Which of all churches on earth is the only true church?

[SarahRuth]

That came from the book "Reasoning from the Scriptures". I could have written it all myself because I know these things, :yes: but in the interest of time I pasted it.

I looked at your link and it seems that that web site did the plagiarizing.

I'm confused? What was pasted? Did something get deleted??

 

[MurphtheSurf]

[FONT=&quot]We I hear the claim made by any organized group, denomination, or church that they are the true church, then I know they are a false church.[/FONT]







[FONT=&quot]"What is the church ?[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]The first time we find the word church is in Mt.16:18 where Jesus says he will build his church upon the revelation the Father gave Peter which he openly confessed. It is called the church of God which he had purchased with his own blood. From this we can see the church began with Christ raising from the dead and ascending and sending the Holy Spirit to birth and bring together a new entity. The Greek word is ekklesia (which is used 114 times in the NT) which means a called out assembly (Ek = out of Kaleo= to call ) It is never used of a building or of the kingdom of God. The church is not the kingdom but included in it. The Church is s spiritual organism, invisible composing all believers world wide from the time of its inception on Pentecost until the taking away of the church at the rapture. The Holy Spirit gave it its birth Acts 2:33 and we become part by spirit baptism 1 Cor12:13 by being born again of the Spirit. No one joins the church unless they are joined to Christ first.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]No one is told to join the church because it is an automatic placing of one in the body of which Christ is the head "[/FONT]


the True church

My original post on this thread was removed for "plagiarizm" even though I posted the source. But I say it was removed because it was too hard hitting on those who hate Jehovah's people and the organization.
If I'm wrong, In Christ's post will disappear also. But I'm not holding my breath.

 

[MurphtheSurf]

I'm confused? What was pasted? Did something get deleted??

If you like, I can send it over to your private messages.
Unless of course the mods have a problem with that too. :cover:

 

[SarahRuth]

If you like, I can send it over to your private messages.
Unless of course the mods have a problem with that too. :cover:

If that's allowed, then yea! Send it! I wanna see.

 

[kepha31]

[FONT=&quot]We I hear the claim made by any organized group, denomination, or church that they are the true church, then I know they are a false church.[/FONT]

The Catholic Church is the true Church, but she says herself that she is not the only church with truths. If an institution claims to be exlusivley true, then I would have to agree with you, but the claim to be the true Church is not at the exclusion of other churches who are a source of grace, gifts, and means to salvation. That's one reason why I know the Catholic Church is the true church. There is a communion going on, it's just not as full as it should be.

Too bad your post got hacked up.




[FONT=&quot]"What is the church ?[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]The first time we find the word church is in Mt.16:18 where Jesus says he will build his church upon the revelation the Father gave Peter which he openly confessed. It is called the church of God which he had purchased with his own blood.[/FONT]

I have no problem with Jesus building on Peter's confession, but a more dispassionate grammatical analysis does not support a singular meaning. Matthew translated the Aramic language into Greek. Any Aramaic bible will show, "You are Kepha and this Kepha I will build my Church. Jesus never blends metaphors.
Jesus redeemed all of mankind, not just Christians. John Calvin was wrong.
[FONT=&quot]

[FONT=&quot] From this we can see the church began with Christ raising from the dead and ascending and sending the Holy Spirit to birth and bring together a new entity. The Greek word is ekklesia (which is used 114 times in the NT) which means a called out assembly (Ek = out of Kaleo= to call ) It is never used of a building or of the kingdom of God. The church is not the kingdom but included in it.[/FONT]

[/FONT]
We call it the Mystical Body of Christ (Church Militant, Church Suffering, and Church Triumphant)

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]The Church is s spiritual organism, invisible composing all believers world wide from the time of its inception on Pentecost until the taking away of the church at the rapture.[/FONT]
[/FONT]

The Church is an extension of the Incarnation, united by the Eucharist. There is nothing in scripture about an invisible church.

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]The Holy Spirit gave it its birth Acts 2:33 and we become part by spirit baptism 1 Cor12:13 by being born again of the Spirit. [/FONT]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
Regarding baptism, there is not one verse in the Bible where vater is sparated from spirit, and spirit is never used sysmbolically. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]No one joins the church unless they are joined to Christ first.[/FONT] [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[FONT=&quot]No one is told to join the church because it is an automatic placing of one in the body of which Christ is the head "[/FONT]
[/FONT]

Funny you should mention Paul's comparison of the family with the father being head of his family just as Christ is head of the Church, and in the same breath you would exclude children as automatically being placed in the Church?

 

[earlwooters]

If the Catholic Church is the true church, the false ones must really be corrupt.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

OK, the book doesn't do the thinking for me.
Now answer my question.

You still didn't answer the question, Murph.

 

[MurphtheSurf]

You still didn't answer the question, Murph.

"Any more than 7 standards" Was that the question?
If so, fine. I think those 7 cover the basics. But since we can't review these any more, (gee I wonder who did that?)
What's missing?

After you post what standards are missing, feel free to respond to the question I asked regarding the book "Reasoning from the Scriptures"

"As for the quality of the book in question; am I to assume that you have a copy and have studied it?"

 

[SarahRuth]

You still didn't answer the question, Murph.

Which question were you wanting answered? Maybe the question was missed/overlooked?

I don't mean to be a pain, and I hope it's okay to say this, but this back and forth, non-specific banter like this bugs me.

I haven't been here long, though. And if you two do this to each other, and it's just how you communicate, and I have no business sticking my nose into it... please feel free to let me know that I should just butt out. I won't be offended. It's all good.

I have a copy of the book "Reasoning from the Scriptures", actually. I have not studied it, really, but I have... skimmed? reviewed? perused it? It's a fascinating book, in my opinion. I find that it really does give the "answers"... straight forward, to the point responses to very specific questions and/or objections that people may have to discussions of faith... which could very easily be construed as "doing the thinking for a person." But, most books are that way, aren't they? To a degree anyway. They give the information that is believed to be true from the perspective of the person writing it. Some choose to believe it, some choose to condemn it, some choose to ignore it... More often than not, however, I find that people come to their conclusions based on their own study and what makes the most sense to them. So it's not that books think for people, it's that people find a faith that resonates with them and therefore they read/believe the books that speak to them from that perspective.

It is why we can't determine which church is right. We all find the *truth* that speaks to us, and we all see things differently, and we all come to different conclusions. I can't help but think that if there really is a God, and he created all this diversity, he must appreciate our differences more than we ever could, and the idea of their being *one true church* seems more and more absurd to me.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

"Any more than 7 standards" Was that the question?
If so, fine. I think those 7 cover the basics. But since we can't review these any more, (gee I wonder who did that?)
What's missing?

After you post what standards are missing, feel free to respond to the question I asked regarding the book "Reasoning from the Scriptures"

"As for the quality of the book in question; am I to assume that you have a copy and have studied it?"

The question is simply this: are there more than the seven principles?

If not, how can you possibly say that you are thinking for yourself?

 

[MurphtheSurf]

The question is simply this: are there more than the seven principles?

If not, how can you possibly say that you are thinking for yourself?

OK I thought you had something else in mind as if there were more principles. There may be more to discuss if we took the time to meditate on the issue, but like I said, these are just the basics on which to focus. If we were to expand on each of the seven items that were poofed, well, it could take weeks to do.

 

[MurphtheSurf]

Which question were you wanting answered? Maybe the question was missed/overlooked?

I don't mean to be a pain, and I hope it's okay to say this, but this back and forth, non-specific banter like this bugs me.

I haven't been here long, though. And if you two do this to each other, and it's just how you communicate, and I have no business sticking my nose into it... please feel free to let me know that I should just butt out. I won't be offended. It's all good.

I have a copy of the book "Reasoning from the Scriptures", actually. I have not studied it, really, but I have... skimmed? reviewed? perused it? It's a fascinating book, in my opinion. I find that it really does give the "answers"... straight forward, to the point responses to very specific questions and/or objections that people may have to discussions of faith... which could very easily be construed as "doing the thinking for a person." But, most books are that way, aren't they? To a degree anyway. They give the information that is believed to be true from the perspective of the person writing it. Some choose to believe it, some choose to condemn it, some choose to ignore it... More often than not, however, I find that people come to their conclusions based on their own study and what makes the most sense to them. So it's not that books think for people, it's that people find a faith that resonates with them and therefore they read/believe the books that speak to them from that perspective.

It is why we can't determine which church is right. We all find the *truth* that speaks to us, and we all see things differently, and we all come to different conclusions. I can't help but think that if there really is a God, and he created all this diversity, he must appreciate our differences more than we ever could, and the idea of their being *one true church* seems more and more absurd to me.

I appreciate your honest and straight forward response Sarah. As you probably already know, such responses are rare on forums such as these.
Thank you.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

OK I thought you had something else in mind as if there were more principles. There may be more to discuss if we took the time to meditate on the issue, but like I said, these are just the basics on which to focus. If we were to expand on each of the seven items that were poofed, well, it could take weeks to do.

OK thanks.

 

[gzusfrk]

Is your church the only church teaching the absolute true principles of Christ?

The New testament is teaching me the truth, I am the church, but I'm not the only one.

 

[kepha31]

If the Catholic Church is the true church, the false ones must really be corrupt.

There are no "false ones", it''s a matter of how removed from communion with the Catholic Church other churches have chosen to be. There are truths found in every church. There is no dichotomy of true or false, it's more like true or incomplete. No church owns the truth.

Truth is not of our own making. Even Christ proclaimed that the truth He illuminated did not spring from Him alone. “My teaching is not mine, but His who sent me” (John 17:6)

Truth is not subjective. It represents the objective order of things. The person who comes to know something of the truth, then should experience humility, not vanity, for he discovers something that is not his.

Christ was emphatic in his denunciation of the Pharisees who claimed to know something of the truth but behaved with a pretentious snobbery. Truth is not he cause of Pharisaism, vanity is.

And both Christ and his Church are unrelenting in their advocacy of humility and in their condemnation of vanity. In fact, it may be far less tolerant of Pharisaism than the secular world. Consider, for example, the comment, “I hate anything fake,” made by Britney Spears, a veritable icon of artificiality and pretense. The secular world awards this kind of duplicity with celebrity.

 

[LayzeeDragon]

The Church of your Self.

King James Bible
"Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and [that] the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?" - 1 Corinthians 3:16

 

[kepha31]

"Reasoning from the Scriptures", is a Watchtower Publication. Jehovah's Witnes's material.

 

[LayzeeDragon]

o rlmente?

 

[kepha31]

It's a fact, not an opinion. "Reasoning from the Scriptures", is a Watchtower Publication. It is listed in Amazon. Their view towards the divinity of Christ is similar to Arianism and the majority of Christians hold the Jehovah's Witnesses to be in serious error. They are a post Enlightenment sect and an example of what happens when you throw authority out the window. But the thread is not about minor deviant sects, it's about the tue church, mon ami.

 

[Muffled]

Is your church the only church teaching the absolute true principles of Christ?

There is no such church. Each one has at least one erroneous teaching. No doubt that each one teaches at least one absolutely true principle of Christ although in some instances it might be hard to find among the errors.