Church

[Eventide]

No, you are wrong. You are misunderstanding what Jesus means by "the Word". It is NOT pages of a book that had yet been written... :p

I think that you're the one who is wrong here... and the parable of the Sower proves it... because it tells us exactly who the Sower is and what the good seed is.. The Sower is the Lord and the good seed is His word... are you really trying to say that the Lord sows HIMSELF and that HE falls iupon the rocks and the fowls of the air come and devour Him... is that where you want to go with this ?

What do you mean by "spiritual"? Before I answer that and fall into some trap, I better know what you mean first...

The Lord says that the words which He speaks, that they are SPIRIT and they are LIFE... and the Apostles tell us that the word of God is living and powerful... so if you agree that the holy scriptures are the word of God, then wouldn't they be spiritual, living and powerful, and effectual ?

Or do you believe that the holy scriptures are some lifeless collection of books no different than any other ?

That's ridiculous, Eventide. I don't deny that the Holy Scripture are the Word of God.

Then you must agree that they are spirit and life, living and powerful, correct..?

However, they are not the completeness of the Word, nor are they the "Word that falls as seed upon men". As described above, yours is a misunderstanding of what Jesus is tallking about. Jesus Christ is the Word of God, in the flesh. His teachings are the "Word that falls as a seed". It is the teachings of love and mercy and forgiveness, not Matthew Chapter 15:14, or whatever. Those words relate THE WORD. But no one (I would think) believes that little letters fall upon them from the heavens...

So here you're saying that His teachings are the 'seed', but you reject that the holy scriptures which are the word of God are that good seed ?

What teachings are you talking about..? Are they not found in the holy scriptures ?

We all seek to mine the wealth of Sacred Scriptures. I am not refering to any differences between us in that aspect. Protestants have a love of Scriptures, I do not deny that. Praise the Lord they retain SOME of the early Church's traditions. However, as they further multiply and divide, who knows in which direction they will go...

And that's the point... neither your assembly or any other has exhausted the limitless wealth which is contained within the holy scriptures which are the word of God.

You are welcome to join us and be fools for Christ with us...

Regards

If you're in Christ and a member of His body, then I'm already there.. unless of course you don't believe that others are members of His body ?

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

There is no paradigm of sola scriptura at Jerusalem in 50 AD, but NOT because it was "impossible"!!!

These Christians DID have a Bible, thus, sola scriptura WAS INDEED possible. The OT. Now, IF we had sola scripturists present at Jerusalem, certainly, they would have cited chapter and verse in Genesis and the Mosaic Law as commands from God, written in the Bible itself. Not quite what happened, huh?

Actually that DID happen, the problem was that those who "sat in Moses' seat" used the scriptures incorrectly against Jesus. Jesus corrected them on many occasions and he told them that those scripture spoke of him and if they believed Moses, they should also believe him. He then CONFIRMED his proclaimation that he was the Anointed One spoken of in scripture with signs and wonders. Those who knew the scriptures like Simeon and Anna of Luke 2 actually expected the Anointed One to come on the scene at the time Jesus did.


We have absolutely no evidence that these men KNEW they were going to write a NT later on, and we CERTAINLY have nothing in writing that all of their previous oral teachings would either be abrogated or swallowed up in the written NT.

Can't argue this point at all. It seems that the writers of the NT had no knowledge or even intention of having all of their writings compiled for later generations to read. Most of the writings were letters to a specific contemporary audience about Jesus life, death, resurrection, and the consequences of those events as if applied to their generation.

Thus, your statement is begging the question. The men ON THE GROUND made an authoritative decision based upon the power given to them by Jesus Christ, who they believed was God in the flesh. They saw circumcision as a shadow of the things to come with Christ. Not that the Bible present told them that. Jesus told them that through the Spirit of God. And the Spirit of God continues to indwell within the Church. This same Spirit continues to give us leaders to perform such tasks when a particular heresy rears its devisive head among Christians.

Remember, they (starting with the chosen apostles) spoke as the breath of God (the spirit) gave them utterance. Their words were not their own but rather the very oracles of God (1 Peter 4:11) given to them by Jesus and brought to their rememberance by the "Spirit of Truth."


What is the expiration date of the Holy Spirit acting in this manner? Where is the verse - being that you are a sola scripturist - that tells us "as of 108 AD, the Holy Spirit will no longer pass through the elder's hands"???

The scriptures tell us of no expiration date for the HS acting. All we can we from scripture is that certain miraculous manifestations courtesy of the HS would be done away with. That's what 1 Cor 13 tells us.
So, to answer the question as to when this would occur, we must apply reason as the date is NOT specifically spelled out in scripture. What we know is that at pentecost, there was an outpouring of the spirit as prophesied by Joel. After this episode where the spirit was poured out on between 12 and 120 individuals, NO MORE, with the exception of Cornelius' household in Acts 10, the spirit is given exclusively through the laying on of the apostles', NOT THE ELDER'S hands. Therefore, once the apostles passed on, no there was no one who was authorized by Jesus to pass the gift of the spirit on.
Just to be clear, if Jesus decides to pour the spirit out on anyone, he of course could do so at any time of his choosing, but we have no written evidence that says he would choose to do so except for PERHAPS just prior to the end of time.

Authority is an act of love, when done properly. Some ancient commentators note the co-existence of Love and Authority in the last chapter of John, with Jesus speaking about John, the disciple He loved, and Peter, the leader of the Church.

It is not necessary to provide a false dichotomy between love and authority. Love can co-exist with authority. I presume your mother and father practised this while you were growing up???

Regards

Love and authority are not any more mutually exclusive than they are tied together. They can each exist with the other or without the other. i fail to see what revalance tying them together has to our subject matter.

