|
Post by Bump on May 21, 2006 18:54:21 GMT -5
Bump
|
|
BC
Senior Member
Posts: 852
|
Post by BC on May 21, 2006 19:06:43 GMT -5
:'(Thats right a true Christian is someone that lives it. Truth is truth whether we believe it or not. It all comes down to being more like Christ forgiving,loving,caring and giving time to those around us. Unfortunately there are those that don't know what it is to "live" let alone "forgive" and the narrow minded people are those that are set in their ways and think that "the way " is the only way. I look at "the way" as the way with Jesus not a religion,cult or some 2x2 religion. There are those that misinterpret the meaning of the way............as being the only way the truth, the friends the ministry. There has to be a ministry and a following but can't we see that it has to line up with Jesus not some tradition thats been formed by men not Jesus!! Just like to ask a question here. If as stated that the way is Jesus(I agree with this point) and that there has to be a ministry and a following, but you can't see that it has to follow some man made tradition, but rather that it has to line up with Jesus. What form must that ministry take and what precepts must the following adher to. Given that this is to follow Jesus, he is one person/spirit and lived one life on this earth so therefore we have one example to follow is this correct so far? This given, then means that there can be only one way of fellowship, as far as I can see not many religions or fellowships agree with each other on many points of doctrine and if these can't agree then surely they can't be of the one spirit or the one body? This then leads back to the point of exclusivity, and that it must be that the followers of Christ are exclusive. Hmmmm, what do you make of this? I have made these statements and arguments to see what thoughts you all have not to state my belief. [shadow=red,left,300]Regards BC[/shadow]
|
|
|
Post by whew on May 21, 2006 20:50:55 GMT -5
:'(Thats right a true Christian is someone that lives it. Truth is truth whether we believe it or not. It all comes down to being more like Christ forgiving,loving,caring and giving time to those around us. Unfortunately there are those that don't know what it is to "live" let alone "forgive" and the narrow minded people are those that are set in their ways and think that "the way " is the only way. I look at "the way" as the way with Jesus not a religion,cult or some 2x2 religion. There are those that misinterpret the meaning of the way............as being the only way the truth, the friends the ministry. There has to be a ministry and a following but can't we see that it has to line up with Jesus not some tradition thats been formed by men not Jesus!! Just like to ask a question here. If as stated that the way is Jesus(I agree with this point) and that there has to be a ministry and a following, but you can't see that it has to follow some man made tradition, but rather that it has to line up with Jesus. What form must that ministry take and what precepts must the following adher to. Given that this is to follow Jesus, he is one person/spirit and lived one life on this earth so therefore we have one example to follow is this correct so far? This given, then means that there can be only one way of fellowship, as far as I can see not many religions or fellowships agree with each other on many points of doctrine and if these can't agree then surely they can't be of the one spirit or the one body? This then leads back to the point of exclusivity, and that it must be that the followers of Christ are exclusive. Hmmmm, what do you make of this? I have made these statements and arguments to see what thoughts you all have not to state my belief. [shadow=red,left,300]Regards BC[/shadow]whew somebody seeing what i have been saying all along there is no possibilty of having one from many, oneness from division, many cannot be followed when in one. like as many would like to say or believe, that all churches at odds with one another are one church. i am at a loss to understand how Jesus had one message from one Father and now that message has been turned into many messages, all with differing points of view. there is no differing points of view in Gods message. it is, or it is not.
|
|
|
Post by Greg Lee unplugged on May 21, 2006 22:38:51 GMT -5
How about the Holy Spirit being the teacher/ministry of the word of God?
You know in the workers' church in one meeting you might have some that believe any combination of: - Jesus is God - Jesus is not God - salvation is only with "the truth (workers' church)" - salvation exists outside the workers' church, too - the workers are the only acceptable ministry - other ministries are of God - remarriage after divorce is okay - remarriage after divorce is never okay - the standard/rules/laws of appearance and activity are of God - the standard/rules/laws of appearance and activity are a good guideline - the standard/rules/law of appreance and actitivty are just man's commandments/doctrines
|
|
|
Post by a believer on May 21, 2006 22:51:43 GMT -5
BC wrote: This given, then means that there can be only one way of fellowship, as far as I can see not many religions or fellowships agree with each other on many points of doctrine and if these can't agree then surely they can't be of the one spirit or the one body?
Do all members of a family agree on every point? Are they still in union with each other. Why does everyone have to agree on everything?
Of course different religions do not agree on many points. Christianity believes that Jesus died on the Cross, Muslims do not etc.
Why do those in meetings say different religions as if different churches are somehow different religions? Do you mean different churches when you mean different religions?
Most churches are very much in agreement with each other. They agree that salvation is in Jesus and that he died, rose again and is coming again. I could go to probably 15 - 20 different denominations and what they preach would be similar. Each one when it started might have added some Biblical point that was not practiced in the other churches e.g. the Baptist bringing in adult Baptism, the Pentecostal resoring speaking in tongues, etc. The built on previous beliefs.... not disagreed with them. Some emphasis one thing more than another, like the 2x2s emphasis a ministry, the Presbyterian the elder ship etc. They all agree with each other to what salvation is and do not claim that they are right and the others are wrong. Only cults do that.
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on May 21, 2006 23:27:53 GMT -5
(NOTE: BC, I'm definitely not having a go at you, just responding to the argument as presented)
BC wrote:
Why should this follow assuming the truth of the premises? And what do you mean by "one way of fellowship"? One central unifying message around which fellowship is based? I could agree with that. Or one method of fellowship? This does not follow. And even if there was only one "method" of fellowship, what should it look like?
Christianity is one religion. There are three major streams, and multiple sects and cults. All three major streams are largely united on the important points. Several distinctives divide them, and these centre around authority issues. Most sects and cults are easily recognisable by their denial of one or more of the points that unite the three major streams. I could have ten children and they could all have different views about me. What is important is not what distinguishes each of their views from the others, but rather the fact that I know them and they know me. There is only one body and it is all those who belong to Christ, regardless of which visible group they decide to fellowship with.
I disagree. Christ is exclusive. But only God knows infallibly who belongs to Him, so those that profess to follow Christ should be relatively accepting, except where it is clear that someone's view of God and salvation is so divorced from the scriptural message that the Christ they profess to follow is obviously not the one of scripture.
|
|
BC
Senior Member
Posts: 852
|
Post by BC on May 22, 2006 0:26:57 GMT -5
Hi Rob, You will note that I said it is questions etc that I have raised and not what I personally believe necessarily. I will attempt to answer what you have asked but mostly my answers will be tainted with my belief and not with the particular reasoning behind my original post. The original post was to stimulate conversation and to get others Ideas. BC wrote: Why should this follow assuming the truth of the premises? And what do you mean by "one way of fellowship"? One central unifying message around which fellowship is based? I could agree with that. Or one method of fellowship? This does not follow. And even if there was only one "method" of fellowship, what should it look like? Jesus left behind only one example of living and only one teaching, one core and central point of belief. Every thing else is surplus and therefore added by man in some age or other. What is that core belief? Is it accepted unilaterally by all fellowships or just a few or maybe even just one or two? Note I said religions and fellowships thus encompasing all. Within or rather accross religions there are very few points that could be used to create a cohessive bond of oneness, but as you say within the Christian umberella there are some points that could be used. One point, that of infant baptism verse adult baptism is a major and fundimental difference which brings huge ramification at other levels of doctrine. If some of your children said you where dark skinned as say a Negro and others said fair skinned as an Englishman some said you approved of smoking indoors and others that it was definately an outside activity, some said you liked your tea white with sugar and others said you didn't like tea but rather unsweatened coffee this would be distressing a little to you as it would show that some didn't know you as well as you would like them to, or perhaps hadn't listened to you or shown much interest in what you really liked and yes although you still love them all because they are your children it would also colour your discissions as far as what you entrusted each one with. This I agree with you, I threw that in as it was the next logical step in the thinking of some. Thanks Rob for taking the time out to ask these questions. [shadow=red,left,300]Regards BC[/shadow]
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on May 22, 2006 0:30:12 GMT -5
Hi BC,
I added this forenote to my post but must have been after you were replying:
"BC, I'm definitely not having a go at you, just responding to the argument as presented".
I understood that you were not presenting your own beliefs per se, but just a line of thought thrown out for discussion. Sorry if my post implied otherwise.
|
|
BC
Senior Member
Posts: 852
|
Post by BC on May 22, 2006 0:33:09 GMT -5
Absolutely not Rob,
I read nothing in your post to say that you were getting at me but rather you presented another side for discussion.
Thanks again.
[shadow=red,left,300]Regards BC[/shadow]
|
|
|
Post by Greg Lee unplugged on May 22, 2006 0:35:35 GMT -5
Seems in first Cor. 9 Paul is defending his office of apostle.
He makes the case that he can have a wife. He makes that case that he can live off his converts. He makes the case that he can choose to not live offf his converts.
All these being his choices, and not a direction of another man.
|
|
|
Post by prue on May 23, 2006 6:47:54 GMT -5
Hi "To Anyone" You said
What about: Jesus 3.5 yr public ministry is measured by the No. of passovers mentioned in the gospels.
John 2:13 = Passover #1; John 5:1 = Passover #2; John 6:4 = Passover #3 (Jesus doesn't attend thsi one) John 11:55-56 & 12:1 = Passover #4
Jesus had already started his ministry (when he left Galiliee to go to Jordan to be baptized of John about 6 months previous to the first passover, which was held in Mar/Apr of each year.
Ever heard a worker mention this?
No, "To Anyone" I have heard some workers suggest three years. But, wots the diff? I am sometimes intrigued with good religious folk who go on about dates and contemporary events, ie the JW. What they say is usually informative and interesting - but it isn't seriously relevant to the gospel, and often, can distract.
|
|
|
Post by Greg Lee unplugged on May 23, 2006 7:11:49 GMT -5
What they say is usually informative and interesting - but it isn't seriously relevant to the gospel, and often, can distract. The same goes for stressing a certain ministry and ministry form and place of worship.
|
|