Rapture, a word coined many years after Jesus spoke about his return. This we all seem to agree on.
So the question of the day,
Do you believe in Pre-tribulation Rapture,
Post tribulation rapture
Or does it really matter to you when God chooses to send Jesus for his church?

No matter. Be ready today and it will not matter.

Is the Rapture when all of God's followers will be brought to Heaven so they are not on earth when the battle between god and the devil starts? I forget it's been a looooong time since religion class.

Is the Rapture when all of God's followers will be brought to Heaven so they are not on earth when the battle between god and the devil starts? I forget it's been a looooong time since religion class.

To many the "rapture" is the point in history where Jesus comes in the clouds to take his church, the restraining force here on earth, away. At that time satin is free to rein here on earth. In laymen's terms this is the tribulation period. At the end of the tribulation Jesus and all the saints returns to earth for the second time in history for the great battle of armageddon. At this time the false profit and all his cohorts are cast into the lake of fire. Satin is bound for a thousand years.

I am a Pan-millenialist.

That is; I believe it will all Pan out in the end... because God is in charge and all of our theories and conjectures will not change God's immutable will in this matter. All we are accomplishing by conjecture is to become angry with each other for having different opinions about something God has chosen not to reveal precisely .

1 Cor 4:6

6 Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written."
NIV

I believe in the pre trib rapture and I think it matters very much!!

i believe in the pre trib rapture and I think it matters very much!!!

There are so many opinions on forms of "millenium"(a 1,000 years, 7 years, etc) and when the tribulation started, will start, will end, that I certainly don't want to argue the matter. We just don't know any more about that than we know the era or day when God will end this world.

The people of God ARE in tribulation right now. We are constantly being attacked. The attacks seem bolder now that we are in a "post-Christian" era in this country.

John 16:32-33
32 The hour is coming, indeed it has come, when you will be scattered, every man to his home, and will leave me alone; yet I am not alone, for the Father is with me. 33 I have said this to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world."
RSV

Acts 14:22
22 strengthening the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to continue in the faith, and saying that through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God.
RSV

2 Cor 1:3-4
3 Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort;
4 Who comforteth us in all our tribulation , that we may be able to comfort them which are in any trouble, by the comfort wherewith we ourselves are comforted of God.

2 Thess 1:4
4 So that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that ye endure:
KJV

The expectation of many is that there will be a greater "tribulation" than we are suffering now. But no matter what that is, we, the elect, will be sustained by God.

As far as "rapture"(not a word used in the Bible) is concerned, the rising of all the saints together to meet in the air is on one particular day. And that Day will be the end of the present heaven and earth:

Matt 24:30-31
30 "At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. 31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.
NIV

1 Cor 15:50-54
50 I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet . For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory."
NIV

1 Thess 4:13-18
13 Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope. 14 We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. 15 According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 18 Therefore encourage each other with these words.
NIV

2 Peter 3:10-13
10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.
11 Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12 as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. 13 But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness.
NIV

These words God gave to us not so that we would be afraid, but as they say; that we might be comforted by the assurance of God's love and power to keep us strong in our faith. So we are encouraged to stay close to Him that our faith in Him will not wane.

If the Lord's return is imminent, then only the pre-trib rapture could be true.
1 Thessalonians 5:1-3 1But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. 2For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. 3For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.

If the rapture takes place at the mid-point of the tribulation than Jesus cannot return for at least another 3 1/2 years.

If the rapture takes place at the end of the tribulation than Jesus cannot return for at least another 7 years.

Does it matter? Absolutely. The eternal promises given to Israel are made null and void if it is the church going through the tribulation period.

450donn,
I do not believe in the rapture as it is taught in the last days series of books.
I believe that Jesus will return but once only and all the world will be aware of it when it happens via world wide media coverage.
I do believe we are now in the midst of the tribulation period which began during World War I.
We are now in the tribulation period of the Church.
It is fragmenting more rapidly than ever before with many denominations having serious problems while at the same time more people are leaving the church and becoming secular.
Note that many counties which were once very Religious are now becoming more and more secular.
Believe in God is being attacked my many governments and courts.
I pray for world wide peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)

I accept the pre-trib idea of the rapture. Paul gives us more information on it than anyone else.

II Th 2:7-8
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
(KJV)

This tells us that The Anti-Christ cannot be revealed until "he" that hinders the Anti-Christ be taken out of the way.

A lot hinges on who this "he" of verse 7 is.

I believe this "he" is the Church.

The true Church is portrayed as the "body of Christ". What has been going on ever since that day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit was sent to the Church has been a spiritual war. While the Church has never been in the majority numerically, it has been a spiritual influence that has had its effect on civilizations, and is still holding back the full impact of the forces of evil at the present time.

Prayer does work, when used.

Galveston1,
I think that your interpretation of "he" in that verse is a vast stretch.
Taking the Church (which will prevail even against the gates of hell) out of the way to reveal the wicked dose not make sense.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I believe if there is a rapture as we understand it with Jesus coming in the clouds is will not be pre trib. I believe many Christians are being lead to believe pre trib so they do not prepare for the end times because they will be magically removed before any real unendurable hardships happen to them.
I believe that when God says in Revelations about his people having a seal in the end times it will mean that we are protected and given special abilities to withstand the tribulation just as Daniel in the lions den and Shadrac, Meshak and Abendigo in the fiery furnace.
Christians now adays want an easy gospel and the Bible never promises that. It talks about martyr's crowns and warriors.
We have become lazy and materialistic to the point we are the foolish virgins the Bible warns about.
Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.
And five of them were wise, and five were foolish
They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them:
But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps.
While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept.
And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him.
Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps.
And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out.
But the wise answered, saying, Not so; lest there be not enough for us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves.
And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut. Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us. But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not.
Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.

Also many people deceive themselves by saying we can not know when the end is near because of the last line but the Bible DOES say we WILL know the season and I believe we are very close to the tribulation, even to the point of already being in the very beginning of it.

N0help4u, Veru interesting observations you have.
But...
I still believe the bibles says that there will be but ONE return of Jesus Christ.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Yes I believe Jesus will return but I don't think it will be quite what we expect or when we expect ---especially not the pre trib way.

N0help4u,
I suspect that you are right that Jesus' return may not be what we expect.
Fred

I do believe we are now in the midst of the tribulation period which began during World War I.

That has been a verrrrrry long 7 years, Fred!

Fred,

How could the tribuation period start back during World War I? Israel was not even a Nation. There is so much confusion on this topic. I am amazed!

classyT
It is just what I think because the "war to end all wars" was a terrible tribulation for the world.
Of Course WWII killed far more people and very brutally so.
They MAY not have been a part of the biblical tribulations for they sure enouph were tribulations.
I also believe that numbers mentioned in the bible are very often symbolic.
1000 means a lot, 5000 means a great many, 7 means a few; less than 1000.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Yeah true the Bible does say that there will be false prophets, anti christs and many end time things before the actual end so you do have a good point there.

classyT
It is just what I think because the "war to end all wars" was a terrible tribulation for the world.

There have been many "tribulations", but only one called "The Tribulation", which is the term that you use in your last message.


I also believe that numbers mentioned in the bible are very often symbolic.
1000 means a lot, 5000 means a great many, 7 means a few; less than 1000.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I have found that history shows the Bible to be quite accurate in the timeframes prophecied.

N0help4u,
Thanks,
Fred

Fred, if the "he" in 2 Thes is not the church, restraining the full release of evil in the earth, then who or what do you think that restraining person is?

