church, that are not in the Bible, are inspired by God.
Don't feel sorry for me. I have found the True Faith. The historical Faith of our Fathers. A Gospel and Body that has actually been preserved for 2000 years. Can you say that for your view? Will your view still be around at your death or die with you?You have made assertions above again with not a piece of evidence that might even hint that it could be possible.
Your claim that your church gave us the Bible is a claim made by the RCC/OC so now we know, for sure, what church you are really talking about. The truth is that God gave us the Bible.
God gave us everything. Even the air we breathe. But He also gavethe Gospel and established His Church here on earth. Why don't you check out those claims. Be a berean and learn just what the facts might be, instead of depending on your opinion of things.
If the RCC had not done it, it would have been accomplished by God through other persons.
The RCC as you understand it did not exist at the time the Canon was developed. The Roman See was just another See along with four others at the time. There was no central organized Church and there was no Papacy. It was accomplished by God through the work of the Holy Spirit within His Body. Where else would you think it could originate?
He used an apostate early church to preserve the scriptures as well.
So the Holy Spirit is apostate and He works as an apostate to preserve a Scripture as opposed to the whole Gospel. I think you are woefully lacking in the understanding of just how you recieved the Book, Canon, you call the Bible.
You have placed your faith, trust, confidence in your early churches writers who led the early church into apostasy
Put some teeth into your statments. This is a blind assertion again, with not a hair of evidence. Lets make it specific, what apostacies? Who is determining apostacies?
To assert that your physical, man ran, organized church is Christ shows who you and your church really are.
I have never even asserted this, it is solely your assertion. Don't place your opinions and assertions as mine. Christ does show who the Church is by His faithful witness in and through that Church, the Body of Christ.
Your church has made itself to be God.
No, it is the other way around. God through the Incarnate Christ, has given all authority to Christ in heaven and on earth. Part of that authority was to establish His Church and the Gospel in this world. Can you refute that from scripture?
When you said that your church was Christ I couldn't help but remember that Satan wants to be God.
Want to be God and that Christ is the Church are two very distinct differences. Can you refute it from Scripture?
 

RichardBurger

New Member
Jan 23, 2008
1,498
19
0
90
Southeast USA
It was said: quote "What (or Who) the Church itself is, is Christ"I did not say this but someone else did. The person that said this is saying their physical, man ran, organized church "is Christ." But now the person is denying he said it.In my post "Physical and Spiritual churches defined" on this forum I have refuted that the physical, man ran, organized church is the church Jesus has established. In my new post "When did the RCC begin" I have refuted the claims of the RCC.The church for today that He (Jesus) established exists in the hearts of the children of God.Anyone that thinks the physical, man ran, organized church that has persecuted men down throught the centuries is the body of Christ is foolish.
 

tim_from_pa

New Member
Jul 11, 2007
1,656
12
0
65
Well, all I can say is LORD of hosts shall reign in mount Zion, and in Jerusalem.Mount Zion and Jerusalem is on Earth.