When did the universal Church first mentioned in 110AD stop being universal?

[bbyrd009]

and yet, no scripture...........

And those who have the letter exhibit their condemnation. Ha snap. See how the letter kills.
No, i cannot reduce eternal life to a Scripture, and Scripture literally tells me this.
If you cannot hear the prophets, neither will you hear me.
i mean, no offense, i could go dial you up a list or whatever...lol
but no

 

[tom55]

I don't have religion kepha. I have Jesus Christ. Salvation isn't in a book, it's in a person.

You don't have religion??? Interesting!!

Religion defined: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods; a particular system of faith and worship; a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.

The instructions on how to obtain salvation, thru the teachings of Jesus Christ, are in a book!! Salvation is found thru or in a book! You never had to read scripture??

Maybe your brain was automatically downloaded with scripture when you were born?

 

[bbyrd009]

Religion: Man's attempts to reach God, ie on his, man's, own terms, by ritual and rote.
ex; "he takes a bath every Friday, religiously."

 

[tom55]

Religion: Man's attempts to reach God, ie on his, man's, own terms, by ritual and rote.
ex; "he takes a bath every Friday, religiously."

That is YOUR definition. Your definition is not common and is not the majority of the human races definition. In order to have a logical and fruitful conversation we should talk in common instead of un-common language.

 

[bbyrd009]

That is YOUR definition. Your definition is not common and is not the majority of the human races definition. In order to have a logical and fruitful conversation we should talk in common instead of un-common language.

you may accept the world's definition if you like, but you cannot disagree that Christ reserved His most scathing condemnation for the religious of His day. God hates religion. Religion is anathema to God. This is expressed in "the letter kills, but the Spirit brings life." The religious are described as being now possessed of seven spirits, 45Then off it goes and brings with it seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they enter and settle down there. As a result, that man's last condition is worse than the first. That's how it will also be with this evil generation.

And described elsewhere, plainly, as those who have eaten and drank in His presence ("This do, in remembrance of Me")
24“Make every effort to enter through the narrow door,ao because I tell you, many will try to enter and won’t be able
25once the homeowner gets up and shuts the door.ap Then you will standaq outside and knock on the door, saying, ‘Lord, open up for us! ’ He will answer you, ‘I don’t know you or where you’re from.’
26Then you will say,ar ‘We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets! ’
27But He will say, ‘I tell you, I don’t know you or where you’re from. Get away from Me,as all you workers of unrighteousness! ’

these are all descriptions of the religious.

 

[tom55]

you may accept the world's definition if you like, but you cannot disagree that Christ reserved His most scathing condemnation for the religious of His day. God hates religion. Religion is anathema to God. This is expressed in "the letter kills, but the Spirit brings life." The religious are described as being now possessed of seven spirits, 45Then off it goes and brings with it seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they enter and settle down there. As a result, that man's last condition is worse than the first. That's how it will also be with this evil generation.

And described elsewhere, plainly, as those who have eaten and drank in His presence ("This do, in remembrance of Me")
24“Make every effort to enter through the narrow door,ao because I tell you, many will try to enter and won’t be able
25once the homeowner gets up and shuts the door.ap Then you will standaq outside and knock on the door, saying, ‘Lord, open up for us! ’ He will answer you, ‘I don’t know you or where you’re from.’
26Then you will say,ar ‘We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets! ’
27But He will say, ‘I tell you, I don’t know you or where you’re from. Get away from Me,as all you workers of unrighteousness! ’

these are all descriptions of the religious.

I have a novel idea!! How about if you quote the entire passage instead of 8 words of 2 Corinthians 3:6 to fit your agenda? And even Mathew 12 that you partially quoted.

I can play your game. Scripture clearly shows that the Apostle Peter was really satan: he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan!

I get it. Your an anarchist. But you are embarrassing the true anarchist by misquoting or partially quoting scripture. You should at least fully quote scripture and put it in context in an attempt to make your point. Just because your an anarchist doesn't mean you have to attack Christianity. You can make your point without attacking good people.

I would like to have a serious discussion with you....when your ready!

 

[bbyrd009]

I have a novel idea!! How about if you quote the entire passage instead of 8 words of 2 Corinthians 3:6 to fit your agenda? And even Mathew 12 that you partially quoted.

I can play your game. Scripture clearly shows that the Apostle Peter was really satan: he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan!

I get it. Your an anarchist. But you are embarrassing the true anarchist by misquoting or partially quoting scripture. You should at least fully quote scripture and put it in context in an attempt to make your point. Just because your an anarchist doesn't mean you have to attack Christianity. You can make your point without attacking good people.

I would like to have a serious discussion with you....when your ready!

look, i am a Western Christian, and go to those same churches ok. But you must judge yourself. That is all i am doing. You are in serious straits. Your very adaptability has become a barrier to change. Your family is exploded. Your religion is in shambles. 65 million people have left. This is a mortal wound. It's time for a discussion of the fruit of the current death-centered, Paul-was-suicidal-and-craved-death-to-be-with-Jesus line of crap, i'm ready for that discussion.

 

[tom55]

look, i am a Western Christian, and go to those same churches ok. But you must judge yourself. That is all i am doing. You are in serious straits. Your very adaptability has become a barrier to change. Your family is exploded. Your religion is in shambles. 65 million people have left. This is a mortal wound. It's time for a discussion of the fruit of the current death-centered, Paul-was-suicidal-and-craved-death-to-be-with-Jesus line of crap, i'm ready for that discussion.

Lets start that discussion by you answering my question in my last post: How about if you quote the entire passage instead of 8 words of 2 Corinthians 3:6 to fit your agenda?

What is a Western Christian?

Paul was suicidal and craved death to be with Jesus? Who teaches that?

 

[bbyrd009]

Lets start that discussion by you answering my question in my last post: How about if you quote the entire passage instead of 8 words of 2 Corinthians 3:6 to fit your agenda?

What is a Western Christian?

Paul was suicidal and craved death to be with Jesus? Who teaches that?

You accuse me of quoting that passage to fit an agenda, when i would just ask you to read It, and apply It where you see fit. If you don't think that that is talking about religious people, who have accepted a model wherein Paul desires to be "absent from his actual physical body (death, wants death, craves death, is suicidal, iow, waiting to "go") to be present with the Lord" after he dies, and who put Jesus in the streets (19He will not argue or shout, and no one will hear His voice in the streets) then fine, go with that.

I would welcome your exegesis of the passage, wherein those "who ate and drank in His presence" are disconnected from people who accept and practice ritual communion, and those who proselytize, door-to-door even, are oblivious, sorry, but just plain oblivious to who "taught in our streets." Not meaning to put anyone down, ok, but we are talking completely oblivious, go ask the next hundred proselytizers, and if one of them associates themselves with this passage, i would like to know.

So, these are Western Christians, as opposed to the tiny little sects of Eastern Christians or other Christians, the remnants, one might say. Western Christianity, as descended from the RCC, iow. The Big Dogs on the Block, the Builders of Empire, the Pledgers of Allegiance, who don't blink twice at "service" in the military. Who of course must have a model that assures them "to be absent from their own bodies is to be present with the Lord," and disregards that "You do not know where you come from, or where you are going," and about half of the rest of Scripture, too. Completely death-centered model, Jesus saves from a fear of hell--which also cannot be supported in Scripture, without mythological references and mis-translation, all known, the path to making Gehenna in Erets into a literally fiery "hell" somewhen and where else (to assure people that they know where some "other" people are going, with confidence, and a completely straight face) is very clear, to the briefest seeker--and life starts after you die? And you even have Paul quoted as saying that he cannot wait to die and go be with the Lord?

So, if i have an agenda, then expose it, by all means. I understand this up there might be kind of hard to read, maybe? depending upon one's sensibilities or what-have-you, defense mechanisms, because of course we don't like to contemplate that "change your mind" actually means what i am implying here, that virtually every premise we hold dear is fodder, and one's spiritual model is manifesting it, their reality, physical from spiritual, is being accomplished today, and the sickle is being put in today, and we are reaping, today, what we have sown yesterday (and that God calls one to be an Anarchist, which of course that has been made into a bad word now, right, that is a Chaos agent, now, and you're supposed to pray for your leaders, which by extension means get invested in that system, and vote for them, and pledge allegiance to them lol. Never mind all that 1Sam8 jazz, who is going to protect us and fight all our battles if we follow what God wants, right).

Of course, if you are confident that you know where you are going when you die, you don't even have to read this, none of this applies to you, ok, i am talking to someone else anyway, but still it would be interesting to see the...alternate exegesis posted here, just for comparison.

May as well fix "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord" for me too, while you're at it.

Ty, and HNY btw.

 

[tom55]

You accuse me of quoting that passage to fit an agenda, when i would just ask you to read It, and apply It where you see fit. If you don't think that that is talking about religious people, who have accepted a model wherein Paul desires to be "absent from his actual physical body (death, wants death, craves death, is suicidal, iow, waiting to "go") to be present with the Lord" after he dies, and who put Jesus in the streets (19He will not argue or shout, and no one will hear His voice in the streets) then fine, go with that.

I would welcome your exegesis of the passage, wherein those "who ate and drank in His presence" are disconnected from people who accept and practice ritual communion, and those who proselytize, door-to-door even, are oblivious, sorry, but just plain oblivious to who "taught in our streets." Not meaning to put anyone down, ok, but we are talking completely oblivious, go ask the next hundred proselytizers, and if one of them associates themselves with this passage, i would like to know.

So, these are Western Christians, as opposed to the tiny little sects of Eastern Christians or other Christians, the remnants, one might say. Western Christianity, as descended from the RCC, iow. The Big Dogs on the Block, the Builders of Empire, the Pledgers of Allegiance, who don't blink twice at "service" in the military. Who of course must have a model that assures them "to be absent from their own bodies is to be present with the Lord," and disregards that "You do not know where you come from, or where you are going," and about half of the rest of Scripture, too. Completely death-centered model, Jesus saves from a fear of hell--which also cannot be supported in Scripture, without mythological references and mis-translation, all known, the path to making Gehenna in Erets into a literally fiery "hell" somewhen and where else (to assure people that they know where some "other" people are going, with confidence, and a completely straight face) is very clear, to the briefest seeker--and life starts after you die? And you even have Paul quoted as saying that he cannot wait to die and go be with the Lord?

So, if i have an agenda, then expose it, by all means. I understand this up there might be kind of hard to read, maybe? depending upon one's sensibilities or what-have-you, defense mechanisms, because of course we don't like to contemplate that "change your mind" actually means what i am implying here, that virtually every premise we hold dear is fodder, and one's spiritual model is manifesting it, their reality, physical from spiritual, is being accomplished today, and the sickle is being put in today, and we are reaping, today, what we have sown yesterday (and that God calls one to be an Anarchist, which of course that has been made into a bad word now, right, that is a Chaos agent, now, and you're supposed to pray for your leaders, which by extension means get invested in that system, and vote for them, and pledge allegiance to them lol. Never mind all that 1Sam8 jazz, who is going to protect us and fight all our battles if we follow what God wants, right).

Of course, if you are confident that you know where you are going when you die, you don't even have to read this, none of this applies to you, ok, i am talking to someone else anyway, but still it would be interesting to see the...alternate exegesis posted here, just for comparison.

May as well fix "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord" for me too, while you're at it.

Ty, and HNY btw.

You think Paul was suicidal?

I don't understand your fascination or issue with "service" in the military. If someone served in the military then that means they provided service in the military. It's pretty simple.

Everything you wrote after that is so confusing I can't respond because I don't understand it.

I apologize for wasting your time.

 

[bbyrd009]

it should be a simple matter to expose my agenda, though, at the passage, yes? Why not go ahead and do that, and we can go from there.
And if you have a better interpretation of "absent from the body is present with the Lord" than that Paul looked forward to the day of his death to be with Jesus, well then that will be a bonus.

As to the rest, it isn't a big deal--but it also isn't actually very confusing, now, is it? Do you have a concept of where you are going when you die, or not? Is it intricately involved with your concept of salvation, or not? Are you put into a position by your beliefs wherein much of Scripture becomes confusing, and therefore ignored? Or not? Is the Bible the Word, to you, as is commonly held?

Now wadr you have accused me of having an agenda, up at that passage, and i know why, ok? And i know you mean well, but you haven't responded to my request for clarification there, and you are the one who has charged me, after all. Let's see if you are right! But if you are not, don't be apologizing to me for something you aren't sorry for anyway, please. I mean wadr you haven't been making a lick of sense sinse you said "to fit your agenda" and you don't hear me whining about it.

1Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, like some people, letters of recommendation to you or from you?2You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, known and read by everyone. 3You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.
4Such confidence we have through Christ before God. 5Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God. 6He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
The Greater Glory of the New Covenant
7Now if the ministry that brought death...

Now, do you want to suggest to me in one breath that the Book is the Word, most likely, and in the next you want to suggest that i am misrepresenting the bolded? Then make your case please. And then i will make my case for the ministry of death, and we will see what we will see, ok? And if you would like to go ahead and post your list of minimum requirements for salvation (you know the ones, i'm sure; public profession, ritual baptism, possibly some gurgling and cooing, a la Paul; we'll just call them laws, since that is what they are, to people who go to church), whatever they may be, that would move things along, too, because that would be where i am going next, just so you know.

And go ahead and bring your letters, ok, because if you trust those letters--you are betting your life on them, after all--then let's put them through the fire, grill them a little, and see if they hold up as well as Paul's suicide note does, which i notice you also did not address, "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord," which is commonly held to be some death wish of Paul's, i guess? You got a better interpretation? Love to hear it (is it even possible to have a worse one? lol).

And look, i forgive you, ok, but understand that it is a little bit annoying that you have just moved on to some fresh accusations, now, while offering your Superior Apology, and i am just asking you to expose how i have taken the context wrong in the first one. Maybe you are right, i don't know. Show me.

 

[bbyrd009]

1Are we beginning to commend ourselves again?

gee, ya think?

 

[bbyrd009]

and that is exactly how the Universal Church--which is alive and well, and doing fine, btw--ceases to become universal, the moment we start commending ourselves, and stop encouraging others. You need me to tie 2Cor3:6 in with the religious, the keepers of the letters, do you? Fine, i can do that. But first it seems we need to agree on what "religion" even means, like you said.

Religion defined:
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods;
a particular system of faith and worship;
a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.

i'm comfortable with the last one, if you are; the first two use "faith" and "worship" a bit too loosely for me, even if the middle one does declare/expose "system," wherein i might get us back to, essentially, "he takes a bath every Friday, religiously" the quickest. But i am not in a hurry, ok. I know you have been indoctrinated to believe that "religion = approved, saved, keeper of the flame," etc, and i am doing no less than calling it the open grave here, so come, and let us reason together, and make your case for religion, as you understand it, which is all i meant for you to do @ "Paul, suicidal," etc. I mean, good to hear that you do not interpret it that way, but that does appear to be the general religious consensus herenow. I am rightly accused of being a distiller at times, and prolly i have just distilled down too much to even make any sense.

So then, if you don't believe Paul craved death, then i say "Well done!" and, you should shortly be seeing how you are at odds with the many who do, at "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord," which btw i don't think Paul was whining about having to instruct others, either. But Paul was most emphatically not waiting to die to go and be with Jesus, ok. Paul is the one that introduced the phrase "Body of Christ," which we reduce to a placeholder, so that we can get back the babes and the cars and the worldly success that Paul cheerfully gave up. So that we can commend ourselves, and get people to nod their heads at us in approval, because after all who wants to actually pick up their cross, and go finish life like Paul did, a wanted man, on the run? Banished for life?

 

[bbyrd009]

lol prolly this is why i have no friends, sorry if i messed up your thread Tom hny!

 

[tom55]

lol prolly this is why i have no friends, sorry if i messed up your thread Tom hny!

I consider you a friend. I just don't understand anything you write. It is all very confusing and illogical in my opinion!! I would respond to you but I don't understand what you are saying.