As far as tribulation, Christians have had tribulation from the very first, staring with Steven. This is entirely different from the Great Tribulation which has a definite time frame.

Yes, Jesus will return only one time. He will not come to the earth to call His Church.

There will be multitudes saved during the Great Tribulation, and they are the tribulation saints.

It really amazes me how many interpretations of the Word of God there are? The end of this age is clearly marked my the Jewish return to their home land (1948). The signs are everywhere, one man can speak and instantly be heard around the world, atomic bomb that will incinerate a person before they can feel any pain. The gospel is being heard around the world. We are clearly in the last days. The question remains, do You believe that we ( the church of Christ) will be taken away and this will signal the beginning of the 7 years tribulation or do you believe that the church will live through it?
Personally, the rapture (snatching up of the church) will signal the beginning of the end. That satan will be loosed to rein for 7 years. The actual tribulation period will begin when the antichrist makes the covenant with Isreal for peace in the land. But half way through 93-1/2 years) he breaks the promise and that is when God releases the apoloclips as revealed in Revelations. Am I right or wrong and why?

I believe we will live through it and if there is a pretrib rapture it will be the Christians that have been really living it and have their lives right.
The seven years will begin when the conformation of the covenant is signed. Bush wanted to be the one to sign it before he left office but so far he hasn't.

I believe we will live through it and if there is a pretrib rapture it will be the Christians that have been really living it and have their lives right.

This is where I have to disagree. Whether we are living our lives right or not, I don't that that would make a difference on whether we partake in the rapture. All of us are sinner whose only righteousness is that imputed by Christ for thopse who have received him as Saviour.

Galviston1,
Read the whole passage. The 'he" is definitely not the Church...
2 Thessalonians 2
From the New Jerusalem Bible
The coming of the Lord and the prelude to it
1. About the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, brothers, and our being gathered to him:
2. please do not be too easily thrown into confusion or alarmed by any manifestation of the Spirit or any statement or any letter claiming to come from us, suggesting that the Day of the Lord has already arrived.
3. Never let anyone deceive you in any way.
It cannot happen until the Great Revolt has taken place and there has appeared the wicked One, the lost One,
4. the Enemy, who raises himself above every so-called God or object of worship to enthrone himself in God's sanctuary and flaunts the claim that he is God.
5. Surely you remember my telling you about this when I was with you?
6. And you know, too, what is still holding him back from appearing before his appointed time.
7. The mystery of wickedness is already at work, but let him who is restraining it once be removed,
8. and the wicked One will appear openly. The Lord will destroy him with the breath of his mouth and will annihilate him with his glorious appearance at his coming.

9. But the coming of the wicked One will be marked by Satan being at work in all kinds of counterfeit miracles and signs and wonders,
10. And every wicked deception aimed at those who are on the way to destruction because they would not accept the love of the truth and so be saved.
11. And therefore God sends on them a power that deludes people so that they believe what is false,
12. And so that those who do not believe the truth and take their pleasure in wickedness may all be condemned.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Even in the version you quote, Fred, there is still a restraining force. I believe it is the Church, but you still haven't told us what you think he is.

You must have some idea of your own about it or you would not disagree with me. Right?

This is where I have to disagree. Whether we are living our lives right or not, I don't that that would make a difference on whether we partake in the rapture. All of us are sinner whose only righteousness is that imputed by Christ for thopse who have received him as Saviour.

The Bible does differentiate between Christians that live a Christian life and it says God will spew lukewarm Christians out. It does talk about Christians that he even will say depart I never knew you.

The Bible does differentiate between Christians that live a Christian life and it says God will spew lukewarm Christians out.

If they are neither hot nor cold, what makes you think that they are Christians?


It does talk about Christians that he even will say depart I never knew you.

If He never knew them, then they were NOT Christians.

If they are neither hot nor cold, what makes you think that they are Christians?



If He never knew them, then they were NOT Christians.


True but many believe they are and from that perspective many will be left and will have to re evaluate and get it right.
The Bible says there will be Christians during the tribulation and many say they will be the ones that said they believed but didn't live a Christian life or backslid.

True but many believe they are and from that perspective many will be left and will have to re evaluate and get it right.

People believe all sorts of things. But I would think that if those people truly had a love of truth, they would follow the Holy Spirit where He leads them. And the Holy Spirit responds to a persons love of truth. So I do not think that there will be very many who care about truth who will be left behind.

Galveston1,
I have no idea who the "He" is.
The Church is called a she, the bride if Christ.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Gal AND Arcura,

Couldn't the HE be the Holy Spirt that indwells every believer? When every believer is raptured out of here, HE goes to. "HE"is the restrainer. Now I am not suggesting that the Holy Spirit will leave the earth completely. Certainly he was here before he indwelt the believer.. but HE won't be INSIDE us anymore and that is going to make a HUGE difference. What say you?

classyT
That's a thought to ponder.
Thanks,
Fred

Galveston1,
I have no idea who the "He" is.
The Church is called a she, the bride if Christ.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Give us the scripture reference so we can consider it.

1 Cor 12:27
27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
(KJV)

Eph 4:11-12
11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
(KJV)

gal AND Arcura,

Couldn't the HE be the Holy Spirt that indwells every believer? When every believer is raptured out of here, HE goes to. "HE"is the restrainer. Now I am not suggesting that the Holy Spirit will leave the earth completely. Certainly he was here before he indwelt the believer..but HE won't be INSIDE us anymore and that is gonna make a HUGE difference. What say you?

With all due respect, I doubt the "he" is the Holy Spirit.

God is omnipresent, so there never will be a time when He is not here. (as you say) Also, Jesus said plainly that no one comes to Him unless the Father draws that person. We know many will accept Jesus during the time of Anti-Christ, so the Holy Spirit will be active all through most of that period.

Even if you are completely right, doesn't that still make the church the restraining force?

This passage is interpreted to be the marriage of Christ to His bride The Church who is making herself ready for His coming.
Rev 19: 7. "Let us rejoice and be glad and give the glory to Him, for the marriage of the Lamb has come and His bride has made herself ready."
8. And it was given to her to clothe herself in fine linen, bright and clean; for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints.
9. And he said to me, "Write, `Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.'" And he said to me, "These are true words of God."
10. And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said to me, "Do not do that; I am a fellow servant of yours and your brethren who hold the testimony of Jesus; worship God. For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy."
Peace and kindness,
Fred

With all due respect, I doubt the "he" is the Holy Spirit.

God is omnipresent, so there never will be a time when He is not here. (as you say) Also, Jesus said plainly that no one comes to Him unless the Father draws that person. We know many will accept Jesus during the time of Anti-Christ, so the Holy Spirit will be active all through most of that period.

Even if you are completely right, doesn't that still make the church the restraining force?

Gal,

I believe the Church is the restraining force because of THE HOLY SPIRIT! And if you will read my post.. I said he ( the holy spirit) will not completely leave the earth but he will not be operating through us. I think the he you refer to is the Holy Spirit and I do not think think the Lord would refer to the Church as a he... I agree with Fred that we are the Bride. But I agree with you that the church that is indwelt with the holy spirit and HE is restraining the Anti Christ RIGHT NOW.

classyT,
Actually I believe that the Holy Spirit remains with us or within us through all time.
It is through Him that I believe we become one with the triune God as Jesus prayed for us to become.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

classyT,
Actually I believe that the Holy Spirit remains with us or within us through all time.

