Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

The Difference Between the Church and Denominations


ironhorse

Recommended Posts

  • Super Moderator

Eastern philosophy takes what I consider a reasonable view of spirituality in general.

 

They compare religions to rafts used to cross a river. The rafts can be discarded after reaching the goal. Most rafts can get you there, but staying on the raft is not the goal.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
14 minutes ago, end3 said:

I believe the steps are goodness, then knowledge, then self control, then godliness, and love after that.  Perhaps ExC is the part of the knowledge step....

 

Going to wait it out in faith P, no other real choices for me....but will buy us a six pack while we wait...

No.  The first step is admitting we were powerless over alcohol and that our lives had become unmanageable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, florduh said:

As I recall, the Bible says that the church is comprised of all who believe in Christ. Those people are also called saints, not to be confused with those labeled "saint" by the RCC.

 

Such believers are all ostensibly led and guided by the Holy Spirit. Oddly, they get differing messages. Some denominations do not consider other denominations to be legitimate Christians.

 

There seems to be no reasonable explanation for this.

Sure, there's sin.  Let's look at the tax analogy.  God charges 10%.  Free humanity, i.e. the United States is higher than God's tax bracket.  I expect if we would sin less, the tax would be less. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

No.  The first step is admitting we were powerless over alcohol and that our lives had become unmanageable.

My denomination doesn't recognize the drunkenness scriptures...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
2 minutes ago, end3 said:

Sure, there's sin.  Let's look at the tax analogy.  God charges 10%.  Free humanity, i.e. the United States is higher than God's tax bracket.  I expect if we would sin less, the tax would be less. 

Nope. Christ has covered the sins of his saints. The guidance from above, understanding the Word, cannot be subject to the acts of mere humans. It is divine power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, end3 said:

Sure, there's sin.  Let's look at the tax analogy.  God charges 10%.  Free humanity, i.e. the United States is higher than God's tax bracket.  I expect if we would sin less, the tax would be less. 

 

 

You have failed to establish that God exists or that God is offended by anything at all.  Until you can do that . . . Error 404  sin not found.

 

It's funny that you use government taxation as an analogy.  Governments tax in order to pay for stuff.  Even if governments are wasteful, they need money and can't function without it.  Your God is suppose to have the power to create anything he wants out of thin air.  Why does God need money?  George said it best:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, florduh said:

Eastern philosophy takes what I consider a reasonable view of spirituality in general.

 

They compare religions to rafts used to cross a river. The rafts can be discarded after reaching the goal. Most rafts can get you there, but staying on the raft is not the goal.

You think all Christians think it a virtue to sit through years of fundamentalism in an evangelical church?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, mymistake said:

 

 

You have failed to establish that God exists or that God is offended by anything at all.  Until you can do that . . . Error 404  sin not found.

 

It's funny that you use government taxation as an analogy.  Governments tax in order to pay for stuff.  Even if governments are wasteful, they need money and can't function without it.  Your God is suppose to have the power to create anything he wants out of thin air.  Why does God need money?  George said it best:

 

 

Where you been MM. Long time no see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
1 hour ago, florduh said:

There seems to be no reasonable explanation for this.

 

Garbled bandwidth transmission between the "outside reality" god apparently exists in and our reality. Kind of like radio interference, but on a reality perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, florduh said:

As I recall, the Bible says that the church is comprised of all who believe in Christ. Those people are also called saints, not to be confused with those labeled "saint" by the RCC.

 

Such believers are all ostensibly led and guided by the Holy Spirit. Oddly, they get differing messages. Some denominations do not consider other denominations to be legitimate Christians.

 

There seems to be no reasonable explanation for this.

 

I think the words you're looking for to explain this issue is arrogance and self righteousness. Our interpretations and beliefs are right your group is wrong. We're going to heaven and you're going to hell....ha,...ha. We win. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh fuck

church = gathering of believers not building

believers = depending where you come from, some are more christians some are less some are fake some thinks they are real so who are the believers and who/what/when/where/why/how do they believe. one silly mistake, go to hell. believe bible allegory literally or cherry picking to be the “true” believers

at the end of day, who is a believer, god says you are or you are NOT at judgement day. NO GUARANTEE NO WARRANTY NO EXPIRY or EFFECTIVE DATE

 

cannot even have a simple common understandings on these terms and talk rubbish

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, end3 said:

Where you been MM. Long time no see.

 

 

Ugh, it's rather embarrassing.  There were three catholic priests who performed a ritual on the body I had been previously possessing.  When I first saw them I thought it would be a piece of cake because they were beardless boys strait out of seminary.  However, it turns out they pronounced the words exactly right.  Who knew that would happen?  They splash the holy water and next thing I know I get cast back into the Abyss!    Well, it took me a little while to . . . acquire enough souls to bribe my way out of there but I'm a resourceful guy and I know the right people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/23/2018 at 1:28 PM, end3 said:

I believe the steps are goodness, then knowledge, then self control, then godliness, and love after that.  Perhaps ExC is the part of the knowledge step....

 

Going to wait it out in faith P, no other real choices for me....but will buy us a six pack while we wait...

 

I would gladly drink a six pack with you. Then who would buy the next six pack, and the next after that? The total after that would only be 9 bears each?  Hardly enough but still a good start if some good-looking young women were involved. I would buy liquor for them too. Do you know any? If not, I know some but you would have to pay half of their price and I would pay for their liquor. If this sounds good to you PM me and we could arrange the date, travel plans and details. You could talk religion if you like with the girls and me.

 

This reminds me of the old query. What is better, a belief that is true, or one that makes you happy, aside from heaven and hell? IMO opinion the answer depends on the individual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

My reply to mymistake’s comments. (in bold)

 

Ah, once again Ironhorse you grace us with your opinion.  Most of us have been to church and were taught very similar dogma so we have seen it before.

My apology to you or others I may have bored with my statements. 

 

Just a few quick thoughts:

1.     All Christians are one family, (except for the sects that you personally consider to be fake Christians).  The reality of it is that Christianity is a cultural movement that is too vast to fit your definition.  Yes the sects you don't like and who's dogma you reject are just as legitimate as your favorite Christians.  Mormons, JW and SDA are Christian.  The Crusaders were Christian.  The WBC are Christian.

Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses are not scriptural in their teaching on the person or Christ or Salvation. That is NOT MY VIEW, but the scriptural criteria.

I agree the SDA are Christian. I am very well acquainted with the Seventh Day Adventists and their teaching. My wife grew up in that denomination. I have attended their church and once attended a weekend conference.

Yes, many of the Crusaders were Christian. Not sure what you mean by WBC.

 

2.     Believers are being perfected through the magic powers of your invisible friend (except it doesn't count when they don't make any progress or "supposed" Christians get caught committing horrendous crimes).  If you only count the success that is cherry picking.  Furthermore, people can and do improve themselves even when they are part of a different religion or even have no religion at all so they don't need your god.  Also Christian theology has serious moral problems since the Bible endorses thought crime, eternal punishment, completely rejects the concept of sexual consent and so on.

You call it magic. I call it real. I do believe God’s Spirit helps me in my journey. This along with prayer is a very real experience for me.

I have never claimed believers are perfect. Sure, Christians have committed crimes. I have done things and thought things in my own life that that are criminal.

I never said people of no religion or other religions cannot improve themselves.

Whether Christian theology has a serious moral problem would be better discussed in another thread.

 

3.     Christianity was splitting into denominations and sects from the very beginning.  Religion is very subjective and Christian sects were constantly competing against each other.  The reformation didn't change that.  You can find the writings of Paul complaining about early Christian divisions.

Yes, there were splinter factions (most of them heretical) in the early church, but these were not organized denominational groups.  Decades after the main church in Jerusalem, and later Antioch, the Catholic Church held itself as the one church.

  

4.     If by the "Gospel of Christ" you mean the Bible then you have a problem because the Catholic church created the Bible by rejecting the scriptures that didn't fit their teachings while adopting the writings that did.  There was much more additional material to choose from.  And people have been re-writing the Bible ever since with new translations and new interpretations.  The Gospel of Christ is whatever people want it to be.

Disagree, the Bible has not been rewritten over and over. For example, the modern translated text we have now matched the ancient scroll of Isaiah discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

If the Gospel is “whatever a perspn wants it to be, it IS NOT the Gospel of Christ.

  

5.     Finally the Universal Church has declared that your Baptist Church are heretics, not that any of this silliness matters. 

 

Really? I must have missed that memo from the Pope.   

  

I'm sure you will not address any of these issues, as usual.  But thanks for sharing your opinion. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. Someone should tell those churches they got it wrong. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
10 minutes ago, ironhorse said:

 

Disagree, the Bible has not been rewritten over and over. For example, the modern translated text we have now matched the ancient scroll of Isaiah discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

If the Gospel is “whatever a perspn wants it to be, it IS NOT the Gospel of Christ.

  

 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16#Early_evidence_of_the_longer_ending

 

The gospel of Mark alone has had 10,000 words added to it since it's original inception.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16#Early_evidence_of_the_longer_ending

 

The gospel of Mark alone has had 10,000 words added to it since it's original inception.

 

The link you gave deals with the issue of the ending on Mark, not the main body of the text.

 I have mentioned before that most Biblical scholars do not view these verses as part of the original text. This is mentioned in the link: "The clear vast of contemporary New Testament textual critics (see also Textual criticism) have concluded that neither the longer nor shorter endings were originally part of Mark's Gospel."

I do not know how many words are in the short or longer version, but I did not see the 10,000 number you gave as the number of words changed.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ironhorse said:

Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses are not scriptural in their teaching on the person or Christ or Salvation. That is NOT MY VIEW, but the scriptural criteria.   

 

You are not being specific enough.  JWs and Ms are not being Roman Catholic scriptural or Baptist translation of Reformation translation of Roman Catholic scriptural.  But the Mormons are being Mormon scriptural while the JW are being Jehovah Witness scriptural.  You see religious people get to choose what is or isn't scripture.  You should read the Gospel of Thomas if you want an idea of what Jesus Christ looked like in his earliest known version.  But then the proto-Roman Catholics rejected the Gospel of Thomas so it didn't become part of the "Bible".

 

1 hour ago, ironhorse said:

Not sure what you mean by WBC.

 

The "God hates fags" cult who made a name for themselves by protesting funerals a few years ago.  They are Westboro Baptist scriptural because they too get to pick which writings are metaphor and which are the stuff you have to obey.  Many Christians claimed they were not real Christians but the reality of it is these Christian movements are part of the larger cultural movement.

 

 

1 hour ago, ironhorse said:

Disagree, the Bible has not been rewritten over and over. For example, the modern translated text we have now matched the ancient scroll of Isaiah discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

If the Gospel is “whatever a perspn wants it to be, it IS NOT the Gospel of Christ.

 

If you followed the OT then you would not be a Christian.  You actually would murder any Christian who witnesses to you.  The OT is very clear on what to do to those who try to get you into stop following Jehovah.  Some god the Jewish father's have never heard of says we don't have to obey Jehovah anymore and we should pray to this new god instead of Jehovah?  The followers of Jehovah would call that a false god.

 

There are no copies of the New Testament until hundreds of years after Christ supposedly lived.  When manuscripts do show up they are full of errors right from the beginning.  Which version is the real word of God?  God never says.  He must be busy because God can't be bothered to preserve an original copy of the New Testament.  Meanwhile humans came up with the King James, New King James, ISV, NIV, NAS, Reformed, NRSE, Living, New Living and dozens of other translations.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are not being specific enough.  JWs and Ms are not being Roman Catholic scriptural or Baptist translation of Reformation translation of Roman Catholic scriptural.  But the Mormons are being Mormon scriptural while the JW are being Jehovah Witness scriptural.  You see religious people get to choose what is or isn't scripture.  You should read the Gospel of Thomas if you want an idea of what Jesus Christ looked like in his earliest known version.  But then the proto-Roman Catholics rejected the Gospel of Thomas so it didn't become part of the "Bible".

I disagree. Mormon and JW’s teaching is not scripture. First because they deny the divinity of Christ. Second because they construct their views based the unscriptural writings of Joseph Smith and Charles Taze Russell.

Agree, religious people are free to choose what they view as scriptural, but that does not mean they make the correct choices.

 

I have read the Gospel of Thomas. I once even owned a copy.

The following is from Wikipedia and is also my view of TGOT:

N.T. Wright, the former Anglican bishop and professor of NT history at Cambridge and Oxford, now Research Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at St Mary's College in the University of St Andrews in Scotland, also sees the dating of Thomas in the 2nd or 3rd century A.D. Wright's reasoning for this dating is that the "narrative framework" of 1st century Judaism and the New Testament is radically different from the worldview expressed in the sayings collected in the Gospel of Thomas. Thomas makes an anachronistic mistake by turning Jesus the Jewish prophet into a Hellenistic/Cynic philosopher. Wright concludes his section on the Gospel of Thomas in his book The New Testament and the People of God in this way: "[Thomas'] implicit story has to do with a figure who imparts a secret, hidden wisdom to those close to him, so that they can perceive a new truth and be saved by it. 'The Thomas Christians are told the truth about their divine origins and given the secret passwords that will prove effective in the return journey to their heavenly home.' This is, obviously, the non-historical story of Gnosticism... It is simply the case that, on good historical grounds, it is far more likely that the book represents a radical translation, and indeed subversion, of first-century Christianity into a quite different sort of religion, than that it represents the original of which the longer gospels are distortions... Thomas reflects a symbolic universe, and a worldview, which are radically different from those of the early Judaism and Christianity."[65]

 

 The "God hates fags" cult who made a name for themselves by protesting funerals a few years ago.  They are Westboro Baptist scriptural because they too get to pick which writings are metaphor and which are the stuff you have to obey.  Many Christians claimed they were not real Christians but the reality of it is these Christian movements are part of the larger cultural movement.

  I agree WBC is a cult because they follow the tone set by their founder Fred Phelps. Whether members in this group are Christian or not, I don’t know. I do know the hate message they put forth constantly is not scriptural. Nowhere on their official webpage wil you find the Gospel of Christ or the call for love and forgiveness. This is a grave error on their part.

  

 

If you followed the OT then you would not be a Christian.  You actually would murder any Christian who witnesses to you.  The OT is very clear on what to do to those who try to get you into stop following Jehovah.  Some god the Jewish father's have never heard of says we don't have to obey Jehovah anymore and we should pray to this new god instead of Jehovah?  The followers of Jehovah would call that a false god.

 

Of course, if you just followed the OT you would not be a Christian, you would be practicing Judaism. Being saved has nothing to do with following the OT, it is based on repentance and acceptance of Christ.

The only call to killing nonbelievers in the Old Testament is Leviticus 24:16, "And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death." One other passage, Exodus 22:18 ("Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live") may be construed as such, but there's some controversy over the term "witch" - the original Hebrew word also means "poisoner".

 

There are no copies of the New Testament until hundreds of years after Christ supposedly lived.  When manuscripts do show up they are full of errors right from the beginning.  Which version is the real word of God?  God never says.  He must be busy because God can't be bothered to preserve an original copy of the New Testament.  Meanwhile humans came up with the King James, New King James, ISV, NIV, NAS, Reformed, NRSE, Living, New Living and dozens of other translations.  

 

 

I will not comment on translations right now. That topic would be best in a thread of its own, but here are few paragraphs to counter your core accusations. If interested in reading it in its entirety the link is posted:

 

Though some say that the New Testament was written 100-300 years after Christ died, the truth is that it was written before the close of the first century by those who either knew Christ personally, had encountered him, or were under the direction of those who were His disciples.

In the article When were the gospels written and by whom?, I demonstrated that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were all written before 70 A.D.  Basically, the book of Acts was written by Luke.  But Luke fails to mention the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., nor does he mention the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65).  Since Acts is a historical document dealing with the church, we would naturally expect such important events to be recorded if Acts was written after the fact.  Since Acts 1:1-2 mentions that it is the second writing of Luke, the gospel of Luke was written even earlier.  Also, Jesus prophesied the destruction of the temple in the Gospels: "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down," (Luke 21:6, see also Matt. 24:2; Mark 13:2).  Undoubtedly, if Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written after the destruction of the Temple, they would have included the fulfillment of Christ's prophecy in them.  Since they don't, it is very strong indication that they were written before 70 A.D.

The gospel of John is supposed to have been written by John the apostle.  It is written from the perspective of an eyewitness to the events of Christ's life.  The John Rylands papyrus fragment 52 of John's gospel dated in the year 135 contains portions of John 18:31-33, 37-38.  This fragment was found in Egypt and a considerable amount of time is needed for the circulation of the gospel before it reached Egypt.  It is the last of the gospels and appears to have been written in the 80's to 90's.

Of important note is the lack of mention of the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D.  But this is understandable since John does not mention Jesus' prophecy of the destruction of the Temple.  He was not focusing on historical events.  Instead, he focused on the theological aspect of the person of Christ and listed His miracles and words that affirmed Christ's deity.  This makes perfect sense since he already knew of the previously written gospels.

Furthermore, 1, 2, and 3 John all contain the same writing style as the gospel of John and the book of Revelation which is supposed to have been written in the late 80's or early 90's.

Paul's Writings ~ Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon

Paul the Apostle was a convert to Christianity.  The book of Acts speaks of his conversion in Acts 9.  Since Acts was written before 70 A.D. and Paul wrote the Pauline Epistles and we know that Paul died in 64 A.D., the Pauline Epistles were all written before that date.  Furthermore, in 1 Cor. 15:3-4 is an early creed of the Christian church where Paul mentions that Jesus had died and risen.  "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures," (1 Cor. 15:3-4).  Notice that he says he received this information.  From whom did he receive it?  Most probably the apostles since he had a lot of interaction with them.  This means that Paul received the gospel account from the eyewitnesses.  They were, of course, contemporaries; they all died before the turn of the century.  Therefore, their writings were completed within the lifetime of the apostles of Jesus.

Hebrews

It is not known for sure who wrote the book of Hebrews.  Authorship has been proposed for Paul, Barnabas (Acts 4:36), Apollos (Acts 18:24), etc. The only geographical area mentioned is Italy (Heb. 13:24).  The latest possible date for the writing of Hebrews is A.D. 95 but could have been written as early as A.D. 67.  The book of Hebrews speaks of the sacrifice by the High Priest in the present tense (Heb. 5:1-3; Heb. 7:27) possibly signifying that the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 A.D. had not yet happened.

https://carm.org/wasnt-new-testament-written-hundreds-years-after-christ

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IH, what about the Pentecostals? Christians or not Christians?

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"So, the Church is the Catholic (universal) body of believers in Christ. "

 

Except for those people who aren't Baptists. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ironhorse, you don't get do decide what is or isn't scriptural for the rest of Christianity.  The Gospel of Mark is as legitimate as the writings of Joseph Smith.  That is another way to say that every sect gets to pick their own scriptures.

 

Now if I write that the 2018 Super bowl will turn out 41-33 Eagles over Patriots that doesn't mean that I prophesied this happening 40 years ago.  You have the cart before the horse.  See it is easy to make a prediction after an event has happened but that doesn't prove I can see the future.  The same thing is true for Gospel writers making prophesies about the destruction of the temple just a few years after it happened.  

 

The Book of Acts was not a historical account.  It was religious propaganda.  The same goes for all the gospels.  They were written to trick people into joining a religion, not to record historical facts.  So when they don't include the low points in early Christian history we are not surprised.  It's called "glossing over".  Emphasize (or even fabricate) the good and don't mention the bad.

 

On 1/24/2018 at 8:56 AM, ironhorse said:

 

It is not known for sure who wrote the book of Hebrews.

 

It is not known for sure who wrote any of the New Testament.  Maybe a few of the Pauline epistles were written by the same guy but if so "Paul" was a name he gave to himself.  Many of the NT books are forgeries or attributed to famous people who died before they were written.

 

 

See what I did there?  :)  I'm a real prophet!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, midniterider said:

IH, what about the Pentecostals? Christians or not Christians?

 

 

 

 

 

They are orthodox in their core beliefs therefore a Christian denomination.

 

The following is from the Assemblies of God Statement of Faith: 

The Lord Jesus Christ, God with Us

The Lord Jesus Christ, as to His divine and eternal nature, is the proper and only Begotten of the Father, but as to His human nature, He is the proper Son of Man. He is therefore, acknowledged to be both God and man; who because He is God and man is "Immanuel," God with us.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so CHRISTIANS are as defined as who you like them to be as long as they have “CORE BELIEF” as declared in their statement of belief. 

 

Unlucky for you, you may considered them christians they are unlikely to do likewise

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bet someone probably doesnt think Baptists are true Christians.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.