What church is the true church?

[roger1440]

Fellowship is important to any religion because it helps to strengthen and reinforce ones beliefs. This is why it was frowned upon for the ancient Jews to intermarry. When the Jews did intermarry foreign gods came into the mix and the Jews went astray.

 

[CG Didymus]

I don't think they were pretending. They are spiritual babes. A baby never thinks of anything out of sight. Out of sight, out of mind is the rule of most churches.

It is my opinion there does not exist a true church. I am also experiencing missing fellowship. It is not like I am not looking for fellow believers. I have even exchanged emails with "Christians" but they have left me behind.

That's the thing. None of us are good enough to be perfect examples. I was as bad as all my other friends. I could "play" Christian very well. I tried not to lust in my heart. I was twenty-five. It lusted, I mean, It lasted a month. I convinced myself I was only a little hypocrite, not a big one. What do you do? There's no perfect church, no perfect people. I was one of those plants growing on rocky soil. I was bound to fall away sooner or later. Hopefully, you're a firm believer and will have better luck being "a light" to the world.

Yes, the pretending of people caring about you was definitely an endearing trait of the churches I've visited. It was so fake and forced, the entertainment value was worth the trip each time.

To add to what I said above. I got "saved" in the 70's in S. California with Christian rock music and "Jesus People" sharing their testimonies of how Jesus got them away from LSD and New Age religions. The music was awesome. The girls were awesomer. I went to one charismatic church and loved the energy. I see it now as nothing more than hype--like spiritual cheerleading or something. It was a better high than any drug, though. I wish I didn't know what I think I know and go back there and just bask in the joy and wonder of pretend Christianity. I know both you and Savagewind are much more grounded than I ever was. Keep up the good fight for what you believe. You guys are close enough to the "true" church for me.

 

[Jonathan Hoffman]

Yes, the pretending of people caring about you was definitely an endearing trait of the churches I've visited. It was so fake and forced, the entertainment value was worth the trip each time.

I've aways felt the "caring behavior" at Xian churches was very artificial and frankly, very corny. I felt more genuinely cared for when I was in the Army with my comrades. Once you are in battle together, you really feel the care of your buddies. But church is too nice-nicey and very phoney to me. Dogs are very caring too. They really love you and will die for you without hestation.

 

[e.r.m.]

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

Once one strips back the layers of history, remove all the fancy sayings added over the centuries that the Bible does not say for itself (e.g. - Accept Jesus as personal savior), remove all the trappings that one does not see in the Bible (e.g. - Cathedrals and altar calls), remove practices that are not mentioned in the Bible (infant baptisms) and other teachings that can only be found by inference and in between the lines, in essence understand the first century church culture, beliefs and practices and compare that to churches today, I think one can accurately identify the true church or churches today. it doesn't necessarily have to be one.

 

[e.r.m.]

I've aways felt the "caring behavior" at Xian churches was very artificial and frankly, very corny. I felt more genuinely cared for when I was in the Army with my comrades. Once you are in battle together, you really feel the care of your buddies. But church is too nice-nicey and very phoney to me. Dogs are very caring too. They really love you and will die for you without hestation.

That can happen. I've experienced that, it feels weird. I think it depends on the congregation. I've been to different congregations of the same denomination with different experiences.

 

[CG Didymus]

That can happen. I've experienced that, it feels weird. I think it depends on the congregation. I've been to different congregations of the same denomination with different experiences.

Definitely some people are more "real" and "genuine" than others. The churches seem to be doing their best at what they think is the "true" way to worship God. When we try and find the one true Christian church, the problem gets down to which words, which verses, and which interpretation is best. But, who doesn't think their church is the one that's right? So that doesn't work. Because loving and kind people can be found in any religion or no religion, that's why I think the "true church" is in the heart. But, since none of us are perfect, even that falls short in practice. Anyway, what is the Christian restoration movement? Sounds interesting. And the same with you Shermana, I'd like to hear more of what you believe.