 

[Elijah674]

Authority is an act of love, when done properly. Some ancient commentators note the co-existence of Love and Authority in the last chapter of John, with Jesus speaking about John, the disciple He loved, and Peter, the leader of the Church.

It is not necessary to provide a false dichotomy between love and authority. Love can co-exist with authority. I presume your mother and father practised this while you were growing up???

Regards

 

[Eventide]

Isn't it strange that the RCC believes that Peter is the leader of the church when he is an Apostle to the circumcision.. ie, to the Jews.. ? ?

You'd think that Paul would be their leader seeing that he is the Apostle to the Gentiles... and he's the one who warns Christians about being ignorant of the mystery pertaining to Israel, how that they are blinded in part until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in..

 

[francisdesales]

I think that you're the one who is wrong here... and the parable of the Sower proves it... because it tells us exactly who the Sower is and what the good seed is..

I see. According to you, pages fall upon us from the sky...

Lord Jesus, give me patience...

Read 1 Thess 2:13. There, you will find a different idea of the "Word of God".

It is NOT ENTIRELY the written Bible, although being that it was later written by the Apostles, the Bible contains SOME of the Word of God.

But in the parable, do you think Jesus literally means that scrolls rain down upon us???

The Sower is the Lord and the good seed is His word... are you really trying to say that the Lord sows HIMSELF and that HE falls iupon the rocks and the fowls of the air come and devour Him... is that where you want to go with this ?

I thought you did with your idea of pages falling upon us...

Jesus explains what the parable means, and it is clear that fowls eating seed is only symbolic.

The Lord says that the words which He speaks, that they are SPIRIT and they are LIFE... and the Apostles tell us that the word of God is living and powerful... so if you agree that the holy scriptures are the word of God, then wouldn't they be spiritual, living and powerful, and effectual ?

Again, see above. The Word of God is not confined to written pages ALONE. How many times must I repeat this?

Or do you believe that the holy scriptures are some lifeless collection of books no different than any other ?

Red herring alert. Just because you refuse to realize that my point is that the Bible is not the COMPLETE Word of God does not mean that I do not view the Bible as God's Word present among us, in partial form. God's revelation to mankind is in the form of oral and written traditions given by the Apostles. The pillar and foundation of the Truth ensures that the faith once given to the saints is passed down to our generation so that we may share in the Good News.

Then you must agree that they are spirit and life, living and powerful, correct..?

Of course, the concepts within have spirit and life. The ideas formulated by putting letters together on a page. The pages themselves have no spirit and life in them. They are just paper and ink. The letters are meaningless unless placed into a particular order and interpreted by our minds.

Wow, must I tell people how a person reads and attains knowledge about a concept in the author's mind???

So here you're saying that His teachings are the 'seed', but you reject that the holy scriptures which are the word of God are that good seed ?

Nope... The good seed are concepts of mercy, love and forgiveness. Not vowels and letters and dried ink and paper...

What teachings are you talking about..? Are they not found in the holy scriptures ?

Let's take this another direction. Did Paul have a New Testament in his hand when he was teaching the Corinthians in 47 AD, BEFORE he wrote to them???

And that's the point... neither your assembly or any other has exhausted the limitless wealth which is contained within the holy scriptures which are the word of God.

I already admitted that. Yet again, I find myself repeating again and again. Please, I urge you to read my posts more slowly, so that i don't have to repeat over and over again the same things.

If you're in Christ and a member of His body, then I'm already there.. unless of course you don't believe that others are members of His body ?

??? I never judged whether you were a member of the Body or not. I stated that there is only one Church, one Body, and it is not a denomination, as Paul makes clear to the Corinthians. The Church is not "lutheran", "calvin" or "paulian". If you are a member of the Church, you are part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. Your membership to any other denomination is inconsequential to that status - actually, in effect, it pulls you away, since it does not teach the one faith of the one church, as Paul wrote to the Ephesians.

Thus, denominations are caused by schism and dissension.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Love and authority are not any more mutually exclusive than they are tied together. They can each exist with the other or without the other. i fail to see what revalance tying them together has to our subject matter.

:yes

Indeed, love and authority can exist with or without each other. My point is that they are INTENDED to co-exist. You imply that they are mutually exclusive and we can have only one or the other...

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Isn't it strange that the RCC believes that Peter is the leader of the church when he is an Apostle to the circumcision.. ie, to the Jews.. ? ?

What is your point? Are you saying that the Jews were not worthy of being evangelized to?

You'd think that Paul would be their leader seeing that he is the Apostle to the Gentiles... and he's the one who warns Christians about being ignorant of the mystery pertaining to Israel, how that they are blinded in part until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in..

Ah. I see. Yes, Paul could be called the Father of Catholicism, except for one thing:

We didn't pick and choose, Jesus built the Church and gave the keys to Simon, dubbed "Peter". Rock. We are just following what God has willed as related in Scriptures and Tradition.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Authority is an act of love, when done properly. Some ancient commentators note the co-existence of Love and Authority in the last chapter of John, with Jesus speaking about John, the disciple He loved, and Peter, the leader of the Church.

It is not necessary to provide a false dichotomy between love and authority. Love can co-exist with authority. I presume your mother and father practised this while you were growing up???

Regards

What, only TWO colors in that post???

I feel cheated...;)

 

[Eventide]

I see. According to you, pages fall upon us from the sky...

Lord Jesus, give me patience...

Did I say that pages from the sky...? Is it beyond your comprehension that the Lord communicates to His creatures through His word..? Why would He have the prophets write it all down if it's not for communicating to His creatures.

YOU on the other hand just told me that Jesus is the Sower and that He is sowing Himself... because He is the word of God... what's wrong.. did you not want to go there anymore ?

Read 1 Thess 2:13. There, you will find a different idea of the "Word of God".

