What church is the true church?

[Walkntune]

You're not making your argument clear. You're mixing up different passages trying to prove a point that isn't actually backed up by Scripture.

Statement makes no sense. I have no idea what you are relating it too.

 

[Desert Snake]

Statement makes no sense. I have no idea what you are relating it too.

Yes, it does make sense. Your argument that because everyone is held to the same standard has nothing to do with your conclusions drawn from it.

 

[Walkntune]

Huh? What are talking about?

That question/statement is so convoluded I can't even figure it out.

Its very clear. This is part of the sermon on the mount.
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, ...and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
My question is, why must you perform good behaviour to recieve the love and blessings from God yet he calls you to a standard that is even higher?
Its a higher standard to love and bless those who hate you yet this is the standard Christ preached for you to follow. Why would he not do the same?

 

[Shermana]

Huh? What are talking about?

That question/statement is so convoluded I can't even figure it out.

Maybe someone else can explain to us what he's asking us exactly.

 

[Shermana]

You need to look up the word bless and also the word rebuke.

Well since you disagree with my use of the term "blessing", why don't you tell us what you think the term means, and what does "rebuke" have to do with what you're saying? The word "blessing" has a few meanings, so which one are you referring to?

Are you saying that Jesus blesses Adolf Hitler and Caligula and Nero ? What kind of blessing?

 

[Desert Snake]

Its very clear. This is part of the sermon on the mount.
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, ...and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

My question is, why must you perform good behaviour to recieve the love and blessings from God yet he calls you to a standard that is even higher?

what..?

Its a higher standard to love and bless those who hate you yet this is the standard Christ preached for you to follow. Why would he not do the same?[/

Your drawing conclusions from those verses that go beyond what they are saying. That's your prerogative but it isn't backed up by Scripture.

 

[Walkntune]

Well since you disagree with my use of the term "blessing", why don't you tell us what you think the term means, and what does "rebuke" have to do with what you're saying? The word "blessing" has a few meanings, so which one are you referring to?

Are you saying that Jesus blesses Adolf Hitler and Caligula and Nero ? What kind of blessing?

He blessed all.He gave his life to all who will recieve him,even Adolf if would have recieved it. Paul was a murderer just the same.
You used a rebuke in place of what a blessing is. Very subtle and manipulative yet not accurate.
Jesus was very clear when stating if you love those who love you what reward have you or if you salute those who salute you ,even the publicans the same.
bless

transitive verb \ˈbles\
blessed \ˈblest\alsoblest \ˈblest\ bless·ing




Definition of BLESS

1
: to hallow or consecrate by religious rite or word

2
: to hallow with the sign of the cross

3
: to invoke divine care for <bless your heart> —used in the phrase bless you to wish good health especially to one who has just sneezed

4
a: praise, glorify <bless his holy name>
b: to speak well of : approve

5
: to confer prosperity or happiness upon

6
archaic: protect, preserve


7
: endow, favor <blessed with athletic ability>

 

[Walkntune]

Its very clear. This is part of the sermon on the mount.
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, ...and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?


what..?

Your drawing conclusions from those verses that go beyond what they are saying. That's your prerogative but it isn't backed up by Scripture.

No the conclusions I am drawing are from the claims being made that God only blesses us by our performance of being good or bad. This is not the Gospel. The Gospel is mans redemption from self effort back into Gods provision.He wants us to believe him instead of trying to rely on ourselves.
If he blesses us based on our performance then he never would have approached paul.

 

[Shermana]

He blessed all.He gave his life to all who will recieve him,even Adolf if would have recieved it. Paul was a murderer just the same.

Okay, so what "blessing" is he talking about specifically. I can appreciate that you gave us all the dictionary definition of the ENGLISH word for Blessing, but what do you suppose the Greek text is indicating specifically?

You used a rebuke in place of what a blessing is. Very subtle and manipulative yet not accurate.

