 |
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 that He is the restrainer.Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
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.Quote:
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)
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)
Fred,Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
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.
I think that we are largely in agreement.Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
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
Fred,Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
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!
There is no authentic "denomination" because Jesus did not found a denomination. The Catholic church denomination began in 325AD.Quote:
Originally Posted by adam7gur
Scripture says that the authentic church of Christ of the body of all believers.
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.Quote:
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!
That is right.Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
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
Right. The first one came about in 325 AD, founded by Constantine who established it as the Roman catholic denomination.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
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
Claim what you wish Fred, but even one of the best known leaders of your denomination disagrees:Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
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.
.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
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.Quote:
Please end this. I perfer to ignore you for discussions with you go no where because you refuse to acceot the truth.
.
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.
Up to here, you were doing okay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
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.Quote:
So what distinguishes the Church from a bunch of people who've gotten together for one reason or another?
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.Quote:
Now the Catholic Church is that community of the faithful whose bishop is the bishop of Rome.
How many times must we refute this?Quote:
The first bishop of Rome was Peter
This is not true either.Quote:
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.
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.
And you have no rebuttal! That speaks for itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
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
.
Nothing has been put forward to be refuted. It is so far an empty claim based upon your opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
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
That is fine Ferd. Those who care about the truth are those who will check out the facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
Tj3,
That is hogwah,
For years i have provided you with the truth but you reject it.
That is why i ignore you.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:15 AM. |