Back When Protestants Men Weren't The Gutless Wonders Of Today

[Philip James]

Yes, Jesus was sinless.
Question. To what do you attribute His perfect sinlessness? His birth to an immaculate mother, or His overcoming in a manner we may emulate?

Jesus was sinless because in everything He conformed Himself to the Fathers will...

Mary is who she is because of who Jesus is... We can discuss the Queen mother if you wish but I think first we need to acknowledge the King! Everything! Depends on Him!

Personallly , I think nothing displays His human nature more than His agony in the garden... Who would not be afraid if the Father asked them to be tortured to death ...and yet THIS is what Jesus asks of us... Can we endure injustice for the sake of not only those we love, but those whi would destroy us...

You are not my enemy.

I rejoice that you say this. I also do not see you as my enemy... But my brother.. We, each of us, must follow Him, as best we can... Frail though we be...

May He fill you with His peace, and carry you to the finish of the race we must all run..

I'll leave you with a tune that I think captures His humanity...

Pax!

 

[marksman]

Phoneman777

The problem today is not just the doctrine of the Roman Church, it is the doctrine of various Protestant Churches. You want to make it a Roman/Protestant thing and it isn't. When the Reformers came into conflict with the Roman Church, they were Romanists also. The point being, there are many within the Roman Church who are believers. Much of Protestant doctrine today is straight out of hell. Yet there are many in the Protestant Churches who are believers.

Both Protestant and Roman churches will contribute to the apostate church of the last days. But within both, at this time, you have the believers.

Stranger

There are parts of Protestantism that are a copy of the roman church. The first of course being the pastor which is a morphed version of the roman priest. The only priest recognised in scripture is the priesthood of all believers.

The communion of Protestantism is nothing more than a copy of the mass of the roman church.

And of course, church buildings are something that was copied from the roman church.

 

[Stranger]

There are parts of Protestantism that are a copy of the roman church. The first of course being the pastor which is a morphed version of the roman priest. The only priest recognised in scripture is the priesthood of all believers.

The communion of Protestantism is nothing more than a copy of the mass of the roman church.

And of course, church buildings are something that was copied from the roman church.

I have no problem with the Lords Supper in the Protestant Churches, or the Mass in the Roman Church, as long as both bread and wine are given. It is done in remembrance of Christ's sacrifice.

As to buildings, you have to meet somewhere.

Stranger

 

[marksman]

I have no problem with the Lords Supper in the Protestant Churches, or the Mass in the Roman Church, as long as both bread and wine are given. It is done in remembrance of Christ's sacrifice.

As to buildings, you have to meet somewhere.

Stranger

Having done an extensive study of the New Testament Church over a two year period, the evidence is irrefutable. They met in homes so no need of buildings.

 

[Willie T]

Having done an extensive study of the New Testament Church over a two year period, the evidence is irrefutable. They met in homes so no need of buildings.

I wonder if "The Upper Room" was a home?

 

[marksman]

I wonder if "The Upper Room" was a home?

My study included the architecture of the time. The better off had houses built with an upper room where they could meet for family gatherings or meetings, bearing in mind that the average family was not mum and dad and two kids and bearing in mind that they married young in those days often before they were out of their teens so there were more than one generation coming together for family gatherings.

The other thing is that when they came together they ate a meal, which is what breaking of bread means so the upper room had to accommodate the numbers for a meal. An upper room could hold about 30 people for this purpose (sitting down and having a meal) and that is where the New Testament Church met on a daily basis.

 

[Episkopos]

My study included the architecture of the time. The better off had houses built with an upper room where they could meet for family gatherings or meetings, bearing in mind that the average family was not mum and dad and two kids and bearing in mind that they married young in those days often before they were out of their teens so there were more than one generation coming together for family gatherings.

The other thing is that when they came together they ate a meal, which is what breaking of bread means so the upper room had to accommodate the numbers for a meal. An upper room could hold about 30 people for this purpose (sitting down and having a meal) and that is where the New Testament Church met on a daily basis.

After a certain number....30 or 40...there are just too many people to participate in the meeting....considering everyone is to have the same freedom of expression. The meetings can be moderated but only to let the Spirit guide and speak through the people He wants to speak through. And everything is spontaneous....by the Spirit...no sermon.

Of course teaching is beneficial...but only in a dialogue where all the members are free to participate.

 

[amadeus]

After a certain number....30 or 40...there are just too many people to participate in the meeting....considering everyone is to have the same freedom of expression. The meetings can be moderated but only to let the Spirit guide and speak through the people He wants to speak through. And everything is spontaneous....by the Spirit...no sermon.

Of course teaching is beneficial...but only in a dialogue where all the members are free to participate.

You speak of the right direction which the direction with only Jesus as the Head where everyone in attendance is really led by the Holy Ghost.

But even when such a meeting is held today, there is still too often present spirits in men not of God which seek to control things while even confessing that they are being led by the Holy Ghost. The battle occurs within every man but God can win all of those battles if He is given the reins for every man:

"For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." Matt 18:20

For those in His Name, He wins the battles, but the other side not yielding the field to God...?

 

[bbyrd009]

For those in His Name, He wins the battles, but the other side not yielding the field to God...?

imo this is the best arg for why "two or three gathered" should not be applied to love feasts (that's "Sunday church attendance" for any believers reading this), which are never only 2 or 3 deep.

To put that another way, once you have got to Us 4, that v can't be used No More

 

[Marymog]

Phoneman777

The problem today is not just the doctrine of the Roman Church, it is the doctrine of various Protestant Churches. You want to make it a Roman/Protestant thing and it isn't. When the Reformers came into conflict with the Roman Church, they were Romanists also. The point being, there are many within the Roman Church who are believers. Much of Protestant doctrine today is straight out of hell. Yet there are many in the Protestant Churches who are believers.

Both Protestant and Roman churches will contribute to the apostate church of the last days. But within both, at this time, you have the believers.

Stranger

Can you list those doctrines that are "straight out of hell"??

WHO decides who is a "believer" and who isn't???

Curious Mary

 

[Stranger]

Can you list those doctrines that are "straight out of hell"??

WHO decides who is a "believer" and who isn't???

Curious Mary

The social jesus doctrine. Jesus is nothing but another Gandhi. Not the Son of God, just a good man teaching us the way to God. Loves everybody and wants us to love everybody. Christianity is doing good to your fellow man.

Acceptance of the Lesbian, Gay, and perverted into the church. They are just people and we are to love them like God loves them.

Women preachers and teachers. (oops)

A believer is one who accepts Christ as their Lord and Saviour.

Stranger

 

[amadeus]

imo this is the best arg for why "two or three gathered" should not be applied to love feasts (that's "Sunday church attendance" for any believers reading this), which are never only 2 or 3 deep.

To put that another way, once you have got to Us 4, that v can't be used No More

The more there are in His name, of course, the stronger the bond, but the opposition may need to be considered. If the total is 4 however and all 4 are in His name...?

The truth usually is that to get 4 alone really in His name may be a very unusual thing.

However in THE Body of Christ when each member is in His name and fitly joined together, but when is that to be... if not now? Would that not be more than 4? Some would have us wait until some hereafter special moment instead of pressing in right here and right now. It is all food for thought or for work by the Holy Spirit while it is still Day.

 

[marksman]

After a certain number....30 or 40...there are just too many people to participate in the meeting....considering everyone is to have the same freedom of expression. The meetings can be moderated but only to let the Spirit guide and speak through the people He wants to speak through. And everything is spontaneous....by the Spirit...no sermon.

Of course teaching is beneficial...but only in a dialogue where all the members are free to participate.

You will note that they went from house to house. Not church to church. Or synagogue to synagogue. This tells us that meetings happened all over the town/city in houses that is why they could accommodate a large number (3000).

You might have one street with 10 houses where they met so no need for public buildings (churches).

 

[Willie T]

Don't forget, unlike today, the main religious leaders were far from welcoming of them, so of course they weren't going to be allowed to build any dedicated buildings.

 

[bbyrd009]

The more there are in His name, of course, the stronger the bond, but the opposition may need to be considered. If the total is 4 however and all 4 are in His name...?

imo the point of the verse is to differentiate from ppl going to a congregation, not reference them, the premise being that "2 or 3" gather "in His name" in a diff context than a congregation gathering for a love feast, even if they choose to call that "service" which imo it is not

 

[bbyrd009]

so of course they weren't going to be allowed to build any dedicated buildings.

i know it seems counterintuitive, but i would strictly avoid any corporation of men who have got themselves a building anyway.
They are already well on their way to building a tower imo

 

[amadeus]

imo the point of the verse is to differentiate from ppl going to a congregation, not reference them, the premise being that "2 or 3" gather "in His name" in a diff context than a congregation gathering for a love feast, even if they choose to call that "service" which imo it is not

I understand your point, but there is more to the 2 or 3 in His name than that. Consider it in connection with these verses:

Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour.
For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow: but woe to him that is alone when he falleth; for he hath not another to help him up.
Again, if two lie together, then they have heat: but how can one be warm alone?
And if one prevail against him, two shall withstand him; and a threefold cord is not quickly broken." Ecc 4:9-12

When you were very young were you ever involved in a tug of war? What was likely to happen if only one person was on one end against 10 people on the other end?

Consider also where the strength of the Church [not church] lies... not in one person alone, right? Which of your two hands would be stronger if you removed three fingers from one hand leaving the other with five?

The strength of the Church could also be compared to the strength of a well trained army. Certainly a well trained platoon of 40 men could accomplish more than 2 or 3 men with the same training? At this point we may also want to consider what Jesus meant here:

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father." John 14:12

 

[Enoch111]

I have no problem with the Lords Supper in the Protestant Churches, or the Mass in the Roman Church, as long as both bread and wine are given. It is done in remembrance of Christ's sacrifice.

There is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between the Mass and the Lord's Supper, and Catholics will be the first to insist upon that. In the Mass Christ is literally sacrificed by the priest (called "the mystical slaying of the victim")!

Thus the sacrifice of Christ is repeated over and over again, which is essentially a rejection of the ONE great sacrifice for sins on the Cross.

"The simple fact that numerous heretics, such as Wyclif and Luther, repudiated the Mass as "idolatry", while retaining the Sacrament of the true Body and Blood of Christ, proves that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is something essentially different from the Sacrifice of the Mass. In truth, the Eucharist performs at once two functions: that of a sacrament and that of a sacrifice. Though the inseparableness of the two is most clearly seen in the fact that the consecrating sacrificial powers of the priest coincide, and consequently that the sacrament is produced only in and through the Mass, the real difference between them is shown in that the sacrament is intended privately for the sanctification of the soul, whereas the sacrifice serves primarily to glorify God by adoration, thanksgiving, prayer, and expiation. The recipient of the one is God, who receives the sacrifice of His only-begotten Son; of the other, man, who receives the sacrament for his own good...
New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia --The Sacrifice of the Mass

 

[Stranger]

There is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between the Mass and the Lord's Supper, and Catholics will be the first to insist upon that. In the Mass Christ is literally sacrificed by the priest (called "the mystical slaying of the victim")!

Thus the sacrifice of Christ is repeated over and over again, which is essentially a rejection of the ONE great sacrifice for sins on the Cross.

"The simple fact that numerous heretics, such as Wyclif and Luther, repudiated the Mass as "idolatry", while retaining the Sacrament of the true Body and Blood of Christ, proves that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is something essentially different from the Sacrifice of the Mass. In truth, the Eucharist performs at once two functions: that of a sacrament and that of a sacrifice. Though the inseparableness of the two is most clearly seen in the fact that the consecrating sacrificial powers of the priest coincide, and consequently that the sacrament is produced only in and through the Mass, the real difference between them is shown in that the sacrament is intended privately for the sanctification of the soul, whereas the sacrifice serves primarily to glorify God by adoration, thanksgiving, prayer, and expiation. The recipient of the one is God, who receives the sacrifice of His only-begotten Son; of the other, man, who receives the sacrament for his own good...
New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia --The Sacrifice of the Mass

I don't believe either that the blood and bread are literally the blood and body of Jesus Christ. But the Lord's Supper and the Mass call to remembrance the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Stranger

 

[Marymog]

The social jesus doctrine. Jesus is nothing but another Gandhi. Not the Son of God, just a good man teaching us the way to God. Loves everybody and wants us to love everybody. Christianity is doing good to your fellow man.

Acceptance of the Lesbian, Gay, and perverted into the church. They are just people and we are to love them like God loves them.

Women preachers and teachers. (oops)

A believer is one who accepts Christ as their Lord and Saviour.

Stranger

Wow....You and I generally agree on something. Hell must be frozen over.

Here is where we MIGHT be disagreeing: The ACT of homosexuality is a sin. If one is homosexual but doesn't act on it they are "just people and we are to love them like God loves them" and they are as much of a Christian as you and I.

I noticed you didn't answer the question: WHO decides who is a "believer" and who isn't???

Scripture makes it clear that we have to do more than just 'accept Christ as our Lord and Savior'.

Based on your statement I have to ask: WHO decides when one has accepted Christ as their Lord and Savior?

The churches that accept lesbian, gay and perverted into their church and have woman as preachers/teachers would say that they have accepted Christ as their Savior and that you have not completely accepted Him because you are not being inclusive/forgiving/loving as He was.

WHO decides which of the two of you are right?

Mary