Passover vs Eucharist

[marksman]

I haven't noticed any "pearls" from you yet.

Oh, dear, your comprehension leaves a lot to be desired. If I am told NOT to throw pearls before swine, of course, you haven't seen any as I haven't thrown any.

 

[RogerDC]

HIS CHURCH.

An address please. I want to check out this Church you talk about. It does exist doesn't it? Or maybe you just imagine it exists.

 

[marksman]

An address please. I want to check out this Church you talk about. It does exist doesn't it? Or maybe you just imagine it exists.

Mat 16:18 So I will call you Peter, which means "a rock." On this rock I will build my (HIS) church, and death itself will not have any power over it.
Mat 18:20 Whenever two or three of you come together in my name, I am there with you.

His church meets in a home, a cafe, a field, on the beach, in the office, in school, an airport, a prison, a hospital, a ship, in fact anywhere where two or three are gathered together in the name of Jesus because he has promised to be there with us.

 

[Illuminator]

Mat 16:18 So I will call you Peter, which means "a rock." On this rock I will build my (HIS) church, and death itself will not have any power over it.
Mat 18:20 Whenever two or three of you come together in my name, I am there with you.

His church meets in a home, a cafe, a field, on the beach, in the office, in school, an airport, a prison, a hospital, a ship, in fact anywhere where two or three are gathered together in the name of Jesus because he has promised to be there with us.

"in the name of Jesus" is reduced to a meaningless slogan if those gathered are not in full communion with the historic Church Jesus founded. The JW's, SDA's, and the KKK gather together too. They say, "in the name of Jesus" too but that does not mean they fall into the biblical definition of "church". That is the problem. What is the biblical definition of "church"? The Book of Acts indicates what a real church is, what gathered in His name means. God will often answer the prayers of any 2-3 believers because He honors their faith, but that does not mean they are a church in the biblical sense.

We find no evidence of a network of independent, local churches ruled democratically by individual congregations. Instead, from the beginning we find the churches ruled by elders (bishops) So in the New Testament we find the apostles appointing elders in the churches. (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5) The elders kept in touch with the apostles and with the elders of the other churches through travel and communication by epistle. (I Pt.1:1; 5:1) Anne Rice, the author of the Christ the Lord series of novels, points out how excellent and rapid the lines of communication and travel were in the Roman Empire.

In the early church we do not find independent congregations meeting on their own and determining their own affairs by reading the Bible. We have to remember that in the first two centuries there was no Bible as such for the canon of the New Testament had not yet been decided. Instead, from the earliest time we find churches ruled by the bishops and clergy whose authenticity is validated by their succession from the apostles. So Clement of Rome writes,
“Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on the question of the bishop’s office. Therefore for this reason… they appointed the aforesaid persons and later made further provision that if they should fall asleep other tested men should succeed to their ministry.”

Ignatius of Antioch in Syria writes letters to six different churches and instructs the Romans,
“be submissive to the bishop and to one another as Jesus Christ was to the Father and the Apostles to Christ…that there may be unity.”

This apostolic ministry was present in each city, but centralized in Rome. The idea of a church being independent, local and congregational is rejected...

 

[marksman]

"in the name of Jesus" is reduced to a meaningless slogan if those gathered are not in full communion with the historic Church Jesus founded. The JW's, SDA's, and the KKK gather together too. They say, "in the name of Jesus" too but that does not mean they fall into the biblical definition of "church". That is the problem. What is the biblical definition of "church"? The Book of Acts indicates what a real church is, what gathered in His name means. God will often answer the prayers of any 2-3 believers because He honors their faith, but that does not mean they are a church in the biblical sense.

We find no evidence of a network of independent, local churches ruled democratically by individual congregations. Instead, from the beginning we find the churches ruled by elders (bishops) So in the New Testament we find the apostles appointing elders in the churches. (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5) The elders kept in touch with the apostles and with the elders of the other churches through travel and communication by epistle. (I Pt.1:1; 5:1) Anne Rice, the author of the Christ the Lord series of novels, points out how excellent and rapid the lines of communication and travel were in the Roman Empire.

