What church is the true church?

[sojourner]

Not that I can see. And I'm not just talking about Christians. The same goes for Muslims too. Man has gotten his dirty hands into all of Gods messages and altered them. I think it's more about an individual and his or her personal relationship with God. I believe in seeking the truth and I believe I have found it. But I've also found that the truth is lonely. None of the existing major religions are following it. They're all set in their ways and unwilling to question why they believe what they believe.

But, hasn't humanity always been involved in God's dealings? I mean, isn't religion about a relationship between humanity and Divinity? And, as far as Xy goes, hasn't that relationship mostly been equitable -- that is to say, humanity has always been given a voice in how that relationship proceeds?

Consider that God's messages aren't meant to be static, nor heard in a vacuum. Perhaps they are meant more as fertile soil for humanity to work and grow spiritual fruit in.

Perhaps loneliness isn't truth. Perhaps God created humanity in God's image, to allay loneliness. Perhaps truth is more companionable and malleable than you're giving it credit for.

 

[sojourner]

You know it seems like liberal forms of religion lower their doctrinal standards enough to allow what looks like a nice peaceful loving unity. Is there a truth in being so doctrinally wishy-washy as to "love" everybody. It definitely isn't lonely, but is it too broad and undefined?

Since God is indefinable, why shouldn't doctrine be? Do we have to have tightly-controlled doctrine that seeks to divide and differentiate, rather than include and seek mutuality?

Consider that love and fellowship aren't "wishy-washy," just less rigid than we might like.

 

[sojourner]

For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.” Matthew 18:20

And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers. Acts 2:42

Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful. And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching. Hebrews 10:23-25

Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, put on tender mercies, kindness, humility, meekness, longsuffering; bearing with one another, and forgiving one another, if anyone has a complaint against another; even as Christ forgave you, so you also must do. But above all these things put on love, which is the bond of perfection. And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him. Colossians 3:12-17

I don't know of any legitimate denominational body that doesn't at least strive to meet these criteria.

 

[Katzpur]

I don’t look at it as being anti-Mormon, but rather contending for the biblical faith, as believers are instructed to do in the scriptures (Jude 3). I am not against Mormon people and I am not against you personally, but I do see conflict between Mormon doctrine and Biblical truth and I believe there are contradictions between the Book of Mormon and the Bible.

I can appreciate that. You are contending for the biblical faith as you see it, and I am contending for the biblical faith as I see it.

Mormon missionaries ask potential converts to read the Book of Mormon and pray concerning its truthfulness, is that not correct?

Sure they do. And their suggestion is supported in James 1:5.

The apostles never asked people to pray about their message because what they taught was from the scriptures and could be verified.

On come on! The Apostles asked the people to believe that a man took upon Himself their sins and died so that they might be forgiven of them and reconciled to God. They taught that the people should no longer live by the law of "an eye for an eye" but should now love even their enemies. They taught that this man had risen again on the third day after His death and had ascended into Heaven to reign with the Father. "The scriptures" of the Apostles day didn't even include The New Testament. The people were being asked to accept an entirely new gospel, one that in many respects would have seemed to be completely contradictory to the faith their ancestors had known for several thousand years. I can't believe you're so naive as to not realize this!

There is nothing in the biblical scriptures about the BOM or any way to verify it by the biblical scriptures.

Good grief. How could there have been? The writers of the Bible knew nothing about what was going on over in the Western Hemisphere.

As a matter of fact the biblical scriptures are said to be complete (2 Timothy 3:16-17) and the faith was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). So to even pray about additional writings such as the BOM would be praying for something outside of God’s already revealed will and word.

Keep telling yourself that. The last chapter of John says that Jesus said and did so many things that were not recorded at all that there would not be room for them in all of the books in the world. Considering the relatively little we have in terms of His words (as recorded in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), Jesus must have spent about 98% of His three-year ministry talking about the upcoming storm over the Sea of Gallilee. There is nowhere in the Bible where God declares He has nothing more to say to us. Nowhere.

This can invite a deceptive experience from deceiving spirits. You are correct that in the Bible believers are told to ask God for wisdom (James 1:5), but this is speaking to those who are already in the faith and encouraging them to pray and seek wisdom through God’s Word in the Bible, It is not a directive to pray about accepting or seeking wisdom from additional, extra-biblical material.

Oh really? And which verse is this little tidbit in? I just love some of these interpretations you come up with, InChrist. They are truly classic.

I consider the Bible to be correct because I consider the important truths have been translated correctly because it is God's Word and He has preserved it intact. I’m not saying there are not some human errors which for the most part are grammar or punctuation, but I don’t believe there are any errors which affect the truth concerning the nature of God, man, salvation, eternal life or any other important doctrine.

I agree that the Bible is the word of God and that it has great value in our lives. I don't believe, and the Mormon Church does not teach, that it contains any really significants errors. As a matter of fact, in my 64 years in the Church, I have never once heard a speaker say something like, "Well, this part is mistranslated so we'll just disregard it." That's absolutely absurd.

The 8th article of faith of the Mormon Church seems to be an attempt to undermine the trustworthiness and authority of the Bible, so when the Bible contradicts Mormonism the authority of the Mormon Church can take precedence over the biblical scriptures.

You're so full of it. The Bible doesn't contradict the Book of Mormon any more than Matthew contradicts John or Mark contradicts Luke. They are not pitted against each other. They both come from the same source.
[/quote]

No, I believe His Word (the Bible) is complete and living. He is able to speak through His written word to anyone who sincerely seeks His wisdom concerning all matters of life, godliness, and eternity.

And how's that working so far? We have 30,000+ different interpretations of His Word and counting. So much for all sincere seekers getting the same answers.

 

[Katzpur]

I really wish I had not gotten involved in this thread. The title of the thread should have been enough to make me realize that this is not the kind of debate I like getting into. Telling people that I'm right and they're wrong has never struck me as a very Christian way to behave. Now that I've said what I have, I am just posting this to say that I will not be responding to any further posts on this thread.

 

[Monotheist 101]

I believe the scriptures reveal that the true church is not a physical institution or one group or denomination, but rather an invisible entity which is made-up of all who have placed their trust in Christ for salvation and are regenerated or born-again.

Which church is the true church?

From an outside perspective..

I agree with your statement, but would replace "in Christ for salvation..." with "in God"

Ive looked into early Christianity in quite some detail, and I find that the trinity and the whole Original Sin and Atonement theories seem contradictory to what Jesus would have taught. On further research into other religions and my own, I have found the same human need present in every past religion to turn God into a man/manifestation, the uncreated to be part of the creation, to serve the simple need of being able to relate to him, we give God human emotions and human attributes, what we fail to grasp is that the Human brain and senses are not designed to perceive God or the uncreated, God is not what we want him to be, or what my ancestors wanted him to be. He is the same one true God/Creator who has been there from the start and that is a truth that never changes, whether we agree with it or not, He needs no partners, it wouldn't be befitting of his glory. Honestly I don't believe we were made in the image of God. I haven't found a single statement where Jesus said..I am God, Worship Me.. I believe that Christianity was heavily influenced by the Jews that crucified Jesus at the very beginning.

This is just my opinion, no offense intended.

 

[InChrist]

From an outside perspective..

I agree with your statement, but would replace "in Christ for salvation..." with "in God"

Ive looked into early Christianity in quite some detail, and I find that the trinity and the whole Original Sin and Atonement theories seem contradictory to what Jesus would have taught. On further research into other religions and my own, I have found the same human need present in every past religion to turn God into a man/manifestation, the uncreated to be part of the creation, to serve the simple need of being able to relate to him, we give God human emotions and human attributes, what we fail to grasp is that the Human brain and senses are not designed to perceive God or the uncreated, God is not what we want him to be, or what my ancestors wanted him to be. He is the same one true God/Creator who has been there from the start and that is a truth that never changes, whether we agree with it or not, He needs no partners, it wouldn't be befitting of his glory. Honestly I don't believe we were made in the image of God. I haven't found a single statement where Jesus said..I am God, Worship Me.. I believe that Christianity was heavily influenced by the Jews that crucified Jesus at the very beginning.

