Are too many churches caught up in being a donimination and not about following God's message?

[blackout]

perhaps gOd's people are meant to be a fluid and spontanious entity

I really dislike religion. It's so much nicer to just BE. fluid and free!
Alone.... and Together.

Buildings, books, tabernacles, and doctrines are all boxes.
The "denomination name" is simply the label stamped across the top
near the 'seal'.

meh. Life is "church" people are "church".
for me, religion is dead.

 

[edward]

Do you know of an earlier one??? Because eastern orthodox was the first schism at like what 500 years in? Please please PLEASE don't say Church of Christ!Lol

Ah, yes! Ironically, the Eastern Orthodox claim that it was the Western Church (Catholic) that broke off from them! If this is true, then the western Catholic was the first schism of the Christian Church. My son is a relatively new member of the Orthodox Christian faith. He states that they have unbroken apostolic continuity (succession) from the time of Peter.

If this is THE essential Christian doctrine, it appears that one of them are the only true church. Please note that I am not of that school.

Edward

 

[edward]

Yeah. Not even Rome can corroborate an unbroken succession of bishops back to Peter. (And I have a lot of respect for the Apostolic Succession). What about the early communities that were pre-gospel? They certainly weren't "catholic." Uniformity didn't really come along until Constantine. The Church has always been a multi-track animal.

Not to be a boat rocker, but colud please clarify "pre-gospel" for me?

Thanks,
Edward

 

[edward]

I think it is just men being pigs. Male ego. Dunno whatever you wanna call it. In my 31 years of life, almost every other guy I knew talked about how a man should wear the pants in the family blah blah blah. Yet if you grew up like I did. In actuality Grand-mothers and Mothers always had the final say. Even if the fact was not openly acknowledged. If Grand-ma or mom wasn't happy. No one was happy hehe. Believe you me if Grand-Pa try to actually exert his will over Grand-Ma he felt the wraith of the nearest object in the room. And I think they let men think they was in charge just to keep everyone in line behind the scenes. Now that I type it out it seems almost devious haha, but of course it was not. Maybe only my family had this hidden matriarchal order to the family, but I assume alot of other family units was the same way. And yes I am a mommas boy.

Sounds to me like no one allowed Christ to be the head of the household. Too bad.

Edward

 

[sojourner]

Not to be a boat rocker, but colud please clarify "pre-gospel" for me?

Thanks,
Edward

Mark is the earliest we have, and it was written 40 years after the fact. If you buy into the Q camp, even Q was written 10 or 20 years after the fact. The communities that gave rise to these documents are the "pre-gospel" churches.

 

[sojourner]

perhaps gOd's people are meant to be a fluid and spontanious entity

I really dislike religion. It's so much nicer to just BE. fluid and free!
Alone.... and Together.

Buildings, books, tabernacles, and doctrines are all boxes.
The "denomination name" is simply the label stamped across the top
near the 'seal'.

meh. Life is "church" people are "church".
for me, religion is dead.

It's an interesting idea, but we have historical evidence that the Church was always more intentional than that -- perhaps not as intentional as what we have today -- but always intentional communities.

 

[blackout]

thanks for the reply.

jesus sent his own out in two's with no change of sandals or tunic.

I just don't see Jesus in all of this church stuff.
I also would see no need as a follower of jesus...
to follow Paul or ANYONE else.
The teachings of the Master were enough.

The rest serves only as a (fatal) complication. IMO.
(which I quite realize will not be shared.
but still I enjoy the conversation.)

 

[Ronald]

1Co 11:1 ¶ Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
Eph 5:1 ¶ Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children;
1Th 1:6 ¶ And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost:
1Th 2:14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews:
Heb 6:12 That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises.

If one follows the writers of these scriptures, they will be going to Synogogue on the Sabbath, keeping the moedim, drawing their sustanance from the Hebrew Root and will at the very least smell like an Olive Tree.
Like the people of the Way in Acts. The Way they call a sect of the Jews.

 

[keithnurse]

perhaps gOd's people are meant to be a fluid and spontanious entity

I really dislike religion. It's so much nicer to just BE. fluid and free!
Alone.... and Together.

Buildings, books, tabernacles, and doctrines are all boxes.
The "denomination name" is simply the label stamped across the top
near the 'seal'.

meh. Life is "church" people are "church".
for me, religion is dead.

It's nice and easy to be fluid and spontaneous but if Christianity was never organized it's not likely we would have a bible to read. We have the bible today because of Catholic and Orthodox monasteries preserving it all these centuries.

 

[blackout]

Only a very tiny portion of the bible consists of Y'shua's teachings.

That would have been enough.

Or even his words and teachings passed down organically.

The bible is a HUGE CONFUSION.
A MASSIVE complication of compilation.
Of course gOd CAN and does speak through anything.
Even the phone book.

The kingdom teachings ... the parables... they are enough. IMO.

 

[gzusfrk]

I think God's Word is true.I think it's not so much where your butt is on sunday,as too where your heart is.

 

[sojourner]

I just don't see Jesus in all of this church stuff.
I also would see no need as a follower of jesus...
to follow Paul or ANYONE else.
The teachings of the Master were enough.

Yes. It is sometimes difficult to see Jesus in the pomp we've created.

What you need to realize is that we don't have Jesus' teachings, except as they appear in the gospels. and even then they're written through the authors' lenses. Christians have always had teachers and leaders to interpret Jesus to them -- even the early ones.

Subsequent teachings do complicate the matter. But then, so do converging cultures and changing times and divergent languages. Even the early Church experienced complications like that.

 

[blackout]

.......and yet Jesus himself taught very open-endedly...
in parables... and symbolism... stories... deliberate action...
and did not explain them (or himself) to the masses.

They are meant for those with eyes and ears to see and hear.

The gospels are enough. (including the openly gnostic gospel of Thomas)
A person contemplating the teachings and story of "the Christ"
needs no other teacher. (to be "official" Christian)
The Christ and the I are enough. Christ-i-anity.

It's all inside you regardless.
The Way is Within You.

 

[edward]

Mark is the earliest we have, and it was written 40 years after the fact. If you buy into the Q camp, even Q was written 10 or 20 years after the fact. The communities that gave rise to these documents are the "pre-gospel" churches.

Thanks, Sojourner. I thought that you were perhaps referring to an event that was "pre-gospel," not necessarily a document that was before the "good news" of the resurrection.

Again, thanks for the clarification. The "Q" argument is quite compelling. We spent several hours investigating this in seminary w/o coming to a definitive conclusion. Too bad there is not a specific document that can support or reject it.

Blessings to you and yours,

Edward

 

[sojourner]

.......and yet Jesus himself taught very open-endedly...
in parables... and symbolism... stories... deliberate action...
and did not explain them (or himself) to the masses.

They are meant for those with eyes and ears to see and hear.

The gospels are enough. (including the openly gnostic gospel of Thomas)
A person contemplating the teachings and story of "the Christ"
needs no other teacher. (to be "official" Christian)
The Christ and the I are enough. Christ-i-anity.

It's all inside you regardless.
The Way is Within You.

Well, I would argue that the Way is within us. Jesus is extremely community-oriented -- he is not individualistic. That's a later interpretation. I think the best way to express Jesus within is in the context of community, for that is the only way to express love. I like to think of our relationships as a fabric, with Jesus providing the warp. He lives in the spaces between us.

 

[smitten508]

Just wondering why no response.....
(was my comment that stupid?)

No my love!!! It wasn't stupid!Lol. I believe that, but I believe they woeshipped Catholic style.Lol. In 2's and in homes. With adoration and communion. Not quite so much style though. Ha!
Much love to you sister weaver.

 

[smitten508]

The Church of Christ sounds like a pretty reasonable answer to me. Jesus Christ said He was going to build His Church, and He did. I don't know that it went by that name, but it was quite a few years before there was a Roman Catholic Church, and those of us who are not Catholic are not convinced that the Church known as the Catholic Church today is the same Church Jesus Christ established. The post-apostolic Church was incredibly splintered. There were dozens of different "denominations," if you will, by as early as the end of the first century. While it is true that one of them became dominent and took on the designation of "catholic," that in and of itself does not mean that it was the "original" Church. (The "original" one believed in "Mom," by the way. )

I know that the Catholic church isn't veiwed as original by most non Catholics, then they would HAVE to convert!Lol. And yeah, the early church believed in Mom. I believe in Mom! I think that just as Christ was avatar of YHWH on earth, so is Mary, avatar of Mom. The Church gives Mary such titles as Mother of God, most beloved daughter of the Father and spouse of the Holy spirit.... But as for apostolic succession, we have the records going back to Peter, unless you believe them to be forgeries.Lol.

 

[Katzpur]

And yeah, the early church believed in Mom. I believe in Mom! I think that just as Christ was avatar of YHWH on earth, so is Mary, avatar of Mom. The Church gives Mary such titles as Mother of God, most beloved daughter of the Father and spouse of the Holy spirit....

You're talking about Jesus' mother. I don't believe that Mary is my mother, too.

But as for apostolic succession, we have the records going back to Peter, unless you believe them to be forgeries.Lol.

I don't believe them to be forgeries because I don't believe they exist. Can you give me a date on which Peter or any other Apostle ordained Linus to the Apostleship?

 

[smitten508]

You're talking about Jesus' mother. I don't believe that Mary is my mother, too.

I don't believe them to be forgeries because I don't believe they exist. Can you give me a date on which Peter or any other Apostle ordained Linus to the Apostleship?

As for the Mary thing, we have to agree to disagree... Because I see Jesus as YHWH on earth and Mary as Shekkinah on earth.

As for the dates concerning apostolic succession, I'm searching for them now... From Peter to St linus 67 AD to 76 AD then to St Anacletus who held papal office from 76 AD until 91 AD... Now you can say you don't believe the line of succession, but I have given it to you from Peter until the year 91. I can give more if need be.Lol. But I DO believe in Mom, and not the human version only, I just don't actively worship Her since I don't want to do her dishonor.

 

[Katzpur]

As for the dates concerning apostolic succession, I'm searching for them now... From Peter to St linus 67 AD to 76 AD then to St Anacletus who held papal office from 76 AD until 91 AD... Now you can say you don't believe the line of succession, but I have given it to you from Peter until the year 91. I can give more if need be.Lol.

You sure do LOL a lot, Smitten. You must be one easily-amused kind of guy.

Just to let you know, I'm not looking for a list of when the varous Popes led the Church, but for documentation of who ordained them and the dates.