Church

[bbyrd009]

Tut tut...play nice now. :)
The false preachers corrupt our souls and the souls of the genuine young seekers. Whereas the cop shows which I love...only steal our time and turn our brains to mush. For sure you not comparing "apples to apples"

( as for TV portraying the law as good...we should all know by now, that anything on the screen and internet are all fantasy and illusion...entertainment...= The art of not thinking!! lol )

i guess i will not be able to convey how damaging relying on "Rule of Law" is to most people. By which i do not mean breaking the law is ok. If all they stole was your time, i wouldn't bother commenting on it, wadr. Reflect upon why you like those shows. Or why tv is so stuffed with them.

 

[bbyrd009]

anything on the screen and internet are all fantasy and illusion...entertainment.

imagination is great, imo. i find none on tv, or at least very little. almost never prime-time.

 

[101G]

We have a way of dealing with liars, it's called excommunication. How does your man made system deal with lying pastors? Oh, I forgot, you have no pastors. You have God on speed dial.

Not speed dial, but on time, see, he's an on time God, all the time. "We have a way of dealing with liars". WE, WE, WE?. it's called excommunication? who gave you that authority? is this like the JW in shunning?.................. LOL.

 

[bbyrd009]

There were no "wrong apostles" except false claimants.

"did I not choose you Twelve? yet one of you is a demon!"

Do you think the rest of the apostles were too stupid to know who the liars were?

ignorant might be a better term. Paul went to Jerusalem to take the Nazarite Vow.

 

[bbyrd009]

Yes, and if you abide in Him and trust in Him, you won't have any doubts about what you believe - and you will reject all that is wrong.

Anyway - I didn't mean to say that your faith was shaky. I said that if you are unsure about your beliefs, then it would be shaky.

He who says he knows anything does not yet know as he ought

 

[bbyrd009]

Take simply one step at the time, one decision at the time, and one day at the time.

Understand I AM

 

[bbyrd009]

If my faith is "tied up in my beliefs"??
That is a preposterous statement. Our faith has EVERYTHING to do with what we believe in.

What else would faith have to do with??
If you don't believe, then you can't be obedient because there is nobody to be obedient to.

awesome, can't disagree, now see the way in which faith and beliefs are exclusive, if you will, and how a belief might even hinder faith

 

[101G]

I've posted no less that 35 verses that prove the existence of the Triune Godhead - and nobody has been able to refute them.

I guess you must have not been reading my posts. especially after that poor performance yesterday.

I've challenged you and everybody else to produce just ONE Early Church Father who taught your heresy - and you have failed to produce even ONE.

well lets see about that. John 14:16-18 "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you".

this is the Lord Jesus himself. he said that he would come to them, this is audience relevance. what the Lord is teaching them is that HE IS THE HOLY SPIRIT WITHOUT FLESH AND BONE. now are you prepared to defend against the Lord Jesus teaching?. just say yes or no.

 

[bbyrd009]

Rubbish.
Jesus puts this entire matter to rest:

Luke 10:16
Whoever listens to YOU listens to ME. Whoever rejects YOU rejects ME. And whoever rejects ME rejects the ONE who sent ME."

Not believing in Him is rejecting Him.

ok, and also "believing in" Him might also be Nehushtan worship. So again, i agree, but we can see in Lex that the last sentence there is really better translated "Not having faith in Him is rejecting Him."

 

[bbyrd009]

No, I understand perfectly - based on what you've written.
If you believe something else - then you haven't don a very good job of explaining yourself.

hmm, lol. When you do get it--if you do get it, ever--it might be characterized as "lightning flashing, from East to West."
it happens "in an instant," yes?

 

[bbyrd009]

Even the seeming innocent old B westerns

as soon as someone pulls a gun out, the intent should be obvious imo

and the early Walt Disney cartoons

ha may as well watch porn imo

 

[bbyrd009]

This verse has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about.
It's about the Jew's rejection of Jesus - not a self-proclaimed Christian's lack of faith and rejection of the Triune Godhead.

The written Word of God was NOT given to us so that we could individually decide for ourselves what was to be believed and what was to be rejected.
It was given to His Church to teach each generation until His return.

ha that is us, right now, the Church, witnessing to you bro.

 

[101G]

@bol, this will also answer your John 14:23 question,
Jesus replied: "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him and WE will come to him and make OUR home with him".

 

[Helen]

ok, and also "believing in" Him might also be Nehushtan worship.
So again, i agree, but we can see in Lex that the last sentence there is really better translated "Not having faith in Him is rejecting Him."

