Was Jesus against organized religion?

[Adullam]

You are missing the ramifications of said scriptures. If the kingdom of God is here in any way shape or form it must be entirely where it is. A deposit is not partially money...it is fully money.

I am only agreeing with Paul. We know that the final end state of the kingdom is not here. There is still death and there is still sin. So the kingdom has not yet been consummated - it has not reached its goal. But the project is underway. And elements of that future consummation are already with us in the present - the gift of the Holy Spirit, for example. The scriptures say what they say - I am sorry that this does not line up with what you believe to be the case.

You are agreeing with Paul? That is your own opinion...as is the rest of what you are saying. One must understand the nature of the kingdom to correctly identify it. If even the closest walk with the Lord cannot overcome our tendency to sin, then the kingdom is still a future event. God yet remains God as He always has. Perhaps you are confusing these two issues.

I do see the presence of the kingdom....in the heavenly power that fully apprehends the disciple to do His perfect will. Unfortunately, talk is cheap. Those who say the kingdom is here usually have zero testimony to that effect. They don't put faith either in God or His word for the present overcoming of the temporal reality by the eternal reality in Christ. Reading verses is good for a book report. But where is the victory over sin that constitutes the very beginning of the presence of the kingdom??

 

[Drew]

FIRST FRUITS. Not the entire gift

Exactly. Adullam, do you understand the "first fruit" image. It is the image of the first crops harvested in anticipation of a coming massive harvest. But the first fruits are crops none-theless. They are an "advance", a down-payment, a little "in-breaking in the present" of the coming future harvest.

This is a deeply Biblical image. Remember the bit about the spies going into the promised land and returning with some grapes? Those grapes were a little bit of the future brought into the present. This theme of "getting a real taste of the future in the present" is all over the place in the Bible.

And, of course, Jesus is the ultimate "first fruit". Despite Jewish expectation that all would be raised to life in the distant future, God has elected to raise one man in advance of all the others - the Lord Jesus Christ. So despite the challenge of thinking about a "partially" implemented kingdom, it is indeed what the Scriptures teach.

 

[Adullam]

Ironically, I have been advocating the rule of the kingdom throughout these posts and you resist that as an ivory tower.

Yes, YOUR kingdom, not the Biblical Kingdom that Jesus announces... The Kingdom has broken into this world already, but is not fully realized - by me, and certainly not by self-proclaimed "perfects" who are not very handy with proving their points from Scriptures...

Your arguments are upside down and illogical. On the one had you deny the presence of ultimate grace, and on the other you say we are almost at full kingdom realization.

I don't deny the presence of ultimate grace - I just disagree that "ultimate grace" must be manifest in ONLY THE WAYS YOU SAY it must be manifested. In other words, only "perfects" are "truly" filled with Grace. With you, the fullness of God must dwell entirely, or not at all. This is another poor understanding of Sacred Scriptures, which speaks over and over to people who are spiritually immature and weak, but YET, BURIED WITH CHRIST through baptism. Given the first fruits of the Holy Spirit.

FIRST FRUITS. Not the entire gift...

Have you given any of these absurd statements any thought? Is there any balance whatsoever in any of your viewpoints?

Yes, I have given your absurd statements thought and dismiss it as more rhetoric... I still do not find where Jesus tells us we must destroy all earthly organizations, or where Jesus says that the search for God MUST be through independent and non-institutional means.

If I say that we have been given the grace to overcome sin...you will say that's not so.

Again, you think your self-proclaimed infallibility pretends to extend to the thoughts of other people. When have I said or even implied that we have NOT been given the grace to overcome sin? Of course we have, but we REMAIN imperfect and susceptible to temptations and our own wounded desires that conflict with God's. My sin does not mean that God's graces have not fallen upon me.

And we are talking about believers here. So there is no authority over sin being manifested here in your view. Yet you advocate the authority to loose and to bind?????

The authority to bind and loosen has absolutely NOTHING to do with sin being manifested in the believer... Typical "non-denomitional" eigesis that cannot just plainly read the Bible, but must imprint their own opinions into it. Matthew 16 says absolutely nothing about such things.

Is the kingdom of God still under the curse of sin? You have invented a partial kingdom and a partial Jesus. This is called lukewarmness. Partially hot and partially cold. Rather, Jesus is either fully manifested or He is not.

Scriptures, please...

Likewise with the kingdom. Would you say...Half of God showed up the other day!!! If so...which half???? :crazy

It appears you do not understand the Kingdom parables that I have already posted. Or you just ignore them because you don't like that Jesus disagrees with you...

God's work is manifested, but all things are not brought to conclusion yet. It is not an "either its there in its entirety" or "it is not here at all".

The Kingdom of God [heaven] is like a mustard seed...

Is the seed fully developed? Is the seed NOT there because it is not a bush?

YET IT IS THERE! NOT FULLY DEVELOPED YET...

