Posted on 01/14/2012 8:23:15 PM PST by bibletruth
In the present dispensation there is only ONE true Church, which is called the Body of Christ separate and distinct from the prophesied, earthly kingdom of Christ vested in redeemed National Israel as a called-out nation or church, assembly or congregation, above all other nations.
The reason I went non-denominational. There are well over 30,000 sects of Christianity and all of them use different interpretations of the Bible to set themselves apart. I prefer the Truth from the Bible without men elevating themselves by presuming the gift of miracle and such.
That's not true at all. Musical and liturgical issues set more denominations apart than theological or scriptural issues.
The same expression is used elsewhere in the Bible such as by Elisha at 2 Kings 3:13: “And Elisha said unto the king of Israel, What have I to do with thee?”
bookmark
Re; your quote: John 2:4, 1:26, you are correct. The term “Woman” in addressing Mary is a term of dignity, and not at all the same as in its present usage in our particular culture and language.
Also, re: John 2:4 : the late, great Archbishop Fulton Sheen, who was a known Scripture scholar, said that the most accurate translation of that verse is “What is to Me is to you”, and actually hearkens back to Luke 2:15: “..and thy own soul a sword shall pierce that out of many hearts, thoughts shall be revealed”. Mary had said to her Son: ‘They have no wine” She was indicating a need and interceding for it. Jesus’ reply to her indicated to her that the advent of His first public miracle would be the opening of His public ministry and subsequent death, and signified her role of sharing spiritually in His suffering; His heart pierced with a lance, her soul being pierced as Simeon had foretold.
Which music do the large number of Protestant Churches now ordaining women and queers as well as marrying one queer to another, approving of abortion, etc., prefer? Show Tunes, Disco, House Music?
It's nowhere near that simple and not nearly that easy to dismiss the differences. You could probably narrow that tens of thousands down to just thousands, but not to the point that it's an insignificant number of different doctrines and doctrinal disputes. Thousands rather than tens of thousands isn't much of an improvement and still proves that those among the thousands do not constitute the One True Church. Even if you try to play games by pretending the "Invisible" and "essential and nonessential" doctrines paper over the differences there's no way to deny that thousands of different churches couldn't happen were the Holy Spirit leading all those churches or even the majority of them. The fact is, all three legs of the Protestant stool have been sinking into the mud of self-interpretation ever since Luther iced the cake Wycliffe baked by shedding the sacraments and all authority other than Luther.
Like it or not, most non-Catholics in this country today belong to The Invisible Church of The Most High Self the same as so many Catholics have ceased to be Catholic and instead become members of that same church. Such folks worship the Most High Self no matter what they claim to the contrary. Satan is a past master of divide and conquer tactics and he's hands down defeating those who claim which church they attend doesn't matter, that they're their own church, that they can worship alone, that they only need the Bible and not fellowship, and so forth. All of those are just different ways to make yourself an easy lunch for the Deceiver who as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour.
The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is the Church Christ Himself founded and entrusted to the care of his Apostles. If you don't like that or don't believe that, fine, but don't claim that Christ would abandon His flock for fifteen hundred plus years or allow a lie with His name on it spread throughout the world while the few "real" Christians huddled in caves hording their virgin lamp oil, or that the heretics throughout history were the "real" Christians. Not only does such hokum slander both Christ and the Holy Spirit by calling both of the liars who cannot keep their promises, it marks you as both gullible and too lazy to study Christianity rather than just soaking up cliches. Just admit that you don't think Christ cares if you're a member of His Church, or that Christ doesn't care that His Father said He wanted none to perish.
There's no sense in playing Russian Roulette but telling others you're really just checking to see if the gun is loaded, fess up to playing Russian Roulette and go on about your business without slandering Christ and the Holy Ghost.
The comity here among the "true Christians" is very instructive to an atheist like myself.
Ping to #166
When reading Life Of Christ He shows his superior intellect but is still readable for the common christian. He had a gift and insight like no other. I am reading it now. I reread it every 10 years it seems. Amen!
It's not my guy Linus, it's Irenaeus' guy Linus, that he recorded in "Against Heresies." I am not advocating for the papacy, I'm pointing out that an early church father apparently did not regard Peter as the first Pope.
Longevity makes nothing right.
Longevity makes nothing right.
You are wrong.
Other then that one misinterpreted verse would you show the leadership of Peter from scripture?
When pressed for who Jesus thought was the leader of the apostles He rather scolded them for even thinking there was a leader among them.
Luke 22:24 And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest. 25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. 26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.
Matthew 23:10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. 11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
Jesus did NOT designate Peter as any type of leader.
AMEN!
You might but scripture says differently.
1 Cor. 3:11, "For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ,"
1 Cor. 10:4, "and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (petras) which followed them; and the rock (petra) was Christ."
1 Pet. 2:8, speaking of Jesus says that he is "A stone of stumbling and a rock (petra) of offense"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed."
1 Peter 2:4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, 5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. 6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. 7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, 8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
Ephesians 2:18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. 19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
Oh really? Paul didn’t know that when writing to the Romans?
Let’s look at some of the “proof” the CC uses to establish Peter’s place in Rome taken from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm.
“must have been known” Must have?
“written almost undoubtedly from Rome” They rest their most important structure of the RCC on “almost undoubtedly”?
“The meaning of this remark must be that the two Apostles laboured personally in Rome”. Another conjecture with no scirptural proof or specific proof from other writings. They only “infer” that Peter was there.
Then 100 years late the myth is starting to entrench itself. Irenaeous makes the statement: “founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul” still with no proof from any writings of the Apostles themselves or proof that Peter was actually ever in Rome let alone head of the church there.
The entire leadership position of Peter is built on an erroneous interpretation of just one verse from scripture then built on supposition and speculation.
See post 178
of course the Church began before Paul.
this thread is just more heresy and false teaching that Jesus said would mark the time right before His second coming.
this teaching is no different than Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, etc, etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.