WOULD YOU LIKE TO JOIN A NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH?

[marksman]

That's okay.
I'm still here to refute your perversions - whether you have a comment or not . . .

No comment.

 

[bbyrd009]

100% correct.

ha yikes
is it warm in here?

lol

 

[marksman]

ha yikes
is it warm in here? lol

Where?

 

[marksman]

... an INCOMPLETE Christian, vs a COMPLETE Christian.

So many people think sitting in a pew makes them a Christian; or reading a book on some Christian topic makes them a Christian; or posting in a Christian Forum makes them a Christian.

Personally, I think accepting Jesus and OBEYING what Scripture says, -- BOTH OT & NT --, makes a person a Christian. It's just too bad we have so many of the former, and so few of the latter ...
Bobby Jo

Would that be a pewtrid Christian?

 

[marksman]

Joining a New Testament Church (NTC) appeared to be a very collegial thing as the following verses show.

Acts 2:42 And they were continuing steadfastly in the doctrine of the apostles, and in fellowship, and in the breaking of bread, and in prayers.

The word fellowship means participation or social intercourse. In other words it was very much a hands-on type of living where everyone was included and enjoyed. No sitting in rows in seats looking at the back of people's heads. The meetings in homes always included a communal meal.

Acts 2:44 And all the believers were together and had all things common.

Together. I have seen this explained as together together. Not only were they in the same room but they were of the same mind. As we know with the modern-day church you can be in the same room as someone else but not necessarily of the same mind. As they say, unity is strength.

Had all things in common. The word common literally means shared by all or several. In other words, what's yours is mine and what's mine is yours. What they were proclaiming was that nothing they possessed was really theirs. It was held in trust for the use of everyone. I do not think it was a case of you have an XYZ and I want it. No. More a case of it was clear that so and so family was in need and I have the ability to meet that need.

I remember when we were first married and had a little daughter and things were tight. On one particular day we had run out of money and had nothing to put on the table that evening. In the afternoon there was a knock on the door and when we opened it there was a sister from the fellowship standing there with a parcel in her hands.

She said "I was looking through my freezer and saw that I had two legs of lamb so I felt I should give the second one to you."

We told her the situation we were in so you can imagine how happy she was she had heard from the Lord and how happy we were that God had met our needs.

She had as much of a blessing as we did. So how about it. A bit more of all things in common.

And how about this one......
Acts 2:45 And they sold possessions and goods and distributed them to all, according to as anyone had need.

Not only did they give things to those in need, but they also sold things to raise money for those in need. What you might call a double whammy.

I have a thingamajig in the shed and I don't need it so I will sell it and I will give the money to Bill and Ben as they are not making much out of their flower pots this year.

It has been suggested that this economic sharing indicated that Jesus owned them and their property, meaning that they value people over possessions. Do we do this? Apparently this happened well into the 2nd century.

If the church wanted to gather in larger numbers, the temple provided the spaced to do this. There were specific hours of prayer in the morning and evening and still being Jews, they joined in this. Remember that there was no such thing as Christian praying at this stage.

I am sure that if we keep our eyes and ears open there are plenty of opportunities to do good to others in all sorts of ways. We are told to do good to others especially those of the household of faith. So, get cracking and bless God and his people in any way you can.

A bit of background information

Most specialist groups ate together so it would not be unusual for the new converts to do this. Table fellowship denoted intimacy and discissions or even lectures at meals were common. New Testament meetings centered on intimate worship, sharing, eating, and learning. There was NO communion as we know it.

It has been suggested that this radical way of life was due to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. If that was the case, we could do with an outpouring ourselves.

Some Jewish groups like those that lived at Qumran, turned over all their possessions to the leaders of the community and drew from it as needed.

Another important point. There was no such thing as government welfare. If you were left without, that was your problem. That is why the NTC was geared up to help widows, especially those with no children to look after them for whatever reason.

And one other important thing. Some of these widows devoted themselves to praying for the church. It was these widows that were supported financially, not the pastor, not that they had pastors to run the church.

 

[Brakelite]

Here's a photo of a recent Catholic convert being baptized. Glad God has a sense of humor.

 

[Illuminator]

You're entitled to believe whatever you want. GOD gives you that free choice. -- However, your "beliefs" are not necessarily FACTS. Perhaps you would be better served obeying SCRIPTURE rather than Doctrines.

Bobby Jo

There are 12 articles of faith (doctrines) in the Nicene Creed. There is no false dichotomy and no contradictions between Scripture and Doctrines. Doctrines flow from what has been divinely revealed by word or letter, and they must contain core or essential truths as they develop over time. They are not invented. Bible Alone Theology, or sola scriptura, was a radical departure from the true rule of faith (Scripture, Tradition, Magisterium, properly understood). Even the radical anti-Catholic James White admits the Apostles were not sola scripturists. You change the meaning of "doctrines" into something it isn't, which is why so many discussions go nowhere. Perhaps you would be better served lowering your prejudice and keep an open mind.

