The Bible and it's religion.

[infamous]

...correct me if i am wrong,

I believe the correction has been made.

[Guest loarevalo]

No church is preaching 'Paul's gospel' and that is how I know it has not been re-established.

 

What is "Paul's gospel." Don't you rather mean "Christ's gospel"?

 

It must be a simpler way to establish that a given church may at least possibly be THE church; I mean, there must be a simple list of must-have about THE church, and if a given church complies with that list, at least we know that it is "possible" for such church to be the true one. Let's not talk about proving that a given church is the one true church, but let's at least get clear on what are at least the fundamental elements of The Church of God.

 

I think we can expect The Church to have the same organization as it did in the first century. Of course, The Church must also be doctrinally in tune with the Bible.

[Guest loarevalo]

Good views about the falling of the church, and the necesity of "restitution" not just "reformation":

 

John Wesley:

"It does not appear that these extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were common in the Church for more than two or three centuries. We seldom hear of them after that fatal period when the Emperor Constantine called himself a Christian...From this time they almost totally ceased...The Christians had no more of the Spirit of Christ than the other heathens...This was the real cause why the extra-ordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were no longer to be found in the Christian Church; because the Christians were turned Heathen again, and had only a dead form left."

-Wesley's Works, Vol. 7, Sermon 89, pp. 26-27

 

Thomas Jefferson:

"The religion builders have so distorted and deformed the doctrines of Jesus, so muffled them in mysticisms, fancies and falsehoods, have caricatured them into forms so inconceivable, as to shock reasonable thinkers...Happy in the prospect of a restoration of primitive Christianity, I must leave to younger persons to encounter and lop off the false branches which have been engrafted into it by the mythologists of the middle and modern ages."

-Jefferson's Complete Works, Vol. 7, pp. 210 and 257

 

Concerning the necessity of apostles in the re-established true Church:

Roger Williams:

"There is no regularly constituted church on earth, nor any person qualified to administer any church ordinances; nor can there be until new apostles are sent by the Great Head of the Church for whose coming I am seeking."

-Picturesque America, p. 502

[majordinkydau]

I like to read different translations through on a regular basis. I just finished an English/Hebrew translation that was written from back to front. This was only an old testiment and had no Christian bias. Each time I read the Bible I get more out of it. Right now I'm reading a Catholic new tesimant. The New Americain, some of the liner notes are biased with refrences to Mary remaining virgin her whole life etc. I think Christ can save people out of any of mans little doctrines if they will read his word and let it sink in. We all love to read the parts that make us feel warm and fuzzy inside but I find the most growth in my own life when I read the parts that kick me in the guts. Its easy to apply all those judgements on other people but I want to apply them to myself. Moses said to Isreal "If my people who are called by my name whill humble themselves and turn from their wicked ways then I'll heal their land." We are the ones who need to change, not those filthy sinners out there.

[Guest loarevalo]

:)Paul was the great apostle - possibly more so than all the others. He wrote most of the N.T.

 

I agree in that Paul was a great apostle, certainly he was a chosen vessel to carry the gospel to the gentiles and by whom much of christian doctrine came to us, as it is in the NT. Nevertheless, Peter was the chief apostle, by whom the vision was received (Acts 10) officialy allowing gentiles into the church.

 

I don't know why the NT has some much of Paul, and not as much from the other apostles - perhaps the other apostles's epistles were lost, or the other apostles did not write as much as they may did delivered orally. So much of the NT was written by Paul probably because God may have chosen him to do so - but NOT because Paul was the greatest of the apostles. If by scriptural merit we judge, then John would win for The Revelation - but it is not so (Mark 9:34-37).

 

Actually, there is evidence that some epistles from Paul are missing and not in the Bible:

An epistle to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9)

An epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. 3:3)

An epistle to the Colossians, written from Laodicea (Col. 4:16)

 

Also, a missing epistle of Jude (Jude 3)

 

Though all of the Bible is inspired writting, the actual compilation of the Bible was not necesarily done by someone inspired. The most reasonable conclusion is that the Bible was compiled by men, and by the virtue and talents of men alone.

 

I think it is in the establishing of churches that we have gotten into trouble. When Paul established a church it was just a handful of people who got together for fellowship and to 'edify one another'. The large churches are nothing more than big paycheques and preachers with big egos. It is not working and yet people still believe it has merit.

 

Sorry I misunderstood you, but to clarify: Paul did not establish churches in Asia; he established congregations as to organize the new christians he was converting. Obviously the various groups ("churches" as used in the NT) were not independent, autonomous, and separated churches as to our judgement today - they were one in doctrine and ordinances, only differing geographically. If they were separated, there would be no point to writting the general epistles (1 Cor. 3:21-23).

 

I agree with you as to the lamentable state of protestant christendom. These business/churches do some good nonetheless. Many of these are catalogued "charity organizations," and in that capacity they do society a great good - yet, they are not THE church of God, but only charity organizations.

