|
|
Post by Cepha on Mar 3, 2009 23:37:28 GMT -5
Are you asking me why I believe the Bible? Not because the church told me too, like you hahahaha, but because I am a sheep of The Shepherd, and I know His voice. Yes, I was asking you why you believe in The Bible. Did you accept Jesus before or after you read the Bible? And if before, how did you hear about Jesus? From a man? |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Mar 4, 2009 11:04:44 GMT -5
Are you asking me why I believe the Bible? Not because the church told me too, like you hahahaha, but because I am a sheep of The Shepherd, and I know His voice. Yes, I was asking you why you believe in The Bible. Did you accept Jesus before or after you read the Bible? And if before, how did you hear about Jesus? From a man? I am not sure what you are getting at, but I think I remember having the conversation with you before, If my memory serves me right, your logic gets a little bizarre |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Mar 4, 2009 18:47:21 GMT -5
Well, a lot of adults DO disagree on what is in the Bible.
In the original KJV, the Apocrypha was included, but then around the late 19th century the Apocrypha was missing from the KJV.
So you read the WHOLE Bible then watchman?
It is really important to know how the Bible came to be.
It is not enough to just say that "I know" it's from God. Mormons say the same thing about the book of Mormon. Muslims say the same thing about the Quran. Is it just our word against theirs? If you ever try to "witness" to a Muslim, they will keep saying that Christians have "corrupted" the Bible. What defense would you give?
We are not (like Muslims claim) people of a Book, we are people of a Person. Jesus Christ.
The Bible MUST be traced back to that Person in order for it to be FROM that person. The Bible only makes sense in light of the Church.
Watchman, the Bible without the Church is dangerous. Personal interpretation has only led to division upon division. Show me please, what good fruit has come by taking the Bible out of the context of the Church, and applying "personal interpretation"?
Also, I'm wondering (even though you don't claim to belong to any CHurch group) what Christian group (if any) is the closest in belief and doctrine to you?
Do you have a "statement of faith" that you go by? How do you decide which Church (if any) to attend/associate with? What do you do when another godly person completely disagrees with your doctrine?
teresa
|
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Mar 4, 2009 21:01:43 GMT -5
On that day a great persecution broke out against the church at Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. 2Godly men buried Stephen and mourned deeply for him. 3But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off men and women and put them in prison. .....Acts 8
3As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"
5"Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked.
"I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting," he replied. 6"Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do." Acts 9 Watchman, have you considered the conversion of St. Paul? He was PERSECUTING THE CHURCH. But, when the Lord appeared to Him, He said Why are you PERSECUTING ME? It is not a choice of who is right--God or the Church (which, you are right is truly precious--the Body of Christ). It's both. You can't separate the head from the body, or the person is dead. teresa
|
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Mar 4, 2009 21:36:23 GMT -5
Also, I'm wondering (even though you don't claim to belong to any CHurch group) what Christian group (if any) is the closest in belief and doctrine to you? Do you have a "statement of faith" that you go by? How do you decide which Church (if any) to attend/associate with? What do you do when another godly person completely disagrees with your doctrine? teresa The closest thing to what I believe I guess would be the pentecostal holiness, minus the legalism, and rules with their women wearing buns, and dresses, without make up. Oh and the pentecostal holiness are usally dispensationalist which I despise. However I guess they would be the closest to what I believe. |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Mar 4, 2009 21:37:42 GMT -5
On that day a great persecution broke out against the church at Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. 2Godly men buried Stephen and mourned deeply for him. 3But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off men and women and put them in prison. .....Acts 8
3As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"
5"Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked.