 

[kjw47]

Once one strips back the layers of history, remove all the fancy sayings added over the centuries that the Bible does not say for itself (e.g. - Accept Jesus as personal savior), remove all the trappings that one does not see in the Bible (e.g. - Cathedrals and altar calls), remove practices that are not mentioned in the Bible (infant baptisms) and other teachings that can only be found by inference and in between the lines, in essence understand the first century church culture, beliefs and practices and compare that to churches today, I think one can accurately identify the true church or churches today. it doesn't necessarily have to be one.

I am confident that since all throughout the ot God used a single religion,unified--that the same goes for all time a single religion who follow this simple rule-1 cor 1:10) By applying the true teachings of Jesus to what one is being taught is the best way to find the religion he( Jesus) is with. but beware-2 cor 11:12-15.

 

[Jonathan Hoffman]

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

There is no true church.
The Kingdom of God is within You !!

 

[Shermana]

I am confident that since all throughout the ot God used a single religion,unified--that the same goes for all time a single religion who follow this simple rule-1 cor 1:10) By applying the true teachings of Jesus to what one is being taught is the best way to find the religion he( Jesus) is with. but beware-2 cor 11:12-15.

And of course, the true teachings of Jesus = Nazarene Judaism.

 

[Pegg]

And of course, the true teachings of Jesus = Nazarene Judaism.

shermana hi,
this is going to be offtopic here, but i wanted to ask about this from a website explaining what Nazarene Judaism is all about... this is the quote:

'After the resurrection of Yahshua, He instructed his disciples to go and preach teshuvah (repentance) and Torah to all nations in His name, which means according to His teachings. He established a Nazarene Beit Din (Rabbi's Court, literally "House of Judgment")) and gave them the authority to "bind and loose" (make halachic rulings) on issues of Torah'

my question is this:
if it is believed that Jesus gave these chosen ones authority to 'bind and loose issues of Torah', then when these ones gathered to make a decision on whether the mosaic law was binding on gentiles, why is that decision rejected?

 

[Shermana]

then when these ones gathered to make a decision on whether the mosaic law was binding on gentiles, why is that decision rejected?

Assuming that this is the correct interpretaiton of "bind and loose" (Which I disagree with, and I think Yashanet is incorrect here, as are many quasi-"Messianic Judaism" sites), we still have to establish that this "Council of Jerusalem" episode happened in teh first place. Surely you know by now that I dispute, as do many scholars, the event altogether, especially since it directly clashes with Galatians 2, as even the top Conservative scholars agree it clashes like FF Bruce. It is most likely an interpolation. The author of Revelation apparently still considered the True Saints to be the ones who "obey the commandments of God" and rebuked those who taught to eat meat sacrificed to idols, which even Paul didn't want to force upon Gentiles it seems.

No single Messianic group lays total claim on what is the correct interpretation of JEsus's teachings, and there's no reason to believe that their interpretation of "bind and loose" refers to making Halachic rulings. I think that the context of "bind and loose" has nothing to do with such, and I'm not the only one. Technically onee could make a case that Jesus deferred Halakhic rulings to the Pharisees who "sit in Moses's seat". This does seem to be a common Protestant/Evangelical interpretation though, and many Messianic groups do follow the Protestant/Evangelical framework in their interpretations, but it's simply not the case that this is what it means IMO.

With that said, this would still ONLY apply to gentiles, even if this was correct for some reason, even if the Council of Jerusalem was indisputably true for some reason, and would still imply a total divide between Jewish and Gentile Christians in which the Jewish Christians are held to a higher, holier standard. So you are stuck with the fact that Jewish Christians are still held to obey Moses and thus held to such a higher standard (with whatever implications of being held to a higher standard means), and that the Saints will follow 'The commandments of God" as defined in Revelation even if you go by that.

With that said, I believe "bind and loose" has nothing to do with Halakhic interpretation and that Yashanet is mistaken on this particular issue, though they are on the right track with others, and there's very good reason for the scholars to say that the Council of Jerusalem episode was a later interpolation, especially the Tubingen school.