It is NOT ENTIRELY the written Bible, although being that it was later written by the Apostles, the Bible contains SOME of the Word of God.

So what's the rest of the word of God if the bible is some of the word of God according to you ?

But in the parable, do you think Jesus literally means that scrolls rain down upon us???

No I do not, although I was born again precisely the way that Peter says that I was... by the incorruptible seed of the word of God which lives and abides for ever..

FAITH comes by hearing what ? The word of God... for in it the righteousness of God is revealed !

I find it amazing that a professing Christian would have so much to argue about the scriptures not being the word of God as described in the parable of the sower...? ? Why is that, so that you can maintain that some guy dunks a person in water and then can declare that they are born again ?

Jesus explains what the parable means, and it is clear that fowls eating seed is only symbolic.

Symbolic although literal in its point... that does happen doesn't it... and how would that translate if you're telling me that Sower is Jesus and that He is sowing Himself..?

Red herring alert. Just because you refuse to realize that my point is that the Bible is not the COMPLETE Word of God does not mean that I do not view the Bible as God's Word present among us, in partial form. God's revelation to mankind is in the form of oral and written traditions given by the Apostles. The pillar and foundation of the Truth ensures that the faith once given to the saints is passed down to our generation so that we may share in the Good News.

So what's the rest of the word of God, whatever you and your assembly says ?

Of course, the concepts within have spirit and life. The ideas formulated by putting letters together on a page. The pages themselves have no spirit and life in them. They are just paper and ink. The letters are meaningless unless placed into a particular order and interpreted by our minds.

Wow, must I tell people how a person reads and attains knowledge about a concept in the author's mind???

So is that a yes or a no..? Is the word of God as it is contained in the scriptures spiritual ? Is it living and powerful ?

Nope... The good seed are concepts of mercy, love and forgiveness. Not vowels and letters and dried ink and paper...

So perhaps the Lord should have simply told us that the good seed was just concepts of His love and mercy... but He didn't, He said that the good seed is the word of God, which takes us back to the original question..

Are the scriptures the word of God ?

Let's take this another direction. Did Paul have a New Testament in his hand when he was teaching the Corinthians in 47 AD, BEFORE he wrote to them???

No, although he did have the entire OT and he preached Christ through it... and the bereans were noble because why.. because they searched the scriptures to see if what Paul was teaching was true..

??? I never judged whether you were a member of the Body or not. I stated that there is only one Church, one Body, and it is not a denomination, as Paul makes clear to the Corinthians. The Church is not "lutheran", "calvin" or "paulian". If you are a member of the Church, you are part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. Your membership to any other denomination is inconsequential to that status - actually, in effect, it pulls you away, since it does not teach the one faith of the one church, as Paul wrote to the Ephesians.

Thus, denominations are caused by schism and dissension.

Regards

I was raised catholic and never once was born again by all it had to offer, including being baptized as an infant and having some man tell me and my parents a lie, that I was born again because some priest dunked me in water.

I was born again much later in life, after hearing the gospel, and after I believed it God sealed me with the Holy Spirit of promise... that's when I was born again.. and that aligns perfectly with His word.

If you'd liike to believe that your priests can dunk people into water and then declare that they're born again, then so be it.. that's most likely why you can't understand what the church of God actually is, because it is spiritually discerned, and only a carnal mind would be led to believe that it's the RCC.

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

There is no paradigm of sola scriptura at Jerusalem in 50 AD, but NOT because it was "impossible"!!!

These Christians DID have a Bible, thus, sola scriptura WAS INDEED possible. The OT. Now, IF we had sola scripturists present at Jerusalem, certainly, they would have cited chapter and verse in Genesis and the Mosaic Law as commands from God, written in the Bible itself. Not quite what happened, huh?

We have absolutely no evidence that these men KNEW they were going to write a NT later on, and we CERTAINLY have nothing in writing that all of their previous oral teachings would either be abrogated or swallowed up in the written NT.

Thus, your statement is begging the question. The men ON THE GROUND made an authoritative decision based upon the power given to them by Jesus Christ, who they believed was God in the flesh. They saw circumcision as a shadow of the things to come with Christ. Not that the Bible present told them that. Jesus told them that through the Spirit of God. And the Spirit of God continues to indwell within the Church. This same Spirit continues to give us leaders to perform such tasks when a particular heresy rears its devisive head among Christians.



What is the expiration date of the Holy Spirit acting in this manner? Where is the verse - being that you are a sola scripturist - that tells us "as of 108 AD, the Holy Spirit will no longer pass through the elder's hands"???



Authority is an act of love, when done properly. Some ancient commentators note the co-existence of Love and Authority in the last chapter of John, with Jesus speaking about John, the disciple He loved, and Peter, the leader of the Church.

It is not necessary to provide a false dichotomy between love and authority. Love can co-exist with authority. I presume your mother and father practised this while you were growing up???

Regards

Actually that DID happen, the problem was that those who "sat in Moses' seat" used the scriptures incorrectly against Jesus. Jesus corrected them on many occasions and he told them that those scripture spoke of him and if they believed Moses, they should also believe him. He then CONFIRMED his proclaimation that he was the Anointed One spoken of in scripture with signs and wonders. Those who knew the scriptures like Simeon and Anna of Luke 2 actually expected the Anointed One to come on the scene at the time Jesus did.


Can't argue this point at all. It seems that the writers of the NT had no knowledge or even intention of having all of their writings compiled for later generations to read. Most of the writings were letters to a specific contemporary audience about Jesus life, death, resurrection, and the consequences of those events as if applied to their generation.