"I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting," he replied. 6"Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do." Acts 9 Watchman, have you considered the conversion of St. Paul? He was PERSECUTING THE CHURCH. But, when the Lord appeared to Him, He said Why are you PERSECUTING ME? It is not a choice of who is right--God or the Church (which, you are right is truly precious--the Body of Christ). It's both. You can't separate the head from the body, or the person is dead. teresa The problem is that the RCC is not the church of God and your claim that it is does not make it so. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Mar 4, 2009 22:10:52 GMT -5
Yes, I was asking you why you believe in The Bible. Did you accept Jesus before or after you read the Bible? And if before, how did you hear about Jesus? From a man? I am not sure what you are getting at, but I think I remember having the conversation with you before, If my memory serves me right, your logic gets a little bizarre Ok, but... Yes, I was asking you why you believe in The Bible. Did you accept Jesus before or after you read the Bible? And if before, how did you hear about Jesus? From a man? |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Mar 4, 2009 22:39:18 GMT -5
Also, I'm wondering (even though you don't claim to belong to any CHurch group) what Christian group (if any) is the closest in belief and doctrine to you? Do you have a "statement of faith" that you go by? How do you decide which Church (if any) to attend/associate with? What do you do when another godly person completely disagrees with your doctrine? teresa The closest thing to what I believe I guess would be the pentecostal holiness, minus the legalism, and rules with their women wearing buns, and dresses, without make up. Oh and the pentecostal holiness are usally dispensationalist which I despise. However I guess they would be the closest to what I believe. They don't have a valid Priesthood and are "not" Apostolically succeeded. Plus, they weren't chosen by God to canonize The Bible.  |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Mar 4, 2009 23:05:40 GMT -5
The closest thing to what I believe I guess would be the pentecostal holiness, minus the legalism, and rules with their women wearing buns, and dresses, without make up. Oh and the pentecostal holiness are usally dispensationalist which I despise. However I guess they would be the closest to what I believe. They don't have a valid Priesthood and are "not" Apostolically succeeded. Plus, they weren't chosen by God to canonize The Bible. I do not believe in the priesthood, and the Catholic church has created their own ''Apostolic succession''', and i am not a Holiness Pentecostal. Some of many reasons is because I do not believe in legalism, nor do I believe that women can't wear pant, not do I believe in dispensationalism, however out of all the denomination i guess they are the closest I agree with. Further more i was speaking to Teresa because she asked, I was not speaking to you. |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Mar 4, 2009 23:09:07 GMT -5
Actually I guess I am more in line with modern day pentecostals who although still believe in righteousness and holiness, have done away with all that legalistic stuff, however many of them are still dispensationalist, to whom I would never aliegn myself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Mar 5, 2009 7:32:32 GMT -5
I do not believe in the priesthood, Why not? Paul referred to himself as a Priest. Jesus is called a Priest. Anyone Jesus annointed into His Church as leaders are Priests. Why don't you believe in The Priesthood? No, that was established by The Apostles in The Book of Acts when Matthias "succeeded" Judas (and this is confirmed by the statements of The Apostles that the numbers were to be kept up meaning that as one of The Church leaders would die, they would continue to be replaced). We just follow what The Apostles did. Oh, I'm sorry (said sincerely), I was under the impression that you thought they were the closest to The Primitive Church. I love Pentecostals. I love how they worship. I think it's beautiful. Having grown up in a 50% Pentecostal family, I'm very aware of "how" they do things. As for legalism, if you have a problem with rules, then you have a problem with Christ and His "religious" rules. He literally defended "legalism" when he reaffirmed that "The Law" would always be in effect. legalism 1. strict adherence, or the principle of strict adherence, to law or prescription, esp. to the letter rather than the spirit.
2. Theology. a. the doctrine that salvation is gained through good works.
b. the judging of conduct in terms of adherence to precise laws.
Jesus...Matthew 5:17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Just in case you didn't realize it, you are on a "forum". A forum is a public place for open discussion meaning that anybody can respond to anybody here. If you wanted to only have Teresa respond to you, then you should PM (Private Message) her. But as long as you're on a "forum", you statements are open to comments from anybody viewing. forum
1. The public square or marketplace of an ancient Roman city that was the assembly place for judicial activity and public business.
a. A public meeting place for open discussion.
b. A medium for open discussion or voicing of ideas, such as a newspaper, a radio or television program, or a website.
c. A public meeting or presentation involving a discussion usually among experts and often including audience participation.
2. A court of law; a tribunal. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Mar 5, 2009 7:35:05 GMT -5
Actually I guess I am more in line with modern day pentecostals who although still believe in righteousness and holiness, have done away with all that legalistic stuff, however many of them are still dispensationalist, to whom I would never aliegn myself. Cafetria Christianity it sounds like...don't like a tradition of your Christian faith (in regards to the modern day Pentis), then just change it. Keep whittling it down until you get it to what "you" want to believe therefore creating what you believe in instead of just accepting something as it is. I love the original Pentis. They were very devout. Today, the new ones allow too many freedoms (women are allowed to wear make up now and to wear pants, women are allowed to teach in church, women are allowed to have fancy hairstyles...). |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Mar 5, 2009 12:34:46 GMT -5
Actually I guess I am more in line with modern day pentecostals who although still believe in righteousness and holiness, have done away with all that legalistic stuff, however many of them are still dispensationalist, to whom I would never aliegn myself. Cafetria Christianity it sounds like...don't like a tradition of your Christian faith (in regards to the modern day Pentis), then just change it. Dispensationalism was thought up by John Darby in the 1800s, and is completely anti biblical, everything that springs from dispensationalism is false from the largest doctrinal issue to the smallest. It is completely and totally a corruption of scripture. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Mar 5, 2009 17:54:16 GMT -5
Cafetria Christianity it sounds like...don't like a tradition of your Christian faith (in regards to the modern day Pentis), then just change it. Dispensationalism was thought up by John Darby in the 1800s, and is completely anti biblical, everything that springs from dispensationalism is false from the largest doctrinal issue to the smallest. It is completely and totally a corruption of scripture. If it aint' Catholic, it is corrupted. Only The Cathollic Church has the "fullness" of the faith while all other Christians just have bits and pieces (like their bible is only 90% of The Holy Bible). But, like Jesus said, we who are members of His Church are "not" supposed to judge those who are outside of The Church but are still believers (and yes, that's "in" The Bible). As long as they don't speak against Jesus, even if their works are not approved by Jesus, we are not to judge them or to try to forbid them from practicing their religion. That is for God to judge. Jesus said it, I believe it. |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Mar 9, 2009 16:26:22 GMT -5
"Modern millennialism is largely based on the teachings of John Darby, who lived in the nineteenth century. He was a disaffected Anglican priest who left the Church of Ireland and joined the Plymouth Brethren. He taught, among other things, that the British were the ten lost tribes of Israel, and that the church had vanished from the face of the earth in the early centuries and needed to be restored from scratch. He made a translation of the New Testament to support his teachings, which is known as the Darby Version. The Plymouth Brethren spread the doctrine through fundamentalist churches, who at the time were unaware of Apollinarius, Montanus, the Synod of Iconium, the Council of Constantinople, and the position of the Protestant Reformers."www.kencollins.com/glossary/theology.htmYou have me really confused Watchman.
|
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Mar 9, 2009 22:24:07 GMT -5
"Modern millennialism is largely based on the teachings of John Darby, who lived in the nineteenth century. He was a disaffected Anglican priest who left the Church of Ireland and joined the Plymouth Brethren. He taught, among other things, that the British were the ten lost tribes of Israel, and that the church had vanished from the face of the earth in the early centuries and needed to be restored from scratch. He made a translation of the New Testament to support his teachings, which is known as the Darby Version. The Plymouth Brethren spread the doctrine through fundamentalist churches, who at the time were unaware of Apollinarius, Montanus, the Synod of Iconium, the Council of Constantinople, and the position of the Protestant Reformers."www.kencollins.com/glossary/theology.htmYou have me really confused Watchman. I am not a modern day millennialist Teresa, Matter of fact I spend much of my time debunking their false teachings. Their theology is called dispensationalism and includes false doctrines such as the separation of the Church and Israel as well as the pretrib rapture. I am a ''Historical Premillennialist'', This is the beliefs of Paul, John, Polycarp, Irenaeus and many other first century disciples, and is in no way related to the teaching of John Darby, who himself is a heretic. P.S. read « Reply #192 on Mar 5, 2009, 12:34pm » |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Mar 10, 2009 14:15:32 GMT -5
Ok, sorry, I didn't know "premillenialism" was different from "millenialism".
her·e·tic (hr-tk)
n.
A person who holds controversial opinions, especially one who publicly dissents from the officially accepted dogma of the Roman Catholic Church.
adj.http://www.thefreedictionary.com/heretic
hehe, that one I found on the free dictionary.
It's really sad that there are so many divergent churches and denominations that have split over "end times" theology; these things haven't even happened yet! (well, some things in Rev. have already happened.)
But it still doesn't change how we are to live our lives as Christians.
19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires.
(Galatians 5)
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Mar 10, 2009 15:23:43 GMT -5
"Modern millennialism is largely based on the teachings of John Darby, who lived in the nineteenth century. He was a disaffected Anglican priest who left the Church of Ireland and joined the Plymouth Brethren. He taught, among other things, that the British were the ten lost tribes of Israel, and that the church had vanished from the face of the earth in the early centuries and needed to be restored from scratch. He made a translation of the New Testament to support his teachings, which is known as the Darby Version. The Plymouth Brethren spread the doctrine through fundamentalist churches, who at the time were unaware of Apollinarius, Montanus, the Synod of Iconium, the Council of Constantinople, and the position of the Protestant Reformers."www.kencollins.com/glossary/theology.htmYou have me really confused Watchman. I am not a modern day millennialist Teresa, Matter of fact I spend much of my time debunking their false teachings. Their theology is called dispensationalism and includes false doctrines such as the separation of the Church and Israel as well as the pretrib rapture. I am a ''Historical Premillennialist'', This is the beliefs of Paul, John, Polycarp, Irenaeus and many other first century disciples, and is in no way related to the teaching of John Darby, who himself is a heretic. P.S. read « Reply #192 on Mar 5, 2009, 12:34pm » Is that term ''Historical Premillennialist'' in The Bible? Or did a "man" invent that term? |
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Mar 10, 2009 17:17:00 GMT -5
Watchman have you ever attended a "mass" service?
|
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Mar 10, 2009 22:24:28 GMT -5
Watchman have you ever attended a "mass" service? Yes I have. |
|
??Please stop acting ignorant we are both adults here, we know what is in the Bible and is not, and we both know the Bible is God's infallible word. There is nothing to disagree about here. 