Fred, scripture says that those who are saved do have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit forever.

John 14:16-18
16 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever-- 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.
NKJV

I agree with you Tj3 and Fred... but I'm just saying that we will be RAPTURED out of here and therefore the Holy spirit who is dwelling in us will go with us. Therefore I do believe that HE is the restrainer. He will no longer be down on earth indwelling the believer because we will be in heaven. ( I know you don't believe in the rapture fred.. but that is what I was talking about)

I agree with you Tj3 and Fred... but I'm just saying that we will be RAPTURED out of here and therefore the Holy spirit who is dwelling in us will go with us. Therefore I do believe that HE is the restrainer.

I agree that He is the restrainer.


He will no longer be down on earth indwelling the believer because we will be in heaven. ( I know you don't believe in the rapture fred.. but that is what I was talking about)

I do not agree that He will not be indwelling believers on earth, because there will also be those who are also saved during the tribulation after the rapture.

Rev 7:13-14
14 And I said to him, "Sir, you know." So he said to me, "These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
NKJV

classyT,
Yes the Holy spirit could be the "HE"
But I believe that The Holy Spirit is eternal and always present as is the Father and Son.
So as long as this planet exist HE will be here and everywhere else.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I agree with Tj3 that it means the Holy Spirit will not be omnipresent in a sense but the Holy Spirit will still be within the believers.
I believe we will be here until the plagues.
The Bible says the believers during the tribulation will have a seal and no one will be able to harm them. So why if the ones who come to Christ after a rapture can endure it why wouldn't the Christians that have been Christians before hand be able to?

Also like I was saying before, I believe that if there is a pretrib rapture it is for the ones who have been living a (pure & holy) life according to God's will. Some of the Christians that believed they were Christians because they were professed Christians that claimed they believed and maybe even went to Church but their hearts aren't really right will see that they really weren't Christians and some will then realize that and get their life right in the tribulation and that is part of how what Tj said will happen to have Christians during the tribulation.

TJ3,

YES! I TOO believe that he will indwell those that accept Christ as their savior after the rapture BUT right after the rapture... the Church is GONE... no restrainer... the antiChrist is then free to come on the scene. I don't know how long it will take for people to become SAVED after that but I do know and believe that all those who have been given the truth and rejected it will NOT get the chance to repent. They will believe the strong delusion that God sends for rejecting the truth.

What I thought we were discussing is how the AntiChrist comes out of the closet so to speak. It is after the restrainer is removed.. that would be the believers in christ or the Church. And I believe the HE that galveston refers to is the Holy Spirit that indwells the church. CAN YoU IMAGINE what will happen when we are GONE! Talk about Chaos. Yes, we are restraining the antichrist.

I have rarely disagreed with you TJ3 and I don't think I do now. I do wonder why you don't believe for sure that their will be a pre trib rapture. That surprised me a little. And here I thought you were ALMOST as smart as me in the word... lol lol ( I am teasing of course)

classyT,
Yes the Holy spirit could be the "HE"
But I believe that The Holy Spirit is eternal and always present as is the Father and Son.
So as long as this planet exist HE will be here and everywhere else.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred,

I actually do agree that the Holy spirit will always be present too. I just was trying ( probably poorly) to say he won't be operating through the Church if we are ALL suddenly taken up. I hope that makes better sense.

TJ3,

YES! I TOO believe that he will indwell those that accept Christ as their savior after the rapture BUT right after the rapture....the Church is GONE...no restrainer...the antiChrist is then free to come on the scene. I don't know how long it will take for people to become SAVED after that but I do know and believe that all those who have been given the truth and rejected it will NOT get the chance to repent. They will believe the strong delusion that God sends for rejecting the truth.

What i thought we were discussing is how the AntiChrist comes out of the closet so to speak. It is after the restrainer is removed..that would be the believers in christ or the Church. and i believe the HE that galveston refers to is the Holy Spirit that indwells the church. CAN YoU IMAGINE what will happen when we are GONE!? Talk about Chaos. yes, we are restraining the antichrist.

I have rarely disagreed with you TJ3 and i don't think i do now. I do wonder why you don't believe for sure that their will be a pre trib rapture. That surprised me a little. and here i thought you were ALMOST as smart as me in the word...lol lol ( I am teasing of course)

I think that we are largely in agreement.

I am not disagreeing with a pre-trib rapture. That has been the position that I have taken for most of my life, but I am not sure that I can discount a mid-trib rapture. One thing that comes to mind is the references to those who will say that there will be peace and security, and then will come the end. The antichrist therefore has to establish his false peace first for that to happen, and from what I see that appears to be in the first 3.5 years. That would mean that a mid-trib is a real possibility - if I understand the time sequence correctly.

N0help4u ,
That is IF there is a rapture which I think will not be as it is preached.
Fred

This passage is interpreted to be the marriage of Christ to His bride The Church who is making herself ready for His coming.
Rev 19: 7. "Let us rejoice and be glad and give the glory to Him, for the marriage of the Lamb has come and His bride has made herself ready."
8. And it was given to her to clothe herself in fine linen, bright and clean; for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints.
9. And he said to me, "Write, `Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.'" And he said to me, "These are true words of God."
10. And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said to me, "Do not do that; I am a fellow servant of yours and your brethren who hold the testimony of Jesus; worship God. For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy."
Peace and kindness,
Fred


Rev 21:9-10
9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.
10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,
(KJV)

Here the bride is said to be New Jerusalem. A city is the people who inhabit it, and the redeemed of all ages and all nations will make up that city.

In view of this, I doubt the Church can claim to be the bride. I still believe the Church is the Body of Christ, at least while on Earth. In Heaven, the Church will certaily be a PART of New Jerusalem.

Gal,

You don't think the Bride is the Church? Whoa... ok. Well now you got me to thinking and I need to go to the Word and get the verses that would explain why I DO. See this is why I like these discussions. It makes me study. Plus it is interesting to understand what other Christians think. I have never heard that before. I thought EVERY christian thought the bride was the church.. guess I lead a shelter life... lol

Galveston1,
I also believe that The Church is also the body of Christ and His bride.
It is also guided by the Holy Spirit.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Just a point of clarification. Often there are many uses for the word "church". When we are speaking of the church as the body of Christ, that speaks of the body of believers, living or dead, not the denominations or church organization.

There may be members of the body of Christ within church organizations, but membership therein does not make one a member of the body oif Christ.

I just wanted to make that point because I have seen far too many misunderstandings about the meaning of the word "church".

Jesus spoke Aramaic.
The word he used tthat is translated as "Church" means assembly.
That is a group of related or like minded people on a particular subject.
The word Church in the bible is the ONE that Jesus established of HIS apostles and disciples whom He taught.
The book of act tells how those select people caused Jesus' Church to grow. That and history show that those select people went great distances spreading the good news about Jesus as far away as Britania, Africa, and India to name a few.
It soon became fragmented with other groups such as the Gnostics calling themselves a church as history and ancient documents illustrate.
The Church that Jesus founded is alive and well and growing yet today. It is now call the Catholic Church. The bible and real authentic history prove that fact.
Any other teaching is bogus.
Fred

The Church that Jesus founded is alive and well and growing yet today. It is now call the Catholic Church. The bible and real authentic history prove that fact.
Any other teaching is bogus.
Fred

Fred,

How shall I say this so that you might understand. AIN'T NO WAY! The catholic church is MAN made not God made. Read Paul epistles. :) ( no, I don't think for one second I am going to change your mind :p) Hope you had a great Thanksgiving!