[majordinkydau]

Jesus spoke against the established system of religion in his day. A system based on power and the need to maintain that position. People set themselves up as having special access to God. Jesus said, "I've come to call the sick to repentance." As we struggle to prove our christianity to the world it is Jesus we must show it to. Paul is not the one who decides if we enter heaven and saint Peter is not the one guarding the pearly gates. We will stand before Christ only on the merits of rather he knows us or not. As for our sins, they only destroy our lives and lead us to hide from God. If we lay our lives open before God and trust him to save us instead of our will power and ability to say no sin, he will save us. If we think God grades on a curve and we might be better than some other sinner we decieve ourselves. Pauls righteousness does not impress God anymore than Charles Mansons righteousness. Jesus gave the parable of the publician in the temple beating his chest saying "have mercy on me a sinner" The yeast of the pharisies is trusting in our own righteousness. James said keep the whole law and fail at one point you've broken it all. There will be people accepted in Gods kingdom that may suprise us and many who impress us as very pure and holy on earth will hear Jesus say "depart I never knew you". Don't convince me you trust in Christ, convince Him.

[Guest loarevalo]

Don't convince me you trust in Christ, convince Him.

Alleluya! Amen my friend! True that!

[Guest loarevalo]

Jesus spoke against the established system of religion in his day. A system based on power and the need to maintain that position. People set themselves up as having special access to God.

 

True, Judaism (or the correct belief, knowledge, organization of God's kingdom) during Jesus's mortality was corrupted and fallen. Yet, Jesus never taught that organization was in itself wrong. The church Jesus founded, as we see in Acts and the epistles, was organized and orderly, with apostles, the seven that helped them, deacons, bishops, etc. Throughout the Old Testament we find the organization of Israel, and order in the temple, and find prophets called of God to preach to the people. These prophets did not "set themselves up having special access to God," God chose them, and they by their faith had the privilege to commune with God like Moses. Jesus invites everyone to come to him, have faith, and partake of the living waters.

 

There is no reason to think that prophets were called only before Jesus's ministry. Jesus himself called the apostles, whom had the gift of prophecy as shown in their writtings. Also, Agabus is a prophet mentioned in Acts 11:27-28. Apostles or prophets are necessary to lead the one true church, which church disappeared amidst persecution, and there is no church "...until new apostles are sent by the Great Head of the Church for whose coming I am seeking." (reformator Roger Williams, in Picturesque America, p. 502)

[majordinkydau]

How did God use very flawed humans to write a book that shows his heart to a lost world. The Bible is not a Word Perfect document, and from a critical view appears to have many errors. As I read it, much of it leaves me very confused, but none of it has ever been proved false. Man cannot thwart the will of God no matter how hard he tries, because God know eternity from start to end and does nothing experimently. The deciples were impressed by the temple and marveled at it but Jesus said "not one stone will be left upon another". In AD 70 when Jerusalem was destroyed the temple was accidently burned requiring the looters to move every stone in order to recover the gold. Little details like this are all through the Bible. The standard the Bible sets down are 100% accurate prophetic fullfillment. Isreal became a nation in 1948 after 2,000 years of dispersion around the world. Show me a similar example in world history yet the Bible spoke of it as early as the books of Moses. Hitler did all in his power to destroy the Jews but created the world atmosphere allowing them to find a homeland. If man can destroy Isreal, God is a liar.

"Are you for me or against me" The greatest teacher in Isreal at the time of Jesus was Gamailial and he spoke to the sanhedrin about christianity saying "If this is of God you will not be able to overthrow it"

David was a man after God's own heart, God anoited him king yet he did not gain that position on his own efforts, he allowed God to fulfill his promise. Saul on the other hand tried to make God's will happen and lost his kingdom as a result. Jesus said in the garden, "not my will but yours be done".

[Southtown]

:lol: Reasoning is God given and necessary. Cynicism often comes from religions impossible commands.

The commandments were Jehova's response to Moses' request, "show me Your glory." (Exodus 33:17-23; Exodus 34:1-9) And hence, no man is able to keep them and avoid judgement. But the plan of Jehova was to provide One who could keep them for all mankind, and then offer His life for ours. The law then was to both show us our inadequacies and also prove the true Messiah's divine nature.

 

And cynical was used as an adjective. The Major implied that biased reasoning, in contrast to real reasoning, was being used by those who fearfully hide from an objective investigation into the real nature of God. (Proverbs 2; Isaiah 1:13-18) Might I alternatively suggest showing how His commandments are somehow unacceptible on a moral basis to those who seek to dis Him, rather than the usual "strawman" hostility.