Here is a Protestant/Evangelical site that I think does a decent job on showing how wrong this interpretation of the concept is.

http://livingtheway.org/binding.html

Most Bible versions routinely translate these two passages the same way: “Whatever you [whether “you” is thought to refer to Peter, the apostles, or the church] bind or loose on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven.” Many religious leaders have taken it to mean something other than what Jesus intended, and have, either knowingly or unknowingly, caused great hurt to many of God’s people.
Not understanding these two verses, some religious leaders took to themselves a power and authority that approached the authority of God. They would say, “Why, if the man in charge says something, God is going to back him up! Christ said He would!” Most people had no way of knowing if this was true or not, but since the idea appeared to be biblically based, they tended to go along with what the man in charge said.
In many congregations, the leadership style of the local pastor set the tone for what took place in the congregation. Any decisions, any rules, any personal preferences of the pastor, tended to take on the force of law, and the pastor fully expected God to fall in line behind him.
“Whatever you bind” became a license. And somehow it appeared to give human leaders the power to tell God what to do.

What it more likely means is binding and loosing who enters the Kingdom in regards to Church discipline, not the method of entry. Especially considering the previous verses, starting from 18:15: "Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother." 16But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’c 17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. 18“I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will bed bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will bee loosed in heaven.

.

FIRST CENTURY UNDERSTANDING
What, then, is bound and loosed? What would the church bind or loose which is already bound or loosed in heaven?
Part of the confusion arises because the phrase doesn’t really mean very much to us today. Other than its use in the Bible, we might never have heard the expression. But would Jesus and the disciples have known this phrase, since they were first century Jews living in Judea? Was it an expression with which they were familiar?
As it turns out, the Jewish Encyclopedia does contain an article on this topic. Under the title, “Binding and Loosing,” it says, “Rabbinical term for ‘forbidding and permitting.’ ... The power of binding and loosing was always claimed by the Pharisees. ... [They] became the administrators of all public affairs so as to be empowered to banish and readmit whom they pleased, as well as to loose and to bind..., and they could bind any day by declaring it a fast day.”
The phrase relates to the administration of government. Messiah spent a great deal of time preparing His disciples to administer the New Covenant ekklesia. When He was teaching them about binding and loosing, He was teaching them an important lesson in church government, but not the lesson many people have thought He was teaching!

 

[Pegg]

Assuming that this is the correct interpretaiton of "bind and loose" (Which I disagree with, and I think Yashanet is incorrect here, as are many quasi-"Messianic Judaism" sites), we still have to establish that this "Council of Jerusalem" episode happened in teh first place. Surely you know by now that I dispute, as do many scholars, the event altogether, especially since it directly clashes with Galatians 2, as even the top Conservative scholars agree it clashes like FF Bruce. It is most likely an interpolation. The author of Revelation apparently still considered the True Saints to be the ones who "obey the commandments of God" and rebuked those who taught to eat meat sacrificed to idols, which even Paul didn't want to force upon Gentiles it seems.

No single Messianic group lays total claim on what is the correct interpretation of JEsus's teachings, and there's no reason to believe that their interpretation of "bind and loose" refers to making Halachic rulings. I think that the context of "bind and loose" has nothing to do with such, and I'm not the only one. Technically onee could make a case that Jesus deferred Halakhic rulings to the Pharisees who "sit in Moses's seat". This does seem to be a common Protestant/Evangelical interpretation though, and many Messianic groups do follow the Protestant/Evangelical framework in their interpretations, but it's simply not the case that this is what it means IMO.

With that said, this would still ONLY apply to gentiles, even if this was correct for some reason, even if the Council of Jerusalem was indisputably true for some reason, and would still imply a total divide between Jewish and Gentile Christians in which the Jewish Christians are held to a higher, holier standard. So you are stuck with the fact that Jewish Christians are still held to obey Moses and thus held to such a higher standard (with whatever implications of being held to a higher standard means), and that the Saints will follow 'The commandments of God" as defined in Revelation even if you go by that.