Peace and Kindness AND understanding who the first church really was..

classyT

Well,
The Greek word for church is ekklesea and this word simply means the sum of those who are chosen.Now I don't know what church literally means in English but in Greek ( and I am Greek ) that is the literall meaning.
Catholics say that history proves that the Catholic church is authentic one . The Greek orthodox church says exactlly the same.
My question is , if a good father has a corrupted child is this child entitled to claim that it is authentic?
I am not talking about the love of the father here but if a child or a grandchild or a grand grand child does not follow the teachings of it's father and lives it's life not according to what the father tought but what others tought.Is that child authentic?
Can Catholics or Greek Orthodox or anyone of us claim that we are authentic ones?
Honestly , can we?
Do we stand in the faith like Peter , like John , like Paul, like Barnabas or like anyone of those unmentioned by name in the Bible saints?
Honestly , can we?
Look around you, in any kind of church that you are in! Is this even close to the vision that you have for that sum of the early chosen ones ?
Why do you think the rapture has not happened yet?It is simply because there is no authentic church on earth to cause the rapture!
There are believers here and there , no doubt about that , but we are far from calling ourselves authentic sum of the chosen ones!

Catholics say that history proves that the Catholic church is authentic one

There is no authentic "denomination" because Jesus did not found a denomination. The Catholic church denomination began in 325AD.

Scripture says that the authentic church of Christ of the body of all believers.


Look around you, in any kind of church that you are in! Is this even close to the vision that you have for that sum of the early chosen ones ?
Why do you think the rapture has not happened yet?It is simply because there is no authentic church on earth to cause the rapture!
There are believers here and there , no doubt about that , but we are far from calling ourselves authentic sum of the chosen ones!

The good news is that Christ's return does not depend on how good we are, or our denomination is, but because none of us have any righteousness to merit the return of Christ. The good news is that the only righteousness that believers have is the righteousness of Christ imputed to us. He will therefore return when He is ready, not when we merit His return.

Fred,

How shall i say this so that you might understand. AIN'T NO WAY! The catholic church is MAN made not God made. Read Paul epistles. :)


That is right.

There are no denominations in the Bible, and certainly Jesus never endorsed denominations. There is nothing wrong with denominations if they are tools of ministrfy, but when men submit themselves to their denominations, then the denomination to one degree or another takes the place that rightly belongs to God.

classyT,
Jesus did not found denomination.
Denominations did not come along till after Luther.
The original Church Jesus founded IS the Catholic (universal) Church ni matter what you want to believe
Ay first is was simply called The Church. Later when others not offiliated The Church came along it was renamed ThE Catholic Church so that it could be accuartely identified,
Then along came the great split when some of the Greek churches split from the Catholic because the did not any longer what to recognize the Pope at head of the universal Church.
Yes it was founded by a man called Jesus Christ.
That is real authentic history. It IS the truth that some people refuse to accept.
BUT any other history concerning that is bogus history.
As history prove there were not denominations till after Luther.
That is what started the use of the term denominations so claiming that there were no denominations mentioned in the Bible is true but it is also PURPOSELY misleading.
Accept or reject it as you want to.
Fred

classyT,
Jesus did not found denomination.

Right. The first one came about in 325 AD, founded by Constantine who established it as the Roman catholic denomination.

Tj3,
I am trying to ignore you but as long as you keep posting bogus history I and others will tell the truth.
Constantine did not found any denomination. None existed until after Luther.
THAT Is the truth.
I have already told the truth about why the name was changer from The Church to the Catholic Church.
I know you do not accept that even though for many years you have been to the truth.
Authentic History books PROVE it.
Believe as you want to but don't try to peddle your bogus history while others who know the truth can see it for you WILL BE exposed.
Fred

Tj3,
I am trying to ignore you but as long as you keep posting bogus history I and others will tell the truth.

Claim what you wish Fred, but even one of the best known leaders of your denomination disagrees:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We are told in various ways by Eusebius that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own. It is not necessary to go into a subject which the diligence of Protestant writers has made familiar to most of us. The use of temples, and those dedicated to the particular saints, and ornamented on occasion with branches of trees, incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness, holy water, asylums, holy days and seasons, use of calendars, proces­sions, blessings on the fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant and the Kyrie Eleison are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by adoption into the Church."
 
(Source: J. H. Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Chapter 8.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whoa people, You are getting so far off base it is not funny. Church denominations are man made that is a fact. They are in place like Government to give a body of like minded belivers a place to hang their hats. If you must rely on a preacher/pastor/father what ever you choose to call them to read and interpert the scriptures to you that in my book borders on a cult! Remember the Jews of the old testament. They were steeped in religion. God in the form of Jesus came to the earth and literally destroyed the religion of the day. Because they were too steeped in the formality of religion to see and understand the word of God! People can look at any religious organization today and find fault with its methods. But since there is but ONE true GOD and one way of salvation through Jesus to GOD as long as you believe and pray to GOD the father and not through some 'saints" then I have no problem with your brand of religion.
One last point, since when did GOD become so hung up on he/she terms? Simple answer HE DID NOT! The terms were used so that the unlearned people of the time could understand.
We understand GOD the father/GOD the son/GOD the holy spirit as the trinity. And that the bride of Christ is the Church, which is ALL of the believer's in Christ. Do I make myself clear or is this more confusing?

The first church under the leadership of the original Apostles healed the sick, raised the dead, cast out demons, opened blind eyes, caused the lame to walk and preached the uncompromising Gospel of Jesus Christ, crucified, buried, resurrected, and ascended back into the heavens, proving that Jesus is indeed alive.

If a church is not doing these thlngs, not even preaching that such things are available today, then that is NOT the church that Jesus founded.

The New religion mentioned was and is Chritianity.
That's a fact.
The truth.
Accept or reject as you want to but it will not change the truth.

Duplicate

The New religion mentioned was and is Chritianity.

Fred, the content of Newman's comments makes it clear that the new religion was a mix of the pagan Roman religion over which Constantine was high priest, and the church.

1st Century Christianity, the Christianity taught by Christ did not incorporate paganism. Further, this took place in the 4th century, not the 1st century. Constantine was not alive in the 1st century.

Tj3.
That is your opinion which am happy to reject.
Please end this. I perfer to ignore you for discustions with you go no where because you refuse to acceot the truth.
.

Tj3.
That is your opinion which am happy to reject.

Fred, it is not just my opinion. It is validated even by one of the best known leaders in your denomination. There is a great deal of historical validation in addition to this. You, on the other hand, have provided only your opinion.


Please end this. I perfer to ignore you for discussions with you go no where because you refuse to acceot the truth.
.

If you did not want to discuss it, and you do not want to see evidence which might indicated that you are wrong in your opinion, then it makes me wonder why YOU raised the point. The opinion posted, BTW, was that of Roman Catholic Cardinal John Henry Newman.

What I refuse to accept, Fred, is when you tell me your opinion with no validation, especially when I have studied the topic and know what historical and Biblical evidence there is.

If you cannot handle views and evidence which disagree with what you want to believe, ignoring is a good option.

