Jim Parker
Member
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
What did God originally intend Christianity to be?
- Thread starter JohnD
- Start date
Jesse Stone
Member
Douglas Summers,
The first two mentions of an ekklesia (commonly translated "church" in the English translations) in the NT are in Matthew (16:18, 18:17).
The second reference obviously refers to a practical and visible expression that is local. Which, from the perspective of Christianity, is apparently my lone opinion.
The context of Matt 16:18 is Matt 16:13-20. Together with the RCC, I think the context is about Peter. Many say that it's about Jesus being the Messiah or Peter's declaration that Jesus is the Messiah. But if Jesus' messiahship is the important thing in this context, why would he tell, "his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ" (v.20)? If it was so important as to be the key to this context, his charge would make no sense and would be counter-productive. This charge was not countermanded until after Jesus' resurrection (Matt 20:16-20).
Simon's name "Peter" was given to him by Jesus (v. 18). The English name Peter translates the Greek word "Petros", which means "rock". Peter declared the true nature of the Christ (vs. 16). Jesus' response was that he would build his ekklesia on a rock (v. 17-18). Not on just any rock, but "on this rock". What rock would that be? Seeing as he just called Simon the Rock? To whom did Jesus give the keys of the kingdom (v. 19)? Seems self-evident to me that Peter is the subject of this context.
To be contextually consistent with the second reference in Matt 18, Matt 16 must also refer to a practical and visible ekklesia that is local. Because the ekklesia referred to in Matt 16 is the same ekklesia referred to in Matt 18. In Matt 16, Jesus prophesied about Peter as a strong leader (the Rock) in a particular Ekklesia. The fulfillment of that prophecy is clearly seen in Acts 1-15. The venue in the prophecy is the ekklesia in Jerusalem, a local expression. Not a universal expression (as claimed by the RCC, and apparently by most Protestants.).
Acts is a history of the ekklesia in the 1st century. There is no record of a universal ekklesia in Acts. Only local ekklesia.
The rest of the NT only mentions local ekklesia beginning with the ekklesia in Rome to the seven ekklesia mentioned in Revelation 1-3.
There's mention of ekklesia in the plural, as in several ekklesia in several cities in a province (e.g., Gal 1:2). The plural is used 4 times in Acts (9:31, 15:41, 16:5, 19:37). And 19 times in the letters, 13 of which are in the two Corinthian letters. But no universal ekklesia.
When one reads Christian history, it's helpful to see that the idea of The Church and the idea of The Pope developed together. And that both ideas are the result of historical development, not the Bible. There is no ground in the Bible for a universal Church or a Pope. And since not Biblical, one can't even say that either is an interpretation of the Biblical (though the Bible is interpreted to conform to the ideas). They're based on a perceived necessity and developed from there after the 1st century. The historians of Christianity never bother to delete the facts. Though like any reporter, they might try to put a spin on it for a certain cause. So that what the facts prove become a matter of opinion.
The idea of a universal Church is strictly a historical development. And since I read the Bible before I interacted with Christianity, instead of after, I've never followed historical development. I've only followed the Bible. According to how I initially read it. According to how Jesus through the Spirit has given me understanding. Apart from the accruements of Christian interpretations and Christian historical developments.
The idea of "The Church" is part of Christian history and Christianity. Like Trinitarianism. Neither of which has any ground in the Bible. But a lot of ground in Christian history. Depends on what one wants to follow. To the one to whom history is important, to that one a historically based religion will be important.
The mystery is the making of one new man out of the two. Jew and Gentile. In Christ. In the blood of Christ (Eph 2:13). The mystery is not of "The Church". Yet Israel was so blinded by their own sense of self-importance that they didn't realize that the Gentiles would be included in the one new man. The "Church" mentioned in chaps. 2-3 refers to a local expression. In this instance the "church" in Ephesus (Eph 1:1). I prefer the transliteration "ekklesia" so as to preclude the confusion caused by using the translation "church" that is evident here.
After the resurrection, physical Israel of the OT ceased to exist as Israel. Paul showed there is a new Israel composed of Jews and Gentiles (Rom 9-11; Gal 6:15-16; see Phil 3:30 NASB). One should not be fooled by interpretations to the contrary. Nor fooled by that contemporary nation that calls itself Israel. Today, those who are in Christ, whether formerly Jew or Gentile, are the Israel of God (1 Pet 2:9).
Is NOT manifested in Christianity (1 Pet 2:1-10, 5:1-4; see Acts 2:42-44 & Heb 13:15-16). The temporal imitation of the RCC in its hierarchy and Mass is just that, an imitation (easily seen by the multitude of religious accoutrements). It's totally lost in the temporal hierarchies of the Protestant denominations amidst their sermon services (an apparent priesthood and kingship exercised by one man). Christianity manifests something more akin to feudalism in its denominationalism, than a kingdom of priests.
They knew enough to recognize the Messiah when they saw him. Unlike the learned religious leaders. They knew enough to follow that Messiah instead of the Tradition of men. Unlike the learned religious leaders.
Christianity thinks highly of its institutions of formal education (higher learning) due to its temporal frame of mind. Paul was "learned" in that he had the best Jewish formal education available in his era. But he didn't think it amounted to much (Phil 3:4-12). That which he wrote about came to him through a different source (Gal 1:15-24). Through which it also should be understood today.
I could say a great deal in response to this statement. Seeing as I'm not a Trinitarian. (Edited, ToS 2.14: "If a member disagrees with a Moderator's action, they are not to take their dispute public." Obadiah)
Unlike Christians, I understand the Bible from front to back. The Bible was written and compiled in that way. According to the will of God. In Christianity, the Bible is understood according to the will of man through the idea of interpreted progressive revelation. Back to front. As if each new release interprets all that went before. Is historical doctrinal development a history of such releases? The RCC thinks so.
God has always been straightforward in his revelation. According to the only record we have. The OT is the revelation. The NT is a record of the fulfillment of a part of that revelation (see Hebrews). The NT writers quote the OT writings. Not the other way around. If they interpreted what they quoted, then they have gone against what they themselves regarded as the real revelation (2 Tim 3:16-17). Which would make them liars, and we are still in our sins.
The NT should be understood according to the OT revelation. Not the OT according to an interpretation of the NT record of fulfillment.
I don't see this matter as a moot subject. As a moot subject, it would imply the Bible is less important, less meaningful, than its interpretations. And it would be reasonable to regard the Bible as just another collection of writings written and compiled by man alone. Not to mention the perpetuation of interpretation among those who would rather regard the Bible as something more. A paradoxical irony that encourages Atheism.
There must be two witnesses (John 8:17-18). First is the witness without, a thing, the Bible. Second is the witness within, a person, Jesus who gives the seeker understanding of the Bible through the Holy Spirit.
The two witnesses work together as if one witness for the one God and of the one God. A God unseen in his true nature by those who do not accept one or both witnesses. Whether through interpretation or by outright rejection.
(Edited, ToS 2.14: "If a member disagrees with a Moderator's action, they are not to take their dispute public." Obadiah)
Only idiots argue simply to argue. Having little of importance to occupy them.
Arguing with idiots makes one an idiot.
The first two mentions of an ekklesia (commonly translated "church" in the English translations) in the NT are in Matthew (16:18, 18:17).
The second reference obviously refers to a practical and visible expression that is local. Which, from the perspective of Christianity, is apparently my lone opinion.
The context of Matt 16:18 is Matt 16:13-20. Together with the RCC, I think the context is about Peter. Many say that it's about Jesus being the Messiah or Peter's declaration that Jesus is the Messiah. But if Jesus' messiahship is the important thing in this context, why would he tell, "his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ" (v.20)? If it was so important as to be the key to this context, his charge would make no sense and would be counter-productive. This charge was not countermanded until after Jesus' resurrection (Matt 20:16-20).
Simon's name "Peter" was given to him by Jesus (v. 18). The English name Peter translates the Greek word "Petros", which means "rock". Peter declared the true nature of the Christ (vs. 16). Jesus' response was that he would build his ekklesia on a rock (v. 17-18). Not on just any rock, but "on this rock". What rock would that be? Seeing as he just called Simon the Rock? To whom did Jesus give the keys of the kingdom (v. 19)? Seems self-evident to me that Peter is the subject of this context.
To be contextually consistent with the second reference in Matt 18, Matt 16 must also refer to a practical and visible ekklesia that is local. Because the ekklesia referred to in Matt 16 is the same ekklesia referred to in Matt 18. In Matt 16, Jesus prophesied about Peter as a strong leader (the Rock) in a particular Ekklesia. The fulfillment of that prophecy is clearly seen in Acts 1-15. The venue in the prophecy is the ekklesia in Jerusalem, a local expression. Not a universal expression (as claimed by the RCC, and apparently by most Protestants.).
Acts is a history of the ekklesia in the 1st century. There is no record of a universal ekklesia in Acts. Only local ekklesia.
The rest of the NT only mentions local ekklesia beginning with the ekklesia in Rome to the seven ekklesia mentioned in Revelation 1-3.
There's mention of ekklesia in the plural, as in several ekklesia in several cities in a province (e.g., Gal 1:2). The plural is used 4 times in Acts (9:31, 15:41, 16:5, 19:37). And 19 times in the letters, 13 of which are in the two Corinthian letters. But no universal ekklesia.
When one reads Christian history, it's helpful to see that the idea of The Church and the idea of The Pope developed together. And that both ideas are the result of historical development, not the Bible. There is no ground in the Bible for a universal Church or a Pope. And since not Biblical, one can't even say that either is an interpretation of the Biblical (though the Bible is interpreted to conform to the ideas). They're based on a perceived necessity and developed from there after the 1st century. The historians of Christianity never bother to delete the facts. Though like any reporter, they might try to put a spin on it for a certain cause. So that what the facts prove become a matter of opinion.
The idea of a universal Church is strictly a historical development. And since I read the Bible before I interacted with Christianity, instead of after, I've never followed historical development. I've only followed the Bible. According to how I initially read it. According to how Jesus through the Spirit has given me understanding. Apart from the accruements of Christian interpretations and Christian historical developments.
The idea of "The Church" is part of Christian history and Christianity. Like Trinitarianism. Neither of which has any ground in the Bible. But a lot of ground in Christian history. Depends on what one wants to follow. To the one to whom history is important, to that one a historically based religion will be important.
The mystery is the making of one new man out of the two. Jew and Gentile. In Christ. In the blood of Christ (Eph 2:13). The mystery is not of "The Church". Yet Israel was so blinded by their own sense of self-importance that they didn't realize that the Gentiles would be included in the one new man. The "Church" mentioned in chaps. 2-3 refers to a local expression. In this instance the "church" in Ephesus (Eph 1:1). I prefer the transliteration "ekklesia" so as to preclude the confusion caused by using the translation "church" that is evident here.
After the resurrection, physical Israel of the OT ceased to exist as Israel. Paul showed there is a new Israel composed of Jews and Gentiles (Rom 9-11; Gal 6:15-16; see Phil 3:30 NASB). One should not be fooled by interpretations to the contrary. Nor fooled by that contemporary nation that calls itself Israel. Today, those who are in Christ, whether formerly Jew or Gentile, are the Israel of God (1 Pet 2:9).
Is NOT manifested in Christianity (1 Pet 2:1-10, 5:1-4; see Acts 2:42-44 & Heb 13:15-16). The temporal imitation of the RCC in its hierarchy and Mass is just that, an imitation (easily seen by the multitude of religious accoutrements). It's totally lost in the temporal hierarchies of the Protestant denominations amidst their sermon services (an apparent priesthood and kingship exercised by one man). Christianity manifests something more akin to feudalism in its denominationalism, than a kingdom of priests.
They knew enough to recognize the Messiah when they saw him. Unlike the learned religious leaders. They knew enough to follow that Messiah instead of the Tradition of men. Unlike the learned religious leaders.
Christianity thinks highly of its institutions of formal education (higher learning) due to its temporal frame of mind. Paul was "learned" in that he had the best Jewish formal education available in his era. But he didn't think it amounted to much (Phil 3:4-12). That which he wrote about came to him through a different source (Gal 1:15-24). Through which it also should be understood today.
I could say a great deal in response to this statement. Seeing as I'm not a Trinitarian. (Edited, ToS 2.14: "If a member disagrees with a Moderator's action, they are not to take their dispute public." Obadiah)
Unlike Christians, I understand the Bible from front to back. The Bible was written and compiled in that way. According to the will of God. In Christianity, the Bible is understood according to the will of man through the idea of interpreted progressive revelation. Back to front. As if each new release interprets all that went before. Is historical doctrinal development a history of such releases? The RCC thinks so.
God has always been straightforward in his revelation. According to the only record we have. The OT is the revelation. The NT is a record of the fulfillment of a part of that revelation (see Hebrews). The NT writers quote the OT writings. Not the other way around. If they interpreted what they quoted, then they have gone against what they themselves regarded as the real revelation (2 Tim 3:16-17). Which would make them liars, and we are still in our sins.
The NT should be understood according to the OT revelation. Not the OT according to an interpretation of the NT record of fulfillment.
I don't see this matter as a moot subject. As a moot subject, it would imply the Bible is less important, less meaningful, than its interpretations. And it would be reasonable to regard the Bible as just another collection of writings written and compiled by man alone. Not to mention the perpetuation of interpretation among those who would rather regard the Bible as something more. A paradoxical irony that encourages Atheism.
There must be two witnesses (John 8:17-18). First is the witness without, a thing, the Bible. Second is the witness within, a person, Jesus who gives the seeker understanding of the Bible through the Holy Spirit.
The two witnesses work together as if one witness for the one God and of the one God. A God unseen in his true nature by those who do not accept one or both witnesses. Whether through interpretation or by outright rejection.
(Edited, ToS 2.14: "If a member disagrees with a Moderator's action, they are not to take their dispute public." Obadiah)
Only idiots argue simply to argue. Having little of importance to occupy them.
Arguing with idiots makes one an idiot.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jesse Stone
Member
Randy,
V. 46 is equally important. For it shows how the matter was to the Jews first, and then to the Gentiles. The OT shows how this was the original intention of God for the Jews. God chose the Jews not just to be a special people, but to evangelize the world (Isa 49:6). Israel was chosen to reveal God to the world. God's Son the Messiah was to be revealed through Israel. Instead, the Jews became world-o-phobes. And God's special people in their own eyes. So that by the 1st century (indeed, long before), the Gentiles were without God (Eph 2:11-12), but they were led to Christ anyway by Paul (Eph 2:13). Yet God continued for a couple thousand years to allow the Jews to be the light to the Gentiles, a type of the one who was to come, until his Son became the real light of the world (John 8:12). And his disciples through their association with him (Matt 5:14).
As it's supposed to be with those who are in Christ today (Eph 2:4-7; 1 Pet 2:9). (Edited, ToS 2.1: This is a Christian site, therefore, any attempt to put down Christianity (or declare that it is false) and the basic tenets of our Faith will be considered a hostile act. Obadiah.)
V. 46 is equally important. For it shows how the matter was to the Jews first, and then to the Gentiles. The OT shows how this was the original intention of God for the Jews. God chose the Jews not just to be a special people, but to evangelize the world (Isa 49:6). Israel was chosen to reveal God to the world. God's Son the Messiah was to be revealed through Israel. Instead, the Jews became world-o-phobes. And God's special people in their own eyes. So that by the 1st century (indeed, long before), the Gentiles were without God (Eph 2:11-12), but they were led to Christ anyway by Paul (Eph 2:13). Yet God continued for a couple thousand years to allow the Jews to be the light to the Gentiles, a type of the one who was to come, until his Son became the real light of the world (John 8:12). And his disciples through their association with him (Matt 5:14).
As it's supposed to be with those who are in Christ today (Eph 2:4-7; 1 Pet 2:9). (Edited, ToS 2.1: This is a Christian site, therefore, any attempt to put down Christianity (or declare that it is false) and the basic tenets of our Faith will be considered a hostile act. Obadiah.)
Last edited by a moderator:
Jesse Stone
Member
(Post removed due to being a rant declaring Christianity to be false. ToS 2.1: "This is a Christian site, therefore, any attempt to put down Christianity (or declare that it is false) and the basic tenets of our Faith will be considered a hostile act." Obadiah)
Last edited by a moderator:
Jesse Stone
Member
WIP,
The term Christian yes. The term Christianity, a term derived from Christian, no.
Acts 11:26 is often interpreted. To say "the disciples first called themselves Christians in Antioch". Instead of what it really says "the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch". Big difference. The disciples were called Christians by someone else. Someone who needed to put the disciples into a box they could understand. Follower of the anointed one seemed as good a box as any. The third use of the term (1 Pet 4:12-19) shows that it was the enemies of the disciples who called them Christians. The disciples didn't begin to call themselves Christians until later. 2nd or 3rd century. Certainly not during the 1st century as recorded by the NT.
The term Christian yes. The term Christianity, a term derived from Christian, no.
Acts 11:26 is often interpreted. To say "the disciples first called themselves Christians in Antioch". Instead of what it really says "the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch". Big difference. The disciples were called Christians by someone else. Someone who needed to put the disciples into a box they could understand. Follower of the anointed one seemed as good a box as any. The third use of the term (1 Pet 4:12-19) shows that it was the enemies of the disciples who called them Christians. The disciples didn't begin to call themselves Christians until later. 2nd or 3rd century. Certainly not during the 1st century as recorded by the NT.
Obadiah
Member
Re-opening the thread now.
I realize there can be a fine line between "debating" and violating our Terms of Service, so I would encourage everyone to read some of our Terms of Service sections I've posted below in their entirety. I know not every section of every term applies to posts in this thread, but it's good for everyone to be familiar with them anyway.
1.3: If you feel that any action taken was unfair, it can be appealed. To appeal an action taken against you by CF.net staff, you are advised to start a new thread in the ‘Talk With the Staff’ forum area. Threads in this forum are viewable only by the person initiating the thread and CF.net staff. In this private venue, anyone on the CF.net staff may respond, and the OP can address his/her concerns with regard to the action taken. This forum is intended only for appeals to actions by CF.net staff. TWTS area may also be used, according to Staff discretion, for other expedient purpose of communication. If a member disagrees with a Moderator's action, they are not to take their dispute public.
1.4: Christianforums.net reserves the right to respond to the violation of any of the ToS with any of the responses available to our Leadership at its sole discretion. Furthermore, any action taken against offenders and their status within the community is considered private and confidential and will not be shared with the public. Christianforums.net also reserves the right to remove any content which is considered to be disruptive to the Community, at the sole discretion of christianforums.net Leadership.
The Staff of christianforums.net are authorized to use all available actions in dealing with violations to these rules. These actions include (but not limited to) editing or deleting of posts or threads; locking threads, official warnings to members; suspending or permanently banning members’ accounts, email addresses and/or IP addresses. In addition repeated severe violations may result in a report being generated with one's Internet Service Provider.
1.13: As a member of ChristianForums.net, you agree to abide by the Terms of Service wherever possible and you stipulate that you understand the disciplinary process in response to violations of the ToS.
2.1: This is a Christian site, therefore, any attempt to put down Christianity (or declare that it is false) and the basic tenets of our Faith will be considered a hostile act. Please read: Statement of Faith
We consider Paul's writings to be part of the inspired Word of God. This is a Christian forum and any posting(s) that is intended to purposely distort Paul's writings will not be tolerated.
Active promotion of sinful behavior will not be permitted. This includes promotion of sexual sin and/or homosexual behavior. Do not make statements either by posts or posting URLs to other Websites which advocate activities, beliefs or teachings contrary to those of Christianity as articulated by the historic creeds, as understood by Evangelicalism, and as interpreted by the christianforums.net Leadership's sole discretion.
Any URL that is posted that leads to a page that is of anti-Christian content, or of such content that is offending or disturbing to other board users may be removed. This removal and decision for removal will be done so at the discretion of the christianforums.net Staff.
If you are unsure about a site or its content please direct your question to the Moderator assigned to the Forum Area you plan on posting in or to any of the Staff. This rule also applies to any material whether it be on the web, in print, on video, or on audio.
2.2: No active promotion of other Faiths is allowed:
You will not post any messages; links, images or photos that promote a religion or belief other than Biblical and historical Christianity (atheism is considered a "belief" for the purposes of this rule). Discussion of these doctrines are is fine, as long as the beliefs foreign to Christianity (as defined above) are not actively promoted or held in balance with orthodox Christianity. This includes Full Preterism, Universal Reconciliation, Universal Salvation, Serpent seed, Dual Seed or Two-Seedline doctrine where discussion is limited to and only allowed in the 1 on 1 Debate Forum. This is a Christian Forum as the name suggests.
Non-Christians will not create threads inviting members to ask them about their belief systems such as "Ask the Atheist" or "Ask the Agnostic". Such threads are seen as a means to promote other faiths.
Only scripture from accepted Christian bibles will be allowed to be posted on this board. The New World Translation and Book of Mormon are not considered Christian material on this site. Discussion about other, questionable sources , documents, writings or material is acceptable but will not be permitted to be used as a basis of support within a debate or discussion.
Discussion of Catholic doctrine is limited and will only be allowed in the One on One Debate Forum and End Times forum only. RCC content in the End Times forum should relate to End Times beliefs. Do not start new topics elsewhere or sway existing threads toward a discussion or debate that is may be viewed as ‘Catholic’ in nature.
Discussions of conspiracy theories often lead to slander and hostile debate. Therefore, discussion of conspiracy theories is prohibited.
Discussion of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) is also limited and will only be allowed in Christian Talk & Advice, and/or the Bible Study forum. We understand the need to discuss LGBT issues, and to provide support for those struggling with such issues. This restriction is in place because experience has taught us that many are unable to debate this in a Godly manner, or and without promoting sin in one form or another. We do welcome posts for support or prayer, or sincere Biblical discussions.
Thank you.
I realize there can be a fine line between "debating" and violating our Terms of Service, so I would encourage everyone to read some of our Terms of Service sections I've posted below in their entirety. I know not every section of every term applies to posts in this thread, but it's good for everyone to be familiar with them anyway.
1.3: If you feel that any action taken was unfair, it can be appealed. To appeal an action taken against you by CF.net staff, you are advised to start a new thread in the ‘Talk With the Staff’ forum area. Threads in this forum are viewable only by the person initiating the thread and CF.net staff. In this private venue, anyone on the CF.net staff may respond, and the OP can address his/her concerns with regard to the action taken. This forum is intended only for appeals to actions by CF.net staff. TWTS area may also be used, according to Staff discretion, for other expedient purpose of communication. If a member disagrees with a Moderator's action, they are not to take their dispute public.
1.4: Christianforums.net reserves the right to respond to the violation of any of the ToS with any of the responses available to our Leadership at its sole discretion. Furthermore, any action taken against offenders and their status within the community is considered private and confidential and will not be shared with the public. Christianforums.net also reserves the right to remove any content which is considered to be disruptive to the Community, at the sole discretion of christianforums.net Leadership.
The Staff of christianforums.net are authorized to use all available actions in dealing with violations to these rules. These actions include (but not limited to) editing or deleting of posts or threads; locking threads, official warnings to members; suspending or permanently banning members’ accounts, email addresses and/or IP addresses. In addition repeated severe violations may result in a report being generated with one's Internet Service Provider.
1.13: As a member of ChristianForums.net, you agree to abide by the Terms of Service wherever possible and you stipulate that you understand the disciplinary process in response to violations of the ToS.
2.1: This is a Christian site, therefore, any attempt to put down Christianity (or declare that it is false) and the basic tenets of our Faith will be considered a hostile act. Please read: Statement of Faith
We consider Paul's writings to be part of the inspired Word of God. This is a Christian forum and any posting(s) that is intended to purposely distort Paul's writings will not be tolerated.
Active promotion of sinful behavior will not be permitted. This includes promotion of sexual sin and/or homosexual behavior. Do not make statements either by posts or posting URLs to other Websites which advocate activities, beliefs or teachings contrary to those of Christianity as articulated by the historic creeds, as understood by Evangelicalism, and as interpreted by the christianforums.net Leadership's sole discretion.
Any URL that is posted that leads to a page that is of anti-Christian content, or of such content that is offending or disturbing to other board users may be removed. This removal and decision for removal will be done so at the discretion of the christianforums.net Staff.
If you are unsure about a site or its content please direct your question to the Moderator assigned to the Forum Area you plan on posting in or to any of the Staff. This rule also applies to any material whether it be on the web, in print, on video, or on audio.
2.2: No active promotion of other Faiths is allowed:
You will not post any messages; links, images or photos that promote a religion or belief other than Biblical and historical Christianity (atheism is considered a "belief" for the purposes of this rule). Discussion of these doctrines are is fine, as long as the beliefs foreign to Christianity (as defined above) are not actively promoted or held in balance with orthodox Christianity. This includes Full Preterism, Universal Reconciliation, Universal Salvation, Serpent seed, Dual Seed or Two-Seedline doctrine where discussion is limited to and only allowed in the 1 on 1 Debate Forum. This is a Christian Forum as the name suggests.
Non-Christians will not create threads inviting members to ask them about their belief systems such as "Ask the Atheist" or "Ask the Agnostic". Such threads are seen as a means to promote other faiths.
Only scripture from accepted Christian bibles will be allowed to be posted on this board. The New World Translation and Book of Mormon are not considered Christian material on this site. Discussion about other, questionable sources , documents, writings or material is acceptable but will not be permitted to be used as a basis of support within a debate or discussion.
Discussion of Catholic doctrine is limited and will only be allowed in the One on One Debate Forum and End Times forum only. RCC content in the End Times forum should relate to End Times beliefs. Do not start new topics elsewhere or sway existing threads toward a discussion or debate that is may be viewed as ‘Catholic’ in nature.
Discussions of conspiracy theories often lead to slander and hostile debate. Therefore, discussion of conspiracy theories is prohibited.
Discussion of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) is also limited and will only be allowed in Christian Talk & Advice, and/or the Bible Study forum. We understand the need to discuss LGBT issues, and to provide support for those struggling with such issues. This restriction is in place because experience has taught us that many are unable to debate this in a Godly manner, or and without promoting sin in one form or another. We do welcome posts for support or prayer, or sincere Biblical discussions.
Thank you.
Jim Parker
Member
That is called "the Messianic secret." There is a very good reason why Jesus did not want his disciples telling people that He was the messiah. The common concept of who the messiah was and what he would do are (1) he would be an earthly king of David's line and (2) he would drive out the Romans by military action and establish a "golden age" of Israel.
Neither of those notions had anything to do with what Jesus had come to do. He had come to set the people free but not from Roman oppression; rather from the consequence of sin which is death. and He did not come to establish an earthly kingdom but the Kingdom of Heaven on earth composed of believers.
Or, it's a play on words. Christ did not found His kingdom on any human being but on the truth that He is the Messiah, the Son of the Living God.
[QUOTE]When one reads Christian history, it's helpful to see that the idea of The Church and the idea of The Pope developed together. And that both ideas are the result of historical development, not the Bible. There is no ground in the Bible for a universal Church or a Pope.[/QUOTE]
I would agree that there was no Biblical ground for a pope over all the congregations of the world but I see the value of the office as the western empire dissolved into a more and more chaotic state under the pressure of Barbarian invasions. That eventually left a power vacuum and the most able person to fill the need for stability was the bishop (papa, pope) of Rome. I don't see why anyone would have a problem with that. It tended to put a lid on the chaos of warring Germanic tribes.
And to the idea of a universal church, while there were a multitude of local congregations, there has never been more than one body of Christ. Whether we like it or not, we are all, Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, members of the one catholic (katholos; universal) church as affirmed by the great counsels in teh symbol of faith. (Creed)
The notion that the trinity has no ground in the Bible is very good evidence of ignorance of the Bible. IMHO
"Physical Israel" ceased to exist after the Assyrian conquest of the ten northern tribes. The remnant of Israel after the Babylonian exile continued in some form until teh Bar Kochba revolt in the first half of the 2nd century when the Romans finally got so fed up with Jews not appreciating their benevolent (?) rule that theysold the Jews into slavery throughout the empire and forbade Jews from living in Judea.
Paul also stated that Israel was experiencing a temporary hardness of heart and that all Israel (that would be physical Israel) will be saved and, meanwhile, they are loved by God.
Rom 11:25-29
Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brethren: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles come in, and so all Israel will be saved; as it is written, "The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins."
As regards the gospel they are enemies of God, for your sake; but as regards election they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.
IMO, the current existence of Israel, a tiny country of about 8 million people (less than New York City) is nothing less than miraculous considering that their enemies, having hundreds of times Israel's population, have repeatedly attempted to annihilate them.
(Edited, ToS 2.4, Obadiah)
iakov the fool
Last edited by a moderator:
Jesse Stone
Member
Jim Parker,
Conveniently removes all responsibility from the Jews for the crucifixion.
Two references where Jesus explicitly claims to be the Messiah (John 4:25-26; Mark 14:61-62 with Matt 26:63-64). The latter claim leaves the Jews without excuse for their rejection. Not quite so explicit, though it speaks to the point is Matt 11:1-15. And it is certainly implied in John 10:22-26. The life and works of Jesus of Nazareth declared that he is the Christ (John 20:30-31). The light wasn't hid under a bushel. (see also John 10:24-26)
Jesus built one ekklesia upon the labor of Peter or the Rock. Not his kingdom, a Universal Church, nor any of the kingdoms of Christianity. Interpretations to the contrary notwithstanding. The Bible says it was the local ekklesia in Jerusalem. One expression of the one Body of Christ among many. This one ekklesia was a special case because the ekklesia in Jerusalem would be the pattern for all ekklesia to come (Acts 2.42). It was a privilege and thus a reward for Peter (Matt 16:17-18; Acts 1-15) to have a part in the building of this pattern that Satan couldn't overcome because underlying it was Jesus Christ. (see Matt 4)
The foundation of every ekklesia, including the ekklesia in Jerusalem, is Jesus Christ (1 Cor 3:5-11). Until he himself removes the light (Rev 2:5).
The Rock's (i.e., Peter's) strength didn't come from himself (Gal 2:8, 11-13). Any more than did the knowledge that Jesus is the Messiah come from himself (Matt 16:17). Peter was no different than any other stone being built into a spiritual house (1 Pet 2:4-5), of which Jesus is the cornerstone (1 Pet 2:6-8; see Rom 9:30-10:4). He too had to walk according to the Spirit as all who are in Christ are intended to do (Rom 8:1-16). Which he well knew (1 Pet 1:2, 22). And in one instance, Paul had to bring him back when he did not (Gal 2).
Christians argue about the nature of the Rock. But I see no reason for Jesus to change horses in mid-stream and thereby confuse everybody. As has the various interpretations of the matter in Christianity. Peter is the subject of Matt 16:17-18. The ekklesia is the one in Jerusalem, as clarified by Luke in Acts 1-15.
I'm not a Christian. Ergo I'm obviously not "Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, members of the one catholic (katholos; universal) church as affirmed by the great counsels in teh symbol of faith. (Creed)" I don't subscribe to any of the extra-Biblical Counsels and Creeds created by man in Christian history. The Bible is my only Creed. Jesus my only Counselor. The Psalms my only hymnal. Don't need anything added by man to determine the meaning of New Covenant reality or by which to sing of its reality. Whether it be out of the Christian Traditions of the East or the West. It was all revealed in the OT and the fulfillment fully declared in the NT.
The Bible is sufficiently clear in and of itself. In those few places where it is not, those who are in Christ have a teacher that is superior to any Tradition or Creed that Christianity has to offer in Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit (Mat 5:2, that hasn't changed just because he died, was resurrected, and is now at the right hand of God; Rom 12:1-2 with 2 Cor 3:1-17; Eph 4:17-22). If they would only listen (Rev 2-3). Christians have created Traditions as if Jesus is too far away to teach us anything. But through the Spirit he is in the midst of those who are in him (Matt 18:19-20, 28:20; Rom 8:1-16; Eph 4:1-16, 30, 5:18-20; 6:13-18).
The Popes of history, as well as the many Protestant Popes, are a natural historical development that is irrelevant to those who are in Christ. In the natural realm, history speaks for itself as to whom the Popes have been related to. A man-made office to deal with problems important to man, rather than to God or his Son.
And on this venue, in your humble opinion is where it remains. I can't refute your contention of my ignorance because I'm prevented from discussing the Trinity from any other perspective than the validity of the Protestant version of Trinitarianism.
Then among whom did Jesus walk? To whom was Jesus referring when he mentioned Israel (Luke 7:9; John 3:10)? To whom was Peter referring when he said "you men of Israel" (Acts 2:22)? To whom was Paul referring when he said, "my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved." Is not that prayer answered in Christ?
Which somewhat refutes my own understanding. Israel still existed when Paul and Peter wrote those words, which was after the resurrection. I revise what I said. Physical Israel is no longer Israel as exclusively the people of God. Based on that which Paul said in Gal 3 & 6 and Eph 1-3, and that which Peter said in 1 Pet 2. Those who are in Christ, including both Jews and Gentiles who believe, today are the people of God and true Israel.
Physical Israel was only a type. Like the Tabernacle Ritual (The temple was also destroyed well after the resurrection). Typology that is fulfilled in Christ. Even the Law is fulfilled in Christ (Matt 5:17), neither destroyed nor abrogated (Rom 3:21-31, 8:1-4). Nothing exists as it did. And has no more reason to exist as it did. Seeing as the conclusion of the purpose for physical Israel and the Tabernacle Ritual is accomplished in Christ. As is our understanding of the Law intended to be different under to the New Covenant (Rom 8:1-4; Heb 10:1, 15-18). Either those who believe are of the New Covenant in Christ's blood, being that which speaks better than that of the Old Covenant (Heb 8:6-13), and thus of the new Israel (Gal 6:16; Heb 8:10, 10:12-17; 1 Pet 2:9-10). Or those who believe are heretics dead in their sins. Fully in need of the comfort of their religion of choice.
Is Paul's version of Salvation only for the Gentiles? Do you think that God will re-instate Israel and re-institute the Tabernacle Ritual? In spite of what Paul has said (Hebrews)? Isn't it possible that the "temporary hardness of heart" ceases when individual Jews turn to the Lord, that Lord being Jesus Christ revealed individually through the Holy Spirit? (2 Cor 3:14-18)
Consider:
and
Many who want to see miracles bad enough, often see them where they don't exist.
What seems more miraculous to me is that a Jewish or Christian zealot (or even a Moslem zealot for that matter, so as to place blame elsewhere) hasn't destroyed the Dome of the Rock on the Temple mount before now. But security supported by all sides has been well regulated for decades.
The continuing existence of the little nation called Israel does seem miraculous. Until one notes that they've had a lot of help from a very large nation along the way.
Conveniently removes all responsibility from the Jews for the crucifixion.
Two references where Jesus explicitly claims to be the Messiah (John 4:25-26; Mark 14:61-62 with Matt 26:63-64). The latter claim leaves the Jews without excuse for their rejection. Not quite so explicit, though it speaks to the point is Matt 11:1-15. And it is certainly implied in John 10:22-26. The life and works of Jesus of Nazareth declared that he is the Christ (John 20:30-31). The light wasn't hid under a bushel. (see also John 10:24-26)
Jesus built one ekklesia upon the labor of Peter or the Rock. Not his kingdom, a Universal Church, nor any of the kingdoms of Christianity. Interpretations to the contrary notwithstanding. The Bible says it was the local ekklesia in Jerusalem. One expression of the one Body of Christ among many. This one ekklesia was a special case because the ekklesia in Jerusalem would be the pattern for all ekklesia to come (Acts 2.42). It was a privilege and thus a reward for Peter (Matt 16:17-18; Acts 1-15) to have a part in the building of this pattern that Satan couldn't overcome because underlying it was Jesus Christ. (see Matt 4)
The foundation of every ekklesia, including the ekklesia in Jerusalem, is Jesus Christ (1 Cor 3:5-11). Until he himself removes the light (Rev 2:5).
The Rock's (i.e., Peter's) strength didn't come from himself (Gal 2:8, 11-13). Any more than did the knowledge that Jesus is the Messiah come from himself (Matt 16:17). Peter was no different than any other stone being built into a spiritual house (1 Pet 2:4-5), of which Jesus is the cornerstone (1 Pet 2:6-8; see Rom 9:30-10:4). He too had to walk according to the Spirit as all who are in Christ are intended to do (Rom 8:1-16). Which he well knew (1 Pet 1:2, 22). And in one instance, Paul had to bring him back when he did not (Gal 2).
Christians argue about the nature of the Rock. But I see no reason for Jesus to change horses in mid-stream and thereby confuse everybody. As has the various interpretations of the matter in Christianity. Peter is the subject of Matt 16:17-18. The ekklesia is the one in Jerusalem, as clarified by Luke in Acts 1-15.
I'm not a Christian. Ergo I'm obviously not "Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, members of the one catholic (katholos; universal) church as affirmed by the great counsels in teh symbol of faith. (Creed)" I don't subscribe to any of the extra-Biblical Counsels and Creeds created by man in Christian history. The Bible is my only Creed. Jesus my only Counselor. The Psalms my only hymnal. Don't need anything added by man to determine the meaning of New Covenant reality or by which to sing of its reality. Whether it be out of the Christian Traditions of the East or the West. It was all revealed in the OT and the fulfillment fully declared in the NT.
The Bible is sufficiently clear in and of itself. In those few places where it is not, those who are in Christ have a teacher that is superior to any Tradition or Creed that Christianity has to offer in Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit (Mat 5:2, that hasn't changed just because he died, was resurrected, and is now at the right hand of God; Rom 12:1-2 with 2 Cor 3:1-17; Eph 4:17-22). If they would only listen (Rev 2-3). Christians have created Traditions as if Jesus is too far away to teach us anything. But through the Spirit he is in the midst of those who are in him (Matt 18:19-20, 28:20; Rom 8:1-16; Eph 4:1-16, 30, 5:18-20; 6:13-18).
The Popes of history, as well as the many Protestant Popes, are a natural historical development that is irrelevant to those who are in Christ. In the natural realm, history speaks for itself as to whom the Popes have been related to. A man-made office to deal with problems important to man, rather than to God or his Son.
And on this venue, in your humble opinion is where it remains. I can't refute your contention of my ignorance because I'm prevented from discussing the Trinity from any other perspective than the validity of the Protestant version of Trinitarianism.
Then among whom did Jesus walk? To whom was Jesus referring when he mentioned Israel (Luke 7:9; John 3:10)? To whom was Peter referring when he said "you men of Israel" (Acts 2:22)? To whom was Paul referring when he said, "my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved." Is not that prayer answered in Christ?
Which somewhat refutes my own understanding. Israel still existed when Paul and Peter wrote those words, which was after the resurrection. I revise what I said. Physical Israel is no longer Israel as exclusively the people of God. Based on that which Paul said in Gal 3 & 6 and Eph 1-3, and that which Peter said in 1 Pet 2. Those who are in Christ, including both Jews and Gentiles who believe, today are the people of God and true Israel.
Physical Israel was only a type. Like the Tabernacle Ritual (The temple was also destroyed well after the resurrection). Typology that is fulfilled in Christ. Even the Law is fulfilled in Christ (Matt 5:17), neither destroyed nor abrogated (Rom 3:21-31, 8:1-4). Nothing exists as it did. And has no more reason to exist as it did. Seeing as the conclusion of the purpose for physical Israel and the Tabernacle Ritual is accomplished in Christ. As is our understanding of the Law intended to be different under to the New Covenant (Rom 8:1-4; Heb 10:1, 15-18). Either those who believe are of the New Covenant in Christ's blood, being that which speaks better than that of the Old Covenant (Heb 8:6-13), and thus of the new Israel (Gal 6:16; Heb 8:10, 10:12-17; 1 Pet 2:9-10). Or those who believe are heretics dead in their sins. Fully in need of the comfort of their religion of choice.
Is Paul's version of Salvation only for the Gentiles? Do you think that God will re-instate Israel and re-institute the Tabernacle Ritual? In spite of what Paul has said (Hebrews)? Isn't it possible that the "temporary hardness of heart" ceases when individual Jews turn to the Lord, that Lord being Jesus Christ revealed individually through the Holy Spirit? (2 Cor 3:14-18)
Consider:
and
Many who want to see miracles bad enough, often see them where they don't exist.
What seems more miraculous to me is that a Jewish or Christian zealot (or even a Moslem zealot for that matter, so as to place blame elsewhere) hasn't destroyed the Dome of the Rock on the Temple mount before now. But security supported by all sides has been well regulated for decades.
The continuing existence of the little nation called Israel does seem miraculous. Until one notes that they've had a lot of help from a very large nation along the way.
Jesse Stone
Member
Obadiah,
I acknowledge your note. Thank you for honoring my request anyway. For whatever reason.
I acknowledge your note. Thank you for honoring my request anyway. For whatever reason.
Jesse Stone
Member
Douglas Summers & Jim Parker,
The End?
The End?