Thus, your statement is begging the question. The men ON THE GROUND made an authoritative decision based upon the power given to them by Jesus Christ, who they believed was God in the flesh. They saw circumcision as a shadow of the things to come with Christ. Not that the Bible present told them that. Jesus told them that through the Spirit of God. And the Spirit of God continues to indwell within the Church. This same Spirit continues to give us leaders to perform such tasks when a particular heresy rears its devisive head among Christians.

Remember, they (starting with the chosen apostles) spoke as the breath of God (the spirit) gave them utterance. Their words were not their own but rather the very oracles of God (1 Peter 4:11) given to them by Jesus and brought to their rememberance by the "Spirit of Truth."



The scriptures tell us of no expiration date for the HS acting. All we can we from scripture is that certain miraculous manifestations courtesy of the HS would be done away with. That's what 1 Cor 13 tells us.
So, to answer the question as to when this would occur, we must apply reason as the date is NOT specifically spelled out in scripture. What we know is that at pentecost, there was an outpouring of the spirit as prophesied by Joel. After this episode where the spirit was poured out on between 12 and 120 individuals, NO MORE, with the exception of Cornelius' household in Acts 10, the spirit is given exclusively through the laying on of the apostles', NOT THE ELDER'S hands. Therefore, once the apostles passed on, no there was no one who was authorized by Jesus to pass the gift of the spirit on.
Just to be clear, if Jesus decides to pour the spirit out on anyone, he of course could do so at any time of his choosing, but we have no written evidence that says he would choose to do so except for PERHAPS just prior to the end of time.

 

[francisdesales]

Did I say that pages from the sky...? Is it beyond your comprehension that the Lord communicates to His creatures through His word..? Why would He have the prophets write it all down if it's not for communicating to His creatures.

You said that the Word, the Seed, is the Bible... The literal Bible, while denying the contents of concept. Bible verses written are just ONE means of communicating with us. And it is not by chapter and verse. It is by concepts of love, forgiveness and mercy...

YOU on the other hand just told me that Jesus is the Sower and that He is sowing Himself... because He is the word of God... what's wrong.. did you not want to go there anymore ?

Hmm. I think that is pretty profound. Yes, Jesus sows Himself. That is the point of participation, that we are drawn INTO the Body of Christ.

So what's the rest of the word of God if the bible is some of the word of God according to you ?

Any teaching of the Apostles is considered a revelation from God. Spoken or written. Another sense, of course, is that Jesus Himself is the Word Who comes to us, even now.

No I do not, although I was born again precisely the way that Peter says that I was... by the incorruptible seed of the word of God which lives and abides for ever..

Which means not the Bible pages, correct? That incorruptible seed is Jesus Himself. At least, according to Paul.

FAITH comes by hearing what ? The word of God... for in it the righteousness of God is revealed !

Indeed, and that means it is not absolutely necessary to read it, if one hears it...

I find it amazing that a professing Christian would have so much to argue about the scriptures not being the word of God as described in the parable of the sower...? ? Why is that, so that you can maintain that some guy dunks a person in water and then can declare that they are born again ?

The Bible is the Word of God, but I don't worship the Bible. I worship THE Word of God, Jesus Christ. Some have a difficult time with that distinction. Some even think that the Bible itself is not subject to corruption. But if I leave my bible outside for a year, I guarantee it will be corrupted by the weather and the sun. Obviously, the incorruptible Word refers to something other than the book itself. It refers to the concepts IN the Bible.

I can't believe a professing Christian worships the Bible as God...

Symbolic although literal in its point... that does happen doesn't it...

No, it is not literal. Jesus is using symbols, which naturally rules out being literal. Birds don't take away the Word of God from us. The EFFECT is the intent. The ways of the world can choke out our faith, not that thorns choke out our faith and make us fall away!

and how would that translate if you're telling me that Sower is Jesus and that He is sowing Himself..?

Jesus is the Builder of the Church and the Church is His Body. Right? Jesus sows Himself in that they whom Jesus abides in has the Spirit of God, has the gift of faith and can obey the commandments. This is the "100 fold" Jesus speaks of, no? Of is Jesus talking about growing wheat???

Remember, Jesus is God, a divine and human person, not bound by time or space.

So what's the rest of the word of God, whatever you and your assembly says ?

All that God has revealed to man is God's Word. Culminating in Jesus Christ Himself. All that God has said to us is found in Jesus.

So is that a yes or a no..? Is the word of God as it is contained in the scriptures spiritual ? Is it living and powerful ?

I do not know what you mean by "spiritual". I am not being evasive, I just don't know what you mean.

So perhaps the Lord should have simply told us that the good seed was just concepts of His love and mercy... but He didn't, He said that the good seed is the word of God, which takes us back to the original question..

It is implied that when we say "faith" or "love", our brain matter begins to work and draws up a picture to understand what that means. Perhaps we think of being loved by our spouse. Or loving our children. We conjure up in our minds an image of the concept of "love". Jesus didn't mean the written Bible, but ALL of God's Word revealed through His teachings. Some of that is related in the Scriptures and can be read to recapture, but it is not necessary. Someone can take one verse and preach an hour on it without using the verse ever again. The idea takes hold in our minds and in our hearts.

Are the scriptures the word of God ?

Yes, didn't I say that already? Is ALL that God said the Bible?

No, although he did have the entire OT and he preached Christ through it... and the bereans were noble because why.. because they searched the scriptures to see if what Paul was teaching was true..

So where in the OT does Paul go to explain the Eucharist to the Christians???

The Bereans were noble because they agreed with what Paul preached, NOT because they "searched the Bible". The Thessalonians ALSO searched the Bible, but because they disagreed with Paul, they were not noble. What makes one noble here is the variant, not the constant. The variant is the reaction to the seed's planting, the soil, the reaction to the Word preached orally by Paul.