The Greek word for "church", ekklesia, does, as Fred pointed out, mean "assembly". But not every assembly is a church, of course. So what distinguishes the Church from a bunch of people who've gotten together for one reason or another? Well, beginning in the first century the answer to this question turned on whether the assembly or community had as its head a bishop who either was or had been appointed by one of the Apostles. There were, recall, a great many itinerant teachers who claimed that one did not need to follow the Apostles or their successors. But, already in the NT, people were instructed to adhere to the bishop. (Many of these wandering preachers, who claimed that we don't need to listen to the bishop but can do it ourselves, were gnostics, and both Peter and Paul explicitly rejected gnosticism.)

Now the Catholic Church is that community of the faithful whose bishop is the bishop of Rome. The first bishop of Rome was Peter (the first bishop of Constantinope was Andrew, and so on). The first several bishops after Peter came from his circle of students--in fact, since Paul was in Rome at the same time, many of them were instructed by both Peter and Paul. The body of teaching--what Catholics call the deposit of faith--was handed down from one bishop to the next so that the people could be taught the faith as Peter had instructed. This is what Catholics mean by apostolic succession.

As for the rather perverse claim that the Catholic Church was founded by Constantine in 325: No reputable historian holds this--and I include secular and protestant historians. (I have been teaching university courses on Church history for many, many years, and have kept up with the literature, and neither I nor any of my colleagues can find a single reputable scholar who takes this view.) There are a few fringe fundamentalists who still say this, but they've been discredited since the nineteenth century. To be sure, there are plenty of historians who are critical of the Catholic Church, but none denies that it existed prior to 325. In fact, Constantine converted into the Catholic Church, which certainly seems to require that it already existed. Since we know there were popes--bishops of Rome--from Peter to Constantine (Irenaeus, writing in the second century, lists them), we know that the Catholic Church, the church of Rome, existed before Constantine.

It's true that Christians did not refer to themselves as Catholics in the first century. But, then, they didn't refer to themselves as Christians either. The term "christian" was coined by Ignatius of Antioch. The first Christians referred to their movement--which many of them saw as a movement within Judaism--as "the Way" (see the opening of the Didache, for example, or the first century Epistle of Barnabas). They did, however, identify themselves by their local bishop (remember, towns of any size often had their own bishop, appointed by the Apostle who passed through it).

One can, surely, break from all this and go it alone. But this isn't to avoid the trap of "denominations"; it is to make oneself a denomination of one.

Ps. Newman was protestant for much of his life. As he himself says, it was his study of the early Church that led him to convert to Catholicism.

Akoue,
If as you say the catholic church was a very early church group, I contend that the present day catholic church is nothing like the early church. The catholic church is too steeped in litergy and ceremony to be anything close to the original concept of church. Jesus came to the earth to remove the silly rules that man had injected into the Jewish faith . And now we have come full circle. So in summary to this way off the wall conversation, the Catholic Church as it is known today is nothing like what God/Jesus intended for the church to be. So, it may have roots dating back to who knows when, but it does not hold true anything else in this conversation. Point of fact, many could look at the Catholic church today and see in it a cult. Same for the Mormon Church.

The Greek word for "church", ekklesia, does, as Fred pointed out, mean "assembly".

Up to here, you were doing okay.


So what distinguishes the Church from a bunch of people who've gotten together for one reason or another?

Actually, ifyou want to know what scripture says, there is another question first - how is the word used in scripture. It is used two ways - one to describe the physical congregation or organization and secondly to describe the body of Christ. Scripture is also clear that though members of the body of Christ may be members of the organized church, the opposite is not always true.


Now the Catholic Church is that community of the faithful whose bishop is the bishop of Rome.

The 1st century church had Jesus at it's head, not the bishop of any city, nor in fact was any single head of any church running ALL churches. Also, as your Cardinakl Newman said, the Roman church mixes paganism with Christianity, and that started in the 4th century. This is not descriptive of the 1 st century church.



The first bishop of Rome was Peter

How many times must we refute this?


It's true that Christians did not refer to themselves as Catholics in the first century. But, then, they didn't refer to themselves as Christians either. The term "christian" was coined by Ignatius of Antioch.

This is not true either.

Acts 11:25-26
26 And when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. So it was that for a whole year they assembled with the church and taught a great many people. And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.
NKJV

Akoue,

Might I also suggest that if you and Fred want to get off on a different topic (i.e. promoting your denomination), start a different thread rather than trying to hijack this one.

450donn,

Fair point. The fact that the Catholic Church is ancient doesn't itself show that it's practices are consistent with those of the early Church. I am struck by the fact that, if anything, early liturgies, etc. were far more elaborate and demanding than modern Catholic practice. But this is a separate matter.

Tj3,

You're funny.

Tj3,

You're funny.

And you have no rebuttal! That speaks for itself.

Akoue,
Well said.
Well done.
Also...
A person who does not understand the litergy would make a statement such as did 450donn.
Much of today's litergy dates back to what is in the bible.
It is a profound way of worship. Each part is steeped in religious history and is meant to aid the worshiper in connection with our Lord God.
Such as "Only say the word Lord and I will be healed.
I think it is a very beautiful way of worship as does well over a billion people in several denominations.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Tj4,
It is impossible to refute the truth that Peter was the first leader of The Church as appointed by Jesus.
You can try all you want to but the truth still stands.
As mentioned before, you reject the truth with the bible and history proves.
Fred
.

Tj4,
It is impossible to refute the truth that Peter was the first leader of The Church as appointed by Jesus.

Nothing has been put forward to be refuted. It is so far an empty claim based upon your opinion.

But as for who the first leader of the church was:

Eph 5:23-24
23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.
NKJV

That is who was, and is and always was the head of the church that I am a member of. Jesus has never abdicated His role as head of the church.

Sorry to hear about your denomination.;)

Yj3,
I did not read it,
Ignored

Yj3,
I did not read it,
Ignored

That is fine Ferd. Those who care about the truth are those who will check out the facts.

Tj3,
That is hogwah,
For years i have provided you with the truth but you reject it.
That is why i ignore you.

classyT
Maybe what you describe as the Holly Spirit ''leaving'' is better explained by the words of our Lord on the cross
Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
As I wrote before somewhere I believe we are in the ''sixth hour'' the hour of darkness which will lead to the '' death '' of Jesus on earth.But of course only His body died while He preached elsewhere to prisoned souls and came back in glory.
I think that what happened to Him will happen to us.People will consider us dead , as they considered Him dead but after a while we will come back for the Millennium with Him!
What do you say ?

The Greek word for "church", ekklesia, does, as Fred pointed out, mean "assembly".



In Greek...
O eklektos means the chosen one
Oi eklektoi(the oi sounds like an e like easy) means the chosen ones
H ekklesea ( the H sounds like an e like easy the first e sounds like pe sounds like pen n and the rest of the e's like easy means the singular word of the sum of the chosen ones

Not every assembly is an ekklesea ! The Catholic church is an assembly.
Btw... Do you think that Peter ''the first leader'' of the Catholic church would like the fact that you have bulid a temple in his name?
As far as I remember he did not allow Cornelius to bow in front of him and told him that he is also human .So what the Catholic church does , does not sound that authentic after all!
One more thing... Did not Paul arrive to Rome at least 4 years earlier than Peter?
Why is then Peter ''the first leader'' of the Catholic church .
To be honest both of them would tell you that there is only ONE leader of the church of Jesus Christ and that is Jesus Christ Himself.
Yes , you claim that Peter is ''the first leader'' of the Catholic church but you did not ask him and of course he is not here today to answear you for all those things that you do in his name.
As for the term '' leader'' , are you sure you have it right?

OK, this has gotten too far off topic. Three pages of bashing/defending the catholic church is enough. If someone wants to start a discussion of why the catholic church is better than others then please do so. Otherwise, please get back on topic or moderator please close this thread.
Thanks
450donn

classyT
Maybe what you describe as the Holly Spirit ''leaving'' is better explained by the words of our Lord on the cross
Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
As I wrote before somewhere I believe we are in the ''sixth hour'' the hour of darkness which will lead to the '' death '' of Jesus on earth.But of course only His body died while He preached elsewhere to prisoned souls and came back in glory.
I think that what happened to Him will happen to us.People will consider us dead , as they considered Him dead but after a while we will come back for the Millenium with Him!
What do you say ?

Adam,

Interesting. I have never heard that before. It is true that we will come back with him! What an exciting day that will be. He will defeat the antichrist and the false prohphet with a WORD. I don't know that the world will consider us dead though. I think the world will be in chaos and America in particular will be shattered. There are more believers here than anywhere on the planet. However I kind of like your analogy, so you think that the Lord's death could be a picture of the rapture of the Church? Something to ponder.

Tj3,
That is hogwah,
FOR YEARS I HAVE PROVIDED YOU WITH THE TRUTH BUT YOU REJECT IT.
THAT IS WHY I IGNORE YOU.

Fred,

Telling me that I have to believe your opinion is not convincing.

The restrainer is clear in scripture...
Rev. 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come.

classyT
Maybe dead is not the right word to say , confused sounds better!

Correction!
The Greek word ekklesea comes from the two Greek words ek and kalo which means call someone out of something , so ekklesea means the sum of those who are called by Jesus to come out from the world!
Sorry for not making it clear from the start!

classyT
Maybe dead is not the right word to say , confused sounds better!

OK.. I can go with confused and certainly there was much confusion after the Lords death too. I like that Adam. Good thoughts , think I will bring that up at my Bible Study.

Just a little help with the Greek:

The Gk. Word ekklesia (the second to last letter is not epsilon but iota) is quite commonplace, and is not reserved in its use for religious assemblies (as I pointed out). It is a feminine noun, preceded by the article eta, with a rough breathing mark: It is pronounced "hay".

When Cornelius falls to his feet at Acts 10.25, the Gk. Word is prosekunesen (pronounced prosekunaysen). In Gk. proskunesis (pronounced proskunaysis) can be offered only to God: It is a humbling gesture which can be offered only God. The root word is that for dog: The Persians used to bow down in this way before their king, and the ancient Greeks mocked them for this by likening them to dogs.

Also, it is pronounced hoy eklektoi (the article has a rough breathing mark over it).

For all you posers out there.

adam7gur,
Thank you for that post.
I don't think that Peter would mind having a nice big church building for the worship of God named after him.
I think Saint Peter is honored and humbled over that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Tj3,
I am not insisting that you believe the truth about the Catholic Chirch.
That is your choice.
You can believe as you want to just like me and everyone else.
I just wish you peace and kindness as always.
Fred

Tj3,
I am not insisting that you believe the truth about the Catholic Chirch.

Right. You are insisting that I believe your opinion and ignore the historic and Biblical evidence.

Tj3,
LOL
Wrong AGAIN.
My opinion about the Catholic Church is the truth backup by real authentic history.
You believe as you want ti be I will believe the truth.
Fred

Tj3,
LOL
Wrong AGAIN.
My opinion about the Catholic Church is the truth backup by real authentic history.

Well, Fred, I have posted validation for my view. You just tell us what we have to believe according to you.

Not convincing.

Tj3,
Your validation is Bogus.
Wrong.
Real History proves it.
PLEASE STOP bothering me with your not valid opinions
Thanks,
Fred.

This back-and-forth is extraordinarily tiresome. And, at the risk of being indelicate, I have found, having read through numerous threads, that Tj3 is consistently ill-mannered, even in instances when his interlocutors make every effort to be gracious.

I have no intention to continue following this thread, but I would like to take just a brief moment to sort something out. I made the claim that Peter was the first bishop of Rome, a claim which is not in itself particularly pro-Catholic inasmuch as Anglicans, Lutherans, Orthodox, secular historians, etc. agree. I certainly did not assert the primacy of Rome. Now Tj3 objected to this claim. He offered no evidence that this widely accepted fact is not after all factual: To do this he would have to either show that there was no bishop of Rome or he would have to show that someone other than Peter was the first bishop of Rome. Having re-read this thread, I find that he has offered no evidence in support of either claim.

Now no one has ever denied that Christ is the head of the Church (Tj3 cites Ephesians here). The claim was simply that Peter was bishop, and as such, the leader of the community of Christians then living in Rome. Surely the Apostles played a leadership role in the early Church; and surely they themselves appointed other Christians to assist them, in some cases travelling together, and in some cases appointing others to play leadership roles in various communities. What could possibly be controversial about this? (Again, there isn't anything particularly pro-Catholic about it, either.)

We have documentary evidence of the fact that some of those in leadership roles were called bishops (episkopoi). Peter, like the other Apostles, clearly were leaders of the early Church. If there is anything wrong with what I've said--or with Fred's endorsement of it, as far as it goes--the burden is on Tj3 to make a compelling and detailed case for this. But this he has refused to do. Instead his responses often come very close to bullying--and it concerns me that others are willing to countenance this behavior, especially as it has been remarked upon a great many times in other threads going back quite some time. Nothing like a genuine conversation is possible where the participants refuse to adhere to, and enforce, basic norms of civility.

Tj3,
Your validation is Bogus.

I would be most interested in seeing your proof for that. The book is a well known book, and the Cardinal John Henry Newman is one of the best known leaders of your denomination.

As for it being bogus, apparently Amazon.com disagrees because they are selling the book:

An Essay on the Development of ... - Google Book Search (http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&id=9V_6AhrV1-8C&dq=%22An+essay+on+the+development+of+christian+doc trine%22&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=ZDKFn8JgxN&sig=jJ8Set-C_rk8VDgYVBCLtmAi55E&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result)

You might want to check out your facts before declaring things to be "bogus".


Wrong.
Real History proves it.
PLEASE STOP bothering me with your not valid opinions
Thanks,
Fred.

Just telling everyone that you are right and they are wrong when the facts are easily proven (as I did above) simply discredits your position.

I have no intention to continue following this thread, but I would like to take just a brief moment to sort something out. I made the claim that Peter was the first bishop of Rome, a claim which is not in itself particularly pro-Catholic inasmuch as Anglicans, Lutherans, Orthodox, secular historians, etc. agree.

Anglicans and Orthodox are Catholic. As for the claim that Lutherans hold to this, I have never seen that claim validated, but ultimately, even if it were true, truth is not decided by the number of denominations for or against (a contest that you would likely lose in any case since most denominations reject that claim, as did the early church fathers).

NOTE: After posting this message, I checked on a Lutheran church site, and found a document which speaks to the point of the primacy of Peter. Here is an excerpt:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And Calvin's doctrine of the presbytery as the office which rules the church has no better Scriptural foundation than the corresponding doctrine of the episcopate or the primacy of Peter in the church. The common error which overturns all these theories is the conviction that there is one "order by which the Lord desired to have His church governed" (ordo, quo Dominus ecclesiam suam gubernari voluit), and that the New Testament necessarily contains a law regarding it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It appears that your view regarding Lutheran doctrine regarding peter was not well founded.