Well if it's not accurate, please explain what kind of blessing we are supposed to give to those who curse us specifically. It shouldn't be that hard and shouldn't take asking you multiple times. Why don't you provide the definition of "rebuke" for us while you're at it. So if I ask someone to be brought to the truth of their error, that's a rebuke and not a blessing? I fail to see how. What kind of "blessing" should we give to one who curses us? Got an example since mine was obviously a "rebuke" apparently?

I wouldn't be talking about 'manipulative" when you outright dodge questions and then accuse me of sidestepping when I ask you to clarify.

Jesus was very clear when stating if you love those who love you what reward have you or if you salute those who salute you ,even the publicans the same.

Okay, and?

definitions of bless

So which of those do you think applies to the intention of the use of the Greek word translated as "bless" there?

 

[Desert Snake]

No the conclusions I am drawing are from the claims being made that God only blesses us by our performance of being good or bad. This is not the Gospel. The Gospel is mans redemption from self effort back into Gods provision.He wants us to believe him instead of trying to rely on ourselves.
If he blesses us based on our performance then he never would have approached paul.

Great. But I never made that claim, so it's irrelevant to my comments/arguments.

 

[Shermana]

And while you're at it, perhaps you'd like to eventually address the question of Matthew 25 where Jesus says those who refuse to help their impoverished brothers in need will be cast into hellfire.

Please don't sidestep this question, thanks.

And also, why would Jesus say that it's better to chop off your...manhood than use it in a way which causes you to enter the fire? How does that possibly jive with what you're saying? Why did he say that it's better to drown yourself than "offend" a little one?

 

[Walkntune]

And while you're at it, perhaps you'd like to eventually address the question of Matthew 25 where Jesus says those who refuse to help their impoverished brothers in need will be cast into hellfire.

Please don't sidestep this question, thanks.

And also, why would Jesus say that it's better to chop off your...manhood than use it in a way which causes you to enter the fire? How does that possibly jive with what you're saying? Why did he say that it's better to drown yourself than "offend" a little one?

To show that what is impossible with man is posible with God.Why did he claim this if your laws will make you righteous?Why did he claim salvation is impossible with man. He told men commandments they would have to follow to make it into the kingdom so they would recognise that it was impossible to do in themselves.He said this,

T26 Those who heard this asked, “Who then can be saved?”
27 Jesus replied, “What is impossible with man is possible with God.”

 

[Shermana]

To show that what is impossible with man is posible with God.Why did he claim this if your laws will make you righteous?Why did he claim salvation is impossible with man. He told men commandments they would have to follow to make it into the kingdom so they would recognise that it was impossible to do in themselves.He said this,

T26 Those who heard this asked, &#8220;Who then can be saved?&#8221;
27 Jesus replied, &#8220;What is impossible with man is possible with God.&#8221;

Nice sidestepping my questions there. And besides, the "impossible" was related specifically to the specific conditions of the Rich man.

Jesus said "Follow the commandments" as a statement. He was flat out saying that such obedience is required. You can't just read anything you want into the text especially when it clashes with what it actually specifies.

Now would you like to address my questions about those passages that explicitly contradict your interpretation or do I have to repeat them again?

 

[Walkntune]

Nice sidestepping my questions there. And besides, the "impossible" was related specifically to the specific conditions of the Rich man.

Jesus said "Follow the commandments" as a statement. He was flat out saying that such obedience is required. You can't just read anything you want into the text especially when it clashes with what it actually specifies.

Now would you like to address my questions about those passages that explicitly contradict your interpretation or do I have to repeat them again?