In the early church we do not find independent congregations meeting on their own and determining their own affairs by reading the Bible. We have to remember that in the first two centuries there was no Bible as such for the canon of the New Testament had not yet been decided. Instead, from the earliest time we find churches ruled by the bishops and clergy whose authenticity is validated by their succession from the apostles. So Clement of Rome writes,
“Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on the question of the bishop’s office. Therefore for this reason… they appointed the aforesaid persons and later made further provision that if they should fall asleep other tested men should succeed to their ministry.”

Ignatius of Antioch in Syria writes letters to six different churches and instructs the Romans,
“be submissive to the bishop and to one another as Jesus Christ was to the Father and the Apostles to Christ…that there may be unity.”

This apostolic ministry was present in each city, but centralized in Rome. The idea of a church being independent, local and congregational is rejected...

And what historic church did Jesus found?

The word "clergy" is not in the New Testament.

What is the biblical definitions of the church?

Where does it say in scripture that the apostolic ministry was centred in Rome?

So if the NTC had Elders to rule them, any church that deviates from that is not a church is that right?

We do find churches in the New Testament determining their own affairs that is why Paul wrote letters to them to correct them.

How early is the earliest time as there is no mention of any successors in the New Testament?

The idea that a church was independent, local and congregational is rejected. No, it is not because the scriptures talk about the church at Corinth. The church at Rome. The church at Ephesus. The Church at Thyatira.

It teaches the congregational aspect when it teaches how the congregation are to use the gifts of the spirit and says "each one has..."

I think you need to do a lot mores study before you can speak authoritatively about the NTC.

 

[Illuminator]

And what historic church did Jesus found?

It's identified in the bible as kataholis, Greek for "whole world" translated as universal or catholic.

The word "clergy" is not in the New Testament.

Neither is the word "Trinity" or "Incarnation" Clergy is a general term describing those who have been ordained as deacon, priest (elder), or bishop.

What is the biblical definitions of the church?

Short answer: a faith community overseen by a bishop. The Book of Acts makes this quite clear. Long answer: One, Holy, Catholic (Universal), and Apostolic.

Where does it say in scripture that the apostolic ministry was centred in Rome?

It doesn't have to. After the death of James in 44 A.D., the center shifted from Jerusalem to Rome. There are biblical inferences to this, but not explicit. There is plenty of recorded evidence both from the writings of the earliest Christians and from secular historic documents. Scripture doesn't mention the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. but does that prove it didn't happen??? Of course not. It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove early church history based on the Bible alone, but some people don't care, they try and do it anyway.

So if the NTC had Elders to rule them, any church that deviates from that is not a church is that right?

A legitimate community of believers can exist without an elder, but there is no evidence that such a community was not in communion with an elder. Whole communities were excommunicated for their deviance, such as the Arians, until later but that cannot happen without a centralized authority. An invisible church cannot bind and loose because binding and loosing are visible acts done by real physical leaders in a real, visible church.

We do find churches in the New Testament determining their own affairs that is why Paul wrote letters to them to correct them.

Paul was a unifying factor, so this statement doesn't make sense.
Hebrews 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls and will give an account for their work. Let them do this with joy and not with complaints, for this would be no advantage for you.
Nowhere does Paul say any church would look after their own affairs, just the opposite. What is the expiration date of Hebrews 13???

How early is the earliest time as there is no mention of any successors in the New Testament?

Col 1:25 – Paul calls his position a divine “office.” An office has successors. It does not terminate at death. Or it’s not an office. See also Heb. 7:23 – an office continues with another successor after the previous office-holder’s death.
2 Tim. 2:2 – this verse shows God’s intention is to transfer authority to successors (here, Paul to Timothy to 3rd to 4th generation). It goes beyond the death of the apostles. It can't get any more explicit than that.

The idea that a church was independent, local and congregational is rejected. No, it is not because the scriptures talk about the church at Corinth. The church at Rome. The church at Ephesus. The Church at Thyatira.

There is no evidence that these churches were not under the supervision of a bishop or Apostle.

It teaches the congregational aspect when it teaches how the congregation are to use the gifts of the spirit and says "each one has..."

Projecting todays individualism into Scripture has undermined todays unity. It has led to gross division which is condemned in the NT.

Independent Evangelical churches follow the Baptist Successionist idea that the early church was de-centralized. They like to imagine that the early Christians met in their homes for Bible study and prayer, and that in this pure form they existed independently of any central authority. It is easy to imagine that long ago in the ancient world transportation and communication was rare and difficult and that no form of centralized church authority could have existed even if it was desirable.

The most straightforward reading of the Acts of the Apostles shows this to be untrue, and a further reading of early church documents shows this to be no more than a back-projected invention. In the Acts of the Apostles what we find is a church that is immediately centralized in Jerusalem. When Peter has his disturbing vision in which God directs him to admit the Gentiles to the Church, he references back at once to the apostolic leadership in Jerusalem.(Acts 11:2) The apostolic leadership in Jerusalem consisted of Peter, James, John with the other apostles and elders. This is what we mean by "Magisterium", or teaching authority. That word is not in the Bible, but only a stubborn blindman would deny it's existence.

The mission of the infant church was directed from Jerusalem, with Barnabas and Agabus being sent to Antioch (Acts 11:22,27) The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) was convened to decide on the Gentile decision and a letter of instruction was sent to the new churches in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. (Acts 15:23) We see Philip, John. Mark, Barnabas and Paul traveling to and from Jerusalem and providing a teaching and disciplinary link from the new churches back to the centralized church in Jerusalem.

After the martyrdom of James the leadership shifts to Peter and Paul. The authority is not centered on Jerusalem, but through their epistles to the various churches, we see a centralized authority that is vested in Peter and Paul as apostles. This central authority was very soon focused on Rome, so that St Ignatius, a bishop of the church in Antioch would write to the Romans in the year 108 affirming that their church was the one that had the “superior place in love among the churches.’”

This forces you to ignore the writings of Ignatius (and others) because it conflicts with your false version of church history. I appreciate you asking questions rather than throwing around stupid accusations.

 

[marksman]

It's identified in the bible as kataholis, Greek for "whole world" translated as universal or catholic.
Neither is the word "Trinity" or "Incarnation" Clergy is a general term describing those who have been ordained as deacon, priest (elder), or bishop.
Short answer: a faith community overseen by a bishop. The Book of Acts makes this quite clear. Long answer: One, Holy, Catholic (Universal), and Apostolic.
It doesn't have to. After the death of James in 44 A.D., the center shifted from Jerusalem to Rome. There are biblical inferences to this, but not explicit. There is plenty of recorded evidence both from the writings of the earliest Christians and from secular historic documents. Scripture doesn't mention the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. but does that prove it didn't happen??? Of course not. It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove early church history based on the Bible alone, but some people don't care, they try and do it anyway.
A legitimate community of believers can exist without an elder, but there is no evidence that such a community was not in communion with an elder. Whole communities were excommunicated for their deviance, such as the Arians, until later but that cannot happen without a centralized authority. An invisible church cannot bind and loose because binding and loosing are visible acts done by real physical leaders in a real, visible church.
Paul was a unifying factor, so this statement doesn't make sense.
Hebrews 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls and will give an account for their work. Let them do this with joy and not with complaints, for this would be no advantage for you.
Nowhere does Paul say any church would look after their own affairs, just the opposite. What is the expiration date of Hebrews 13???

Col 1:25 – Paul calls his position a divine “office.” An office has successors. It does not terminate at death. Or it’s not an office. See also Heb. 7:23 – an office continues with another successor after the previous office-holder’s death.
2 Tim. 2:2 – this verse shows God’s intention is to transfer authority to successors (here, Paul to Timothy to 3rd to 4th generation). It goes beyond the death of the apostles. It can't get any more explicit than that.
There is no evidence that these churches were not under the supervision of a bishop or Apostle.
Projecting todays individualism into Scripture has undermined todays unity. It has led to gross division which is condemned in the NT.

Independent Evangelical churches follow the Baptist Successionist idea that the early church was de-centralized. They like to imagine that the early Christians met in their homes for Bible study and prayer, and that in this pure form they existed independently of any central authority. It is easy to imagine that long ago in the ancient world transportation and communication was rare and difficult and that no form of centralized church authority could have existed even if it was desirable.

The most straightforward reading of the Acts of the Apostles shows this to be untrue, and a further reading of early church documents shows this to be no more than a back-projected invention. In the Acts of the Apostles what we find is a church that is immediately centralized in Jerusalem. When Peter has his disturbing vision in which God directs him to admit the Gentiles to the Church, he references back at once to the apostolic leadership in Jerusalem.(Acts 11:2) The apostolic leadership in Jerusalem consisted of Peter, James, John with the other apostles and elders. This is what we mean by "Magisterium", or teaching authority. That word is not in the Bible, but only a stubborn blindman would deny it's existence.

The mission of the infant church was directed from Jerusalem, with Barnabas and Agabus being sent to Antioch (Acts 11:22,27) The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) was convened to decide on the Gentile decision and a letter of instruction was sent to the new churches in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. (Acts 15:23) We see Philip, John. Mark, Barnabas and Paul traveling to and from Jerusalem and providing a teaching and disciplinary link from the new churches back to the centralized church in Jerusalem.

After the martyrdom of James the leadership shifts to Peter and Paul. The authority is not centered on Jerusalem, but through their epistles to the various churches, we see a centralized authority that is vested in Peter and Paul as apostles. This central authority was very soon focused on Rome, so that St Ignatius, a bishop of the church in Antioch would write to the Romans in the year 108 affirming that their church was the one that had the “superior place in love among the churches.’”

This forces you to ignore the writings of Ignatius (and others) because it conflicts with your false version of church history. I appreciate you asking questions rather than throwing around stupid accusations.

There are so many errors in your reply it is not worthy of wasting my time answering them all as it will only lead to more errors to defend your position so I don't want to give you the opportunity to spread them abroad.

 

[RogerDC]

word "clergy" is not in the New Testament

So what?

 

[RogerDC]

Where does it say in scripture that the apostolic ministry was centred in Rome

World Wars 1 and 2 never happened because the Bible doesn't mention them. Love you logic!

 

[RogerDC]

And what historic church did Jesus found?

The word "clergy" is not in the New Testament.

What is the biblical definitions of the church?

Where does it say in scripture that the apostolic ministry was centred in Rome?

So if the NTC had Elders to rule them, any church that deviates from that is not a church is that right?

We do find churches in the New Testament determining their own affairs that is why Paul wrote letters to them to correct them.

How early is the earliest time as there is no mention of any successors in the New Testament?

The idea that a church was independent, local and congregational is rejected. No, it is not because the scriptures talk about the church at Corinth. The church at Rome. The church at Ephesus. The Church at Thyatira.

It teaches the congregational aspect when it teaches how the congregation are to use the gifts of the spirit and says "each one has..."

I think you need to do a lot mores study before you can speak authoritatively about the NTC.

Why did the Spirit send Paul to the Church leaders to have us his preaching approved?

By did Paul go to the Church leaders to settle a doctrinal dispute with Barnabas?

 

[marksman]

Why did the Spirit send Paul to the Church leaders to have us his preaching approved?

By did Paul go to the Church leaders to settle a doctrinal dispute with Barnabas?

You have not answered my questions. Does that mean you don't know the answer to them?

 

[marksman]

World Wars 1 and 2 never happened because the Bible doesn't mention them. Love you logic!

And your logic is totally illogical.

 

[marksman]

So what?

If that is the best reply you can give it sure indicates you are lacking in biblical exegesis ability.

 

[Jay Ross]

World Wars 1 and 2 never happened because the Bible doesn't mention them. Love you logic!

Actually they are mentioned in Revelation 16:17-21 but not in the manner that you would expect to see WW1 and WW2 mentioned. The Greek word Seismos, which has the meaning of turmoil, has been translated as "earthquake" but after WW!, Babylon was recognised once more in 1926, for God's wrath to be poured out once again on the Land of the Chaldeans, and Jerusalem was divided into three parts in 1948. Wars were fought where great artillery shells were fired at the opposing armies in the wars and men hid in holes in the ground for the artillery bombardments to stop before emerging to once again engage in bloody battles. Bombs also rained down on people in like manner. The mountains, i.e. the religions of the people, also fell away into a secular world.

Read the passage again with the three word corrections and the evidence becomes clearer to identify the era, in world history, being spoken about.

Revelation 16:17-21: - b Seventh Bowl: The Earth Utterly Shaken

17 Then/And the seventh angel poured out his {hard/oppressive} bowl into the air, and a loud voice came out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, "It is done!" 18 And there were noises and thunderings and lightnings; and there was a great earthquake/turmoil, such a mighty and great earthquake/turmoil as had not occurred since men were on the earth. 19 Now the great city was divided into three parts, (in 1948) and the cities of the nations fell (around Jerusalem, during WW1). And great Babylon was remembered before God, (1926), to give her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of His wrath. (Started in August 1990 and has been on going) 20 Then every island fled away, and the mountains/religions were not found. 21 And great hail from heaven fell upon men, each hailstone about the weight of a talent. Men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail, since that plague was exceedingly great.

Please note that "turmoil" is one of the attributes of a war or conflict between people.

Sadly, many people place this bowl judgement in the wrong time slot for the unfolding Bowl Judgements.

Shalom

 

[Illuminator]

If that is the best reply you can give it sure indicates you are lacking in biblical exegesis ability.

You completely miss the point. The Bible contains history, but it is not a history book. It is IMPOSSIBLE to write early church history based on the Bible alone. Those who try make up their own history to fit their agenda, ignoring what Christians wrote in the first 3 centuries before the canon of the Bible had fully blossomed.

One thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches . . . at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this. And Protestantism . . . as a whole, feels it, and has felt it. This is shown in the determination . . . of dispensing with historical Christianity altogether, and of forming a Christianity from the Bible alone . . . To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.
​

By John Henry Newman, an Anglican bishop and scholar, who set out to disprove Catholicism, and ended up converting based on the conviction of his findings.

 

[RogerDC]

If that is the best reply you can give it sure indicates you are lacking in biblical exegesis ability.

You make the point that the word "clergy" is not found in the Bible - please explain why that matters … if you can.

If you can't explain why that matters, I guess your "point" is just a petty little whine that means absolutely nothing.

 

[RogerDC]

You have not answered my questions. Does that mean you don't know the answer to them?

Your questions were not directed at me. Why are you demanding that I answer questions that you never asked me?

So I'll try again:
Why did the Spirit send Paul to the Church leaders to have us his preaching approved?

By did Paul go to the Church leaders to settle a doctrinal dispute with Barnabas?

These are perfectly reasonable questions. If you don't know how to answer my questions, just say "I don't know."

 

[RogerDC]

There are so many errors in your reply it is not worthy of wasting my time answering them all as it will only lead to more errors to defend your position so I don't want to give you the opportunity to spread them abroad.

If you're not willing to engage other posters in a debate, what are you doing here? You seem to have nothing to say.

 

[RogerDC]

Scripture doesn't mention the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. but does that prove it didn't happen??? Of course not. It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove early church history based on the Bible alone...

Stop using simple logic to destroy childishly-stupid anti-Catholic arguments!

 

[RogerDC]

The idea that a church was independent, local and congregational is rejected. No, it is not because the scriptures talk about the church at Corinth. The church at Rome. The church at Ephesus. The Church at Thyatira.

What a poor argument. The Catholic Churches in Rome, Paris, London, New York, Sydney, Jerusalem and Mexico City are exactly the same doctrinally are all under the authority of the Pope.