I was raised catholic and never once was born again by all it had to offer, including being baptized as an infant and having some man tell me and my parents a lie, that I was born again because some priest dunked me in water.

The Bible says that by baptism, we are born from above, saved from sin and are united with the death and resurrection of Jesus. Maybe you were not taught that in CCD. But what you SHOULD have done was done some reading before quitting, because it is all there, explained nice and Biblically in the Catechism.

I was born again much later in life, after hearing the gospel, and after I believed it God sealed me with the Holy Spirit of promise... that's when I was born again.. and that aligns perfectly with His word.

No, you were only born from above once. Your "re-awakening" was merely your response to the seed long ago planted by God. Being born from above doesn't require an emotional altar call (that some feel the need to repeat over and over as they go to different denominations, because the last one "didn't catch")

If you'd liike to believe that your priests can dunk people into water and then declare that they're born again, then so be it..

I believe what the Bible teaches.

I find this is another example of where Protestant theology fails utterly. I will call it the "zero-sum" game. With you, it is either God does it or man does it, or some zero sum combination. With Catholicism and the Bible, it is God doing 100% and man doing 100%, since we PARTICIPATE in Christ. We ARE the Body of Christ, quite literally. We don't separate Christ from His Body. Thus, when the priest acts by dunking someone to baptize, God is ALSO acting invisibly to save that person from sin and to begin a new life IN Christ. God acts sacramentally through the visible water and aural words of the priest.

That is the key to understanding the differences between Catholics and Protestants. We participate in Christ AS the Body of Christ. There is no false dichotomy between the Head and the Body, as you portray.

And because you don't understand your former faith because you didn't study it (which is your fault), that is no reason to get testy and emotional. What you "hate" is something that just doesn't exist.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Actually that DID happen, the problem was that those who "sat in Moses' seat" used the scriptures incorrectly against Jesus. Jesus corrected them on many occasions and he told them that those scripture spoke of him and if they believed Moses, they should also believe him. He then CONFIRMED his proclaimation that he was the Anointed One spoken of in scripture with signs and wonders. Those who knew the scriptures like Simeon and Anna of Luke 2 actually expected the Anointed One to come on the scene at the time Jesus did.

I agree, the Pharisees interpreted the Scriptures to fit their preconceived notions of how to honor and worship God. Paul describes this attitude as "works of the law". Although I doubt all Jews had this attitude, I think those that Jesus attacked did have a propensity to think that their outward holiness would obligate God to pay them back.

Of course, all of this means that sola scriptura was quite possible before the NT was written. Without the Spirit of truth guiding their interpretations of Scriptures, Scriptures can lead to destruction to those who twist them.

Can't argue this point at all. It seems that the writers of the NT had no knowledge or even intention of having all of their writings compiled for later generations to read. Most of the writings were letters to a specific contemporary audience about Jesus life, death, resurrection, and the consequences of those events as if applied to their generation.

It is my opinion that the Apostles were expecting Jesus to return during their lifetime. It was only later when the various communities decided to preserve those valuable letters from the Apostles.

Remember, they (starting with the chosen apostles) spoke as the breath of God (the spirit) gave them utterance. Their words were not their own but rather the very oracles of God (1 Peter 4:11) given to them by Jesus and brought to their rememberance by the "Spirit of Truth."

I agree. Does God's Spirit no longer vivify His Church? Is the Church no longer the Temple of the Holy Spirit? Does He not continue to give the Church teachers, preachers, prophets and so forth??? Sure He does.

The scriptures tell us of no expiration date for the HS acting. All we can we from scripture is that certain miraculous manifestations courtesy of the HS would be done away with. That's what 1 Cor 13 tells us.

Those manifestations are AFTER we die! After we die, there will be no more "faith", since we will see God face-to-face. Since we will be totally immersed in God, and God is love, all that will remain for us is LOVE.

So, to answer the question as to when this would occur, we must apply reason as the date is NOT specifically spelled out in scripture. What we know is that at pentecost, there was an outpouring of the spirit as prophesied by Joel. After this episode where the spirit was poured out on between 12 and 120 individuals, NO MORE, with the exception of Cornelius' household in Acts 10, the spirit is given exclusively through the laying on of the apostles', NOT THE ELDER'S hands.

Consider researching who laid hands upon Timothy, for starters...

The Spirit was and continues to be poured out upon the Church. We are still in the End Times, when prophesy states that the Spirit will be poured out (Joel). Men continue to lay hands on leaders of the Church, with the exact same intent as the elders laying hands on Timothy.

No, yours is speculation without any biblical warrant. There is logically no reason that the Spirit of God, given to the Church for the purpose of keeping it the pillar and foundation of the Truth and bringing all to Christ, would suddenly leave the scene.

If the Church is to last for all time, we must believe that the Spirit will be with her for all time.

Just to be clear, if Jesus decides to pour the spirit out on anyone, he of course could do so at any time of his choosing, but we have no written evidence that says he would choose to do so except for PERHAPS just prior to the end of time.

He made it clear that HE would be with us for all time. And the gates of hell would not prevail. You think that is so because the popes are so holy and smart that they are not subject to temptations, etc..? No, that the Church continues to exist, despite the sinners who dwell within, is proof enough that God's Spirit keeps the Gates of Hell from prevailing against her.

Regards

 

[Eventide]

So where in the OT does Paul go to explain the Eucharist to the Christians???

He doesn't because it's not there.. Paul tells us plainly that we break bread and pass the cup in remembering Him when we eat with Him at His table... not when we eat Him at His table..

The Bereans were noble because they agreed with what Paul preached, NOT because they "searched the Bible".

It says that they were more noble because they searched the scriptures to see for themselves what Paul was preaching came right from the word of God... just as the Lord opened up the scriptures to the men on the road and expounded upon all things concerning Himself.. and that's because in the volume of the book it is written of Him..

