Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2014 22:20:51 GMT -5
This from CNN today. edition.cnn.com/2014/11/12/opinion/parini-new-text-jesus-married-with-kids/?iref=obnetworkIt's interesting, when people say something is "old" you need to ask "how old" because many "gospels" are second, third or even fourth Century AD. Even material claiming First Century needs to be put in context. And it wasn't some Catholic cleric who "decided" what Gospels were canonical, quote from the above link: " It was not until the end of the second century that Irenaeus, the influential Bishop of Lyon, did his level best to make sure that only Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were regarded as the four pillars of Christianity. He wanted to stamp out numerous texts with competing claims for scriptural authority."
Fact is - most people who followed Jesus (either those of His Apostolic Church or those who formed their own churches) were consistent in what they believed were the authoritative texts. And what were not.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Nov 24, 2014 23:51:27 GMT -5
This from CNN today. Fact is - most people who followed Jesus (either those of His Apostolic Church or those who formed their own churches) were consistent in what they believed were the authoritative texts. And what were not. Where did you get this tidbit from?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 25, 2014 2:13:37 GMT -5
This from CNN today. edition.cnn.com/2014/11/12/opinion/parini-new-text-jesus-married-with-kids/?iref=obnetworkIt's interesting, when people say something is "old" you need to ask "how old" because many "gospels" are second, third or even fourth Century AD. Even material claiming First Century needs to be put in context. And it wasn't some Catholic cleric who "decided" what Gospels were canonical, quote from the above link: " It was not until the end of the second century that Irenaeus, the influential Bishop of Lyon, did his level best to make sure that only Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were regarded as the four pillars of Christianity. He wanted to stamp out numerous texts with competing claims for scriptural authority."
Fact is - most people who followed Jesus (either those of His Apostolic Church or those who formed their own churches) were consistent in what they believed were the authoritative texts. And what were not. This quote isn't from the article!
This is your opinion! It isn't a fact!
Otherwise, how do you explain thousands of "Christian" churches?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2014 2:42:21 GMT -5
This from CNN today. edition.cnn.com/2014/11/12/opinion/parini-new-text-jesus-married-with-kids/?iref=obnetworkIt's interesting, when people say something is "old" you need to ask "how old" because many "gospels" are second, third or even fourth Century AD. Even material claiming First Century needs to be put in context. And it wasn't some Catholic cleric who "decided" what Gospels were canonical, quote from the above link: " It was not until the end of the second century that Irenaeus, the influential Bishop of Lyon, did his level best to make sure that only Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were regarded as the four pillars of Christianity. He wanted to stamp out numerous texts with competing claims for scriptural authority."
Fact is - most people who followed Jesus (either those of His Apostolic Church or those who formed their own churches) were consistent in what they believed were the authoritative texts. And what were not. This quote isn't from the article!
This is your opinion! It isn't a fact!
Otherwise, how do you explain thousands of "Christian" churches?
One Christ one Church
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Nov 25, 2014 3:20:58 GMT -5
This quote isn't from the article!
This is your opinion! It isn't a fact!
Otherwise, how do you explain thousands of "Christian" churches?
One Christ one Church So who is the "one Church " ?
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Nov 25, 2014 3:31:33 GMT -5
So who is the "one Church " ? Jesus 2x2 apostolic Itinerant New Testament ministry and Church/assembly of believers. Jesus said to Peter, " Upon this rock, I will Build MY Church and the gates of HELL shall NOT prevail against it." Than you for your opinion Nathan, but I want Virgo's opinion seeing as he made the statement ! So Is Valiant Thor saved Nathan, how did he hear the workers ? Or when did he hear the workers ?
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Nov 25, 2014 4:00:51 GMT -5
We are the one church. Born again believers are the one church. Note: it does not say One denomination. We are one church regardless of denomination and definitely not a church started 110 years ago by a man called William Irvine. But born again believers are the One church. We are all One body. One baptism as we are baptised unto Him not a denomination. Do you think God is interested in denominations or interested in our belief in Him. So Nathan no a denomination is not the true church. We (Christians) are the one church. We do not worship a denomination but we worship Jesus. Salvation is not in a denomination, it is in Jesus. Nathan you are doing what they did in the Bible when they said I follow Paul, follow Apollus etc. No, these people all add a bit to our spiritual lives but we do not follow them. We follow Jesus.
