• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Who is the true church?

FFH

Veteran Member
Nehustan said:
hmm, I had a book of mormon some years ago, and have met people on their missions from different continents and on different continents. When I pray its about worship, the angels don't interrupt prayer only devils, so any voice I hear anywhere near prayer isn't an angel. As regard to guidance, that usually comes when I ponder, read, or try and dialectically argue out the word. But I guess you probably think its God talking to you, go figure. The voices I hear are probably Angels or Devils, but let me tell Devils are very good at disguises. They're quite happy to tell you truth for years and years, just to get you to buy a
li(n)e
It is true that the Devil does interrupt prayers. He was talking about the Holy Ghost (Holy Spirit or Comforter) affirming his prayers through a burning in his bosom or a peaceful thought in your mind or just a nice feeling that comes over you when you are praying to know if something is true or not. The Holy Ghost (Holy Spirit or Comforter) testifies the truth of all things. Try it on anything and you will see. Pray about anything and you will receive a peace in your mind or a burning in your heart if it is right and a stupor of thought if it is wrong.
 

Nehustan

Well-Known Member
I like your vibe in that last post, its true that when the dove descends, Ruach Elohim, it does bring a feeling of peace. Howevre when it comes to questions I rely on the word, and the ripping away of veils and mysteries, very much a process of the intellect, guided by Ruach Elohim, The God Willing, but I need something tangible before I believe anything, maybe not as tangible or falsifiable as gravity, religious science isn't like that, but certainly totally verifiable by the word with no contradiction, if there's a contradiction there, we're missing something and need to thrash ideas out till we get to God's truth. 'Struth.....will surely be plain to all, or its not God's truth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FFH

FFH

Veteran Member
Nehustan said:
if there's a contradiction there, we're missing something and need to thrash ideas out till we get to God's truth. 'Struth.....will surely be plain to all, or its not God's truth.
Thrashing ideas about till we get to the truth.

I like this statement. I do this all the time. I am not afraid to discuss ideas until I get to the truth. Sometimes by talking about a matter we can come to a knowledge of the truth. We are all learning and have many misconceptions of the truth. I feel i come closer to the truth of all things each day and will someday know the truth of all things, as does God.
 

James the Persian

Dreptcredincios Crestin
StaccatoLogic said:
Jesus didnt use scare tactics. He was a leader of peace and love. The churches today scare their congregations into believing certain things and create layers of superiority over other denominations. All a denomination is is a club where chosen (self-appointed) leaders pick and choose parts of the Bible that fit with their fear-mongering message of the day. They also look too closely to Armageddon. God created this world for us to serve him and make the world a better place, not look forward to everyone else's damnation and the destruction of the world. People gather around a piece of toast and worship it likes it's the best thing since...buttered toast. All these "phenomena" amount to are a bunch of free association and groupthink mentalities. Churches and denominations are frauds. Constantine the "great" leader was one of the originators of this fear-mongering, whose religious followers though stout in heart were blinded by fear and caved to his narrow interpretation of Jesus's teachings. Jesus didn't yell and scream, he didn't tell people they were going to Hell. He calmly laid down his ideas and let the people decide for themselves what to believe based on the feelings in their hearts. It's time the fractured soul of Christian churches united again under His love.
Well I certainly don't recognise my Church in your description. Never yet have I seen or heard an Orthodox priest giving a fear-mongering message, we do not look too closely at Armageddon at all (in fact Revelations is the only NT text not used for readings in the Liturgy) and we don't have the clergy laiety distinction many churches have - the clergy serve us they don't rule us.
As for St. Constantine the Great, I'm getting rather tired of the baseless accusations leveled at him with absolutely no supporting evidence on this forum. If you wish to accuse him of corrupting the Church you might at least try providing some evidence. That way those of us who actually know something about the history of the Church during his era might be able to debate it with you.

James
 
StaccatoLogic said:
Jesus didnt use scare tactics. He was a leader of peace and love. The churches today scare their congregations into believing certain things and create layers of superiority over other denominations. All a denomination is is a club where chosen (self-appointed) leaders pick and choose parts of the Bible that fit with their fear-mongering message of the day. They also look too closely to Armageddon. God created this world for us to serve him and make the world a better place, not look forward to everyone else's damnation and the destruction of the world. People gather around a piece of toast and worship it likes it's the best thing since...buttered toast. All these "phenomena" amount to are a bunch of free association and groupthink mentalities. Churches and denominations are frauds. Constantine the "great" leader was one of the originators of this fear-mongering, whose religious followers though stout in heart were blinded by fear and caved to his narrow interpretation of Jesus's teachings. Jesus didn't yell and scream, he didn't tell people they were going to Hell. He calmly laid down his ideas and let the people decide for themselves what to believe based on the feelings in their hearts. It's time the fractured soul of Christian churches united again under His love.

take a breath dude l :biglaugh:
 

wmam

Active Member
Just remember people......

Not all can be right, but all can be wrong. So far from what I have witnessed my opinion falls to the latter of the two. Doctrine holds the key. If ones doctrine can withstand the judgement of the Scriptures then it may have a chance. Just because it looks, smells and feels like it doesn't necessarily mean that it will end up tasting like it. Then it wouldn't be complete. YAH's word is the Truth and by this standard is by way of all things close to Him. We must look into the completeness of the Truth. Learn its simple meaning and stop trying to read into it something that, quite frankly, isn't there. The New Testament was not written when we read it. It was yet being written as we read it. The Old Testament was written and is the Rule by which the New Testament upholds.

 

Smoke

Done here.
phernduke said:
What are your views of which is the true church and why?
Churches like to define themselves by what they believe -- about Jesus, about the Trinity, about sin and salvation, etc., -- and by their historical roots. So you'll find churches who tout their apostolic succession and/or their theological correctness as evidence that they should be considered the True Church.

You'll find other churches that stress their faithfulness to the Bible, although they usually interpret the Bible in a very selective manner, and although there's an obvious irony to equating True Christianity to commitment to a book. Many of these same churches also stress "accepting Jesus as your personal savior" or "having a personal relationship with Jesus," although neither concept is taught in the Bible they claim to base their faith on.



What you don't see is churches that have a serious commitment to following the teachings of Jesus. For instance:
• Let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
• Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

• Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 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.

• Thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.

• Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

• Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

When Christians discuss such teachings, they usually try to take a more "practical" approach, and to assure each other that Jesus didn't really mean all those things quite literally, and that of course you really can make vows and take oaths, defend yourself, assert your property rights, and plan for your financial security -- that, indeed, you have a duty to do these things. And as for treating others as you'd like them treat you -- well, clearly, Jesus wasn't referring to homosexuals or Muslims or atheists or other undesirables. In fact, it's your Christian duty to make life miserable for those people till they see the error of their ways.

The truth seems to be that no church has a monopoly on Jesus. On the contrary, the vast majority of the churches have a serious commitment to the systematic negation of the teachings of Jesus. So I don't consider "What is the true church?" a valid question. Anything that has the word "church" in its title has an extremely high likelihood of embracing a worldview and a way of life that is completely incompatible with the teachings of Jesus.

A better question might be, "How does Jesus say we should live?"
 

Smoke

Done here.
JamesThePersian said:
As for St. Constantine the Great, I'm getting rather tired of the baseless accusations leveled at him with absolutely no supporting evidence on this forum. If you wish to accuse him of corrupting the Church you might at least try providing some evidence. That way those of us who actually know something about the history of the Church during his era might be able to debate it with you.
In all fairness, I really don't think Constantine was much for the fine points of theology; what he valued was unity -- though some might prefer to say uniformity. In the Arian dispute, for example, I don't think he was terribly concerned about exactly what theological standard was settled on, as long as there was a settlement. Any corruption that may have occurred in the Church during his time was largely the work of the Church itself, and not of Constantine.

On the other hand, there is a certain level of corruption that built into any identification, or even close alliance, of church and state. When Christians bear arms for the state, and when bishops have power in the state, some amount of corruption is inevitable.
 
Bangbang said:
The true "church" is the One that speaks the truth.:bonk:
YES MY TRUE CHURCH SPEAKS THE TRUTH
YOU KNOW HER AS BABYLON
I KNOW HER AS HELAVEN
the great and only true mother of the earth
your lord who kills his woman is stupid and predictable
all you need is his word (the bible).
 

mormonman

Ammon is awesome
Before St. Peter was martyred in 67 A.D. he was the leader of the Church. After Peter's martydom, Linus claimed to have succeeded Peter. Cletus succeeded Linus, and Clement succeeded Cletus in 90 A.D. The apostle John lived until 96 A.D. This means he lived the last 19 years under the juristriction, and in subordination to Linus, Cletus, and Clement. According to the Roman Catholic theory, each of these bishops was the supreme head of the church just as Peter. According to the scriptures, revolation for the whole Church comes through the head of the Church(Linus, Cletus, and Clement). But did it come through these men? Nope. It came through St. John on the Island of Patmos. Why didn't come through the Bishops of Rome? Could this mean that these Bishops weren't the heads of the Church, and that the Church went apostate?
 

Smoke

Done here.
mormonman said:
Before St. Peter was martyred in 67 A.D. he was the leader of the Church. After Peter's martydom, Linus claimed to have succeeded Peter. Cletus succeeded Linus, and Clement succeeded Cletus in 90 A.D. The apostle John lived until 96 A.D. This means he lived the last 19 years under the juristriction, and in subordination to Linus, Cletus, and Clement. According to the Roman Catholic theory, each of these bishops was the supreme head of the church just as Peter. According to the scriptures, revolation for the whole Church comes through the head of the Church(Linus, Cletus, and Clement). But did it come through these men? Nope. It came through St. John on the Island of Patmos. Why didn't come through the Bishops of Rome? Could this mean that these Bishops weren't the heads of the Church, and that the Church went apostate?
It could, but first you'd have to accept the extremely dubious proposition that Peter, Linus, Cletus and Clement considered themselves, each in his turn, the head of the church. I don't think there's any real evidence that they did. In the scriptures we see Peter submitting now to the will of James and now to the will of Paul, apparently trying to appease both sides simultaneously, and without much success. It doesn't seem to be the behavior of a man who considers himself the Vicar of Christ, and it's very clear that neither Paul nor James considered Peter someone whose decisions they had to accept.

On the other hand, Rome doesn't say that revelation must come through the Pope, only that it must conform to the teachings of the Papacy, so for a Catholic there wouldn't be any problem with John receiving a revelation even though there was another person at the time who, in their opinion, bore greater authority.
 

mormonman

Ammon is awesome
It doesn't matter who Rome says the revalation must come through. Scriptures such as Amos 3:7 say revalation comes through the prophets or in this case Linus, Cletus, and Clement. But, it didn't. It came through John. Getting to your first point, Peter was ordained by Christ to be the head of the Church. Is that not enough?
 
mormonman said:
It doesn't matter who Rome says the revalation must come through. Scriptures such as Amos 3:7 say revalation comes through the prophets or in this case Linus, Cletus, and Clement. But, it didn't. It came through John. Getting to your first point, Peter was ordained by Christ to be the head of the Church. Is that not enough?


no it isn't that is a anomaly of lies gathered into a liars book that says it's the greatest damn book in the enitre world ,just because it lies doesn't mean it has to be here
 

jeffrey

†ßig Dog†
blood-lord14 said:
no it isn't that is a anomaly of lies gathered into a liars book that says it's the greatest damn book in the enitre world ,just because it lies doesn't mean it has to be here
Up early trolling today, I see. And no matter what you write to try and jerk people's frogs, Jesus loves you, and always will.
 

Smoke

Done here.
mormonman said:
It doesn't matter who Rome says the revalation must come through. Scriptures such as Amos 3:7 say revalation comes through the prophets or in this case Linus, Cletus, and Clement.
No. You're imposing LDS concepts on Roman Catholicism. Catholics don't see the Pope in the same terms as Mormons see Gordon Hinckley, or have such a narrow concept of revelation.

mormonman said:
Getting to your first point, Peter was ordained by Christ to be the head of the Church. Is that not enough?
I have no reason to believe that Peter was ordained by Christ to be head of the Church. The scriptures say no such thing.
 

mormonman

Ammon is awesome
So what do you belive in bloodlord? Do you think that Satan will come up from hell and save you? I don't see what's so absurd about Christian beliefs. I know what it is! You just want to go around and do as much bad as you can, because Christianity teaches to love your neighbor and do as many good things as possible.
 
A

A. Leaf

Guest
Your Body is the Church (Temple), your innerself is the faith.
prayer and meditation are Free.
Of course thats a personal point of view
 
Top