Church Bashing

[dev553344]

@JohnPaul ie:rainbow sign? Let's not jump to conclusions and turn judgmental. It's a promise from the flood to not destroy the earth:

Genesis 9:13

King James Version

13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

You know what…I’ve realized a lot of the time, it isn’t what you’re saying, it’s HOW you say it.
I saw a really good post here, a good teaching/sharing opportunity, just really good. I mean, the post was fantastic. God had given someone some understanding and gave the person some of the old and some of the new, all boxed up for us all.
But the poster began with a tiny bit of the flesh, and then ended it with all flesh, and all opportunity was lost to share what God gave them.
I was still able to pick out the good and it gave me what to pray for the person when I saw what they lacked, but I couldn’t hit like on the post.

I was wondering, what would Paul say if he were here…? How would he help? I think he might say…you have knowledge but you don’t yet have your flesh put under, so pray to God that He give you what you lack. Pray out of your poverty for what you yet lack so you will be very, very useful to Him!

 

[Taken]

We all read Scripture though the lenses of human Reason, our own Experiences, and the understanding of faithful men and women who came before us, also known as Tradition. That’s not necessarily a bad thing; it’s just is what it is. In that sense, all doctrine is of Men. Some may claim direct revelation from the Spirit, but how do we test the spirits?

Sure men have doctrines, traditions, individual experiences.

OT doctrine, is revealed through LAWS, as are the teaching of traditions, the favorable outcome for obedience to the Laws, and the unfavorable outcome for disobedience to the Laws (as each is revealed IN the Laws, per expected blessing and per expected punishments).

NT doctrine, is revealed through the Word of God, and the favorable outcome for obedience to the Word of God, and the unfavorable outcome for disobedience to the Word of God (as each is revealed IN Jesus’ doctrine).

We are well aware of “individual” men’s “doctrines”, and the numerous Churches that are established “according to men’s doctrines’....as well as the numerous Churches that are established “according to Jesus’ doctrine’.

Anyone “establishing” A Church, certainly can announce, what doctrine the Church is being “established” according to.
And any person attending “any Church”, can listen and observe...IF that Church is “teaching and preaching”, according TO the Doctrine, under which the Church “was Established”.

Therein lies the possibility for “conflict”.
Men go to Churches, expecting a particular Doctrine to be preached and taught...
When a Church teaches and preaches, the Doctrine according to the Doctrine they did so establish that Church...men are pleased that Church does so teach and preach the Doctrine under which that Church WAS established.

When a Church teaches and preaches, another Doctrine, which was NOT according to what that Church WAS established, men will wonder, discuss, or simply walk away from that Church.

And not a novelty....Not all “men” Agree with “the SAME Doctrines” upon which individual Church’s ARE established.

It becomes more conflicted...When “children” are raised by an “adults” preference, and when the child become a “man”, he can continue doing as his “adult” parents did, or he can “examine “ for himself, “IF” there is a difference between THE PARENTS CHOICE OF A Church’s Doctrine and Jesus’ Doctrine...and decide for himself, which he personally is satisfied with believing and following.

IF WE recognize Jesus’ teaching as His Doctrine, and accept/adopt His doctrine as our own, that is our individual choice, and my preference.

IF WE recognize our “parents”, having school us, having allowed us to be taught, in a Doctrine that is not according to Jesus’ Doctrine....
WE should recognize, Gods Word of teaching, when a child becomes a man;
To Leave his parents, and rather seek Gods Word.
(The Understanding is not simply by moving out of a Parents home, but rather moreso about, seeking God for Gods Truth, regardless of what the Parents believe.)

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Taken]

I was adding to enochs post, a thought I had about a verse. I wondered if anyone had any thoughts on the verse, which I think ties into his post.

your post was very well written, but…I don’t know what you were trying to say, or how it added to enochs post and then mine after. So I need more explanation how it ties in if you want me to understand you.

Bottom line...
Scripture reveals Jesus IS the Word of God.
Scripture in Jesus’ own speech, says He IS THE TRUTH.

At that point, every individual is Free to decide “to Believe”...”OR NOT”.
Jesus IS the Word of God.
Jesus IS the Truth.