I certainly did not assert the primacy of Rome. Now Tj3 objected to this claim. He offered no evidence that this widely accepted fact is not after all factual:

You are the one who made the claim - it is up to you to provide evidence of the claim. The fact is that we find absolutely nothing in scripture to substantiate this claim. If you find something, let us know.


Now no one has ever denied that Christ is the head of the Church (Tj3 cites Ephesians here).

Then it is simple. If Christ is the head, Peter is not.

Tj3,
Your interpretation of what Newman said is bogus as has been pointed out to you by me ans several other people over the years.
He was referring to the new religion that is and was Christianity
Now I have asked you nicely to quick bothering me with your opinions.
I am not interested in them at all.
So I ask why can't you be nice and honor my request?
Please do not address any more of your posts to me.
Thank you,
Fred

Akoue,
Your approach to this in logical and correct.
Real authentic history backs up what you said as true.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Tj3,
Your interpretation of what Newman said is bogus abs has been pointed out to you by me ans several other people over the years.

Fred, so far all I have seen is you and a couple of your friends defending their denomination trying to tell me that it says something other than what it says. Denial doesn't work.

You tried to claim that Newman was referring to the Christian church, but as I pointed out, Jesus did not mix paganism with Christianity in the church, and Constantine was not around in the 1st century, therefore this does not refer to the start of the Christian church.

Then you tried to argue that the source was bogus, which I then refuted with the link to the book itself.

I understand your frustration.


Now I have asked you nicely to quick bothering me with your opinions.
I am not interested in them at all.

Fred, it was not me who posted their opinions about their denomination and started promoting their denomination, in a thread where that was off-topic. If you want to promote your denomination in such a manner, you must know that someone is going to raise the facts which challenge your opinion.

Second, you must understand that you are not the mind police and that others can express their opinion even when you don't agree.

Further, as a couple of people, including the OP, have now requested, if you wish to promote your denomination, then start a new thread. Why do you not respect that request?

Tj3,
I did not read your post.
I asked you nicely NOT to address any more of your post to me.
If you do I will not read to them.
I want nothing to do with you.
So PLEASED, PLEASE do not address any more post to me.
Thanks,
Fred

ok..i can go with confused and certainly there was much confusion after the Lords death too. I like that Adam. Good thoughts , think i will bring that up at my Bible Study.

Let me know what comes up!

Tj3,
I did not read your post.
I asked you nicely NOT to address any more of your post to me.
If you do I will not read to them.

Fred, Read my posts or not. Those who care about truth will check out the facts. If you choose not to, that is your decision. You do not need to comment on each on that you don't read. Just don't read, and don't respond. You are not hurting me either way.


I want nothing to do with you.
So PLEASED, PLEASE do not address any more post to me.


Odd, you want me to stop posting to you, but you seem to have no inhibition about addressing posts to me.

Your option, Fred, is to put me on ignore, but you do not have an option to tell me where I can and cannot post. Your problem even then is that will not stop me posting, nor will it stop others who disagree with you from posting.

Please note once again, this whole thing about your denomination was started by you, and was off-topic. If you cannot handle disagreement with respect to your denomination, don't post statements like that. But once having done so, don't try telling others that they have no right to disagree with you.

Please note once again, this whole thing about your denomination was started by you, and was off-topic. If you cannot handle disagreement with respect to your denomination, don't post statements like that. But once having done so, don't try telling others that they have no right to disagree with you.

That's true!

Tj3,
I did NOT read what you wrote.'
It was a wast of time and effort.
I asked you nicely to leave me alone and NOT address your bullying post to me.
So you do not care how others see you.
Never-the- less I will keep my word and NOT read anything you write addressed to me.
So keep on wasting time and effort as you want to.
I still will continue telling the truth, praying for you and wishing you peace and kindness.
Fred.

Only insomnia could lure me back to this increasingly insipid exchange. So far as I can tell, it was Tj3 who brought things around to this sad state with his "clarification" of the meaning of ekklesia (see #52). I'm certainly not in league with anyone, but I do have an interest in seeing that something approximating principles of fair play are observed (since I'm not here to watch you guys bicker--maybe you could reserve some of this for PM?). It does seem to me, though, that if a Catholic--or anyone else--wishes to participate in the discussion by, among other things, offering for consideration what his or her faith tradition teaches, that is all to the good. (Again, I remind all that I have nowhere advocated for Catholicism. What I have done, here and in another recent exchange, is to point out that some of the objections that have been raised against it have missed their mark. To be sure, anti-"denominationalists" should have ample opportunity to have their say. But, then, in the interests of fairness, so should Catholics and Lutherans and Anglicans. There is an unfortunate pattern on these boards for someone to be pegged as a member of one or another "denomination" and for their "denomination" then to come under sustained attack. As someone who doesn't currently have a horse in this race, I have noticed that this tends to have a chilling effect on the conversation--and it most definitely impoverishes the conversation.

I have indicated above where I think a good portion of the culpability for this lies. This isn't to dismiss the contributions of Tj3, many of which have been interesting and provocative (in a good way). But people have to stop letting some of the excesses slide: It doesn't reflect well on the God we claim to serve that this is easily the nastiest part of AMHD. (Compare, for instance, the warm fuzzies at "paranormal phenomena"!)

Since I find myself in this mess anyway...

Tj3,

I precisely did not make any claims about Peter's primacy, nor that of Rome (a fact to which I called your attention earlier). I said only that Peter was the first bishop of Rome... not that he was the "head of the church", but that he was the bishop of Rome. That's it. The head of the Church is Christ, a claim no Catholic would deny (unless very deeply confused). If you need evidence for this, you can consult Irenaeus's "Adversus haereses" which includes a list of all the bishops of Rome up until the date at which Irenaeus wrote (second-century). So, no, the Church Fathers did not deny anything that I said. (In fact, throughout, I haven't been advocating for Catholicism in any overt way, though I have tried to call your attention to the Church Fathers.) The only early Christians who denied the authority of Peter were, you guessed it, the gnostics. (Are you just a modern-day gnostic, after all? They also claimed to have transcended "denominations".)

For what it's worth, the claim that Peter was the first bishop of Rome is something I first heard as a child, in Sunday school--at a Lutheran church. The quote you adduced above, putatively refuting my claim, mentions only the claim of Petrine primacy. Luther himself discussed this at some length, and he accepted the episcopate of Peter. Calvin is another matter altogether--notice I didn't say anything about presbyterians.

Tj3,
I did NOT read what you wrote.'
It was a wast of time and effort.

It seems to me that taking the time to write "I did not read what you wrote" every time that I post is wasting time and effort. To be blunt, it reminds me of a child who does not want to ehar what his parents are saying and puts his hands over his ears."


I asked you nicely to leave me alone and NOT address your bullying post to me.

Grow up, Fred. If you don't want to talk to me, then don't.

Only insomnia could lure me back to this increasingly insipid exchange. So far as I can tell, it was Tj3 who brought things around to this sad state with his "clarification" of the meaning of ekklesia (see #52).

Read again. I said nothing about the Greek. Adam however did an excellent job of going through what the Greek says. Post #52 was not mine but Fred's where he claimed claimed that the Catholic church was the 1st century church.



To be sure, anti-"denominationalists" should have ample opportunity to have their say. But, then, in the interests of fairness, so should Catholics and Lutherans and Anglicans.

And anyone else also. But let's be clear. I am NOT anti-denominational. I am opposed to denominationalism. There is nothing wrong with denominations in and of themselves. They can be a great tool for enhancing evangelism amongst people of like mind and beliefs. The problem is when the denomination stops serving the people, and the people are told to serve the denomination.