[Skippy]

For a person who believes in a God.. wouldnt you make him divine in everyway.. but yet it seems that you people say that Jesus was God.. isnt that a degrading thought.. to give human characteristics to "God"..

basically you guys are referring his creations to him.. which is basically what hindu's do.. they pray to rocks.. you pray to a human.. you both pray to creations.. (if you would put it in a point of view in believing in a God)

 

Oh yeah.. and Many muslims lived in Isreal/Palestine.. then one day some people came and kicked them out.. you know how i know.. i actualy know people who were forced out.. and people's grandparents.. who were living life normally then kicked out.. because some jewish people wanted to live in that Land again.

Whoa, whoa, whoaaaa. Too many misrepresentations here.

 

God is divine in every way. Jesus is God (John 1:1; John 10:30-33). He chose to take on human form for a time (Phil 2:5-8). We pray to God, in Jesus' name (John 14:13; 15:16 & 16:23). Even if we do pray to Jesus, He is God (John 1:1).

 

One day, many Hebrews lived in Israel and a big bully (The Roman Empire) gave the land to someone else (Muslims) and renamed that place for the Hebrews greatest enemies (Philistines). Prior to the Romans doing that, there was no one called a Palestinian and there was no place called Palestine, even Yasser Arafat was probably Egyptian. After WW2, the UN (a world body) decided to return to the Hebrew people the land which was previously taken from them. Then, in 1967 Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon were amassed at Israel's border ready to attack, they were saying on the radio that they were about to rectify the error of the UN in giving back the land to the Hebrew people (check it out). Israel attacked first and won the battle. As a result, they kept control of the West Bank, the Golan Heights and the Gaza Strip.

[Erasmus00]

One day, many Hebrews lived in Israel and a big bully (The Roman Empire) gave the land to someone else (Muslims) and renamed that place for the Hebrews greatest enemies (Philistines). [

 

Your Roman history is way off. Yes, after the second revolt Jerusalem was raised and Aelia Capitolina built on the ruins, however they didn't give the land to Muslims. They continued Roman rule over the area for a number of years,and didn't force the Jews to leave. When Constantine converted to Christianity Jerusalem was more or less reborn as a Christian city(the churches of the Holy Sepulchre and the Nativity were built at this time). 300 years later, in 638 AD Caliph Omar took the city by force, thus begininng Muslim rule.

 

edit: You also implied that the Romans renamed the area Palestine more or less as an insult to the Hebrews. However, Rome simply took a latinized version of the Greek name for it. It is true that this name came from the Phillistines, but that was simply because the Phillistines, as a sea faring tribe, had much more contact with the Greeks then the Hebrews did.

 

Lastly, you personify the Roman empire as a bully, but I would point out that most areas they conquered welcomed them with open arms. If the Hebrews hadn't rebelled, twice, their temple would never have been destoryed. The Romans were remarkably tolerant of other religions (with the exception of Christianity, which the Roman's felt undermined the state, which is a whole different subject).

 

Finally, the whole point of your post is that the muslims have less a claim to the land, because they took it from the Hebrews. I would point out that if the UN decided to return the United States to native Americans, displaced Americans would be extremely upset.

-Will

[Skippy]

Your Roman history is way off. Yes, after the second revolt Jerusalem was raised and Aelia Capitolina built on the ruins, however they didn't give the land to Muslims. They continued Roman rule over the area for a number of years,and didn't force the Jews to leave. When Constantine converted to Christianity Jerusalem was more or less reborn as a Christian city (the churches of the Holy Sepulchre and the Nativity were built at this time). 300 years later, in 638 AD Caliph Omar took the city by force, thus beginning Muslim rule. -Will

OK. So the Romans renamed the area when they were in control, as I said. Sure, they wouldn't give control to someone while it was still a possesion of theirs, therefore, it also was no longer in Jewish control. Then, you corrected me with the further truth that a Muslim conquered the area and set up Muslim rule. The 1948 move by the UN was righting that situation.

[Southtown]

:lol: Say what???

Sorry, I was referring to an old post, in which you were responding to the Major. The first paragraph is just my generic response to someone who says God's expectations are unreasonable. In the second paragrah, I was just trying to expand on what the Major was saying, and it wasn't directed at you. The Major was responding to Sinewave and his blinding hostility, or at least that's what I gathered.

[Dundasbro]

Judg 13:5/ Num 6:5 The wearing of long hair by men condemned

 

Funny... I can think of many long haired Christians... One particularly... Maybe you know him his name was JESUS!!! :) :) :lol:

[Southtown]

Judg 13:5/ Num 6:5 The wearing of long hair by men condemned

 

Funny... I can think of many long haired Christians... One particularly... Maybe you know him his name was JESUS!!! :) :) :lol:

How do you know He had long hair?

[Dundasbro]

Point taken, i retract my statement...

Still, if your going to be a "true" Christian and follow gods word, you should follow all of it, not just the conveniant bits that you think are right... Long hair = Blasphemy. I know at least 5 long haired Christians myself, how about you? :lol: