WOULD YOU LIKE TO JOIN A NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH?

[marksman]

The Church ALREADY does this when a new successor to Peter's office (Pope) is chosen.
It's called a "Conclave".

Glad you brought up the significance of the numbers 12 and 120.
12 Tribes of Israel - 12 Apostles.
120 priests at the dedication at the Temple (2 Chron. 5:7) - 120 priests at Pentecost (Acts 1:15):

OT - On the Day of the Dedication of the Temple which Solomon built, there were 120 priests present (2 Chron. 5:11). The Ark of the Covenant was carried into the Temple (2 Chron. 5:7) and fire came down from Heaven to consume the burnt offering (2 Chron. 7:7).
NT - The On the Day of Pentecost, there were 120 disciples of Jesus present in the Upper Room (Acts 1:15). Mary, the Mother of Jesus and the Ark of the NEW Covenant was also present while the Holy Spirit came down as tongues of fire (Acts 2:3).

Scriptural fulfillment is a beautiful thing . . .

No comment.

 

[marksman]

Just a thought:
The quote you gave (Acts 2:6) doesn't say that the apostles spoke in different languages.
It says those listening heard them speak in their own language.

As you say - it could be that the Holy Spirit interpreted Peter to each person so that they heard in their own language. But if that was so for Peter why was it not so for verse 6?

Acts 2:6 But this sound occurring, the multitude came together and were confounded, because they each heard them speaking in his own dialect.
I can't see what you are getting at?

As to verse 6, God does what God does. It is not for us to tell him the way he should operate.

 

[Mungo]

Acts 2:6 But this sound occurring, the multitude came together and were confounded, because they each heard them speaking in his own dialect.
I can't see what you are getting at?

As to verse 6, God does what God does. It is not for us to tell him the way he should operate.

It doesn't say that the apostles spoke different languages.

 

[BreadOfLife]

No comment.

No kidding . . .

 

[marksman]

No kidding . . .

NO COMMENT.

 

[marksman]

It doesn't say that the apostles spoke different languages.

Yes, we can only speculate on that one. If the crowd heard the disciples speaking in the languages of the people listening (16) and the speakers were Galileans, then we are onto a certainty that they spoke in other tongues (Languages).

 

[Mungo]

Yes, we can only speculate on that one. If the crowd heard the disciples speaking in the languages of the people listening (16) and the speakers were Galileans, then we are onto a certainty that they spoke in other tongues (Languages).

It's not a certainty at all.

You are not following the logic of your own argument.
You argued in post #113 that Peter could only speak in one language at a time and the people heard in 16 languages so the Holy Spirit must have interpreted it for them
"Peter stood up with the eleven...and Peter spoke. Not the eleven with him...Peter. He was given the job by God to speak so that people who had among them 16 different languages could hear and understand. Have you asked yourself how he accomplished that? I have.

Bearing in mind that Peter was a Galilean and not educated the only way that he could have done this is to speak the message in each language one by one. But that was not possible as it would have taken ages. The other alternative and which I go for is that Peter spoke in his own dialect and the Holy Spirit became the interpreter for him. A bit like in the UN when someone speaks in their own language each person present has an earphone and someone is interpreting what is being said in their own language. The Holy Spirit was interpreting for Peter."

By the same logic the other apostles could have been speaking only one language (probably Aramaic) and the people HEARD in different languages because the Holy Spirit interpreted for them.

 

[marksman]

It's not a certainty at all.

You are not following the logic of your own argument.
You argued in post #113 that Peter could only speak in one language at a time and the people heard in 16 languages so the Holy Spirit must have interpreted it for them
"Peter stood up with the eleven...and Peter spoke. Not the eleven with him...Peter. He was given the job by God to speak so that people who had among them 16 different languages could hear and understand. Have you asked yourself how he accomplished that? I have.

Bearing in mind that Peter was a Galilean and not educated the only way that he could have done this is to speak the message in each language one by one. But that was not possible as it would have taken ages. The other alternative and which I go for is that Peter spoke in his own dialect and the Holy Spirit became the interpreter for him. A bit like in the UN when someone speaks in their own language each person present has an earphone and someone is interpreting what is being said in their own language. The Holy Spirit was interpreting for Peter."

By the same logic the other apostles could have been speaking only one language (probably Aramaic) and the people HEARD in different languages because the Holy Spirit interpreted for them.

Except that only Peter gave the message, not all of the disciples.

 

[marksman]

I woke up during the night last night and rather than go back to sleep my brain switched on and I started to get more inspiration about the NTC.