There is an unfortunate pattern on these boards for someone to be pegged as a member of one or another "denomination" and for their "denomination" then to come under sustained attack.

I have seen that on some boards, but not as much here. Indeed there is even one on this thread who insists that I must be called a Protestant when I am not.


I have indicated above where I think a good portion of the culpability for this lies. This isn't to dismiss the contributions of Tj3, many of which have been interesting and provocative (in a good way).

Do you ever post without an attack on someone?

I precisely did not make any claims about Peter's primacy, nor that of Rome (a fact to which I called your attention earlier).


Let me quote you from an earlier post (68):

"Now the Catholic Church is that community of the faithful whose bishop is the bishop of Rome. The first bishop of Rome was Peter (the first bishop of Constantinope was Andrew, and so on). The first several bishops after Peter came from his circle of students--in fact, since Paul was in Rome at the same time, many of them were instructed by both Peter and Paul. The body of teaching--what Catholics call the deposit of faith--was handed down from one bishop to the next so that the people could be taught the faith as Peter had instructed. This is what Catholics mean by apostolic succession."

Now, if all Catholics have the bishop of Rome as their bishop, how is that not teaching the primacy of Rome. Then you spoke about the first bishop being Peter. How is that not saying that he had primacy?

I'd be interested to see your explanation.

The following link gives a pretty good explanation of the "rapture" which many apparently do not believe in. Please read and comment.
Introduction to the Rapture (http://www.religioustolerance.org/rapture1.htm)

Now, if all Catholics have the bishop of Rome as their bishop, how is that not teaching the primacy of Rome. Then you spoke about the first bishop being Peter. How is that not saying that he had primacy?
It's likely that Akoue is making a distinction between the primacy (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm) of Peter as the “Prince of Apostles” and the first Bishop of Rome. Peter was the called the rock of the disciples and held a place of prominence (prime) among the twelve Apostles. His successors, the Bishops of Rome, are the Vicar of Christ, the sole patriarch of the Western Church holding the perpetual office as the Roman pontiff over all the faithful – even you Tom. The Bishop of Rome, the Pope, is the first among equals with the authority to define faith and morals, the “keys to bind and loosen.”

I’m of the opinion that the distinction between the primacy of Peter and the Bishop of Rome are strictly academic in nature. In the Catholic Church they both perform the same function, having supreme power in this Christ’s Kingdom carrying the supreme Magisterium.

JoeT

The following link gives a pretty good explanation of the "rapture" which many apparently do not believe in. Please read and comment.
Introduction to the Rapture

As I understand it the John Darby view of “rapture”, it is that the body of elect will rise up to meet Christ in the clouds to come into His Messianic Kingdom. The Kingdom of God already exists on earth in the form of the Catholic Church. It is Catholic belief that the Kingdom of God is preserved in the Church, "the kingdom of God"; cf. Col. I, 13; I Thess. ii, 12; Apoc. I, 6, 9; v, 10, etc.

JoeT

Certain religions believe that there will be only 144000 thousand that are chosen. The body elect is in reality the church of Christ. In other words those that believe in Jesus Christ and profess him as Lord and King.

It's likely that Akoue is making a distinction between the primacy (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm) of Peter as the “Prince of Apostles” and the first Bishop of Rome.

I do not see where he has made any such differentiation, but in any case, neither appear to have any basis in fact.


Peter was the called the rock of the disciples and held a place of prominence (prime) among the twelve Apostles.

The "Rock" according to scripture was Jesus, not Peter,a and there is again no evidence of primacy amongst the apostles - indeed quite the opposite.


His successors,

There is also no evidence for any succession, assuming that any such office existed.


the Bishops of Rome, are the Vicar of Christ,

This refers to replacement for Christ. Christ remained head of His church according to scripture.


the sole patriarch of the Western Church holding the perpetual office as the Roman pontiff over all the faithful

Pontiff, eh? That is the title of the priest of the pagan Roman religion. This camen into the church through the mixing of the pagan religion with the church that Cardinal newman spoke of. The pagan high priest was the emperor who was known as "Pontifex Maximus".

Pontiff refers to a "bridge" and the pagan priest was to be the b ridge between God and man. Yet scripture says that those who are in Christ are all priests and there is no other mediator between God and man except for Christ Himself.

Certain religions believe that there will be only 144000 thousand that are chosen.

Like the JWs. The problem with that is the 144,000 referred to Revelation are all Jewish male virgins who witness during the tribulation. In adfdition to this special group, we also have a great crowd of witnesses from various nations. So the number saved are definitely not limited to 144,000.


The body elect is in reality the church of Christ. In other words those that believe in Jesus Christ and profess him as Lord and King.

Absolutely right.

Yes, I think I did make a distinction between the episcopate of Peter and the primacy of Peter (or of Rome, etc.). I expressly asserted the claim that Peter was the bishop of Rome, stating that I was not defending the claim to primacy (the primacy claim has been debated extensively on other threads and can be resumed on another if anyone wishes). That's called "making a distinction", people.

Now, we know that there were bishops (episkopoi) in the early Church, right? (Acts 20.28, Titus 1.5-7; the word episkopos occurs in both of these). We know that they were to "shepherd the church of God" (op.cit.). It sometimes appears that Tj3 means to deny that there were bishops (e.g. "assuming that any such office existed"). Since this would be silly, in light of the references I just offered, I'll proceed as though he means only to deny that Peter was the bishop of Rome. Since I've already offered Irenaeus to support this claim, there isn't much for me to do unless and until Tj3 offers some good reason for rejecting the claim that Peter was bishop of Rome--say, proving that Irenaeus isn't to be trusted. I have been asked to provide some good reason for thinking that Peter held this office and, well, there it is. Now, yes, the burden of proof shifts back to the other side, to offer *good reasons* to reject my claim.

It's true that for Catholics primacy follows episcopacy, by which I mean to say that the primacy of the bishop of Rome is taken to derive from the fact that Peter is taken to have been, as has been said by JoeT777, "prime" among the Apostles (a claim which one can dispute, though--for whatever it's worth--it was universally held among writers of the first centuries. [Tj3: Don't reply: "No it wasn't". I encourage you, if you deny this claim, to provide any *evidence* from the writings of the Church fathers to oppose it]). This isn't, though, a purely academic distinction, since it has been a central bone of contention between Catholics and Orthodox. Both accept that the bishop of Rome, beginning with Peter, has a special status, but they disagree about the juridical extent of that special status.


And no, as I've indicated, talk about the Vicar of Christ does not suggest, nor even remotely hint at, replacement of Christ. Notice the term "vicar". No Catholic denies that Christ is the head of the Church; no Catholic believes himself to be a follower of Peter *in preference to* Christ; no Catholic denies that Peter was other than a follower and servant of Christ. It's fine to debate the merits of Catholicism, but you have to at least make some vague effort at presenting the views of Catholicism in a fair light; then, if you can knock them down, you've really accomplished something. Otherwise you're just tilting at windmills--windmills made of strawmen.

The word "ekkelsia" was also used for pagan gatherings. Does this mean that the writers of the NT were importing paganism intoo Christianity when they used the word? Presumably not. So then it doesn't follow from the use of the word "pontifex" that the Catholic Church was importing paganism. These guys were using the language that existed, that's all. (How else were they supposed to communicate with people who weren't already believers?)