Peter said the Rock was Jesus not what you call Jesus 2x2 apostolic Itinerant New Testament ministry and Church/assembly of believers. We have been discussing Eph 4 here, where there were evangelists, pastors and teachers etc. This is the New Testament apostolic church not the ministry you put forward. The church is not the ministry, the church is the people.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Nov 25, 2014 4:14:48 GMT -5
It was built on the apostles and prophets not what you call the apostolic Itinerant preachers and Jesus. The apostles and prophets from the Old and New Testament - those that established the foundation of the church. The apostles and prophets of Jesus day laid the foundation and Jesus was the chief corner stone. The foundation was laid back then. The workers started 110 years ago not 2,000 years ago. They are not Jesus apostolic itinerant ministry.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2014 4:18:01 GMT -5
The church is one foundation in Jesus Christ our Lord, it is not a building but the body of people who worship in it. That's it in nut shell. i tried to down load that beautiful hymn on You Tube, but I don't know how to do it, perhaps one of you experts can do it for me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2014 4:49:49 GMT -5
This from CNN today. Fact is - most people who followed Jesus (either those of His Apostolic Church or those who formed their own churches) were consistent in what they believed were the authoritative texts. And what were not. Where did you get this tidbit from? From the history of the churches. Those texts "chosen" for inclusion in the New Testament were the texts most Christians already had long believed were the authentic Gospels.
Some were patently not authentic. Infant narrative of Thomas for instance. Others were later century compilations.
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Nov 25, 2014 5:12:48 GMT -5
Than you for your opinion Nathan, but I want Virgo's opinion seeing as he made the statement ! So Is Valiant Thor saved Nathan, how did he hear the workers ? Or when did he hear the workers ? Valiant Thor is a messenger, he points others to follow Jesus just like the workers and the friend who point others to follow Jesus. It's Jesus who SAVES us NOT Valiant Thor or the workers. The workers are ONLY the messengers NOT Jesus the Savior.Nathan I wonder if the workers would agree with your thoughts that Valiant Thor is a messenger ! Also who is his companion ?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Nov 25, 2014 5:22:13 GMT -5
Where did you get this tidbit from? From the history of the churches. Those texts "chosen" for inclusion in the New Testament were the texts most Christians already had long believed were the authentic Gospels.
Some were patently not authentic. Infant narrative of Thomas for instance. Others were later century compilations.The non-biased history of the churches calls it the four gospels that suited the politics of the Roman church in the third century - the church that compiled the New Testament. In the history you read, did you read any explanation about WHY the others were authentic, or do you just trust the Roman church to know better than all the others?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2014 5:34:16 GMT -5
Don't trust what I wrote. Read them for yourself.
|
|
|
Post by Persona non grata on Nov 25, 2014 5:40:48 GMT -5
Where did you get this tidbit from? From the history of the churches. Those texts "chosen" for inclusion in the New Testament were the texts most Christians already had long believed were the authentic Gospels.
Some were patently not authentic. Infant narrative of Thomas for instance. Others were later century compilations.Bert (and any other interested parties), What are your thoughts on those books of the old testament accepted as canonical by the RCC but relegated to the apocrypha by Luther and, more recently, omitted altogether by the Bible Society? I'm particularly interested in your opinion on the books of Judith and Sirach, which I'm reading at the moment, but also on the others in general.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2014 5:51:35 GMT -5
There's no problem with SOME books of the apocrypha. I have been reading Maccabees I and II (think these are in the RCC bible) These two books don't confront the bible (nor does most apocrypha) they just don't seem to have spiritual content. FOR THAT MATTER, I dislike Song of Solomon and prefer it wasn't in the KJV bible.
And this can be said for silly arguments about "selecting" books for the NT. Most of those rejected were in accord with the Gospels, they were largely seen as not being authentic, or not that spiritual.