This is just my opinion, no offense intended.

Thank you so much for sharing your perspective. I don't agree with it, but certainly I appreciate hearing it and I am not offended by your opinion.

The biblical scriptures clearly says...Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” Acts 4:12

and

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.John 14;6

and

Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Philippians 2:9-11

I don't believe it was necessary for Jesus to say, "I am God...worship Me". My perspective is that both the Old and New Testaments are testaments revealing that Jesus is God the promised Savior and Messiah who came to save His creation.

 

[Monotheist 101]

Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Philippians 2:9-11

I don't believe it was necessary for Jesus to say, "I am God...worship Me". My perspective is that both the Old and New Testaments are testaments revealing that Jesus is God the promised Savior and Messiah who came to save His creation.

A major hurdle I faced when looking up Jewish and Christian doctrines was the fact that non or very few of the original Aramaic or Hebrew text survive in their entirety or un-altered state, the best thing anyone can get their hands on is a translation/interpretation from aramaic to greek, greek to latin, latin to english and so on.. We cannot be certain that what remains is infact the unchanged "word of God", in my research it seems like a translators opinion on the subject.
I honestly have found many truths in your scripture which I wholeheartedly agree with..but at the same time I have found contradictions, I hold the belief that God almighty and his Word cannot hold such contradictions. I will give you a few examples:

Atonement and Original Sin contradiction

“The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him” (Ezekiel 18:20)

What I can understand from the above statement is that sin is not passed down through the generations, Every person will be judged for his own actions, I will not be judged for the actions of my great grandson who could turn out to be a wicked soul, neither will I have to answer for my ancestors who were pagan idol worshippers 20 generations ago.

The Trinity

From what I have read in the Bible, Jesus said he was the son of God and we were the children of God. What I can take from it is that I myself am the Son of God aswell. The best response an english speaking priest gave me when I asked him about this was that, Jesus when he said I am the Son of God he used a capital S for that and when he referred to us as sons he used a small s..This to me makes no sense, Jesus' language was Aramaic there are no capital and small letters in the Aramaic alphabet.

Guys I don't mean to say that you guys are wrong, I honestly have looked into every religion I can get my hands on, every scripture that is said to be divinely revealed and tried to form my own opinion on the matter by distancing myself from my ancestral beliefs. I hold the opinion that the Islamic Quran is the unaltered unchanged word of God in its Original language. I donot agree with alot of Mainstream islamic scholars and their views but in my personal quest for the truth, It is hard for me to overlook the Quran in its original arabic, as a miracle from God, the Same God/Father in the Heavens that you and I both believe in.

 

[CG Didymus]

Since God is indefinable, why shouldn't doctrine be? Do we have to have tightly-controlled doctrine that seeks to divide and differentiate, rather than include and seek mutuality?

Consider that love and fellowship aren't "wishy-washy," just less rigid than we might like.

I belonged to the Baha'i Faith in the late 80's. Another Baha'i and I went to an Ecumenical group once a month. There were Lutherans, Methodists, Catholics, Reformed Jews and a few others. There were no Fundamentalists. All the rest of us put love and unity as a priority. We tried to listen and respect where the other people were coming from. A Fundamentalist might think that such a gathering is useless. What we really needed was Jesus--of course in an offensive and divisive way to us, but to them the ultimate and real truth that brings about true love and true unity. For myself, I still like sacrificing my beliefs enough to reach a point of commonality with other people (except with Fundamentalists, those self-righteous bums).

 

[Aamer]

We have to keep in mind that the New Testament was not authored by God. Nor was it authored by Jesus. Based on the dates these scriptures surfaced, it's safe to say they weren't authored by Mark, Luke, Paul, Matthew or Peter either. So they can not be guaranteed to be authentic. Quran is a different story because it was completed in it's entirety during the life of Muhammad. Muslims believe it to be the direct word of God, which he sent to Muhammad through Gabriel. The Bible is more comparable to Hadith. Neither can be considered 100% authentic. If you want to know if Quran is actually from God, then analyze the proof. You will find no contradictions and there are many mathematical and scientific miracles in Quran which weren't discovered until thousands of years later. Most Muslims don't know all this. They only follow blindly and eat up whatever junk their scholars tell them, just like members of any other religion. I only know this because I have studied many faiths, like many of you in my quest for the truth. Peace.

Miracles of the Qur'an - Modern Science Reveals New Miracles of the Qur'an

 

[Aamer]

*Correction: Many Quranic proofs weren't discovered until hundreds of years later. If Muhammad masterminded this, wouldn't he want to take credit for these crazy math formulas and proofs? My guess is he didn't know. Only God knew.

Miracles of the Qur'an - Modern Science Reveals New Miracles of the Qur'an

 

[sojourner]

We have to keep in mind that the New Testament was not authored by God. Nor was it authored by Jesus. Based on the dates these scriptures surfaced, it's safe to say they weren't authored by Mark, Luke, Paul, Matthew or Peter either. So they can not be guaranteed to be authentic. Quran is a different story because it was completed in it's entirety during the life of Muhammad. Muslims believe it to be the direct word of God, which he sent to Muhammad through Gabriel. The Bible is more comparable to Hadith. Neither can be considered 100% authentic. If you want to know if Quran is actually from God, then analyze the proof. You will find no contradictions and there are many mathematical and scientific miracles in Quran which weren't discovered until thousands of years later. Most Muslims don't know all this. They only follow blindly and eat up whatever junk their scholars tell them, just like members of any other religion. I only know this because I have studied many faiths, like many of you in my quest for the truth. Peace.

Miracles of the Qur'an - Modern Science Reveals New Miracles of the Qur'an

I really like your twisting of the term "authentic" to fit your own agenda. The bible is as authentic as it was designed to be. If you'd stop trying to twist it to fit into some other mold of what you *think* a sacred text "ought" to be, you might realize your mistake.

 

[Aamer]

I really like your twisting of the term "authentic" to fit your own agenda. The bible is as authentic as it was designed to be. If you'd stop trying to twist it to fit into some other mold of what you *think* a sacred text "ought" to be, you might realize your mistake.

By authentic, I mean the truth from God. Example...

Matthew 5:1 And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a MOUNTAIN: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:

Luke 6:17 And he came down with them, and stood in the PLAIN, and the company of his disciples, and a great multitude of people out of all Judaea and Jerusalem, and from the sea coast of Tyre and Sidon, which came to hear him, and to be healed of their diseases;

So which one of these accounts is AUTHENTIC? As in true. They're both describing the same event. But Matthew says Jesus delivered the sermon from a mountain while Luke says it was on a plain. They can't both be right.

 

[savagewind]

By authentic, I mean the truth from God. Example...

Matthew 5:1 And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a MOUNTAIN: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:

Luke 6:17 And he came down with them, and stood in the PLAIN, and the company of his disciples, and a great multitude of people out of all Judaea and Jerusalem, and from the sea coast of Tyre and Sidon, which came to hear him, and to be healed of their diseases;

So which one of these accounts is AUTHENTIC? As in true. They're both describing the same event. But Matthew says Jesus delivered the sermon from a mountain while Luke says it was on a plain. They can't both be right.

There are level places on a mountain. He stood on a level place on the mountain.

Strong's Greek: 3977. ??????? (pedinos) -- level, plain From a derivative of pous (meaning the ground); level (as easy for the feet) -- plain.

 

[Domenic]

Originally Posted by Aamer
We have to keep in mind that the New Testament was not authored by God. Nor was it authored by Jesus. Based on the dates these scriptures surfaced, it's safe to say they weren't authored by Mark, Luke, Paul, Matthew or Peter either. So they can not be guaranteed to be authentic. Quran is a different story because it was completed in it's entirety during the life of Muhammad. Muslims believe it to be the direct word of God, which he sent to Muhammad through Gabriel. The Bible is more comparable to Hadith. Neither can be considered 100% authentic. If you want to know if Quran is actually from God, then analyze the proof. You will find no contradictions and there are many mathematical and scientific miracles in Quran which weren't discovered until thousands of years later. Most Muslims don't know all this. They only follow blindly and eat up whatever junk their scholars tell them, just like members of any other religion. I only know this because I have studied many faiths, like many of you in my quest for the truth. Peace.

Miracles of the Qur'an - Modern Science Reveals New Miracles of the Qur'an

The Qur'an was written some two hundred years after the death of Muhammad. There are two Qur'ans. One was written near the begining of Muhammads rule...but it is far different than the one written two hundred years latter.

 

[sojourner]

By authentic, I mean the truth from God. Example...

Matthew 5:1 And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a MOUNTAIN: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:

Luke 6:17 And he came down with them, and stood in the PLAIN, and the company of his disciples, and a great multitude of people out of all Judaea and Jerusalem, and from the sea coast of Tyre and Sidon, which came to hear him, and to be healed of their diseases;

So which one of these accounts is AUTHENTIC? As in true. They're both describing the same event. But Matthew says Jesus delivered the sermon from a mountain while Luke says it was on a plain. They can't both be right.

"Authentic" and "Factual" aren't synonyms.
You're right, so take a very close look at what you're saying:

They're both describing the same event.

They are both describing the same event. They are not reporting the same event. This is what I meant in my previous post. You're twisting the texts to force them into the model of modern history reporting. they're not that kind of text -- nor were they ever intended to be. Both accounts are authentic, because both texts accurately reflect the Tradition out of which they come. Both texts describe the event in such a way that a unique point of view is supported. Each writer has a different theological and cultural take. Matthew approaches the good news from a completely different perspective than Luke, so it stands to reason that they would differ as to detail (which, to the ancient mind, is relatively unimportant, when compared with the rather picayune fact-finding of the modern era).

 

[Aamer]

Domenic,
What proof do you have for this claim?

Sojourner,
I realize it's not really a big deal whether he was on a mountain or plain. I'm only pointing out that both reports cannot be correct so the authenticity is in question. Well according to my standards anyway. I realize this doesn't bother you.

 

[savagewind]

OMG am I on ignore

It was a flat place on the mountain. There are such things. Not enough words, is that it?

 

[savagewind]

http://www.adventureguide.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/20120804-164231.jpg

This is a picture of a small plain on a big mountain

I can even see reason why it would be notable. Have you ever walked uphill before? I have. When I reach a level place I am happy that I made it up and now I can enjoy my walk again.

 

[sojourner]

Domenic,
What proof do you have for this claim?

Sojourner,
I realize it's not really a big deal whether he was on a mountain or plain. I'm only pointing out that both reports cannot be correct so the authenticity is in question. Well according to my standards anyway. I realize this doesn't bother you.

Here's where you're missing the mark. (Didn't you read my last post?) The issue isn't at all whether "the facts are correct." Once again: These aren't reports -- they're storytelling from different points of view. Both are authentic because each approaches the Jesus Event from its own cultural perspective. If they had attempted to simply copy each other, without regard to their particular theological POV, then they wouldn't be authentic. As it is, however, they are eminently authentic.

The differences in detail (mountain or plain) point to subtleties in the difference of POV of the storytelling -- not to "mistakes in transmission from God to human being."