God is the prodigal father and you are the prodigal son making all of these rules up now to what must be done in order to qualify coming home. He is just asking you to come home because he has the best prepared for you.You assume you must come to the father as a servant obedient to all of these rules yet God is one who will leave the 99 and go get the one who is lost.This is the true Gospel.This is the only true gospel as the other gospels are the ones that has caused wars in the name of Christianity.It has caused condemnation and has been the judgment on homosexuals and others who feel condemned by the church for their law and condemnation preaching and the lack of love of who the father really is.It is the very stumbling block to man getting back to God and his provisions.Wars have been caused in the name of religion but never in the name of love. God is love. He is not religion.
This is a post a friend(Jeff Turner) of mine shared.
Most simply want to be handed the rule book, and told what needs to be done in order to fare well in the after life. Such is a far cry from the original intent and design of the Father, Son, and Spirit.a design in which romance is valued above rules, and love above law. There can be no doubt, that when a man or a woman enters into this original design, morality and personal holiness occurs, but it occurs, not in response to threats of damnation, but in response to the loving caress of the Father upon their heart."

"Never be satisfied with mere standards and "principles for Godly living", when unceasing union with the Godhead is your portion!"

I on this note i wipe the dust off of my feet and i am out.See you in another thread.

 

[CG Didymus]

Walkntune said:

Most simply want to be handed the rule book

Disciple said:

There was no "true synagogue".

The true body of believers, the chosen people, were handed a rule book. Whatever the "true" church is now, they were the true church then. When did they cease to be true? When did their interpretation of God's truth become false? Judaism was and is far from what most Christians believe as true. The devil, hell, the trinity, the need for a savior etc. They did have the truth at one time, what happened? I know Jesus happened. God changed the rule book.

I asked if Luther's church was the true church? Or Calvin's? They replaced the one time true church, the Catholic Church. Were either one of them the true church? When Jesus said that his followers would have certain "signs", which included tongues, healing, snake handling etc. So does that mean Pentecostals are the true church? An angel told Joseph Smith none of the churches were the true church. God guided him into coming up with the Mormon Church. Is that the true church?

I have to doubt and question all Christian churches. None of them seem to have "the truth", only "the" interpretation of the Bible that seems to be the "best" truth. Each week some JW's knock on my door. Guess what, they tell me they have the truth. I wonder which church they will say is the true church?

 

[Firstborner]

There are nearly ten thousand flavors of Christianity today. When we add to the mix the churches that did not survive to the present date, the number of churches are even higher.

Yes and no. There are many claimants to being THE CHURCH, but there is only one bride for Christ

What criteria should a person use to determine the true church? I define the “true church” as a church that teaches an accurate teaching of Jesus Christ.

Right you are. Paul to Timothy called "the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth."

If you know of such a church, please explain in detail why that church is the true church.

Of course I do! (Who would have figured )

The True Church is known by the love shared between one another, sealed with the kiss of Christ; Teaches as basic and mandatory all the principles enumerated in Hebrews 6 ; Allows the free exercise of God's gifts to the building up of itself and to benefit the unbelievers as well; Is composed of only the regenerated;

The True Church has never been restored. It never went away.

Was never founded upon any man or ism other than Christ and his apostles.

Never seeks her own glory, but that of the bridegroom Christ.

Never allows the preaching of the gospel for wages.

And many more details can be stated as to how to identify the True Church, or a False one.

 

[Desert Snake]

Walkntune said: Disciple said:The true body of believers, the chosen people, were handed a rule book. Whatever the "true" church is now, they were the true church then. When did they cease to be true? When did their interpretation of God's truth become false? Judaism was and is far from what most Christians believe as true. The devil, hell, the trinity, the need for a savior etc. They did have the truth at one time, what happened? I know Jesus happened. God changed the rule book.

I asked if Luther's church was the true church? Or Calvin's? They replaced the one time true church, the Catholic Church. Were either one of them the true church? When Jesus said that his followers would have certain "signs", which included tongues, healing, snake handling etc. So does that mean Pentecostals are the true church? An angel told Joseph Smith none of the churches were the true church. God guided him into coming up with the Mormon Church. Is that the true church?