With that said, I believe "bind and loose" has nothing to do with Halakhic interpretation and that Yashanet is mistaken on this particular issue, though they are on the right track with others, and there's very good reason for the scholars to say that the Council of Jerusalem episode was a later interpolation, especially the Tubingen school.

Here is a Protestant/Evangelical site that I think does a decent job on showing how wrong this interpretation of the concept is.

A Closer Look at Binding and Loosing

What it more likely means is binding and loosing who enters the Kingdom, not the method of entry. Especially considering the previous verse.

so im guessing this basically means that Nazarene Judaism has different schools of thought??

Is there a 'center' for teaching and belief among Nazarene Judiasm...(ig, JW's teachings come from the Watchtower Society and in every country of the world, the teaching material, books, magazines, public talks etc are all uniform)... is there a 'body' which oversees nazarene Judaism?

 

[Pegg]

What it more likely means is binding and loosing who enters the Kingdom in regards to Church discipline, not the method of entry. Especially considering the previous verses, starting from 18:15: "Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother." 16But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’c 17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. 18“I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will bed bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will bee loosed in heaven.

.

our view of the 'binding and loosing' is that, in congregational matters, when the body of older men gather concerning a particular matter, when they search the scriptures and come to a unanimous decision which is in harmony with the sciptures, the matter has already been established in heaven.

IOW, a decision has been made in heaven by Christ, and he has moved the elder body to come to the right decision by means of the scriptures and holy spirit.

 

[Shermana]

so im guessing this basically means that Nazarene Judaism has different schools of thought??

Is there a 'center' for teaching and belief among Nazarene Judiasm...(ig, JW's teachings come from the Watchtower Society and in every country of the world, the teaching material, books, magazines, public talks etc are all uniform)... is there a 'body' which oversees nazarene Judaism?

Nope. There is no single body. There may be some stealth prophets however.

 

[Pegg]

Nope. There is no single body. There may be some stealth prophets however.

so without a single body, how do you know which division is presenting an accurate teaching?

 

[Shermana]

so without a single body, how do you know which division is presenting an accurate teaching?

Through intelligent reasoning, prayer, and interpretation of dreams.

 

[Pegg]

Through intelligent reasoning, prayer, and interpretation of dreams.

what if your a person like me who cannot interpret dreams?? who should i listen to?

 

[Shermana]

what if your a person like me who cannot interpret dreams?? who should i listen to?

Well reasoning should be the first and foremost tool in the arsenal.

For example, if something doesn't follow the preceding verses in how its interpreted, you may have the wrong context there.

And if something clashes with another book elsewhere, like Galatians 2 vs Acts 15, it may be a sign of some interpolation.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Revelation 14 tells us that these 144,000 are from mankind....

14:1 And I saw, and, look! the Lamb standing upon the Mount Zion, and with him a hundred and forty-four thousand having his name and the name of his Father written on their foreheads. ...4 These are the ones that keep following the Lamb no matter where he goes. These were bought from among mankind as firstfruits to God and to the Lamb

so they are not angels...they are christians who are anointed and chosen to rule with Christ in the heavenly kingdom as kings and priests.

I believe the 144,000 are 12,000 of each tribe of Jews that will convert to Christianity during the tribulation.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Scripture interprets scripture and the scriptures clearly show who the 144.000 are and they are not the church, they are Jews, specifically 12.000 from each tribe listed.



And I heard the number of those who were sealed. One hundred and forty-four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel were sealed:

of the tribe of Judah twelve thousand were sealed;
of the tribe of Reuben twelve thousand were sealed;
of the tribe of Gad twelve thousand were sealed;
of the tribe of Asher twelve thousand were sealed;
of the tribe of Naphtali twelve thousand were sealed;
of the tribe of Manasseh twelve thousand were sealed;
of the tribe of Simeon twelve thousand were sealed;
of the tribe of Levi twelve thousand were sealed;
of the tribe of Issachar twelve thousand were sealed;
of the tribe of Zebulun twelve thousand were sealed;
of the tribe of Joseph twelve thousand were sealed;
of the tribe of Benjamin twelve thousand were sealed. Rev. 7:4-8

Exactly right! :yes: