[sevenbak]

This is PART 2 of many on this subject, restoring the ancient Church. Look for more to come.

[the invisib1e hand]

I love how all the splinter denominations [and sects, out of deference to the present company] are always yapping about "the New Testament church" and getting back to the roots and all. Then they slander Catholicism.

Cognitive-disonnance-alert.

[mnehring]

bump for when I have a spare hour to read these.

[humblegunner]

Look for more to come.

Will they be as long as this one?

Because you could restore three or four ancient churches in the time it takes to read all that.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

dange dude. would be a faster read if we just ordered the book. lol.

[big'ol_freeper]

Who Holds the Keys: Pope or Prophet?

[count-your-change]

On would think restoring something would requires an understanding of it as a prerequisit.
Consider the following statement as an example:
“Furthermore, Paul insisted that the organization set up by Christ, headed by Apostles and prophets, should remain essentially unchanged.” Then Eph. 4:11-14 is quoted.
Here the writer attempts to turn the descriptive term, “apostolous” into a title of by capitalizing it when the Greek does not anymore than disciple was “Disciple”.
Eph. 4:11-14 doesn’t speak of “Apostles” but of “apostles”, meaning simply a person sent forth or a representitive and it is in this sense that Paul used the term in Phil. 2:25, “apostolon”. This is usually translated as “envoy”, “messenger” or something similar indicating one sent out. Hence Paul was an apostle of Christ but not one of the twelve nor was he a replacement for any of the twelve. Other men could be called apostles as Barnabas was at Acts 14:4. Sent forth but not part of a line of “Apostles”.
That others besides the twelve Jesus chose were termed apostles is not evidence that a line or office of “Apostle” was established.
The writer needs to examine the Scriptures a bit more, I think, on this point.

[LiteKeeper]

INTREP

[1Truthseeker]

No need to restore the ancient Church; Jesus has already done just that go to a full apostolic pentecostal church. The kind that believes the Bible 100%.
That believes that there is a holiness standard and is practiced by the saints of the church.
That believes in healing and laying on of hands.

It is very simple if you would like a vision of the beginning church just read Acts it is all there.

Satan the father of all lies likes to mimic God and make a mockery of his work that is why there are so many denominations.

Proverbs 14:
12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

[greyfoxx39]

Why is this in the News forum? It is taken from an LDS apologetics site.

[FourtySeven]

What is "the Church" (Greek ekklesia = "assembly") that Jesus spoke of? The mainline interpretation suggests it was "the Church" in its manifestation as an earthly organization. However, in a broader sense, "the Church" is much more inclusive. Two of the earliest post-New Testament Christian writings, The Pastor of Hermas and 2 Clement (both early second century) claimed that God created the Church even before he created the world. "She was created first of all . . . and for her sake was the world made."132 "Moreover, the books and the Apostles declare that the Church belongs not to the present, but existed from the beginning."133 Paul wrote, "He hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world." (Ephesians 1:3) The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews went on: "But we are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and in an innumerable company of angels. To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect." (Hebrews 12:22-23) The message here is clear. "The Church" is not just an earthly organization--it existed before the foundation of the world, and it exists with the saints of all ages, both those who are on the earth and those who have passed on. Therefore, even if the Church as an earthly organization disappears and reappears periodically, the Church will always survive!

This entire line of reasoning makes no sense. The author goes into great detail proving that the "church" is not just an earthly organization, but also something eternal. - I don't know about other Christians, and denominations, but the Catholic Church doesn't deny that, in fact, we agree (there are 3 parts to the Church: Church Militant {here on Earth}, Church Hopeful {those in Purgatory}, and the Church Triumphant {those in Heaven}). Where we obviously disagree is in the author's interpretation of Matt 16:18, specifically, where, despite the fact that the Church has other "parts" in other "areas", the passage in question says that "upon this rock I shall BUILD my Church". Now, if the passage "upon this rock I shall build my church" was referring to the church in Heaven, (or the "eternal portion of the church" as the author implies), then what "building" needed to be done at that point? None! No, the "building" in Matt 16:18 (that is, the construction of the church) is obviously to occur (is occuring now) on Earth. To say that there still needs to be something "built" in Heaven is ludicrous, but that's what the author is implying when he tries to do a "bait and switch" as he did.

But is there any reason to believe Jesus was speaking primarily of the earthly Church? On the contrary, the text says that "the gates of hell [Greek hades = "the world of the dead"] shall not prevail against it." What are "the gates of "? Hades is not hell--it is the underworld, and in early Christian and Jewish thought it was believed to be a place of waiting where the spirits of the dead, both the just and unjust, remained until the resurrection. (If Jesus had been speaking in Roman Catholic terms he might have said, "the gates of Purgatory shall not prevail against it.") Thus Tertullian (ca. 200 A.D.): "All souls, therefore; are shut up within Hades: do you admit this? (It is true, whether) you say yes or no . . . ."134 The "gates of hades," then, represent the "powers of death"135, and "the sting of death is sin." (1 Corinthians 15:56) Thus the text seems to be a promise of protection from the powers of death and sin for Christ's assembly (ekklesia) of believers. For this reason Michael M. Winter, former lecturer in Fundamental Theology at St. John's Seminary (Roman Catholic), in his excellent scholarly defense of the papacy, admits that "although some writers have applied the idea of immortality to the survival of the church, it seems preferable to see it as a promise of triumph over evil."

All very well and good, but at best, the author here merely succeeded in demonstrating that Scripture has such depth, that it can have more than one meaning, all pointing to one central truth.

Here, the central truth is that "death will not prevail against the Church". Thus the text seems to be a promise of protection from the powers of death and sin for Christ's assembly (ekklesia) of believers. A point the author and I would agree upon. However, the meaning of such a simple statement can clearly go beyond the simple interpretation of "although some writers have applied the idea of immortality to the survival of the church, it seems preferable to see it as a promise of triumph over evil".

The previous statement in quotes isn't wrong, but it's not necessarily the only conclusion that can be drawn from the general point "death shall not prevail against the Church". In fact, the author IRONICALLY shows that the classical (and historic, before Joseph Smith came on the scene) interpretation of Matt 16:18 is actually correct, i.e: THAT THE CHURCH WILL NOT DIE! This is obviously, also a reasonable exegesis of the passage as it would be impossible for the Church to triumph over evil if (and/or when) the Church itself, were dead.