There forward, “the Individual” has decided “WHAT” he believes.
There forward, “individuals” agree, disagree, among other individuals;
OF WHAT they believe.
There forward, “some individuals” CAN express, “WHY” they believe WHAT they do believe and “other individuals” CAN NOT, or WILL NOT express “WHY” they believe what they do, or do not believe.

Enoch has on more than one occasion, revealed WHAT and WHY he believes what he does.
Enoch was expressing, from a Scriptural stand-point...To speak Gods Truth, IF the Listener Rejects Gods Truth, move on. It is a Scriptural basis. Let the ignorant be ignorant, “who desires to” be ignorant and “remain ignorant”.

Scripture says...Gods desires a man TO NOT BE IGNORANT, of Gods Word, of Gods Truth, and thus He Gives man the Knowledge of Gods Word, Gods Truth.
It is individual men, to Choose to accept Gods Word, Gods Truth....or NOT.

Or NOT, is the man whose own freewill, keeps him Ignorant. So be it.

Did that answer your question?

God Bless,
Taken

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Enoch was expressing, from a Scriptural stand-point...To speak Gods Truth, IF the Listener Rejects Gods Truth, move on. It is a Scriptural basis. Let the ignorant be ignorant, “who desires to” be ignorant and “remain ignorant”.

Yes. I brought up a verse that I thought was relevant regarding that. I wondered if anyone had any thoughts on it. I have the slightest bead on it so I wondered if someone might have more on it.

 

[Lambano]

Anyone “establishing” A Church, certainly can announce, what doctrine the Church is being “established” according to.
And any person attending “any Church”, can listen and observe...IF that Church is “teaching and preaching”, according TO the Doctrine, under which the Church “was Established”.

Would the doctrine under which the church was established look more like the Didache (based on the Sermon on the Mount) than the Pauline Romans/Galatians scheme favored by modern Protestantism?

 

[TLHKAJ]

How can that be an "idol" and "false doctrine" when Christ Himself preached on eternal Hell and eternal torment? See Mark 9.

Not trying to change the topic, but I followed the link to read scripture and found the ASV has removed words from scripture.

Example:
Mark 9:29 And he said unto them, This kind can come out by nothing, save by prayer.

It should read...
Mark 9:29 And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting.

 

[Enoch111]

Not trying to change the topic, but I followed the link to read scripture and found the ASV has removed words from scripture.

You are absolutely right. NOT A SINGLE MODERN BIBLE VERSION CAN BE TRUSTED. And in the passage to which I referred, they have removed "where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched". So Jesus was the one who preached on eternal Hell more than any apostle (and that is only one passage).

 

[Enoch111]

I am sorry for being snippy last night.

As long as you didn't say "BAH! HUMBUG!" you can rest easy.

 

[Lambano]

Not trying to change the topic, but I followed the link to read scripture and found the ASV has removed words from scripture.

Example:
Mark 9:29 And he said unto them, This kind can come out by nothing, save by prayer.

It should read...
Mark 9:29 And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting.

NetBible used to have extensive translators' notes; I wish they still showed them. What typically happened when you see this is that older manuscripts than the Textus Receptus such as Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus have since been found that did not contain the "and fasting". The conclusion is that if the verse or words did not exist in 400AD, but do appear in later manuscripts, they were probably added by later scribes. Adding to the Bible is as bad as removing from it, so it's a tough call for the translators. And this is one of the reasons I'm suspicious of bibliolatry.

 

[Enoch111]

The conclusion is that if the verse or words did not exist in 400AD, but do appear in later manuscripts, they were probably added by later scribes. Adding to the Bible is as bad as removing from it, so it's a tough call for the translators.

This is the myth and the hoax which began with Westcott & Hort, who worshiped the two most corrupt manuscripts. The Textus Receptus and the King James Bible represent the true and traditional Greek text (which is also found in the bibles of the Greek Orthodox Church).

CRITICAL TEXTS STARTING WITH WESTCOTT & HORT
Westcott and Hort 1881
καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Τοῦτο τὸ γένος ἐν οὐδενὶ δύναται ἐξελθεῖν εἰ μὴ ἐν προσευχῇ.
Nestle Greek New Testament 1904
καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Τοῦτο τὸ γένος ἐν οὐδενὶ δύναται ἐξελθεῖν εἰ μὴ ἐν προσευχῇ.
Westcott and Hort / [NA27 variants]
καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Τοῦτο τὸ γένος ἐν οὐδενὶ δύναται ἐξελθεῖν εἰ μὴ ἐν προσευχῇ.

TRADITIONAL TEXTS
RP Byzantine Majority Text 2005
Καὶ εἴπεν αὐτοῖς, Tοῦτο τὸ γένος ἐν οὐδενὶ δύναται ἐξελθεῖν, εἰ μὴ ἐν προσευχῇ καὶ νηστείᾳ.
Greek Orthodox Church 1904
καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· Τοῦτο τὸ γένος ἐν οὐδενὶ δύναται ἐξελθεῖν εἰ μὴ ἐν προσευχῇ καὶ νηστείᾳ. (nesteia = fasting)
Scrivener's Textus Receptus 1894
καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, Τοῦτο τὸ γένος ἐν οὐδενὶ δύναται ἐξελθεῖν, εἰ μὴ ἐν προσευχῇ καὶ νηστείᾳ.
Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Τοῦτο τὸ γένος ἐν οὐδενὶ δύναται ἐξελθεῖν εἰ μὴ ἐν προσευχῇ Καὶ νηστείᾳ

 

[Lambano]

And you judge the Hort-Wescott texts as corrupt how? And you judge the Textus Receptus as correct how? Because you assume the latter, the former must be true?

 

[JohnPaul]

You are absolutely right. NOT A SINGLE MODERN BIBLE VERSION CAN BE TRUSTED. And in the passage to which I referred, they have removed "where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched". So Jesus was the one who preached on eternal Hell more than any apostle (and that is only one passage).

Yeah and there all LGTB friendly.

 

[Taken]

Would the doctrine under which the church was established look more like the Didache (based on the Sermon on the Mount) than the Pauline Romans/Galatians scheme favored by modern Protestantism?

The Church I would describe as being Christ’s Church, and most decidedly so According to Christ Jesus’ Doctrine.

A church building is most often described as A church by men who build, or buy a building and establish that building as dedicated to the Lord God.

And that ^ is not concrete.
* Some men “proclaim” THEIR man made buildings ARE the ONLY buildings dedicated to the Lord God, and call THEIR buildings... THE CHURCH.
* Some men “proclaim” ANY man made buildings are ANY buildings dedicated to the Lord God, and call ANY such building.... A CHURCH.
* Some men “proclaim” THEIR man made building(S) ARE SYNAGOGUES , and dedicated to Exclusively GOD.
* Some men “proclaim” THEIR man made building(S) ARE SYNAGOGUES, and dedicated to GOD “and” Belief Jesus IS their Christ Messiah.

A general distinction IS:
IF it be....”called THE CHURCH”....it is generally a “Catholic Church”.
IF it be....”called A CHURCH”.....it is generally ANY Church that IS NOT Catholic.
IF it be ...”called A SYNAGOGUE”...it is generally ANY “place of Worship” to God Only, without belief Jesus IS the Christ Messiah. The congregation is Typically called Jews.
IF it be ...”called A SYNAGOGUE”...”that it’s Doctrine Worships God AND believes Jesus IS the Christ Messiah. The congregation is Typically called Messianic Jews.

* WHAT individual Buildings are CALLED, (as seen on the Marquee (sign) near or ON the building)....MAY or may NOT “indicate” WHICH “type” of building that building is....

* Individual Buildings, Have a whole HOST of NAMES that the individual Buildings are specifically NAMED.

* Individual Buildings, MAY or may NOT, include in their building “designs”, particular “motif’s” indicative of A particular “Church” or A “particular Synagogue”.

* WHICH ‘particular” ALLIANCE A “particular” Church or A “particular” Synagogue IS “attached to, in agreement with, in membership with”...
WILL reveal....
What EACH CHURCH “building” or EACH SYNAGOGUE “building”....was established....ACCORDING TO.

* AND the “alliances” themselves are “numerous”.

It’s an individuals own freewill to discover WHICH Church Building or WHICH Synagogue Building ... is IN ALLIANCE with “WHICH” Alliance...and freely Decide IF he IS or IS NOT, in agreement.

Bottom line...it’s a Dilemma.
ALLIANCES....have a plethora of Yes this, No that.
Rarely do you find an “individual” in agreement WITH EVERY, Yes this, No that, of another individual, or an Alliances’ “rules”.

And once an “individual” Agrees to JOIN, they are “joining” IN AGREEMENT, with EVERY, Yes this, No that.
And once an “individual” JOINS, any “disagreement” they MAY HAVE, IS MOOT, and discouraged to even mention.

 

[Enoch111]

And you judge the Hort-Wescott texts as corrupt how? And you judge the Textus Receptus as correct how? Because you assume the latter, the former must be true?

If you seriously want the truth, kindly invest in The Revision Revised by John William Burgon, an outstanding conservative textual scholar. He has written many other bools on textual corruption. They are available at Amazon. Here is an excerpt from this book:

"Shame, — yes, shame on the learning which comes abroad only to perplex the weak, and to unsettle the doubting, and to mislead the blind! Shame, — yes, shame on that two-thirds majority of well-intentioned but most incompetent men who, finding themselves (in an evil hour) appointed to correct ‘plain and clear errors’ in the English ‘Authorized Version,’ occupied themselves instead with falsifying the inspired Greek Text in countless places, and branding with suspicion some of the most precious utterances of the SPIRIT! Shame, — yes, shame upon them!"

 

[Bob Estey]

I've heard enough generalized church bashing to last the rest of my life.

God tells us that if we create division in the body of Christ, be warned, if you destroy God's temple, He will destroy you.

Jesus said, Upon this rock I will build My church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

But how many have a heard declare, "Western Christianity is a failure", "the church has become corrupt", on and on it goes.

Well, I have a couple of responses. First of which, if this is your experience, find a new church to attend! Seek until you find faithful believers. They are there. God will lead you to them.

Secondly, how in the world do you know what my church is like? Simple answer. You don't. So why make out like it's all so rotten? Does that make you feel better to sit over all of Christendom in judgment? Think about it.

And thirdly, who are you helping in telling everyone there isn't any good church anywhere? Why not be good church?

OK, I could go on, but, rant over.

Much love!

It isn't my job to bash all the churches I don't belong to? You mean, I'm supposed to try to get along with other people?

 

[Lambano]

If you seriously want the truth, kindly invest in The Revision Revised by John William Burgon, an outstanding conservative textual scholar. He has written many other bools on textual corruption. They are available at Amazon. Here is an excerpt from this book:

"Shame, — yes, shame on the learning which comes abroad only to perplex the weak, and to unsettle the doubting, and to mislead the blind! Shame, — yes, shame on that two-thirds majority of well-intentioned but most incompetent men who, finding themselves (in an evil hour) appointed to correct ‘plain and clear errors’ in the English ‘Authorized Version,’ occupied themselves instead with falsifying the inspired Greek Text in countless places, and branding with suspicion some of the most precious utterances of the SPIRIT! Shame, — yes, shame upon them!"

I think we’ve discovered a few more manuscripts and have had significantly more biblical scholarship since 1871.

 

[farouk]

I think we’ve discovered a few more manuscripts and have had significantly more biblical scholarship since 1871.

The question can also be broadened to, What sort of manuscripts? and what have ppl really discovered?

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Not trying to change the topic, but I followed the link to read scripture and found the ASV has removed words from scripture.

Example:
Mark 9:29 And he said unto them, This kind can come out by nothing, save by prayer.

It should read...
Mark 9:29 And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting.

Do you think it is talking about food and drink?

 

[Nancy]

Not trying to change the topic, but I followed the link to read scripture and found the ASV has removed words from scripture.

Example:
Mark 9:29 And he said unto them, This kind can come out by nothing, save by prayer.

It should read...
Mark 9:29 And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting.

Actually sister, I've noticed several versions that cut "fasting" out...
And far as I've learned, "fasting" can mean, food and or drink/ coffee/ cigarettes/ or anything we grab onto as in habit or to give us joy or relief or pleasure...? Music, tv, games, books on and on! JMO.
xo