A lot of people want the Bible to give them pat answers to everything that happens. This is not the case as it says all the books in the world could not contain everything Jesus said and did. So what does the Bible tell us? It is my belief especially with the book of Acts, that we are being given the essentials for the Christian and church life from which everything else can be judged.

Even then, people seem to be more interested in proof-texts rather than an in-depth explanation of what is or is not meant. As a result, most of the hidden depths of scripture are never investigated. Sad to say, to do that seems to be the province of Bible or Theological Colleges.

Studying scripture together is much more beneficial than watching TV. Yet most Christians would rather watch TV than study scripture together which is sad because it says in 2Timothy 3:16 that all Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, so that the man of God may be perfected, being fully furnished for every good work.

If we spent as much time studying scripture together as we do watching TV just imagine how much more perfect we would be. I am so convinced about what the word of God says that I will not do any study without first finding our what the scripture says. Only then will I look at other sources and if they don't line up with scripture I am not interested. If they shed light on what the scripture says then I am all for it.

So what does the book of Acts set out for us? Try this for size. In Matthew 28 we are told to baptise in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Does it say that anywhere else in the New Testament scripture? A big resounding NO. What does the book of Acts tell us? Here are the verses concerned.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

Acts 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

Acts 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Now when I see things like this I start asking questions. In Matthew, we are told to baptise in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In Acts they baptised everyone in the..... Name of Jesus. No mention of the Trinity. So the question is Why?

Could it be that they interpreted the name of the Trinity as Jesus? Maybe.

Could it be that Matthew 28 has been changed? Maybe.

Could it be that the NTC disobeyed the Lord? Maybe.

Could it be that a truck went by as Jesus said what he did so they didn't hear it properly? Unlikely.

OR....Could it be that the NTC baptised in the name of Jesus because that is how they understood the charge that Jesus gave them? This is the most likely scenario as there cannot be any other reason for ignoring Matthew 28 as written in English.

In Matthew 28 they were told to baptise in the name of the Trinity. It is interesting to note that the word name in English in Greek is "onama" which means authority and character. So we can explain that as baptizing in the authority and character of the trinity. So lets us ask what is the authority and character of the trinity. For me, that is the person of Jesus as Jesus said if you have seen me you have seen the Father. He was the physical expression of the Godhead.

So what they would have heard Jesus saying was to baptise in the authority and character of the Godhead, and they obviously understood that to mean to baptise in Jesus' name.

 

[marksman]

DIFFERENCES between the Catholic Church and Cults
​

Catholic Church
The Catholic Church has sources of authority other than the leader (the Pope), such as the Bible, Councils, Church Law, and writings by other Catholic authorities.

Cults
The leader is the sole source of authority for the group.

Catholic Church
A new member clearly knows what the organization is that he (she) is joining, is warned in advance about what is expected, and what he (she) can and cannot do, often has to wait for several months to a year before joining the Church to make sure that the obligations of being a Catholic are understood.

Cults
A new member is deliberately deceived about the obligations of belonging to the group. Cult recruits often attend a cult activity, are lured into "staying for a while," and soon find that they have joined the cult for life, or as one group requires, members sign up for a "billion year contract...." , is not warned in advance about what is expected, and what he (she) can and cannot do, is often duped into joining a cult during the course of a weekend, which was supposed to be a fun weekend with some new friends, or it could even have been advertised as a weekend seminar to quit smoking or lose weight.

A member of the Catholic Church retains freedom of politics, friends, family association, selection of spouse, and information access to television, radio, reading material, telephone, internet and mail.

Cults restrict the access that members have to outside sources of information, and tell cult members that their families and former friends are "evil" or "sinners" because they don't belong to the cult.

A member of the Catholic Church is told to remain in the Church, but is never physically forced to remain.

Members of a religious cult are physically forced, if necessary, to remain in the group. Sometimes group members who try to leave are kidnapped and brought back to the group. Members the cult group in Jonestown Guyana who tried to resist the order from Jim Jones to commit suicide were gunned down by other cult members.

Medical and dental care are available, encouraged, and permitted for members of the Catholic Church. History shows that the Catholic Church was the first one to build hospitals, and provided free medical care to those who could not afford it.

Many cults discourage and sometimes forbid medical care.

Training and education received in Catholic schools are usable later in life. History shows that the Catholic Church was the one building schools and universities when no-one else was during the so-called "Dark Ages."

Cults do not necessarily train a person in anything that has any value in the greater society.

In the Catholic Church, public records are kept. Members have access to their own records.

Cult records, if they exist, are confidential, hidden from members, and not shared.

A system of Church Law is provided within the Catholic Church. A Church member can also utilize legal and law enforcement agencies and other representatives of the civil law if needed.

In cults, there is only the closed, internal system of justice, with no appeal or recourse to outside support.

Families of Church members talk and deal directly with Catholic schools. Children may attend Catholic or non-Catholic schools.

In cults, children, child rearing, and education are often under the absolute control of the cult leader.

Catholicism respects the laws of the land. The Catholic Church negotiates a concordat with the government of every nation, in which the Church and the state agree upon any exemptions from the civil law that are available to Church members.

Cults consider themselves above the law, and are a law unto themselves, and cult leaders are accountable to no one, not even their members.

A Church member gets to keep his (her) money, property, gifts and inheritances. Pope Leo XIII wrote defending private property in his encyclical "Rerum Novarum," May 15, 1891.

In many cults, members are expected to turn over to the cult all money and worldly possessions.

Rational behavior is valued in the Catholic Church. Elsewhere we have proven that the Catholic Church has condemned those who discourage the use of reason and rational thinking.

The right for members of the Catholic Church to make suggestions and offer criticism to Church leaders is protected by Church Law.

The cult leader is always right, and the members who disagree, as well as all outsiders, are always wrong. Members who criticize the leader are ridiculed and often treated violently, or may simply be expelled from the group.

Church members cannot be used for medical and psychological experiments without their informed consent.

Cults essentially perform psychological experiments on their members through implementing so-called thought-reform processes without members' knowledge or consent.

Reading, education, and knowledge are encouraged by the Catholic Church. It was the Catholic Church that preserved books and learning, and which founded the first universities, and which brings education wherever Catholic missionary effort goes.

If cults do any education, it is only in their own teachings. Members come to know less and less about the outside world; contact with or information about life outside the cult is sometimes openly frowned upon, if not forbidden.

The Catholic Church looks for new members among all races and classes of people. The Church does not concentrate their search for new members among the lonely and the vulnerable and the wealthy.

Cults do not look for new members with equal effort among all races and classes of people. Cult concentrate their recruiting efforts among certain groups: Cults target the lonely and the vulnerable.
Cults target rich individuals.

In the Catholic Church, physical fitness is never discouraged. In some monastic orders, like the Dominicans, physical fitness exercises are mandatory.

Cults rarely encourage fitness or good health, except perhaps for members who serve as security guards or thugs.

Adequate and properly balanced nourishment is never discouraged by the Catholic Church. Catholic religious orders make balanced meals at regularly scheduled times mandatory for all members.

Many cults encourage or require unhealthy and bizarre diets. Typically, because of intense work schedules, lack of funds, and other cult demands, cult members are not able to maintain healthy eating habits.

In the Catholic Church, many methods of instruction and education are used, but brainwashing, or thought-reform, is not used. Cults discourage members from thinking independently, and their normal thought processes are stifled and broken.
Catholicism is not a cult.​

A very interesting post Illuminator. I have personal experience of both the Catholic Church and cults so it made for interesting reading. There are a couple of errors that in practice indicates different applications to what you have suggested.

Under authority you did not mention that the authority of priests and cardinals et.al. is absolute. Please do not say that it isn't because my experience and study tells me it is.

Under a person joining the catholic church, I wasn't told anything. I was expected to know.

Under freedom of politics I was told that I had to toe the priest's line.

Catholicism DOES NOT respect the laws of the land judging by all the child molestation charges against priests.

Rational behaviour is not valued by the catholic church. If it was, they would not have kept moving offending priests from one parish to another.

Then right for members to question a priest may be protected under church law but in reality, the priests ignore the fact as I have heard on numerous occasions when a teenager has been asked "why didn't you ask the priest to stop" (the abuse), the reply was "you don't tell a priest what to do."

The catholic priests brainwashed the children they abused into thinking that it was normal according to the children abused.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Catholicism DOES NOT respect the laws of the land judging by all the child molestation charges against priests. Rational behaviour is not valued by the catholic church. If it was, they would not have kept moving offending priests from one parish to another.

Ummmmm - do Protestant sects respect the laws of the land without covering up their crimes??
NOT from the following headlines . . .

Evangelicals ‘worse’ than Catholics on sexual abuse

Evangelical Sex Abuse Record ‘Worse’ Than Catholic, Says Billy Graham’s Grandson

Protestant Churches Grapple With Growing Sexual Abuse Crisis : NPR

Protestants can no longer dismiss abuse as a ‘Catholic problem’

Child Sex Abuse More Prevalent Among Protestants Than Among Catholics

There Is More Sexual Abuse In The Protestant Churches Than Catholic

Catholic priests no guiltier of sex abuse than other clergy

Data Shed Light on Child Sexual Abuse by Protestant Clergy

Blogger Who Exposed Protestant Sex Abuse Cover Up Sued By Her Pastor

Denial About Sexual Abuse In Evangelical Churches

Southern Baptists Apologize For Sex Abuse Coverups

U.S. Protestants’ Views Mixed about Extent of Clergy Sexual Abuse

Churchgoers Split on Existence of More Sexual Abuse by Pastors

Confronting Evangelical Enabling of Sexual Abuse

PS - I already know you have "NO COMMENT."
I wouldn't have one either if somebody publicly exposed MY hypocrisy . . .

 

[Mungo]

Except that only Peter gave the message, not all of the disciples.

Irrelevant to the point I made

 

[Illuminator]

ABUSE LAWYER FINGERS CATHOLICS AND MORMONS
Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on a biased TV ad:

Many states have suspended the statute of limitations for sexual abuse crimes against minors, and some lawyers have seized the opportunity to single out the Catholic Church. It would be like fighting crime and focusing exclusively on African Americans. Both campaigns smack of bigotry.

One of the most egregiously biased TV ads on this subject is being promoted by California attorney Andrew Van Arsdale. It has been running on Fox News, among other places.

Here it is. “For decades, survivors of childhood sexual abuse were told it was too late for them to seek justice. No more. Statute of limitations prohibited organizations such as Catholic and Mormon churches, public and private schools, Boy Scouts and other youth organizations from being held accountable. No more.”

Why Catholic and Mormon churches? Why not Protestant churches and Christian schools? Why not Jewish synagogues and yeshivas? Is it because Catholic and Mormon institutions are known for their traditional values?

Why is there no interest in pursuing the one venue where most of the abuse takes place, namely, the family? Live-in boyfriends are particularly notorious. But there is no money to be made prosecuting single mothers, so these men get off scot-free. The decision to single out the Catholic Church is driven by bigotry, not the pursuit of justice. (get it, marksman?)

Religious profiling is just as invidious as racial profiling, though they are treated differently by elites. This shows how utterly insincere their objections to profiling are. What matters is who is being profiled, not the practice itself.
(get it, marksman?)

Contact Andrew Van Arsdale Law Group: [email protected]

 

[marksman]

Irrelevant to the point I made

It is not irrelevant to the exegesis I gave on the subject.

 

[marksman]

Your "experience and study" is clearly of the bigotted anti-Catholic variety. This is evident in your stupid insults.
Here, you claim to have been in the RCIA program, and the first thing a priests asks a potential convert is WHY they want to become Catholic. No priest in his right mind would allow a frothing-at-the-mouth anti-Catholic bigot to be part of a faith building milieu. Name the priest and the parish where you say you were "expected to know" OR STOP LYING.
Another LIE. The Church encourages us to vote for candidates who uphold moral laws, but never tells us who we must vote for. Cite any source where the priest tells people how to vote OR STOP LYING. This is just hate speech. Sex abuse is a serious sin, not church policy. You are so full of hate you can't tell the difference.
A non-sequitur fallacy. First, that was 50 years ago. Second, every institution at that time did the same thing. Third, enabling bishops at that time followed the advice of psychologists who oversold their "therapy" and shifting them was part of it. They were appointed and accountable to the courts but nobody ever mentions that. Are the victims parents deaf and dumb? Some bishops at that time didn't know how else to handle the problem, they just did what everybody else did at that time, and we now know it was wrong. Now, priests and bishops are obligated, by Vatican directives, to call the cops, but you don't care about that.
Bad priests are dead, in jail or thrown out of ministry. Enabling bishops have long since been corrected/disciplined, but you don't care about that either.
You don't know much about teenagers. Normal teenagers would punch the priest in the mouth and rightly so. Homosexual teenagers would not. 80% of all cases did not involve children, teenagers are not children. The bulk of the scandals was homosexuality, not pedophilia. Are you covering up for homosexuals by majoring in the minors?
Scandal I was the worst crisis in the history of the Church. Yes, it happened.
Scandal II is perpetuating the myth, along with secular media, that nothing has been done about it. I have proven that Catholicism is not a cult, and you respond by playing the ever so popular, worn out, sex abuse card.

There is a "report abuse" button on the main page of many diocese, if not all. Does your church have one? Or does it even have a web page? Or do you even have a church?

2011 Annual Report
99.98% OF PRIESTS ARE INNOCENT

Dec 5, 2013
Vatican announces new papal advisory commission on sex abuse

JULY 07, 2014
Pope's Homily at Mass With Sexual Abuse Victims - ZENIT - English

21 September 2017
Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors

FEBRUARY 17, 2018
Pope renews commission on sexual abuse, Vatican promises victims more say

Then there is the HUGE problem of sex abuse by public school teachers who are protected by their unions. No outrage there. The identity of abusers is more important than kids, right marksman?

Has anyone told you your anger is showing? Those that know me know that I never say anything unless I have concrete proof for what I have said. They don't write back to me ranting and raving and say you are a liar. Believe what you want as I don't care, but I retain the right not to believe your lies and pontifications. If that is the best you can do, may I suggest you steer clear of the topic as it is obvious you cannot be rational?

 

[marksman]

Ummmmm - do Protestant sects respect the laws of the land without covering up their crimes??
NOT from the following headlines . . .

Evangelicals ‘worse’ than Catholics on sexual abuse

Evangelical Sex Abuse Record ‘Worse’ Than Catholic, Says Billy Graham’s Grandson

Protestant Churches Grapple With Growing Sexual Abuse Crisis : NPR

Protestants can no longer dismiss abuse as a ‘Catholic problem’

Child Sex Abuse More Prevalent Among Protestants Than Among Catholics

There Is More Sexual Abuse In The Protestant Churches Than Catholic

Catholic priests no guiltier of sex abuse than other clergy

Data Shed Light on Child Sexual Abuse by Protestant Clergy

Blogger Who Exposed Protestant Sex Abuse Cover Up Sued By Her Pastor

Denial About Sexual Abuse In Evangelical Churches

Southern Baptists Apologize For Sex Abuse Coverups

U.S. Protestants’ Views Mixed about Extent of Clergy Sexual Abuse

Churchgoers Split on Existence of More Sexual Abuse by Pastors

Confronting Evangelical Enabling of Sexual Abuse

PS - I already know you have "NO COMMENT."
I wouldn't have one either if somebody publicly exposed MY hypocrisy . . .

No comment.

 

[Mungo]

It is not irrelevant to the exegesis I gave on the subject.

I disagree

 

[BreadOfLife]

No comment.

That's okay.
I will continue to expose your hypocrisy at every turn - whether you have a comment or not . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

So what does the book of Acts set out for us? Try this for size. In Matthew 28 we are told to baptise in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Does it say that anywhere else in the New Testament scripture? A big resounding NO. What does the book of Acts tell us? Here are the verses concerned.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

Acts 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

Acts 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Now when I see things like this I start asking questions. In Matthew, we are told to baptise in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In Acts they baptised everyone in the..... Name of Jesus. No mention of the Trinity. So the question is Why?

Could it be that they interpreted the name of the Trinity as Jesus? Maybe.

Could it be that Matthew 28 has been changed? Maybe.

Could it be that the NTC disobeyed the Lord? Maybe.

Could it be that a truck went by as Jesus said what he did so they didn't hear it properly? Unlikely.

OR....Could it be that the NTC baptised in the name of Jesus because that is how they understood the charge that Jesus gave them? This is the most likely scenario as there cannot be any other reason for ignoring Matthew 28 as written in English.

In Matthew 28 they were told to baptise in the name of the Trinity. It is interesting to note that the word name in English in Greek is "onama" which means authority and character. So we can explain that as baptizing in the authority and character of the trinity. So lets us ask what is the authority and character of the trinity. For me, that is the person of Jesus as Jesus said if you have seen me you have seen the Father. He was the physical expression of the Godhead.

So what they would have heard Jesus saying was to baptise in the authority and character of the Godhead, and they obviously understood that to mean to baptise in Jesus' name.

WRONG and heretical.

Peter and the rest of the NT Church understood that Baptizing "in the name of Jesus" was Baptizing by His AUTHORITY.

It’s precisely like the knight who declares things "in the name of the king". It doesn't mean that he and the King have the same name. He is declaring by the King's AUTHORITY.

Jesus said to Baptize in name of the Father AND OF the Son AND OF the Holy Spirit.
That is His AUTHORITY – and that is what we read in the verses you posted.

YOUR "oneness" perversion came more than 1500 years later . . .

 

[Illuminator]

Has anyone told you your anger is showing? Those that know me know that I never say anything unless I have concrete proof for what I have said. They don't write back to me ranting and raving and say you are a liar. Believe what you want as I don't care, but I retain the right not to believe your lies and pontifications. If that is the best you can do, may I suggest you steer clear of the topic as it is obvious you cannot be rational?

You are the one that profiled the Church with sex scandals (which is just as hideous as racial profiling) in response to my post on cults, which was unfair and irrational. And I retain the right to expose your bigotry. I suggest you stop using the outdated sex abuse crisis as a red herring and an attack, because it collapses on itself.