Maybe you should start a thread on what (the bold) is, and what you are meaning when you about write it. I have no idea what it is or what you mean, I see you often saying that.
Every time I see it, I act like Im in the crowd in the childhood story of the Emperor's New Clothes ...I nod, as if I can understand and see it...but I am clueless as in how you reference this.
Thanks....H

 

[bbyrd009]

Maybe you should start a thread on what (the bold) is, and what you are meaning when you about write it. I have no idea what it is or what you mean, I see you often saying that.
Every time I see it, I act like Im in the crowd in the childhood story of the Emperor's New Clothes ...I nod, as if I can understand and see it...but I am clueless as in how you reference this.
Thanks....H

hmm, think i already did...nope, my bad. ok. Nehushtan is--rather strangely, gotta seek it--the name given to the Snake on a Pole the Wanderers had to "look to" when they got snake-bit in the Wilderness, in order to live. 2 Kings 18:4. i'll thread it!

 

[Helen]

hmm, think i already did...nope, my bad. ok. Nehushtan is--rather strangely, gotta seek it--the name given to the Snake on a Pole the Wanderers had to "look to" when they got snake-bit in the Wilderness, in order to live. 2 Kings 18:4. i'll thread it!

Thanks...that much you have said before...it the "today worship" that you refer to that I don't understand...I need a few more details ok.
Looking forward to your thread.

 

[bbyrd009]

Rubbish.
Jesus puts this entire matter to rest:

Luke 10:16
Whoever listens to YOU listens to ME. Whoever rejects YOU rejects ME. And whoever rejects ME rejects the ONE who sent ME."

Not believing in Him is rejecting Him.

i just recently did this with someone else...on this site, i think. There are five defs of "belief," and one of "faith." Faith comes from God, beliefs come from men, knowledge, etc.

 

[amadeus]

I answered your question. You assumed "apostolic" meant only the pope.

I presumed nothing. Where are the other 11? You indicated that apostles are bishops. So why aren't there 12? Someone changed the rules? OK then so when and why?

I said: "Or prove all things against Apostolic Teaching? What do think I mean by that?"

Apostolic means all the apostles, not just one. Check a dictionary. It's not me that is dodging.

The Church is apostolic in three ways:

1. She is built on "the foundation of the Apostles," those witnesses chosen by Christ.
2. The Church hands on the teaching of the Apostles (the deposit of faith).
3. The Church is guided by the successors of the apostles, the bishops in union with the Pope. Jesus is "the eternal shepherd who never leaves his flock untended" (Preface of Apostles).

Why are there more than 12? It is a very simple question. You say that there are still apostles? I ask why are there more than 12?

The Church is Apostolic
You seem to have a fixed idea of "apostolic" that is not biblical nor historical.

I have no such idea. You are presuming I know your definition for apostolic. I do not. Why not simply provide your definition?

God is not a magician, He doesn't work that way. He uses human beings to run a visible, hierarchical, infallible Church that can never be destroyed. Human beings are physical and visible and God grants authority to bishops to decide the election process, that you are forcing to be doctrinal when it isn't.

In the OT lots were used to divide the land for the tribes of Israel, yet you say God doesn't work that way. I am not forcing anything to be doctrinal. I am simply asking why and you have yet to give me an answer other than it was impractical and God is not a magician. Nothing is impractical for God and what may appear to be magical to unbelievers, is simply what God does. The resurrection of Jesus may seem magical to unbelievers, but you are not as I understand it an unbeliever or was I wrong?

I didn't say anything about the number 12 being insignificant. Those succeeding the Apostles were not Apostles, they were bishops. More bishops were ordained as the Church grew because God gave the 12 a brain. I asked you if you wanted some of their names.

Of what use would such names be to me or to anyone? That the church grew is not really the answer I was seeking. I could have figured that out myself in spite of your tendency to discount my understanding. What I was looking for was a reason why there are no longer a special 12 [even if more delegation was required because of growth]? Why is there a need for a special one other than Jesus? If you don't know the answers then say so or say you don't want to continue the discussion. If you do then simply answer my question as best you can.

No reply, because none of them were Protestant.

What would that matter so long before the Reformation? There have always been I believe since the time of Jesus sincere believers. Some of them probably belonged to the formal physical church. But what does that have to do with what happened change any existing hierarchy from 12 to 1?
You still have not really addressed my questions on that.

It is IMPOSSI

BLE to construct early church history by the Bible alone and so Protestantism is forced to write a history of it's own. That's why 1st, 2nd, and 3rd generation bishops are dismissed as "uninspired" which is an excuse.

No one is trying to write a history. We would like you to address questions regarding the history which you say exists. Jesus was/is the Head. He had 12 apostles. Now the apostles have become bishops and there are more than 12. If the number of them was important, are there then still 12 important ones with perhaps new names, such as archbishops?

 

[BreadOfLife]

i just recently did this with someone else...on this site, i think. There are five defs of "belief," and one of "faith." Faith comes from God, beliefs come from men, knowledge, etc.

Wrong.
Faith begins with God - but if we don't cooperate with that grace, it dies.

True faith requires our cooperation and obedience.

 

[BreadOfLife]

ha that is us, right now, the Church, witnessing to you bro.

Uhhh, no.
You are outside of Christ's Church because you have rejected it.

It's never too late to come home as long as you have breath in you.