I have to doubt and question all Christian churches. None of them seem to have "the truth", only "the" interpretation of the Bible that seems to be the "best" truth. Each week some JW's knock on my door. Guess what, they tell me they have the truth. I wonder which church they will say is the true church?

What does this even mean? Are you saying that Judaism is the 'correct' religion or what? Does this mean that you think that everyone should follow the Torah laws? What does" true synagogue" mean to you? You're the one who used the term, does that mean that Christianity is wrong? Does it mean that Christianity is right?

 

[CG Didymus]

What does this even mean? Are you saying that Judaism is the 'correct' religion or what? Does this mean that you think that everyone should follow the Torah laws? What does" true synagogue" mean to you? You're the one who used the term, does that mean that Christianity is wrong? Does it mean that Christianity is right?

Did the Jews ever have "the" truth? If they did, where did it go? Did the Catholic Church ever have "the" truth? I'm asking you. I'll bet you the Pharisees thought they had "the" truth. The Essences probably thought they had "the" truth. Constantine wanted one unified universal Christian Church that was "the" truth. Was he successful? What do you think?

I think all of them thought they had "the" truth. Did Luther and Calvin think they had "the" truth? I would imagine they did. Was it "the" truth? It's a matter of opinion, and since people keep adjusting what "the" truth is, then I'd say that the real truth is illusive. Whatever you lock into and call "the" truth becomes true to you, but not necessarily to others. When looking for truth in any one Christian Church group, sect, or denomination, if we applied by their fruits you shall know them, none of them are absolutely true. A few members standout but aren't perfect. The mystical magical thing called the Body of Christ isn't something I see in the real world.

I see some Christians, and they can be from any one of the different groups that call themselves Christian, trying their best to live up to what they think Jesus and God wants them to do. A fundamentalist might fight against abortion and gay marriage. A JW will go knock on doors and try to convert people. An Amish will live a quiet secluded life on the farm. A Pentecostal will pray in tongues and heal the sick. The TV evangelist will preach Christ and him crucified and then beg for donations. All of them have their own "true" version of Christianity. Any one of them can claim to have "the" truth and believe that they do. But that is the question? Do any of them? Which one do you think is right?

 

[Shermana]

Did the Jews ever have "the" truth? If they did, where did it go? Did the Catholic Church ever have "the" truth? I'm asking you. I'll bet you the Pharisees thought they had "the" truth. The Essences probably thought they had "the" truth. Constantine wanted one unified universal Christian Church that was "the" truth. Was he successful? What do you think?

I think all of them thought they had "the" truth. Did Luther and Calvin think they had "the" truth? I would imagine they did. Was it "the" truth? It's a matter of opinion, and since people keep adjusting what "the" truth is, then I'd say that the real truth is illusive. Whatever you lock into and call "the" truth becomes true to you, but not necessarily to others. When looking for truth in any one Christian Church group, sect, or denomination, if we applied by their fruits you shall know them, none of them are absolutely true. A few members standout but aren't perfect. The mystical magical thing called the Body of Christ isn't something I see in the real world.

I see some Christians, and they can be from any one of the different groups that call themselves Christian, trying their best to live up to what they think Jesus and God wants them to do. A fundamentalist might fight against abortion and gay marriage. A JW will go knock on doors and try to convert people. An Amish will live a quiet secluded life on the farm. A Pentecostal will pray in tongues and heal the sick. The TV evangelist will preach Christ and him crucified and then beg for donations. All of them have their own "true" version of Christianity. Any one of them can claim to have "the" truth and believe that they do. But that is the question? Do any of them? Which one do you think is right?

Could we assume that the "True" Christians were the originals and then look at what made them peculiar? (Cough Jewish sect cough)

 

[CG Didymus]

Could we assume that the "True" Christians were the originals and then look at what made them peculiar? (Cough Jewish sect cough)

Sure. What did they believe? How did the "untrue" first Christians get control of the Church away from them? Where are those followers of the original believers today? And, why don't other Christians believe them to be the "true" church?