|
|
|
Post by Persona non grata on Nov 25, 2014 6:09:40 GMT -5
There's no problem with SOME books of the apocrypha. I have been reading Maccabees I and II (think these are in the RCC bible) These two books don't confront the bible, like most of the apocrypha, they just don't seem to have spiritual content. FOR THAT MATTER, I dislike Song of Solomon and prefer it wasn't in the KJV bible. And this can be said for silly arguments about "selecting" books for the NT. Most of those rejected were in accord with the Gospels, they were largely seen as not being authentic, or not that spiritual. I have no arguments concerning the books of the NT. Regarding the OT, however, I find it interesting that some have been omitted while other historical accounts, seemingly without any spiritual value, have remained. Personally I love Songs of Solomon, so I guess it's a case of individual preference. Thanks for your input.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2014 8:15:03 GMT -5
In spiritual historical matters I am sort of illiterate as I confine my focus and studies on the old and New Testament, less taxing for the old grey matter. I am sometimes mesmerized by the things Nathan writes in his studies of supposedly spiritual things, and strange characters. I try to keep it simple in the interest of my own sanity.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 25, 2014 13:12:13 GMT -5
We are the one church. Born again believers are the one church. Note: it does not say One denomination. We are one church regardless of denomination and definitely not a church started 110 years ago by a man called William Irvine. But born again believers are the One church. We are all One body. One baptism as we are baptised unto Him not a denomination. Do you think God is interested in denominations or interested in our belief in Him. So Nathan no a denomination is not the true church. We (Christians) are the one church. We do not worship a denomination but we worship Jesus. Salvation is not in a denomination, it is in Jesus. Nathan you are doing what they did in the Bible when they said I follow Paul, follow Apollus etc. No, these people all add a bit to our spiritual lives but we do not follow them. We follow Jesus. Peter said the Rock was Jesus not what you call Jesus 2x2 apostolic Itinerant New Testament ministry and Church/assembly of believers. We have been discussing Eph 4 here, where there were evangelists, pastors and teachers etc. This is the New Testament apostolic church not the ministry you put forward. The church is not the ministry, the church is the people. Mary, can you yourself go into Catholic church, or a pennicostal church , or a Baptist church, Jehovah Witness, an Anglican church & feel right at home & that you are in a Christian church?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Nov 25, 2014 15:49:54 GMT -5
Don't trust what I wrote. Read them for yourself. You're getting the point. I know exactly who wrote what you read. No, I don't trust that writer.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Nov 25, 2014 15:51:33 GMT -5
Than you for your opinion Nathan, but I want Virgo's opinion seeing as he made the statement ! So Is Valiant Thor saved Nathan, how did he hear the workers ? Or when did he hear the workers ? Valiant Thor is a messenger, he points others to follow Jesus just like the workers and the friend who point others to follow Jesus. It's Jesus who SAVES us NOT Valiant Thor or the workers. The workers are ONLY the messengers NOT Jesus the Savior.So where do those who get saved under Valiant Thor fellowship, Nathan? With the 2x2s or other churches? Valiant is not a worker with the 2x2s so how can he be a true messengers of God?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Nov 25, 2014 15:52:52 GMT -5
There's no problem with SOME books of the apocrypha. I have been reading Maccabees I and II (think these are in the RCC bible) These two books don't confront the bible (nor does most apocrypha) they just don't seem to have spiritual content. FOR THAT MATTER, I dislike Song of Solomon and prefer it wasn't in the KJV bible. And this can be said for silly arguments about "selecting" books for the NT. Most of those rejected were in accord with the Gospels, they were largely seen as not being authentic, or not that spiritual. The problem with your argument is that you are trusting the judgment of non-experts in the field of authenticity rather than the experts in authenticity. Or does "authenticity" to you = what I believe to be authentic?
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Nov 25, 2014 15:55:35 GMT -5
We are the one church. Born again believers are the one church. Note: it does not say One denomination. We are one church regardless of denomination and definitely not a church started 110 years ago by a man called William Irvine. But born again believers are the One church. We are all One body. One baptism as we are baptised unto Him not a denomination. Do you think God is interested in denominations or interested in our belief in Him. So Nathan no a denomination is not the true church. We (Christians) are the one church. We do not worship a denomination but we worship Jesus. Salvation is not in a denomination, it is in Jesus. Nathan you are doing what they did in the Bible when they said I follow Paul, follow Apollus etc. No, these people all add a bit to our spiritual lives but we do not follow them. We follow Jesus. Peter said the Rock was Jesus not what you call Jesus 2x2 apostolic Itinerant New Testament ministry and Church/assembly of believers. We have been discussing Eph 4 here, where there were evangelists, pastors and teachers etc. This is the New Testament apostolic church not the ministry you put forward. The church is not the ministry, the church is the people. Mary, can you yourself go into Catholic church, or a pennicostal church , or a Baptist church, Jehovah Witness, an Anglican church & feel right at home & that you are in a Christian church?