You really don't like the holy scriptures do you ?

No, you were only born from above once.

I agree and it has absolutely nothing to do with some man baptizing me in water... it was after I trusted in Christ, after hearing the gospel, and after I believed that God baptized me into His own body by the same Spirit... it happens the same way for every Christian... by the word of God, not by men baptizing people in water.

Your "re-awakening" was merely your response to the seed long ago planted by God. Being born from above doesn't require an emotional altar call (that some feel the need to repeat over and over as they go to different denominations, because the last one "didn't catch")

I'm 1000% certain of one thing, that it had nothing to do with the self proclaimed one true church... it was after trusting in Christ and after I heard the gospel.

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

It is my opinion that the Apostles were expecting Jesus to return during their lifetime. It was only later when the various communities decided to preserve those valuable letters from the Apostles.



I agree. Does God's Spirit no longer vivify His Church? Is the Church no longer the Temple of the Holy Spirit? Does He not continue to give the Church teachers, preachers, prophets and so forth??? Sure He does.


Those manifestations are AFTER we die! After we die, there will be no more "faith", since we will see God face-to-face. Since we will be totally immersed in God, and God is love, all that will remain for us is LOVE.



Consider researching who laid hands upon Timothy, for starters...

The Spirit was and continues to be poured out upon the Church. We are still in the End Times, when prophesy states that the Spirit will be poured out (Joel). Men continue to lay hands on leaders of the Church, with the exact same intent as the elders laying hands on Timothy.


No, yours is speculation without any biblical warrant. There is logically no reason that the Spirit of God, given to the Church for the purpose of keeping it the pillar and foundation of the Truth and bringing all to Christ, would suddenly leave the scene.

If the Church is to last for all time, we must believe that the Spirit will be with her for all time.


He made it clear that HE would be with us for all time. And the gates of hell would not prevail. You think that is so because the popes are so holy and smart that they are not subject to temptations, etc..? No, that the Church continues to exist, despite the sinners who dwell within, is proof enough that God's Spirit keeps the Gates of Hell from prevailing against her.

Regards

Without a doubt the apostles expected Jesus return during their lifetimes. Jesus himself said he would return during their generation and they continued to teach such while being filled with the spirit. What gives, did Jesus lie? Did the spirit give them a false expectation? Or did Jesus do exactly what he said and they expected him to do? (It'll take a whole other thread to full explore this is the proper depth).


I think the bigger question is this: Is Jesus Ekklessia on Earth today at all? Is it not possible that Jesus returned for his church thousands of years ago just as his followers expected and since then, no church or "spiriti filled" institution exists on planet Earth?



C'mon now, after we die we are dead and dead people can see nothing. Our love as it says in Ecclesiastes perishes with us at death.


I always wandered about 1 Tim 4:14 as far as what gift Timothy had that was prophesied about? As I understand it, the laying on of hands that was done by non apostles was not to pass along the HS, but rather it was what done to anoint an individual to a specified responsibility.


2001 Translation (1 Tim 3)

14 I’m writing these things to you, although I’m hoping to come to you shortly, 15 so, just in case I’m delayed, you’ll know how you should conduct yourself in God’s household (the congregation of the living God) as a pillar and supporter of the truth.
16 Admittedly, this sacred [thing that we are] devoted to is a great mystery. For, ‘He was shown in the flesh, called righteous in spirit, appeared to [God’s] messengers, was preached about among the nations, was believed in the world, and was taken up in glory.’

A Non Ecclesiastical NT

I am writing these things to you hoping to come to you very soon. But if I delay, I am writing so that you may know how it is necessary to conduct yourself in God's house, which is a group of people belonging to the living God. The secret of piety is a pillar and basis of truth, and is acknowledged as great: the one who was displayed in flesh was justified in spirit, was seen by messengers, was proclaimed among nations, was trusted in creation, and was taken up into glory.

The GROUP OF PEOPLE BELONGING TO THE LIVING GOD were to EACH be pillars and supports of the truth of the gospel. This group of people were sealed with the HS and it is this group that Jesus spoke of in in Matthew 16 when he was speaking to Peter and the 11. ​

13 Then, when he went to Caesarea Philippi, Jesus asked his disciples, ‘Who are people saying the Son of Man is?’
14 And they replied, ‘Some say you’re John the Baptist, others EliJah, and still others say you are JeremiAh or one of the Prophets.’
15 And he asked, ‘But, who do you say that I am?’
16 And Simon Peter answered: ‘You’re the Anointed; the Son of the Living God.’
17 Then Jesus said to him, ‘You are blest, Simon, son of JonAh, because this wasn’t shown to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in the heavens.
18 ‘I also tell you this: You are Rock (Peter); but I will build my congregation on this bedrock so that the gates of the place of the dead won’t overpower it. 19 I will give you the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in the heavens. And whatever you set free on the earth will be set free in the heavens.’
20 Then he sternly warned the disciples not to tell anyone that he is the Anointed One.

Indeed the spirit is with Jesus' congregation for all time, BUT what I am saying is this: THE CHURCH (pick a church, any church) IS NOT JESUS' CONGREGATION.

He made it clear that HE would be with us for all time.

Jesus didn't say what is recorded in Matthew 28 to us. He said this:

20 teaching them to obey all the things that I commanded you. And {Look!} I’ll be with you every day until the

end of the age.’

to those he was speaking directly to who he had earlier promised the spirit of truth to.

 

[francisdesales]

He doesn't because it's not there.. Paul tells us plainly that we break bread and pass the cup in remembering Him when we eat with Him at His table... not when we eat Him at His table..