 

[Illuminator]

Here's a photo of a recent Catholic convert being baptized. Glad God has a sense of humor.View attachment 9498

Catholics have a sense of humor too. The photo is a staged sacrilegious fake gone viral. The background suggests its not a real Catholic Church, and the baptism is invalid, and the name of the "priest" and parish is never given. Catholics enjoy religious jokes too, but when it comes to mocking the Eucharist, that's where the fun stops.

 

[Marymog]

I have belonged to a NTC for many years and it is still the best place around even though it has maybe lost some of its original vision. I can't imagine ever wanting to go back to the denominational way of doing church with set rituals and set festivals and all the other palaver that detracts from God.

Hi pearl,

Ritual is something that has been in religion since before Christianity. What is the one ritual that Christian churches practice that you disagree with the most?

 

[Illuminator]

Ritual and “physicality” were not abolished by the coming of Christ. Quite the contrary: it was the Incarnation that fully established sacramentalism as a principle in the Christian religion. The latter may be defined as the belief that matter can convey grace. It’s really that simple, at bottom, or in essence. God uses matter both to help us live better lives (sanctification) and to ultimately save us (regeneration and justification), starting with baptism itself.

The atonement or redemption of Christ (His death on the cross for us) was not purely “spiritual".

” It was as physical (“sacramental,” if you will) as it could be, as well as spiritual. Protestants often piously refer to “the Blood of Jesus,” and rightly so (see Rev 5:9; Eph 1:7; Col 1:14; Heb 9:12; 1 Pet 1:2; 1 Jn 1:7; etc.). This is explicitly sacramental thinking.
Christ didn’t abolish ritual — He perfected it

 

[Brakelite]

Catholics have a sense of humor too. The photo is a staged sacrilegious fake gone viral. The background suggests its not a real Catholic Church, and the baptism is invalid, and the name of the "priest" and parish is never given. Catholics enjoy religious jokes too, but when it comes to mocking the Eucharist, that's where the fun stops.

I think it's hilarious.

 

[Bobby Jo]

... Perhaps you would be better served lowering your prejudice and keep an open mind.

Perhaps you would be better served if you had a "mind".

The point being, -- Scripture stands alone, Attempts to amplify, explain, re-word, translate, etc., are fraught with difficulties. And thus a dozen attempts are doomed, as evidenced against Scripture. But go your own way and believe your own "doctrines"; and receive your own "reward".

Bobby Jo

 

[Marymog]

You're entitled to believe whatever you want. GOD gives you that free choice. -- However, your "beliefs" are not necessarily FACTS. Perhaps you would be better served obeying SCRIPTURE rather than Doctrines.

Bobby Jo

Hi Bobby Jo,

Using your theory that we have free choice and we are entitled to believe whatever we want what are we to do with the 'christians' who have used that free choice and believe that Scripture supports their belief that abortion is OK with God? Is that choice a good choice?

 

[Bobby Jo]

... Scripture supports their belief that abortion is OK with God? Is that choice a good choice?

Some believe what they want. So after admonishing them, if they persist, then let them go their own way and receive their own reward.

Seems simple enough for me.
Bobby Jo

 

[user]

No - the only ones "denying" Jesus here is YOU and your fellow heretical "Oneness" friends.

Jesus COMMANDED His followers to Baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. This was by HIS AUTHORITY - and you are denying this fact in favor of your perversion that He simply made a "mistake" that the Apostles later "corrected".

I gave you several etymological and philological sources that prove your position is as WRONG as abortion - but your spiritual pride won't allow you to admit your folly.

As for WHAT Baptism is and accomplishes - you don't have to tell me.
We Catholics are the ones who taught this to the world . . .

I find it convenient that you have skipped over the importance of the name in baptism as part of our spiritual circumcision.

Sooooo, while you go back and actually address this issue, I will proceed forward with something you have clearly overlooked. And, whether you admit this or not, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not proper names but descriptive titles. Matthew 28:19 specifically describes only one name, not three. We must still ask what is the one proper name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Let's break it down...

1. Without doubt the name of the Son is Jesus, for the angel told Joseph, “And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS” (Matthew 1:21).

2. Jesus said, “I am come in my Father’s name” (John5:43). He said to the Father, “I have manifested thy name ... I have declared unto them thy name” (John17:6, 26). The Old Testament predicted that the Messiah would declare God's name (Psalm 22:22 and Hebrews 2:12). Jesus received His name by inheritance (Hebrews 1:4). The name that Jesus actually received, came in, manifested, and declared was Jesus. When He performed miracles, it was the name of Jesus that was broadcast from person to person and village to village. In short, the Father has revealed Himself to the world by the name of Jesus.

3. Jesus also said, “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things” (John 14:26). People receive the Holy Spirit by turning away from sin and turning to Jesus in faith. In short, they receive the Holy Spirit in the name of Jesus.

The proper way to understand, obey, and fulfill Matthew 28:19 is to follow the example of the apostles, the ones to whom Jesus personally gave the command. In short, we are not merely to repeat the words of Matthew 28:19 at baptism, but we are to invoke the name it describes ... the name of Jesus.


God Bless!

 

[BreadOfLife]

I think it's hilarious.

Perpetuating falsehoods is never funny business . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

I find it convenient that you have skipped over the importance of the name in baptism as part of our spiritual circumcision.

Sooooo, while you go back and actually address this issue, I will proceed forward with something you have clearly overlooked. And, whether you admit this or not, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not proper names but descriptive titles. Matthew 28:19 specifically describes only one name, not three. We must still ask what is the one proper name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Let's break it down...

1. Without doubt the name of the Son is Jesus, for the angel told Joseph, “And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS” (Matthew 1:21).

2. Jesus said, “I am come in my Father’s name” (John5:43). He said to the Father, “I have manifested thy name ... I have declared unto them thy name” (John17:6, 26). The Old Testament predicted that the Messiah would declare God's name (Psalm 22:22 and Hebrews 2:12). Jesus received His name by inheritance (Hebrews 1:4). The name that Jesus actually received, came in, manifested, and declared was Jesus. When He performed miracles, it was the name of Jesus that was broadcast from person to person and village to village. In short, the Father has revealed Himself to the world by the name of Jesus.

3. Jesus also said, “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things” (John 14:26). People receive the Holy Spirit by turning away from sin and turning to Jesus in faith. In short, they receive the Holy Spirit in the name of Jesus.

The proper way to understand, obey, and fulfill Matthew 28:19 is to follow the example of the apostles, the ones to whom Jesus personally gave the command. In short, we are not merely to repeat the words of Matthew 28:19 at baptism, but we are to invoke the name it describes ... the name of Jesus.
God Bless!

I already addressed your issues.
You just don't want to face up to it.

I already showed you - with SEVERAL linguistic scholarly examples that the idiom, "in the name of" simply means by the AUTHORITY of somebody. Every verse you have provided with this phrase only bolsters my position. I suggest you go BACK to post #150 and address those scholarly references to this idiom.

Finally - YOUR claim that the Father has revealed Himself by the NAME of Jesus is nonsense.
He has revealed Himself in the PERSON of Jesus - not the name (John 1:1, 14, John 14:9).
John 14:9
Anyone who has SEEN me has SEEN the Father.

Learn to PROPERLY divide the Word of God . . .

 

[Marymog]

Some believe what they want. So after admonishing them, if they persist, then let them go their own way and receive their own reward.

Seems simple enough for me.
Bobby Jo

Hi Bobby Jo,

You partially quoted me which, in effect, dodges the real question I was asking. You theory is that we are entitled to believe whatever we want and that we have free choice. The question is: According to Scripture is it ok for those that believe abortion is ok to believe that?

OR

Does Scripture give us free choice to believe what we want?

You also raise another question....Who decides that they should be admonished? After all, they read Scripture just like you and me and determined that Scripture makes it ok to have an abortion? Who am I to say they are wrong about what Scripture says?

Mary

 

[Bobby Jo]

...Who decides that they should be admonished? ...

Hi Mary,

1 Cor. 14:29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge.​

Jesus rebuked his Disciples and the Church Leadership equally. And Paul rebuked PETER, A DISCIPLE.

So we DO NOT judge the world, but we DO judge within the Church!
Bobby Jo


... and by the way, I don't like to answer questions which are superfluous. Scripture is clear on it's own.

 

[Marymog]

Hi Mary,

1 Cor. 14:29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge.​

Jesus rebuked his Disciples and the Church Leadership equally. And Paul rebuked PETER, A DISCIPLE.

So we DO NOT judge the world, but we DO judge within the Church!
Bobby Jo


... and by the way, I don't like to answer questions which are superfluous. Scripture is clear on it's own.

Thank you. 1 Corinthians 14:29 (in context) has NOTHING to do with admonishing one for a false belief or interpretation of Scripture. Paul didn’t rebuke Peter on the matter of doctrine or interpretation of Scripture. He rebuked him on a personal decision (not to eat with certain people). So that analogy doesn’t fit either. Matthew 18:17 is probably the passage you are looking for and that passage makes clear that The Church elders do the “judging” on who is to be treated as a pagan or tax collector.

If Scripture is so clear on it’s own then why have men, for 2,000 years, been arguing about the lack of clarity in it? After all, look at all that “clarity” the Protestants DON’T have. None of them agree with the other and they all think they are right.