Need I say more? Clearly, you need to study the Scriptures a bit more and stop attacking people you deem "dead in Christ" because they hold to a set of beliefs...

I appeal to any logic you may yet possess....If an army has partially conquered a territory....doesn't that mean that at least some of the land has been totally subjugated?

LOL! As usual, your warfare analogies fail...

Did the Germans totally control every square foot of Russia in 1942, even though they had "totally subjugated" the country? France??? Poland??? Ever hear of partisans? Every person in occupied country became entirely friendly to the Germans? Please... Your analogies merely prove you don't know what you are talking about.

I knew you would miss the point! LOL I was even thinking of the russian campaign. You may not realize that there is a difference between occupation and conquering. I specifically baited you with a specific word....conquer. ;) The Germans did not conquer Russia during the great patriotic war. Neither have the Amerindians ever been conquered. A conquered people has been subjugated and assimilated. Think of the 10 northern tribes of Israel! See any partisans from those tribes lately?

 

[Drew]

Those who say the kingdom is here usually have zero testimony to that effect.

But, as has already been shown from texts from Ephesians and 1 Corinthians, if not others, we have the Bible on our side of this debate.

But where is the victory over sin that constitutes the very beginning of the presence of the kingdom??

Your argument is essentially circular. You seem caught in a mind-set that only allows two possibilities - total absence of the kingdom or an entirely consummated and fulfilled kingdom.

You seem to think that the fact that we still sin is evidence of the absence of the kingdom in the present. Well consider this from Paul:

to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life;

This is from the description of the great coming judgement (Romans 2). The image is of eternal life being granted to those who are striving for it, who are doing good deeds in pursuit of a goal. This is entirley consistent with the following picture: the kingdom is here and we "soldiers" of the King have been given the gift of the Spirit. Does that mean we never sin? Of course not – the project is underway, not completed. Jesus is reigning and the battle is engaged. It’s a process – the enemies are being placed under Jesus’ feet as He reigns just as Paul tells. There is not a sudden transition from “no kingdom at all†to an entirely consummated kingdom.

We should not expect that Christians will not sin, given that the project is not yet completed. But it is underway – the kingdom is here and is doing battle with the other kingdoms.

 

[Adullam]

FIRST FRUITS. Not the entire gift

Exactly. Adullam, do you understand the "first fruit" image. It is the image of the first crops harvested in anticipation of a coming massive harvest. But the first fruits are crops none-theless. They are an "advance", a down-payment, a little "in-breaking in the present" of the coming future harvest.

This is a deeply Biblical image. Remember the bit about the spies going into the promised land and returning with some grapes? Those grapes were a little bit of the future brought into the present. This theme of "getting a real taste of the future in the present" is all over the place in the Bible.

And, of course, Jesus is the ultimate "first fruit". Despite Jewish expectation that all would be raised to life in the distant future, God has elected to raise one man in advance of all the others - the Lord Jesus Christ. So despite the challenge of thinking about a "partially" implemented kingdom, it is indeed what the Scriptures teach.

I do understand the first fruits image very well. If the crop is grapes...then the first fruit will be an entire real grape...not a mixture of grape and a rock or whatever. It is the same as the others that will follow. If the root is holy so will the branches be and the fruit be.

Rom 11:16 If the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole lump, and if the root is holy, so are the branches.

You do not understand this as it transcends the weekly mass experience. It is one thing to proclaim in ceremony and quite another to live in reality.

It is akin to being a re-enactor rather than an actual combat veteran. You might experience some of the rush of the experience, but you haven't really done anything historically yet. If you had truly ever experienced true holiness, you would not be seeking to disparage what I am saying.

 

[Adullam]

Those who say the kingdom is here usually have zero testimony to that effect.

But, as has already been shown from texts from Ephesians and 1 Corinthians, if not others, we have the Bible on our side of this debate.

But where is the victory over sin that constitutes the very beginning of the presence of the kingdom??

Your argument is essentially circular. You seem caught in a mind-set that only allows two possibilities - total absence of the kingdom or an entirely consummated and fulfilled kingdom.

You seem to think that the fact that we still sin is evidence of the absence of the kingdom in the present. Well consider this from Paul:

to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life;

This is from the description of the great coming judgement (Romans 2). The image is of eternal life being granted to those who are striving for it, who are doing good deeds in pursuit of a goal. This is entirley consistent with the following picture: the kingdom is here and we "soldiers" of the King have been given the gift of the Spirit. Does that mean we never sin? Of course not – the project is underway, not completed. Jesus is reigning and the battle is engaged. It’s a process – the enemies are being placed under Jesus’ feet as He reigns just as Paul tells. There is not a sudden transition from “no kingdom at all†to an entirely consummated kingdom.

We should not expect that Christians will not sin, given that the project is not yet completed. But it is underway – the kingdom is here and is doing battle with the other kingdoms.

A first fruit must be entirely of the essence of what the crop is to be.

 

[francisdesales]

Judaism was plan B. Once Jesus Christ was manifest in the world, those who would worship must now do so in Spirit and truth. Gone are the icons, the representations, the idols, the liturgies. We can now walk in supernatural power. The ceremony is past...the reality is here. This is the presence of the kingdom in our midst.

We worship in Spirit and Truth as we worship in liturgical community action. Worshiping in spirit and truth doesn't mean ceremony and liturgies are done - THEY CONTINUE EVEN IN HEAVEN! Jesus CONTINUES liturgical action in the "temple in heaven". The kingdom is in our midst, but not fully yet. During liturgy, our worship is more perfectly joined to liturgical action in heaven. Thus, you disembody yourself from THE best available means of joining with Christ in heavenly liturgy.

Let us not get into proclaiming popes. ;) You confuse simple apostolic community churches with protestant institutions.

Protestant institutions?

Perhaps you need to move beyond Acts 2... The bible relates a "simple apostolic community" that becomes much more organized and institutional as time marches on.

These institutions are just different flavours of the same pagan way of being religious.

God desires that we seek Him out. Simply dismissing "pagan" ways of being religious, just because they are not yours, is unbecoming of a true follower of God...

No one lords it over the flock. You are only assuming that others do as you. We don't need popes, we have Christ. He is risen, you know!?

yes, the Catholic Church has taught you that message - that Christ is Risen.

I do not see where the Bible disqualifies someone IF they 'lord it over the flock'. That is the MODEL of leadership. Note, with this leadership comes implied authority that is accepted by the flock and utilized by those in authority for the sake of the flock. Yes, we do need Popes, otherwise, Jesus never would have assigned Peter as the head of the Apostles with his specific charge of looking after the faith of the rest of the community. I find it interesting that Jesus prayed for this specific situation, when He could have certainly just sent the Holy Spirit to each individual Christian without the ministry of Peter or other apostles/leaders. I choose to follow the Scripture's lead on this, you choose to invent something and then try to proof text afterwards...

We do not argue over who God is. God is God.

You disagree on many aspects of who God is. Is God a Triune Being? Is Jesus Divine? Etc...

The real debate is who the real Christians are. There are only 2 types of Christians. The spiritual and the carnal.

That is not a subject of debate, since you or I are not in the position to judge anyone, barely ourselves, on whether we are carnal or spiritual, since men are highly susceptible to self-delusion. Religious pride merely worsens the situation...

Again, I suggest you read the Scriptures, as it gives a different picture on 'real' Christians, and Paul does not EVER say that "weak" ones are NOT Christian...

[/quote="francisdesales"]

The Church is not a "human organization" only, its builder is Christ and the Apostles... It has a divine purpose and utilizes humans led by the Spirit.

The Holy Spirit, according to the Scriptures, is given to specific men for the purpose of leading other Christians among the community. Order is accomplished through the Holy Spirit working THROUGH particular men. Not directly. All gifts are manifested THROUGH men for the sake of the entire Church. There is no such paradigm in Scriptures for independently-minded Christians who go it alone, nor does Jesus tell us that He was against organized religion. Thus, you continue to provide smoke and mirrors. It is a vast miscalculation of "non-denominationals" that the Spirit has chosen to come to "lead them personally to all truth". What you do is even worse than what you accuse the institutional church of - at least they have scriptural warrant...

Who is arguing about going it alone? You see nothing if it is not in the extreme. If it isn't the size of a pea then it must be an aircraft carrier. If we are to avert chaos we must offer pagan sacrifices for the sake of order. :crazy

??? Pot, meet kettle... "either the kingdom is fully here or it isn't." "Either a person puts aside a creed or they are dead in Christ". Please.

You are indeed going it "alone", in the sense that your chosen "comrades" are people you are socially acceptable to you, people who share the same sense of "doing it my way". Once you have a disagreement, you will no doubt move on to form a more "perfect" idea of God's kingdom in the world, since you cannot be detoured from the idea that the Spirit speaks to you most perfectly.

The problem remains. You think that you are correct in every case, and when someone disagrees with you, your pride does not allow you to accept that you may be wrong - since that might show that God is not fully manifested within you, which means He is not manifested AT ALL in you...

Because your theology is terribly wrong, you must conclude that everything you do is "from God" or "moved by God" or "God is manifested within me completely". Any lack thereof means you must move on to other grounds, since it would question your divine perogative that God has fully manifested Himself within you... it is either black or white with you. Either one is completely a disciple of Christ or they are pagan...

In the same way that Judaism left God out, so it is with institutional churchianity.

Judaism didn't leave God out, they put Him INTO THEIR DAILY LIVES! That was the entire point of the Law and the Pharisee's desire to expand it! Clearly, again, you haven't a clue what the Scriptures say on such matters...

We can follow the Lord without human interference.

Scriptures, please. I tire of these cliches that, quite frankly, are 21st century euphemisms, rather than Scriptural dictates. Biblical Christianity DEPENDS upon "human interference".

History has shown and continues to show that human interference gets in the way of God's way.

Actually, it is human pride, as you express it, that is the cause of scandal and problems within the Church. If more people were humble and had a serving attitude, there would be less issues.

People love to control things. They seek power. God's way is the way of powerlessness.

Powerlessness is not what you are about. You seek power for and from yourself. Power means not having to answer to another. Such is the case for the "non-denoms". Powerlessness is being submissive to another, even when you don't agree. That is beyond the realm of understanding of the "church of one" people, since they are little popes in their own minds.

Have you read about the transfiguration of Christ and the enthusiasm of Peter to build booths? Peter wanted to organize a spiritual event. So naive!

Did Jesus condemn Peter for wanting to build a booth???

So naive, and so typical, transfering your own ideas into the Scriptures and making it "God's Word". That is par for the course of such poppettes, my word = God's word.

Peter had not yet learned to not think like a human. Jesus rebuked satan in Peter when he exhibited this carnal tendency. I can do no other, myself.

As usual, you cannot accurately relate Scriptures.

His carnal tendencies had nothing to do with institutional desires. Perhaps you should read the ACTUAL BIBLE for the first time, rather than trying to go on memory (assuming you actually read it) and putting your own thoughts into the stories. Peter was chastised for trying to turn the Lord aside from His death, because Peter was thinking in human terms, not seeing the big picture.

Thus, the answer to the OP question is "NO"... He did not come to "free" you from "institutional religion"... He IMPLEMENTED IT FURTHER BY ESTABLISHING AN INSTITUTIONAL AND HIGHLY ORGANIZED CHURCH...

How naive ....

What is naive is that you think you have actually proven that Jesus was against organized religion.

:biglaugh

 

[Free]

Is everyone going to play nice or is this going to have to get locked?

 

[Adullam]

Christ makes all things new. What part of "all" are people missing? I am being asked to provide a biblical argument against a specific idolatry. All idolatry is wrong...even if it is not specifically mentioned. The onus is on the one with the idolatry to prove that it is biblical practice and acceptable to God.

) [2 Cor 5:17]:

"Therefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, all things are become new."

A) BELIEVERS ARE A NEW KIND OF CREATURE IN CHRIST JESUS, NEITHER JEW NOR GENTILE

"new creature... the old things passed away; behold, new things have come." =

"new" = "kaine"

"all"= "pas"



"As distinct from néos, 'new in time,' ['kaine', str 2537] means 'new in nature' (with an implication of 'better').", i.e., unique as opposed to renewed or improved over time.

1) [Compare Eph 2:10]:

"For we [believers, (vv. 8-9)] are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do."

Note that believers have become God's workmanship in the sense that they are new creations, new creatures - in Christ Jesus, unique having been placed into the body of Christ, neither Jew nor Gentile, but a third kind of human being who is unique in the sense that he is a part of the body of Christ.

 

[francisdesales]

I knew you would miss the point! LOL I was even thinking of the russian campaign. You may not realize that there is a difference between occupation and conquering. I specifically baited you with a specific word....conquer. ;) The Germans did not conquer Russia during the great patriotic war. Neither have the Amerindians ever been conquered. A conquered people has been subjugated and assimilated. Think of the 10 northern tribes of Israel! See any partisans from those tribes lately?

It figures that you would focus on this, and ignore the rest that shows how inept you are at Scriptural interpretation and applying it to theology, such as the mustard seed parable...

So tell me, what is the difference between "occupation" and "conquering"? Sounds like more of your inventions...

Here is what you wrote...

If an army has partially conquered a territory....doesn't that mean that at least some of the land has been totally subjugated?

Partially conquered territory is not completely subjugated, my point stands. Occupy and conquer are synonymous.

The Germans had conqured the lands they occupied in every sense of the word. They had begun to assimilate their own peoples into Russia, especially into Western Russia. It is not necessary for a "conquered people" to be entirely wiped off the face of the earth to be conquered. Germany was utterly defeated, conquered, occupied, etc, after WW2. In what way was Germany NOT conquered? Were they "assimilated"? That was not the goal of the Allies - it was to defeat Germany's desire to wage future war. Thus, it depends upon the goals of the CONQUEROR and does not DEFINE what "conquer" means. Conquer can simply mean occupy and strip the land. When one side gives up, they have, by default, admitted to being defeated, conquered. This generally requires an occupation.

 

[Drew]

Christ makes all things new. What part of "all" are people missing?

Again, you appear to simply assume that this "making all things new" is an instantaneous process. With that assumption made, naturally enough you think we are mistaken in our "kingdom now" theology because evil is still with us.

Regardless of whether I have correctly characterised your thinking - and perhaps I have not - this teaching from Jesus harmonizes perfectly well with the position that FDS and I are advancing - that the kingdom project has been started and the renewal of all things is underway. On the "inbroken kingdom" model, this statement is true - new creation has begun and all things are indeed being made new, but it is a process.

This is a complex issue, so we all have some challenges before us in coming up with the correct position.

 

[Adullam]

Judaism was plan B. Once Jesus Christ was manifest in the world, those who would worship must now do so in Spirit and truth. Gone are the icons, the representations, the idols, the liturgies. We can now walk in supernatural power. The ceremony is past...the reality is here. This is the presence of the kingdom in our midst.

We worship in Spirit and Truth as we worship in liturgical community action. Worshiping in spirit and truth doesn't mean ceremony and liturgies are done - THEY CONTINUE EVEN IN HEAVEN! Jesus CONTINUES liturgical action in the "temple in heaven". The kingdom is in our midst, but not fully yet. During liturgy, our worship is more perfectly joined to liturgical action in heaven. Thus, you disembody yourself from THE best available means of joining with Christ in heavenly liturgy.

Let us not get into proclaiming popes. ;) You confuse simple apostolic community churches with protestant institutions.

Protestant institutions?

Perhaps you need to move beyond Acts 2... The bible relates a "simple apostolic community" that becomes much more organized and institutional as time marches on.

These institutions are just different flavours of the same pagan way of being religious.

God desires that we seek Him out. Simply dismissing "pagan" ways of being religious, just because they are not yours, is unbecoming of a true follower of God...

No one lords it over the flock. You are only assuming that others do as you. We don't need popes, we have Christ. He is risen, you know!?

yes, the Catholic Church has taught you that message - that Christ is Risen.

I do not see where the Bible disqualifies someone IF they 'lord it over the flock'. That is the MODEL of leadership. Note, with this leadership comes implied authority that is accepted by the flock and utilized by those in authority for the sake of the flock. Yes, we do need Popes, otherwise, Jesus never would have assigned Peter as the head of the Apostles with his specific charge of looking after the faith of the rest of the community. I find it interesting that Jesus prayed for this specific situation, when He could have certainly just sent the Holy Spirit to each individual Christian without the ministry of Peter or other apostles/leaders. I choose to follow the Scripture's lead on this, you choose to invent something and then try to proof text afterwards...

We do not argue over who God is. God is God.

You disagree on many aspects of who God is. Is God a Triune Being? Is Jesus Divine? Etc...

The real debate is who the real Christians are. There are only 2 types of Christians. The spiritual and the carnal.

That is not a subject of debate, since you or I are not in the position to judge anyone, barely ourselves, on whether we are carnal or spiritual, since men are highly susceptible to self-delusion. Religious pride merely worsens the situation...

Again, I suggest you read the Scriptures, as it gives a different picture on 'real' Christians, and Paul does not EVER say that "weak" ones are NOT Christian...

[/quote="francisdesales"]

The Church is not a "human organization" only, its builder is Christ and the Apostles... It has a divine purpose and utilizes humans led by the Spirit.

The Holy Spirit, according to the Scriptures, is given to specific men for the purpose of leading other Christians among the community. Order is accomplished through the Holy Spirit working THROUGH particular men. Not directly. All gifts are manifested THROUGH men for the sake of the entire Church. There is no such paradigm in Scriptures for independently-minded Christians who go it alone, nor does Jesus tell us that He was against organized religion. Thus, you continue to provide smoke and mirrors. It is a vast miscalculation of "non-denominationals" that the Spirit has chosen to come to "lead them personally to all truth". What you do is even worse than what you accuse the institutional church of - at least they have scriptural warrant...

Who is arguing about going it alone? You see nothing if it is not in the extreme. If it isn't the size of a pea then it must be an aircraft carrier. If we are to avert chaos we must offer pagan sacrifices for the sake of order. :crazy

??? Pot, meet kettle... "either the kingdom is fully here or it isn't." "Either a person puts aside a creed or they are dead in Christ". Please.

You are indeed going it "alone", in the sense that your chosen "comrades" are people you are socially acceptable to you, people who share the same sense of "doing it my way". Once you have a disagreement, you will no doubt move on to form a more "perfect" idea of God's kingdom in the world, since you cannot be detoured from the idea that the Spirit speaks to you most perfectly.

The problem remains. You think that you are correct in every case, and when someone disagrees with you, your pride does not allow you to accept that you may be wrong - since that might show that God is not fully manifested within you, which means He is not manifested AT ALL in you...

Because your theology is terribly wrong, you must conclude that everything you do is "from God" or "moved by God" or "God is manifested within me completely". Any lack thereof means you must move on to other grounds, since it would question your divine perogative that God has fully manifested Himself within you... it is either black or white with you. Either one is completely a disciple of Christ or they are pagan...

In the same way that Judaism left God out, so it is with institutional churchianity.

Judaism didn't leave God out, they put Him INTO THEIR DAILY LIVES! That was the entire point of the Law and the Pharisee's desire to expand it! Clearly, again, you haven't a clue what the Scriptures say on such matters...

We can follow the Lord without human interference.

Scriptures, please. I tire of these cliches that, quite frankly, are 21st century euphemisms, rather than Scriptural dictates. Biblical Christianity DEPENDS upon "human interference".

History has shown and continues to show that human interference gets in the way of God's way.

Actually, it is human pride, as you express it, that is the cause of scandal and problems within the Church. If more people were humble and had a serving attitude, there would be less issues.

People love to control things. They seek power. God's way is the way of powerlessness.

Powerlessness is not what you are about. You seek power for and from yourself. Power means not having to answer to another. Such is the case for the "non-denoms". Powerlessness is being submissive to another, even when you don't agree. That is beyond the realm of understanding of the "church of one" people, since they are little popes in their own minds.

Have you read about the transfiguration of Christ and the enthusiasm of Peter to build booths? Peter wanted to organize a spiritual event. So naive!

Did Jesus condemn Peter for wanting to build a booth???

So naive, and so typical, transfering your own ideas into the Scriptures and making it "God's Word". That is par for the course of such poppettes, my word = God's word.

Peter had not yet learned to not think like a human. Jesus rebuked satan in Peter when he exhibited this carnal tendency. I can do no other, myself.

As usual, you cannot accurately relate Scriptures.

His carnal tendencies had nothing to do with institutional desires. Perhaps you should read the ACTUAL BIBLE for the first time, rather than trying to go on memory (assuming you actually read it) and putting your own thoughts into the stories. Peter was chastised for trying to turn the Lord aside from His death, because Peter was thinking in human terms, not seeing the big picture.

Thus, the answer to the OP question is "NO"... He did not come to "free" you from "institutional religion"... He IMPLEMENTED IT FURTHER BY ESTABLISHING AN INSTITUTIONAL AND HIGHLY ORGANIZED CHURCH...

How naive ....

What is naive is that you think you have actually proven that Jesus was against organized religion.

:biglaugh

Blather overload!

I will not discuss doctrine with one who is seeking to exalt a specific religion, cult, sect or denomination.

 

[francisdesales]

Christ makes all things new. What part of "all" are people missing?

It doesn't say that Christ makes all things perfect, but that Christ is now in a new relationship, which, as of now, remains imperfect and not fully realized. Note the "all" doesn't mean the individual is ENTIRELY made perfect. That is something you add.

I am being asked to provide a biblical argument against a specific idolatry. All idolatry is wrong...even if it is not specifically mentioned.

We call this "poisoning the well".

I can do this, as well, watch...

"people with the screen name of "Adullam" are idolaters, and thus, I don't have to prove that their actions are anti-Scriptural and against the Will of God..."

I hope you can see the point that your argument is worthless.

Rather than ringing your hands and trying to lump all things you disagree with as "idolatry", please state where Jesus is against organized religion. Build your case from Scriptures.

The onus is on the one with the idolatry to prove that it is biblical practice and acceptable to God.

The onus is on the one named "Adullum" to prove that they are acceptable to God.

See how fun this is??? If I use this form of logical fallacy, I can try to redirect the burden of proof upon someone else - especially useful if I don't have a clue how to defend my position from Scriptures...

It proves nothing, certainly not your "Jesus was against organized religion"

A) BELIEVERS ARE A NEW KIND OF CREATURE IN CHRIST JESUS, NEITHER JEW NOR GENTILE

But it doesn't follow that we are perfected in Christ yet.

Yes, we now have an opportunity to follow ANOTHER way, THE way of Jesus Christ. What has passed away is that we no longer are bound to be enslaved - and that is our only choice. Jesus died so we can choose, with grace, to follow God's Way. But again, it doesn't follow that all new creatures perfectly follow.

The Bible is chock full of Christians who DO NOT!!!

Ever read Corinthians? Thessalonians? Galatians? Colossians? Ephesians?

Did Paul call any of these people who were not following perfectly "non-Christians"? Were they no longer Christian during their moments of sin? That they were no longer new creatures in Christ??? No, only the spiritually immmature feel the need to look down upon other weaker Christians in their pride and make such conclusions. Paul did not do such things because HE was aware that God's Kingdom is not fully manifested yet, either in him or in the Church Body.

 

[francisdesales]

Blather overload!

I will not discuss doctrine with one who is seeking to exalt a specific religion, cult, sect or denomination.

Blather overload!!! In other words, you do not want to admit you really screwed up on several Scriptural interpretations on the Transfiguration, Peter being chastised by Christ, and not knowing that a seed, LIKE THE KINGDOM, is not fully a bush yet...

this isn't rocket science... But you prefer to maintain your air of infallibility to admitting you are wrong...



All you are doing is discussing personal opinion with hopelessly little Scriptural backing. Your personal opinion is "blather overload", since you have not backed it up with Jesus' actual words and actions recorded in Scriptures. If Jesus never condems institutions per sec., even establishing an institutional church, we must conclude that you are wrong, no matter the soap-box preaching that ignores Christ's ACTUAL actions and words...

In the end, you preach a false gospel, since it is not based upon what Christ taught. And has been already been determined, it is idolatry...

 

[Adullam]

Christ makes all things new. What part of "all" are people missing?

It doesn't say that Christ makes all things perfect, but that Christ is now in a new relationship, which, as of now, remains imperfect and not fully realized. Note the "all" doesn't mean the individual is ENTIRELY made perfect. That is something you add.

I am being asked to provide a biblical argument against a specific idolatry. All idolatry is wrong...even if it is not specifically mentioned.

We call this "poisoning the well".

I can do this, as well, watch...

"people with the screen name of "Adullam" are idolaters, and thus, I don't have to prove that their actions are anti-Scriptural and against the Will of God..."

I hope you can see the point that your argument is worthless.

Rather than ringing your hands and trying to lump all things you disagree with as "idolatry", please state where Jesus is against organized religion. Build your case from Scriptures.

The onus is on the one with the idolatry to prove that it is biblical practice and acceptable to God.

The onus is on the one named "Adullum" to prove that they are acceptable to God.

See how fun this is??? If I use this form of logical fallacy, I can try to redirect the burden of proof upon someone else - especially useful if I don't have a clue how to defend my position from Scriptures...

It proves nothing, certainly not your "Jesus was against organized religion"

A) BELIEVERS ARE A NEW KIND OF CREATURE IN CHRIST JESUS, NEITHER JEW NOR GENTILE

But it doesn't follow that we are perfected in Christ yet.

Yes, we now have an opportunity to follow ANOTHER way, THE way of Jesus Christ. What has passed away is that we no longer are bound to be enslaved - and that is our only choice. Jesus died so we can choose, with grace, to follow God's Way. But again, it doesn't follow that all new creatures perfectly follow.

The Bible is chock full of Christians who DO NOT!!!

Ever read Corinthians? Thessalonians? Galatians? Colossians? Ephesians?

Did Paul call any of these people who were not following perfectly "non-Christians"? Were they no longer Christian during their moments of sin? That they were no longer new creatures in Christ??? No, only the spiritually immmature feel the need to look down upon other weaker Christians in their pride and make such conclusions. Paul did not do such things because HE was aware that God's Kingdom is not fully manifested yet, either in him or in the Church Body.

It is very tiring trying to have a conversation with a mocker. You simply don't understand anything beside your church indoctrination. You have chosen a denomination that you declare is the best way or only way to worship God. Everything stems from this pre-supposition. I don't claim to be perfect....I claim that we are commanded to be and have the grace available to obey. What lacks is faith. This is the walk and race of faith....to obtain Christ in fulness. This is what we strive to do both as an individual and as a community. There is a huge advantage to be in fellowship with others who love the Lord and are also striving for Christ. I am saying the exact same thing as Paul. You would not have liked Paul.

I have experienced this walk...so I speak from experience as well as by faith. This affects your pride....I have outgrown that need. I am simply stating my experience. The land is good. We can attain to it through grace. Your position, as I have said, is an agnostic one. You ridicule in me what you claim for your own popes. You are unsatisfied with God's will. You must filter through your own ecclesiastical indoctrination. This makes a conversation nigh impossible. You just don't understand the process of becoming a saint. Being a saint is not a catholic thing. Neither is it controlled by men nor the popes they foist on others. The walk of faith is both individual and corporate. You have not experienced this grace first hand....and you won't ....unless you submit your entire life to God. Sound black and white? Well lukewarm produces nothing. Listen to this "rigorist" (pardon my language)

"These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God's creation. 15I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! 16So, because you are lukewarmâ€â€neither hot nor coldâ€â€I am about to spit you out of my mouth. 17You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. 18I counsel you to buy from me gold refined in the fire, so you can become rich; and white clothes to wear, so you can cover your shameful nakedness; and salve to put on your eyes, so you can see. 19Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent. 20Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me. 21To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne. 22He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches."

 

[Adullam]

Blather overload!

I will not discuss doctrine with one who is seeking to exalt a specific religion, cult, sect or denomination.

Blather overload!!! In other words, you do not want to admit you really screwed up on several Scriptural interpretations on the Transfiguration, Peter being chastised by Christ, and not knowing that a seed, LIKE THE KINGDOM, is not fully a bush yet...

this isn't rocket science... But you prefer to maintain your air of infallibility to admitting you are wrong...



All you are doing is discussing personal opinion with hopelessly little Scriptural backing. Your personal opinion is "blather overload", since you have not backed it up with Jesus' actual words and actions recorded in Scriptures. If Jesus never condems institutions per sec., even establishing an institutional church, we must conclude that you are wrong, no matter the soap-box preaching that ignores Christ's ACTUAL actions and words...

In the end, you preach a false gospel, since it is not based upon what Christ taught. And has been already been determined, it is idolatry...

There goes the upside down reasoning again. I have proved so many points that you choose to ignore. Of course you will deny this or say...what points!??? You are very predictable. You only cherry pick what you want to see...then when you reach a dead end you start anew as if nothing happened. It is tiring and unproductive. I have posted a lot of scripture...you have not. You are good at ignoring the truth. Is that in your favour?

When I study the word I look into the meaning of the words. You blanket blather over all this to get to your point. Like a Jehovah's witness who is programmed to counter attack...not to think. If you show that you can actually think I will discuss doctrinal points. You are simply looking for ammo to mock and denigrate. Is this your religion?

I do not believe the catholic church has anything to do with the apostolic roots of the church. Norwegians are no longer Vikings either. Quit trying to sell me on your convictions. If I do that, you insult me. I choose not to insult someone who could come to the truth later on. It is not the Christian way. I tire of this. I won't even bother to talk of your pettiness when discussing things of import. You have been programmed and indoctrinated...it semms willingly. I testify of a freedom in the Spirit. You cannot fathom that, as your own "freedom" was perhaps miserable. But I have been found of Him. I am free and growing into what the Lord has had me taste of. I am a witness of newness of life. Get over it.

 

[Adullam]

It remains that nothing in the biblical text supports the institution of an organized religion. We have people with real characters presented to us....not ecclesiastical positions to fill. The church has lost her way. She has lost the WAY. We need to go to Christ outside the camp bearing His reproach. The ridicule that He experienced we must also experience. So it is with they that deny the power of men in favour of God.

Cursed is he that trusts in men and their ways.

Blessed is he that trusts in the Lord and follows Him in His way. :amen

 

[Adullam]

Pentecost is the beginning of the church. This act was according to scripture as well as fulfilling the feast in the Spirit. The pentecost for the Gentiles was among the household of Cornelius. We see here the future model of the church. People received the Holy Spirit in their own home. As they still do. No need of a sacred building. Should we hide our light in a religious building or shine in our own neighbourhoods? The church is according to the household of a real person. We see in the NT the casual mentioning of church according to the household of...

Priscilla and Aquilla (mentioned 7 times)

Philemon

Nymphas

We know that Cornelius also hosted a gathering of disciples. As well as Mary the mother of John-Mark.

We are not meant to grow out of biblical ways. We are to continue in the simplicity and truth of the apostolic witness. Those who believe in tradition ought to look into the apostolic tradition.

Lifestyle
"They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer." (Acts 2:42 NASB)
Ac 2:46 and 5:42 records that the NT church met daily from
house to house.

Participatory meetings
"What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification." (1 Cor. 14:26 NASB; see also Colossians 3:16, Hebrews 10:24-25)

Meeting in homes
"Aquila and Prisca greet you heartily in the Lord, with the church that is in their house." (1 Cor. 16:19 NASB; see also Acts 20:20, Romans 16:5, Colossians 4:15, Philemon 1:2).

Networking through 'Extra-local, Itinerant Ministries'
"After some days Paul said to Barnabas, "Let us return and visit the brethren in every city in which we proclaimed the word of the Lord, and see how they are." (Acts 15:36 [NASB])

Occasional Large Group Meetings
"I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you publicly and from house to house" (Acts 20:20 [NASB])

 

[francisdesales]

I have proved so many points that you choose to ignore. Of course you will deny this or say...what points!??? You are very predictable. You only cherry pick what you want to see...

I answer every one of your posts, and every comment. I have not seen anything proven from Scriptures yet. If anyone is "cherry picking", it is you, how you ignore practically entire posts and pretend nothing was written about the parable of the mustard seed, for example...

Not a thing in response. Why? Because you refuse to admit you are wrong.

So predictable. Nothing proven, so much ignored. We see your tactics here, do "x" and then accuse the other guy of doing it...

When I study the word I look into the meaning of the words. You blanket blather over all this to get to your point.

You don't study the Word or its meaning. You foist your own opinions first upon the text. This is "eigesis". I have asked and asked for proof of your theme, but you still continue to press your false gospel upon me. We know you are wrong because you have yet to post any sort of Scriptures that prove your point.

I'll cut this short, since the rest is just sour grapes...

Provide Scriptures that tell us Jesus was AGAINST ORGANIZED RELIGION.

If you can't do that, don't bother responding, since I am not interested in your blanket blathering.

 

[francisdesales]

Pentecost is the beginning of the church. This act was according to scripture as well as fulfilling the feast in the Spirit...

Yes, we are aware of the early beginnings of the church. but where is the proof that Jesus was against organized religions (which house churches are, of course, organized and structured with leaders in authority...)