That is my point, Eventide, that Paul was teaching an Apostolic Tradition AS THE WORD OF GOD. From his lips, rather than printed text, Paul was telling Christians what HE had learned and had passed down to him (according to 1 Corinthians).

My point is not to turn this into a Eucharist thread, so I won't respond to the last part of your sentence. However, it is clear that you disagree with every Christian's take on Paul for the first 500 years and more. Doesn't that strike you as odd????

It says that they were more noble because they searched the scriptures to see for themselves what Paul was preaching came right from the word of God...

And the Thessalonians also searched the Scriptures. They were Jews, also, they had a Septuagint and they searched it, as well. The difference is that one group came to believe. The others didn't. It is quite obvious that MERELY SEARCHING the Scriptures is not "noble"... It's coming to believe.

Think about it....

just as the Lord opened up the scriptures to the men on the road and expounded upon all things concerning Himself.. and that's because in the volume of the book it is written of Him..

Of course, indirectly. Otherwise, the Jews would have been converted long ago, if things were so obvious to everyone. It was God's will that we come to faith, and that we would not be overpowered into believing. A person can conclude from the Scriptures that Jesus was not the Messiah by the fact that He was cursed by dying on a tree, as the OT states. It takes an act of faith to overcome those obstacles and interpret the Scriptures differently, using the mind of the Church.

You really don't like the holy scriptures do you ?

Can't we agree to say that I don't worship them as God - BUT STILL say that I read them and study them quite often? I pray from them several times a day. Would you like me to post youtube pictures of me reading the Bible???

I agree and it has absolutely nothing to do with some man baptizing me in water... it was after I trusted in Christ, after hearing the gospel, and after I believed that God baptized me into His own body by the same Spirit... it happens the same way for every Christian... by the word of God, not by men baptizing people in water.

Wrong. The public proclamation spoken of in Romans is done in the context of being baptized. No one enters the Church by avoiding baptism, and the Church is the Body of Christ.

But that's another subject.

I'm 1000% certain of one thing, that it had nothing to do with the self proclaimed one true church... it was after trusting in Christ and after I heard the gospel.

You have heard an emasculated Gospel. Keep reading.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

I think the bigger question is this: Is Jesus Ekklessia on Earth today at all? Is it not possible that Jesus returned for his church thousands of years ago just as his followers expected and since then, no church or "spiriti filled" institution exists on planet Earth?

Of course it is. The Body of Christ was promised to exist for all time. No, it is not possible that Jesus' second coming has already happened. That will not be done in secret.

Your idea that there is no "spirit filled" institution is false. I am not sure what you are EXPECTING, but even in the Sacred Scriptures, we don't see a picture of a perfected Church. The Spirit's presence is noted by numerous acts of the Church, acts of love, forgiveness, mercy, patience, kindness, etc... Even miracles continue to happen.

C'mon now, after we die we are dead and dead people can see nothing. Our love as it says in Ecclesiastes perishes with us at death.

Really? You know this, over the witness of Sacred Scriptures?

I always wandered about 1 Tim 4:14 as far as what gift Timothy had that was prophesied about? As I understand it, the laying on of hands that was done by non apostles was not to pass along the HS, but rather it was what done to anoint an individual to a specified responsibility.

You understand based upon preconceived notions, rather than WHY someone would "lay hands" on someone in Sacred Scriptures. You have already made up your mind that the Spirit took a siesta after the Apostles and that Jesus was just kidding and misunderstood when He said that the Church would exist until the end of time. At that time, it will be presented as a holy and pure Bride to Christ.

The GROUP OF PEOPLE BELONGING TO THE LIVING GOD were to EACH be pillars and supports of the truth of the gospel. This group of people were sealed with the HS and it is this group that Jesus spoke of in in Matthew 16 when he was speaking to Peter and the 11.

And the laying of hands and passing of ministry to Timothy, Titus and later successors continues this ministry. Jesus continues to call men to God THROUGH the Church..

Indeed the spirit is with Jesus' congregation for all time, BUT what I am saying is this: THE CHURCH (pick a church, any church) IS NOT JESUS' CONGREGATION.

There is one Church, one, holy, catholic and apostolic. We know where to go to find it, for example, when told by Jesus to "go to the Church". It is a visible institution, organized and present upon this earth. It is the continuation of the Incarnation. There are many members of this one holy catholic and apostolic Church, some are Southern Baptists, some are Lutherans, some are Eastern Orthodox and some are Roman Catholic. These people, whether they know it or not, are part of that Catholic Church, part of the flock of Jesus Christ and fed by the successor of Peter and those servants of Christ with him.

Jesus didn't say what is recorded in Matthew 28 to us. He said this: to those he was speaking directly to who he had earlier promised the spirit of truth to.

All of us are promised the Spirit of Truth who turn to God and believe in Him.

Regards
​

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

Of course it is. The Body of Christ was promised to exist for all time. No, it is not possible that Jesus' second coming has already happened. That will not be done in secret.

Who says that the body of the Anointed One does not currently exist? The question that I posed was not IF it exists, but rather WHERE it exists. My suggestion is that it very well may NOT be on Earth today, but rather already with him in the Kingdom.
Just to be clear, I never said nor do I believe Jesus' coming was done in secret.

Your idea that there is no "spirit filled" institution is false. I am not sure what you are EXPECTING, but even in the Sacred Scriptures, we don't see a picture of a perfected Church. The Spirit's presence is noted by numerous acts of the Church, acts of love, forgiveness, mercy, patience, kindness, etc... Even miracles continue to happen.

Your contention that today's church is a continuation of Jesus' spirit filled "institution" is not a Biblical one. The idea of apostolic succession, vicars, and a hierarchial pyramid of authoritarian rulership of men over the brethren are all non scriptural man made "churchianity" concepts that serve to lead people to the church as opposed to the Christ.

Really? You know this, over the witness of Sacred Scriptures?

Actually the "witness" of the scriptures teaches that very concept.

You understand based upon preconceived notions, rather than WHY someone would "lay hands" on someone in Sacred Scriptures. You have already made up your mind that the Spirit took a siesta after the Apostles and that Jesus was just kidding and misunderstood when He said that the Church would exist until the end of time. At that time, it will be presented as a holy and pure Bride to Christ.

You accuse me with no basis to do so. Again, no siesta for the Spirit, just the possibility that no Spirit filled institution exists ON EARTH at the moment.
The bride is presented to Jesus BEFORE the wedding feast. At the banquet, the already married Anointed One will be presented to the invited guests along WITH his beautiful bride.

And the laying of hands and passing of ministry to Timothy, Titus and later successors continues this ministry. Jesus continues to call men to God THROUGH the Church..​

We have no basis to make such an assumption.​

There is one Church, one, holy, catholic and apostolic. We know where to go to find it, for example, when told by Jesus to "go to the Church". It is a visible institution, organized and present upon this earth. It is the continuation of the Incarnation. There are many members of this one holy catholic and apostolic Church, some are Southern Baptists, some are Lutherans, some are Eastern Orthodox and some are Roman Catholic. These people, whether they know it or not, are part of that Catholic Church, part of the flock of Jesus Christ and fed by the successor of Peter and those servants of Christ with him.​

First off, Jesus never said "go to the church." What he said was "come unto me..... and I will give you rest." The gospel, which according to scripture is the power God used to save has absolutely nothing to do with the institutions you mentioned above.
What churchianity does is take the onness off the individual and place it on the church institution. Remember that we all as individuals must appear before the judgment seat of Christ, no church institution will be there.

All of us are promised the Spirit of Truth who turn to God and believe in Him.​

Where are we (people living beyond the 1st century) promised the spirit of truth?

 

[Elijah674]

But what 'Body' [Church] of Christ is it, is the question? Here is a post that I just did on another site! --Elijah

Me here:
TDL, why not just forget the words of the greek, + easter, (which/ever!) & take the two chapters of Acts 11-12:1-4 in context? Two groups are seen in AD 41. One is old Israel & then the Christians in chapter 11:26 which were not keeping FEAST DAYS! And chapter 12 finds the 'feast day keeper' Jews happy with James being killed!

And the unleavened bread time or easter,(again which/ever way that you want it?) you are telling me that Paul was buying into these ordinances??? (of old Israel still!) Gal. 1:6-9 That is pure foolishness!

But why not buy into that, huh?? Seeing that you all (almost, except Kent) have bought into romes Dan. 7:25 blasphemy.

Is there still hope for the growth of you guy's? Or are you found in 2 Thess. 2:9-12.... it sure is not looking good! The VERY COLD have a better hope for Eternal Life than these'ins of Lukewarm sick love! Rev. 3:16

--Elijah

 

[Elijah674]

Hey Truth, Elijah here,
the above guy mentioned, (Kent) tossed out tradition for truth! Read his testimony...

Kent:
I think that the ten are the least of these, as there are many more explaintory commandments that were added to the ten. So in direct answer I think that Sabbath keeping is in there.

There is a worthly discussion as to keeping the Sabbath for Christians, specially Gentile Christians.

Some Chistians teach that the Lord's Day, or day of the Lord's resurrection is the Christian sabbath, and try to show that the early church kept Sunday or the first day of the week in this way. But in doing a little bit of study in the Greek I found that they kept the last or seventh day sabbath, with some also gathering at day break on the first day for a resurrection celebration, with prayers and hymn singing.

I find that I was holding to seeing Christ as my sabbath rest, and therefor not in need of keeping a day. Following after Paul's words about keeping sabbaths and festivals. Yet, I think now that Paul was addressing not the actual keeping of the weekly Sabbath, but the sabbaths that were part of the festivals given to Israel, that were ways of remembrance of the grace of God to them as a nation.

Through discussion in this forum I am now seeing that the weekly sabbath is older than the Mosaic law, which gives it a deeper foundation and greater authority. And that the Mosaic law just incorporated it into its structure, confirming the basis of it in God's ways.

So if one teaches others to not keep the Sabbath, are they in danger of having lead another astray? I would have to say yes to that now.

(Elijah will be beside himself reading this from me, as we had a long debate on this matter last fall when I came back online.)

I find the ten commandments are the heart and soul of what is pleasing to God. It is the way of righteousness that God delivered to man, that if we walk by them we shall live the kind of life he created us to live. I also see that by the indwelling Holy Spirit we can live according to them, we can walk in righteousness.

Kent

PS: But we need to understand that it will be the vast Broadway of rome + her Rev. 17:1-5 daughter's that will vasty out number the saved ones. All numbers do is prove Matt. 7!

 

[Eventide]

That is my point, Eventide, that Paul was teaching an Apostolic Tradition AS THE WORD OF GOD. From his lips, rather than printed text, Paul was telling Christians what HE had learned and had passed down to him (according to 1 Corinthians).

My point is not to turn this into a Eucharist thread, so I won't respond to the last part of your sentence. However, it is clear that you disagree with every Christian's take on Paul for the first 500 years and more. Doesn't that strike you as odd????

I live by the word of God as it is contained in the holy scriptures.. and there's nothing in there about a eucharist or people eating God... they eat WITH God at His table. Paul says that we can't eat from the Lord's table and from the table of devils... so does that mean that you're literally eating devils when you eat from his table..? I mean you do actually believe that you're eating God when you eat at HIS table, correct ? So why the disconnect ?

Regardless, it's pointless to discuss the church of God with a person who can't see past the RCC so I'll leave it at that.