I have no problem meeting with born again believers whether they go to a Catholic, Pentecostal, Baptist, Anglican and many other churches. I have no problem going to their church. I have been to many Pentecostal and Baptist churches and they are what I call home. I also feel at home in a Presbyterian Church and went with my friend while staying with her recently. The service was exactly the same as I get in other churches. I've even been to the Vatican ....... as a tourist mind you. Would I feel at home in a Catholic church, I do not know that would depend on how much of Mary they had around but I certainly feel at home meeting with a lot of Catholics who I consider are spirit filled. I see Jehovah Witnesses in a different light as they are not considered mainstream Christians.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Nov 25, 2014 16:02:54 GMT -5
There's no problem with SOME books of the apocrypha. I have been reading Maccabees I and II (think these are in the RCC bible) These two books don't confront the bible (nor does most apocrypha) they just don't seem to have spiritual content. FOR THAT MATTER, I dislike Song of Solomon and prefer it wasn't in the KJV bible. Did someone make a mistake, or is that just your wish? Problems: Authenticity of books in the Apocrypha, for the Jews, means they were originally written in Hebrew rather than Aramaic. (As though one can't tell the truth if they speak Aramaic). Authenticity of books in the Apocrypha, for Catholics, means they believe what was written in those books. Authenticity of books in the Apocrypha, for the rest of Western Christians, is the Hebrew Bible canonized after most of the NT was written. Solomon wrote his "Song" in Hebrew, and wrote his "Wisdom" in Aramaic. Can a book be spiritual is God is not mentioned in the book? There's such a book. Can a book be spiritual if it intimates that there is no consciousness after death? There is such a book.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Nov 25, 2014 16:04:31 GMT -5
Mary, can you yourself go into Catholic church, or a pennicostal church , or a Baptist church, Jehovah Witness, an Anglican church & feel right at home & that you are in a Christian church?
I have no problem meeting with born again believers whether they go to a Catholic, Pentecostal, Baptist, Anglican and many other churches. I have no problem going to their church. I have been to many Pentecostal and Baptist churches and they are what I call home. I also feel at home in a Presbyterian Church and went with my friend while staying with her recently. The service was exactly the same as I get in other churches. I've even been to the Vatican ....... as a tourist mind you. Would I feel at home in a Catholic church, I do not know that would depend on how much of Mary they had around but I certainly feel at home meeting with a lot of Catholics who I consider are spirit filled. I see Jehovah Witnesses in a different light as they are not considered mainstream Christians. How do YOU determine if someone has been born again?
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Nov 25, 2014 16:18:35 GMT -5
So anyone who glorifies Jesus Christ and believes that Jesus is God is saved?
I have never heard of any professing person who has been saved through Valiant Thor, Nathan. The workers would not accept him as a true messenger of God. Do you know of anyone in meetings who has been saved through Valiant Thor and the workers have accepted them into fellowship?
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Nov 25, 2014 16:20:28 GMT -5
I have no problem meeting with born again believers whether they go to a Catholic, Pentecostal, Baptist, Anglican and many other churches. I have no problem going to their church. I have been to many Pentecostal and Baptist churches and they are what I call home. I also feel at home in a Presbyterian Church and went with my friend while staying with her recently. The service was exactly the same as I get in other churches. I've even been to the Vatican ....... as a tourist mind you. Would I feel at home in a Catholic church, I do not know that would depend on how much of Mary they had around but I certainly feel at home meeting with a lot of Catholics who I consider are spirit filled. I see Jehovah Witnesses in a different light as they are not considered mainstream Christians. How do YOU determine if someone has been born again? It is easy to know if someone is born again when they talk about their beliefs. On this board it is easy to see those who are the same mind as I am. Maybe the word born again is not what I should have used, but those who have similar beliefs to me.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Nov 25, 2014 16:39:42 GMT -5
How do YOU determine if someone has been born again? It is easy to know if someone is born again when they talk about their beliefs. On this board it is easy to see those who are the same mind as I am. Maybe the word born again is not what I should have used, but those who have similar beliefs to me. Don't worry about what words you use. And thanks -- you cleared up that problem for me. Now I know how to tell if someone has been born again or not.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Nov 25, 2014 16:54:17 GMT -5
How can you tell if someone who is born again or not? I said that I was saying that I feel at home with those who have similar beliefs to me - that was the question dmm asked me. I could say I have similar beliefs to those who believe in being born again but then the 2x2s say that but I would no longer feel at home with them. So it would depend on what someone means when they say they are born again. You say you know, How would you know? Have you got your definition of what being born again is? Wikipedia is a good start. Of course the Bible is the best.
|
|