No need to apologize. You didn't mess up my thread. What I have written is the Truth and you can't mess up the Truth. Just because you fail to recognize an authoritive Church doesn't mean there isn't one. You have yourself as your own authority. I have The Church that Jesus established as my authority.

For you are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. He built a Church not churches.

If I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth. A Church that has The Truth. Not multiple churches with multiple "truths" or you with your own interpretation of the truth.

[SIZE=14pt]If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church[/SIZE][SIZE=14pt];[/SIZE] [SIZE=14pt]and if they [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]refuse to listen even to the church[/SIZE][SIZE=14pt], treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector. [/SIZE]The Church, not a church that you shop around for that agrees with you. The Church that has the authority to excommunicate.

I may hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with ONE mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel,..... complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of ONE mind. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth,... teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.... for you are all ONE in Christ Jesus. Not multiple minds, ONE mind, ONE truth which means ONE Church with ONE truth that will be with us till the end of the age. He is still with us and so is The Truth in a visible Church that has the authority to excommunicate.

Jesus never promised an authoritative book but he did promise us an authoritative Church.

 

[bbyrd009]

Jesus never promised an authoritative book but he did promise us an authoritative Church.

well, i consider the Book pretty authoritative, myself, and imo Christ was referring to the Church of Living Stones, not an establishment of men, that might best be expressed wherever two or three are gathered, which does not really describe any one congregation, on any given Sunday, even though we shoehorn it into that. I would not condemn the RCC, when i see that most Protestant models basically seek to accomplish the same thing, which to my mind is seeking an earthly king to fight one's battles, 1Sam8, and establish a Universal Dominion, essentially, that is "seen," and can be "pointed at," which i don't believe is going to be how the kingdom manifests. We naturally seek an earthly authority, as people do, but Scripture clearly cautions against this approach, and imo Christ did not refuse the crown, twice at least, because Peter was more qualified to wear it, or was chosen to wear it. "Excommunication" imo is just an admission of "we do not forgive, we sanction forgiveness" and an assertion of "we know, and they do not," which i don't find supported in the Bible, as tempting as that is to embrace. Plus, excommunicated Catholics seem to make the best authors, lol.

Of course, no one is much interested in a Message of "I don't know, but this seems true," and so imo demand is going to drive the creation of some body to fill the demand, whether the demand is from the Spirit or not. I would argue that the demand comes from the soul, and not the spirit, we naturally desire to save our own souls, despit Scripture's warnings about that, and so it may be seen that our "woman's desire is for her husband," and an established church is a natural outgrowth of that desire. "Go ye, and find someone who knows, and believe what they tell you" is not in There, and in fact the opposite is in There, so for instance imo you cannot defend a single Truth, in "A Church that has The Truth," against all Scriptures; give it your best shot.

There is a competing doctrine with just as much Scriptural support, that has just as much Truth in it, without fail. Or at least let me say that "you reap what you sow" is the only unassailable doctrine i have found, and even that one has a counter-understanding, "salvation is a free gift, that you cannot earn." So see that there is at least a sense in which "a church that has the truth" is not true at all, which becomes evident when you try and define one of these truths, which ends up does not exist, at least for another seeker. Now, i would still agree, that "the Church of all truth exists," but imo it is a spiritual place, and you cannot point to it, or define it in worldly terms.

 

[tom55]

well, i consider the Book pretty authoritative, myself, and imo Christ was referring to the Church of Living Stones, not an establishment of men, that might best be expressed wherever two or three are gathered, which does not really describe any one congregation, on any given Sunday, even though we shoehorn it into that. I would not condemn the RCC, when i see that most Protestant models basically seek to accomplish the same thing, which to my mind is seeking an earthly king to fight one's battles, 1Sam8, and establish a Universal Dominion, essentially, that is "seen," and can be "pointed at," which i don't believe is going to be how the kingdom manifests. We naturally seek an earthly authority, as people do, but Scripture clearly cautions against this approach, and imo Christ did not refuse the crown, twice at least, because Peter was more qualified to wear it, or was chosen to wear it. "Excommunication" imo is just an admission of "we do not forgive, we sanction forgiveness" and an assertion of "we know, and they do not," which i don't find supported in the Bible, as tempting as that is to embrace. Plus, excommunicated Catholics seem to make the best authors, lol.

Of course, no one is much interested in a Message of "I don't know, but this seems true," and so imo demand is going to drive the creation of some body to fill the demand, whether the demand is from the Spirit or not. I would argue that the demand comes from the soul, and not the spirit, we naturally desire to save our own souls, despit Scripture's warnings about that, and so it may be seen that our "woman's desire is for her husband," and an established church is a natural outgrowth of that desire. "Go ye, and find someone who knows, and believe what they tell you" is not in There, and in fact the opposite is in There, so for instance imo you cannot defend a single Truth, in "A Church that has The Truth," against all Scriptures; give it your best shot.

There is a competing doctrine with just as much Scriptural support, that has just as much Truth in it, without fail. Or at least let me say that "you reap what you sow" is the only unassailable doctrine i have found, and even that one has a counter-understanding, "salvation is a free gift, that you cannot earn." So see that there is at least a sense in which "a church that has the truth" is not true at all, which becomes evident when you try and define one of these truths, which ends up does not exist, at least for another seeker. Now, i would still agree, that "the Church of all truth exists," but imo it is a spiritual place, and you cannot point to it, or define it in worldly terms.

I never said scripture wasn't authoritative. But it takes man to interpret and enforce scripture. (whatever you bind on earth will be bound in HEAVEN)

Taking the "wherever two or three gathered" IN FULL CONTEXT it also says, "whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven". This means BINDING authority by someone or some "congregation". Who or what congregation has that authority in your life? Once again you only partially quoted scripture to fit YOUR agenda or belief...how sad.

Furthermore: You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst.....REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES....keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them.... I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler--not even to eat with such a one.... keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us.....Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned. Who has the authority to remove one from The Church or tell us we need to turn away from them or testify that the life they are leading is unruly?

Excommunication is intended to show the person that he is outside the communion of The Church and that he must turn away from the wrong he is committing and be reconciled. Who has the power to excommunicate?

If in fact there is as YOU say, "...a competing doctrine with just as much Scriptural support,..." then logic says someone's doctrine must be wrong since there can be only one Truth. Only ONE doctrine can be right. So who's doctrine do YOU choose? Who's doctrine has The Truth? I have chosen mine.

You said Christ was not referring to "an establishment of men". Then why did Jesus tell Peter he will build his Church on him? Then why did he choose 12 men to lead others after he died? Did the men at the Council of Jerusalem NOT have binding authority over all Christians? Why did those men then train others and tell Timothy: And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others. What you believe and what scripture says are opposite of each other.

Why is scripture, the writings of the Apostolic Fathers and other ancient historical writings FULL of instructions on how to establish a church with binding authority and a hierarchy?

Now I have a tough choice. Believe what YOU have to say about this matter or believe what scripture and 2,000 years of Christian/Church history has to say about it. I think you know which one I will choose.

 

[mjrhealth]

Then why did Jesus tell Peter he will build his Church on him?

Actually He said He will build His church on revelation, but so few seem to care. Just another line traking out of context to justify a lie.

So who's doctrine do YOU choose? Who's doctrine has The Truth? I have chosen mine.

Yes you have chosen the cathloic doctrine

Mat_15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Mar_7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Col_2:22 Which all are to perish with the using after the commandments and doctrines of men?
1Ti_4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

We choose Jesus.

Excommunication is intended to show the person that he is outside the communion of The Church and that he must turn away from the wrong he is committing and be reconciled. Who has the power to excommunicate?

Well teh Pope does but it is teh catholic church and they have given them power over Him not Jesus doing, to be kicked out would be the best thing ever.

Luk 22:25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.
Luk 22:26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.

I never said scripture wasn't authoritative. But it takes man to interpret and enforce scripture. (whatever you bind on earth will be bound in HEAVEN)

God gave us teh Holy Spirit so we would not be led astary by men. God cant help it if men would rather follow after men than after Jesus.

 

[bbyrd009]

I never said scripture wasn't authoritative. But it takes man to interpret and enforce scripture. (whatever you bind on earth will be bound in HEAVEN)

Taking the "wherever two or three gathered" IN FULL CONTEXT it also says, "whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven". This means BINDING authority by someone or some "congregation". Who or what congregation has that authority in your life? Once again you only partially quoted scripture to fit YOUR agenda or belief...how sad.

Well please, how has my quote been made to fit an agenda? I am not the one lending imprimatur to congregations--who can hardly be said to fit any "two or three" model, now, can they?--by it; but you are. So what is the agenda, then, my "agenda?" Because of course you did not clarify that part, see, you only condemned it, without stating what it was. My agenda, as it stands right now, is that "2 or 3" does not equal a congregation, and it never will equal a congregation, unless you only have 2 or 3 in your congregation. Obviously. Now, i also am not putting down congregations, there is obviously a place for them, because after all how else could one develop doctrines to divide people, and thus have some means to proclaim others "sad" without any evidence? Or even negative evidence?

So then whatever is bound on earth, by me, alone, all by myself, is bound in heaven; but this does not negate that the physical manifests from the spiritual in my life, not by any means. You can connect vv19-20 with the passage about a brother who sins if you like, but you are not compelled to do so by the text, and in fact the text specifically suggests a change of subject, at the beginning of v19, leaving behind the subject of a brother who sins, and the "one or two" one might bring from the congregation to witness entirely. 19"Again, I assure you: If two of you on earth agree about any matter that you pray for, it will be done for you by My Father in heaven." See, you cannot even make this verse fit in with the preceeding vv, practically speaking. You cannot pray that the unrepentant sinner be reconciled to the two of you, and expect any immediate relief, now can you? For the same reason the two of you could not go to a cancer ward, and start healing people. Because it just doesn't work like that. Which does not mean that it doesn't work, not at all. There has been a subject change, and i am not inclined to label you "sad" because you do not see it, wadr. After all, you might by the end of the day, who knows? But you might notice that the formula was not "Go to the offending brother, and pray with him..." see, nor was it "get together, two or three of you, and pray about this situation..." so, again, i assure you, the agenda is yours, if you want to assume it--and you read quickly enough, i guess--but is not so clear upon closer inspection.

 

[tom55]

Well please, how has my quote been made to fit an agenda? I am not the one lending imprimatur to congregations--who can hardly be said to fit any "two or three" model, now, can they?--by it; but you are. So what is the agenda, then, my "agenda?" Because of course you did not clarify that part, see, you only condemned it, without stating what it was. My agenda, as it stands right now, is that "2 or 3" does not equal a congregation, and it never will equal a congregation, unless you only have 2 or 3 in your congregation. Obviously. Now, i also am not putting down congregations, there is obviously a place for them, because after all how else could one develop doctrines to divide people, and thus have some means to proclaim others "sad" without any evidence? Or even negative evidence?

So then whatever is bound on earth, by me, alone, all by myself, is bound in heaven; but this does not negate that the physical manifests from the spiritual in my life, not by any means. You can connect vv19-20 with the passage about a brother who sins if you like, but you are not compelled to do so by the text, and in fact the text specifically suggests a change of subject, at the beginning of v19, leaving behind the subject of a brother who sins, and the "one or two" one might bring from the congregation to witness entirely. 19"Again, I assure you: If two of you on earth agree about any matter that you pray for, it will be done for you by My Father in heaven." See, you cannot even make this verse fit in with the preceeding vv, practically speaking. You cannot pray that the unrepentant sinner be reconciled to the two of you, and expect any immediate relief, now can you? For the same reason the two of you could not go to a cancer ward, and start healing people. Because it just doesn't work like that. Which does not mean that it doesn't work, not at all. There has been a subject change, and i am not inclined to label you "sad" because you do not see it, wadr. After all, you might by the end of the day, who knows? But you might notice that the formula was not "Go to the offending brother, and pray with him..." see, nor was it "get together, two or three of you, and pray about this situation..." so, again, i assure you, the agenda is yours, if you want to assume it--and you read quickly enough, i guess--but is not so clear upon closer inspection.

I don't understand what you are saying. AND you didn't answer any of my questions.