THE BIBLICAL "CHURCH OF GOD - THE BODY OF CHRIST" (Scripture reference I Cor. 1:2)

[Jude3b]

When the Bible uses the words "the church," it always refers to all those who trust in Jesus Christ alone for salvation. Those who are saved, born-again are THE CHURCH OF GOD, the body of Christ.

When the Bible uses the words "the church," it never refers to the Roman Catholic religion or to its members!

"Unto THE CHURCH OF GOD which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord..." (I Cor. 1:2)

ROMAN CATHOLICISM CLAIMS TO BE THE ONE TRUE CHURCH, yet there is not even one verse of Scripture to validate this or that ever even mentions any Roman Catholic church or religion. If Christ only had one true church and it was Roman Catholic, that would mean that Christ only died for Roman Catholics.

QUESTIONS-

(1) WOULD ANYONE SUGGEST THAT GOD ONLY LOVES ROMAN CATHOLICS?

(2) WOULD ANYONE SUGGEST THAT CHRIST DIED ONLY FOR ROMAN CATHOLICS?

(3) DOES ANYONE REALLY BELIEVE THAT ALL NON-ROMAN CATHOLICS WILL BURN IN HELL, BECAUE THEY DO NOT BELONG TO THE "ONE TRUE CHURCH (OF ROMAN CATHOLICISM)?"

(4) HOW CAN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION BE THE ONE TRUE CHURCH? The Roman Catholic Catechism says it is, the Bible says no its not!

(5) IS THE APOSTLE PETER REALLY THE ROCK AS ROMAN CATHOLICISM CLAIMS? OR IS GOD OUR ROCK, AS THE BIBLE CLAIMS?

Please consider why I ask these questions:

The Apostle Paul was not a Roman Catholic, yet he knew that Christ loved him and died for him. Certainly, no one would dare say that the Apostle Paul was not a Christian because he was not a Roman Catholic.

He wrote:

"Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also LOVED THE CHURCH, and gave himself for it;" (Eph. 5:25)

The Apostle Paul certainly knew that Christ loved him and the entire church of God, the body of Christ!

Paul even proclaimed:

"And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us..." (Ephesians 5:2)

[BibleMan]

When the Bible uses the words "the church," it always refers to all those who trust in Jesus Christ alone for salvation. Those who are saved, born-again are THE CHURCH OF GOD, the body of Christ.

When the Bible uses the words "the church," it never refers to the Roman Catholic religion or to its members!

"Unto THE CHURCH OF GOD which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord..." (I Cor. 1:2)

ROMAN CATHOLICISM CLAIMS TO BE THE ONE TRUE CHURCH, yet there is not even one verse of Scripture to validate this or that ever even mentions any Roman Catholic church or religion. If Christ only had one true church and it was Roman Catholic, that would mean that Christ only died for Roman Catholics.

QUESTIONS-

(1) WOULD ANYONE SUGGEST THAT GOD ONLY LOVES ROMAN CATHOLICS?

(2) WOULD ANYONE SUGGEST THAT CHRIST DIED ONLY FOR ROMAN CATHOLICS?

(3) DOES ANYONE REALLY BELIEVE THAT ALL NON-ROMAN CATHOLICS WILL BURN IN HELL, BECAUE THEY DO NOT BELONG TO THE "ONE TRUE CHURCH (OF ROMAN CATHOLICISM)?"

(4) HOW CAN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION BE THE ONE TRUE CHURCH? The Roman Catholic Catechism says it is, the Bible says no its not!

(5) IS THE APOSTLE PETER REALLY THE ROCK AS ROMAN CATHOLICISM CLAIMS? OR IS GOD OUR ROCK, AS THE BIBLE CLAIMS?

Please consider why I ask these questions:

The Apostle Paul was not a Roman Catholic, yet he knew that Christ loved him and died for him. Certainly, no one would dare say that the Apostle Paul was not a Christian because he was not a Roman Catholic.

He wrote:

"Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also LOVED THE CHURCH, and gave himself for it;" (Eph. 5:25)

The Apostle Paul certainly knew that Christ loved him and the entire church of God, the body of Christ!

Paul even proclaimed:

"And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us..." (Ephesians 5:2)



There is only one "church" - everything else is a denomination or a sect. Christ is the head and it has existed since Matt. 16:18.

[squarepants]

There is only one "church" - everything else is a denomination or a sect. Christ is the head and it has existed since Matt. 16:18.

Exactly! I agree!

I don't think there's a christian denomination (any) that I HAVEN'T heard say they were the "true church" and nobody else is, and yes, that includes Catholicism. Not to offend anyone, but I think denominations (any) say that because they have a superiority attitude. I mean why else would denominations say such things? It's the "we have the truth, and no one else does" attitude. I kind of laugh at that in a way, trying to imagine God on judgement day saying to someone, "well, you weren't a Jehovah's Witness, so it's off to hell you go" or "you weren't Baptist, so it's off to hell you go". It's absurd that there are actually people who think they'll be judged based on what denomination they belonged to, instead of what was in their hearts, or what they did to help others, or tried to follow his commands whole heartily. (which is what God really wants from us).

[Macarius]

It's the "we have the truth, and no one else does" attitude. I kind of laugh at that in a way, trying to imagine God on judgement day saying to someone, "well, you weren't a Jehovah's Witness, so it's off to hell you go" or "you weren't Baptist, so it's off to hell you go".

As a member of a church which dares to call itself "Orthodox" ("right worshipping"), I feel the need to comment on this.

Yes, Orthodoxy preaches that it has the truth. No, it does not believe that this implies that no one else does. We know where the Church IS, we do NOT know where it ISN'T - big difference.

Yes, Orthodoxy preaches that the truth is important, but only in the West has believing the truth been linked to the eternal fate of a soul - many post-enlightenment western groups have placed SUCH an emphasis on truth as to say, in essence (as you implied) believe the truth or be damned. This makes Christianity, and it's salvation, essentially a profession of belief, and separates it from the ontological condition of the soul. One can profess the right beliefs, lead a horrible life, and still be considered "in" (though certainly there are many who will object to me phrasing it in that way).

If anything, Orthodoxy preaches that we will face a HARSHER judgment for having been given the truth. We have more light with which to work out our salvation, and so we are accordingly held accountable for more if we waste this gift - these talents, if you will - and fail to invest them wisely.

Ultimately, and here I quote a modern Orthodoxy theologian (Fr. Thomas Hopko of St. Vladimir's Orthodox Seminary), "The Church holds no monopoly on grace, God saves whom He wills."

It IS possible to strongly affirm the presence of real truth in this world, the miracle of the church if you will, and yet to do so without being triumphalistic, to do so in humility and without limiting God's reach.

[Kristian Joense]

That was a great post, Macarius.

[Keumkang]

Yep :thumb:

[Kristian Joense]

I am getting more and more impressed in general with the Orthodox posters here. Which makes me more impressed with Orthodoxy itself.

[squarepants]

As a member of a church which dares to call itself "Orthodox" ("right worshipping"), I feel the need to comment on this.

Yes, Orthodoxy preaches that it has the truth. No, it does not believe that this implies that no one else does. We know where the Church IS, we do NOT know where it ISN'T - big difference.

Yes, Orthodoxy preaches that the truth is important, but only in the West has believing the truth been linked to the eternal fate of a soul - many post-enlightenment western groups have placed SUCH an emphasis on truth as to say, in essence (as you implied) believe the truth or be damned. This makes Christianity, and it's salvation, essentially a profession of belief, and separates it from the ontological condition of the soul. One can profess the right beliefs, lead a horrible life, and still be considered "in" (though certainly there are many who will object to me phrasing it in that way).

If anything, Orthodoxy preaches that we will face a HARSHER judgment for having been given the truth. We have more light with which to work out our salvation, and so we are accordingly held accountable for more if we waste this gift - these talents, if you will - and fail to invest them wisely.

Ultimately, and here I quote a modern Orthodoxy theologian (Fr. Thomas Hopko of St. Vladimir's Orthodox Seminary), "The Church holds no monopoly on grace, God saves whom He wills."

It IS possible to strongly affirm the presence of real truth in this world, the miracle of the church if you will, and yet to do so without being triumphalistic, to do so in humility and without limiting God's reach.

I'm christian, too, and maybe your denomination doesn't act superior. I posted from my own experiences, and yes, those denominations I went through did think they were the only ones with truth. Of course there's truth. I didn't say otherwise. If yours doesn't do that, well good, as there should be more denominations and churches like yours. Some people place great emphasis on sects and denominations and they really feel like only people who belong to a particular sect will be saved. That to me is a superior attitude. To me, someone who is baptist has just as much chance to get to heaven as a catholic. Neither has a "better" chance based on their denomination. Yes, I do think it's funny when ANY denomination thinks their chances are better, based on their denomination. God wants us to live for HIM. It's not about sects. Hope that clears my stance up.

[Macarius]

Well, most people here probably would accuse the Orthodox Church of acting superior, because we pick no bones in claiming to BE the Church and to having maintained the apostolic deposit of truth (the faith "once delivered to all the saints" to use St. Jude's wording).

I was attempting, as one of those against whom this post (not just yours, but Jude's) was written, to clarify our position. If we fail to live out this commandment of humility, that is not due in any fault to Orthodox theology, but due to our failings as poor representatives of it.

Thanks for the clarification though! I didn't want to seem like I was demeaning what you were saying - if I did I appologize. I was actually agreeing with you, in a way, that exlusivistic claims regarding salvation are less-than-wise. Simultaneously, I was trying to show that one can agree with such a (valid) point, while being part of the Church and being unafraid to say so (so long as it isn't said with pride!)

In Christ,
Macarius

[BibleMan]

Exactly! I agree!

I don't think there's a christian denomination (any) that I HAVEN'T heard say they were the "true church" and nobody else is, and yes, that includes Catholicism. Not to offend anyone, but I think denominations (any) say that because they have a superiority attitude. I mean why else would denominations say such things? It's the "we have the truth, and no one else does" attitude. I kind of laugh at that in a way, trying to imagine God on judgement day saying to someone, "well, you weren't a Jehovah's Witness, so it's off to hell you go" or "you weren't Baptist, so it's off to hell you go". It's absurd that there are actually people who think they'll be judged based on what denomination they belonged to, instead of what was in their hearts, or what they did to help others, or tried to follow his commands whole heartily. (which is what God really wants from us).


That is exactly my point. Thank you. A voice of reasonableness at last, arrives at TWEB! Praise the Lord!

The "church" is not a sect, nor is it a denomination and it never has been and never will be.

Christ is the founder and Head of the "church" and it was fully organized and set in order on the day of Pentecost, about A.D. 33.

All denominations have originated since that time, including the ones that claim to have originated at that time, but are mistaken since the name of their denomination is different from the Bible name for the "church" and their "doctrines" and "creeds" are different from the Word of God.

God is the one and only one who can place us into His body - the "church." Salvation is what makes us members of the "church." Salvation does not make any person the member of any denomination or sect. People have to "join" the man made denominations of the world. BUT GOD, places his saved children directly into His "church," the moment they are born into it, by virtue of the new birth (salvation).

All truly saved people alive today or who have ever lived already belong to the "church." No unsaved people are part of it, no matter how "religious" they are, or how many denominations they join!

[BrianK]

QUESTION-
(1) WOULD ANYONE SUGGEST THAT GOD ONLY LOVES ROMAN CATHOLICS?

No because God loves all.


QUESTION-

(2) WOULD ANYONE SUGGEST THAT CHRIST DIED ONLY FOR ROMAN CATHOLICS?

No Jesus died for all man kind.


QUESTION-

(3) DOES ANYONE REALLY BELIEVE THAT ALL NON-ROMAN CATHOLICS WILL BURN IN HELL, BECAUE THEY DO NOT BELONG TO THE "ONE TRUE CHURCH (OF ROMAN CATHOLICISM)?"

Nope

QUESTION-


(4) HOW CAN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION BE THE ONE TRUE CHURCH? The Roman Catholic Catechism says it is, the Bible says no its not!

I dont know about this one but I would have to say what I have heard about the catholic church and when they get money they don't spend much on church and so on. Correct me if im wrong but maybe they would like to get more people and more money?

QUESTION-


(5) IS THE APOSTLE PETER REALLY THE ROCK AS ROMAN CATHOLICISM CLAIMS? OR IS GOD OUR ROCK, AS THE BIBLE CLAIMS?

His name was Simeon but Jesus said "your name is now Peter the rock" God is my God I dont know what you mean by rock on that one

[BibleMan]

No because God loves all.



No Jesus died for all man kind.



Nope

QUESTION-



I dont know about this one but I would have to say what I have heard about the catholic church and when they get money they don't spend much on church and so on. Correct me if im wrong but maybe they would like to get more people and more money?

QUESTION-



His name was Simeon but Jesus said "your name is now Peter the rock" God is my God I dont know what you mean by rock on that one




God is my Rock, the Rock of my salvation. Amen.

[squarepants]

Well, most people here probably would accuse the Orthodox Church of acting superior, because we pick no bones in claiming to BE the Church and to having maintained the apostolic deposit of truth (the faith "once delivered to all the saints" to use St. Jude's wording).

I was attempting, as one of those against whom this post (not just yours, but Jude's) was written, to clarify our position. If we fail to live out this commandment of humility, that is not due in any fault to Orthodox theology, but due to our failings as poor representatives of it.

Thanks for the clarification though! I didn't want to seem like I was demeaning what you were saying - if I did I appologize. I was actually agreeing with you, in a way, that exlusivistic claims regarding salvation are less-than-wise. Simultaneously, I was trying to show that one can agree with such a (valid) point, while being part of the Church and being unafraid to say so (so long as it isn't said with pride!)

In Christ,
Macarius

No problem, no, I didn't feel like you were demeaning me, although, I was a bit bothered that I felt you misunderstood my post. I can be a pretty blunt person sometimes, and sometimes that offends people, but I really try my best NOT to do that, which is why that post was a "general" post and I didn't single anyONE out:) I totally agree with you in that it is the PEOPLE who act superior, and not the religion. I could've sworn though that I actually made that point myself in my post. Sorry that didn't come through clearly, originally. Sometimes it's hard to find the right words when you're posting on a message board. No hard feelings at all:) It's all good :smile:

[Joe Gofish]

When the Bible uses the words "the church," it always refers to all those who trust in Jesus Christ alone for salvation. Those who are saved, born-again are THE CHURCH OF GOD, the body of Christ.

When the Bible uses the words "the church," it never refers to the Roman Catholic religion or to its members!

"Unto THE CHURCH OF GOD which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord..." (I Cor. 1:2)

ROMAN CATHOLICISM CLAIMS TO BE THE ONE TRUE CHURCH, yet there is not even one verse of Scripture to validate this or that ever even mentions any Roman Catholic church or religion. If Christ only had one true church and it was Roman Catholic, that would mean that Christ only died for Roman Catholics.

QUESTIONS-

(1) WOULD ANYONE SUGGEST THAT GOD ONLY LOVES ROMAN CATHOLICS?

(2) WOULD ANYONE SUGGEST THAT CHRIST DIED ONLY FOR ROMAN CATHOLICS?

(3) DOES ANYONE REALLY BELIEVE THAT ALL NON-ROMAN CATHOLICS WILL BURN IN HELL, BECAUE THEY DO NOT BELONG TO THE "ONE TRUE CHURCH (OF ROMAN CATHOLICISM)?"

(4) HOW CAN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION BE THE ONE TRUE CHURCH? The Roman Catholic Catechism says it is, the Bible says no its not!

(5) IS THE APOSTLE PETER REALLY THE ROCK AS ROMAN CATHOLICISM CLAIMS? OR IS GOD OUR ROCK, AS THE BIBLE CLAIMS?

Please consider why I ask these questions:

The Apostle Paul was not a Roman Catholic, yet he knew that Christ loved him and died for him. Certainly, no one would dare say that the Apostle Paul was not a Christian because he was not a Roman Catholic.

He wrote:

"Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also LOVED THE CHURCH, and gave himself for it;" (Eph. 5:25)

The Apostle Paul certainly knew that Christ loved him and the entire church of God, the body of Christ!

Paul even proclaimed:

"And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us..." (Ephesians 5:2)

NO, But a LUNATIC like you may say YES

NO, Only a Lunatic as you

No,Again only a Lunatic as you

The Church is the church of God ,The first Christian Church is the CC.

Jesus is Our Rock in heaven,The Pope is Our rock on earth.

Because you are a moron

Mr. Lunatin are you saying Peter was Catholic and Paul was not hahahahahaha

BTW Mr Lunatic Roman Catholics did not get here until after 1054,so once again you show what little you know of the Bible or the Apostles.
The Church was started in 33ad the first book of the bible was written in about 45ad. DA ,and not put together as a book until many years later

[SpiritWoman]

As a member of a church which dares to call itself "Orthodox" ("right worshipping"), I feel the need to comment on this.

Yes, Orthodoxy preaches that it has the truth. No, it does not believe that this implies that no one else does. We know where the Church IS, we do NOT know where it ISN'T - big difference.

Yes, Orthodoxy preaches that the truth is important, but only in the West has believing the truth been linked to the eternal fate of a soul - many post-enlightenment western groups have placed SUCH an emphasis on truth as to say, in essence (as you implied) believe the truth or be damned. This makes Christianity, and it's salvation, essentially a profession of belief, and separates it from the ontological condition of the soul. One can profess the right beliefs, lead a horrible life, and still be considered "in" (though certainly there are many who will object to me phrasing it in that way).

If anything, Orthodoxy preaches that we will face a HARSHER judgment for having been given the truth. We have more light with which to work out our salvation, and so we are accordingly held accountable for more if we waste this gift - these talents, if you will - and fail to invest them wisely.

Ultimately, and here I quote a modern Orthodoxy theologian (Fr. Thomas Hopko of St. Vladimir's Orthodox Seminary), "The Church holds no monopoly on grace, God saves whom He wills."

It IS possible to strongly affirm the presence of real truth in this world, the miracle of the church if you will, and yet to do so without being triumphalistic, to do so in humility and without limiting God's reach.

Why couldn't I have said this?

I've been trying to clean Judeb3's ears for weeks of the nasty's he expounds as literal truth.

Hope your enlightened words give hope to one who is obsessed with nonsense.

Peace
SW

[Macarius]

Christ is the founder and Head of the "church" and it was fully organized and set in order on the day of Pentecost, about A.D. 33.

All denominations have originated since that time, including the ones that claim to have originated at that time, but are mistaken since the name of their denomination is different from the Bible name for the "church" and their "doctrines" and "creeds" are different from the Word of God.

I agree with the first part, but I must chuckle a bit at the second paragraph.

If, at the time of the scriptures, there was only one "denomination," why should we expect to find it named within the scriptures? ((That's what made me chuckle - now to a more serious response))

Most of the "names" merely popped up to differentiate once there WERE multiple groups. In the early church, there were only TWO (maybe three) differentiations, and these were not the names of sects, but rather adjectives used to describe those groups:

1) Orthodox Catholic: most claimed to be this, whether they were gnostic or incarnational trinitarians. It means, literally, "right-worshipping universal." So, when used as an adjective, it would mean "right worshipping, universal Church." Quite the claim.

2) Heretic: those who were once part of the orthodox-catholic church, but began preaching something contrary to the faith once delivered to all the saints. Having been called out for this, they persisted and would not relent, becoming schismatics (another adjective used to describe these groups).

3) Heterodox: those who preach something close to the orthdoox-catholic church's doctrines, but who still maintain some heretical views. These were, however, never part of the orthodox-catholic church to begin with, so they are not heretics. The word means, literally, "different worshipping." So the heterodox church's are not held in any dis-respect, but rather in a sense of "we don't know - we know they are 'different worshipping' but since they were never right-worshipping to begin with we do not dare pass any semblence of judgment on them."

That's it. The entire system of "denominations" that existed. The Orthodox and Roman Churches still use those terms. We don't really believe in "denominations" per-say (as equally valid divisions of the same ecumenical body). That doctrine (ecumenism) is an invention of the late 19th c. If the Church were truly "set in order" on the day of Pentecost, then surely that doctrine would have been part of that order, no?

Quite the opposite, though. St. Paul in 1 Cor DEMANDS that people belong to the same church, not separating themselves by which apostle they follow. St. Clement of Rome in the late 1st c confirms that view in a letter to the exact same Church at Corinth. St. Ignatius of Antioch confirms the universal one-ness of the Church, saying that each christian in each city must be united to their ONE Bishop.

They ALL viewed as an impossiblity that there would be division WITHIN the Body of Christ - there can only be division FROM the Body. To separate oneself and form a new group - to schism - was entirely to separate oneself from the covenant community - to enter that unknown (where the Church is UNSURE and withholds judgment).

It is ironic that in calling unreasonible all those who disagree with ecumenism you are in essence being dogmatic about a view unique to your particular sect. :wink:

In Christ,
Macarius

[BibleMan]

I agree with the first part, but I must chuckle a bit at the second paragraph.

If, at the time of the scriptures, there was only one "denomination," why should we expect to find it named within the scriptures? ((That's what made me chuckle - now to a more serious response))

Most of the "names" merely popped up to differentiate once there WERE multiple groups. In the early church, there were only TWO (maybe three) differentiations, and these were not the names of sects, but rather adjectives used to describe those groups:

1) Orthodox Catholic: most claimed to be this, whether they were gnostic or incarnational trinitarians. It means, literally, "right-worshipping universal." So, when used as an adjective, it would mean "right worshipping, universal Church." Quite the claim.

2) Heretic: those who were once part of the orthodox-catholic church, but began preaching something contrary to the faith once delivered to all the saints. Having been called out for this, they persisted and would not relent, becoming schismatics (another adjective used to describe these groups).

3) Heterodox: those who preach something close to the orthdoox-catholic church's doctrines, but who still maintain some heretical views. These were, however, never part of the orthodox-catholic church to begin with, so they are not heretics. The word means, literally, "different worshipping." So the heterodox church's are not held in any dis-respect, but rather in a sense of "we don't know - we know they are 'different worshipping' but since they were never right-worshipping to begin with we do not dare pass any semblence of judgment on them."

That's it. The entire system of "denominations" that existed. The Orthodox and Roman Churches still use those terms. We don't really believe in "denominations" per-say (as equally valid divisions of the same ecumenical body). That doctrine (ecumenism) is an invention of the late 19th c. If the Church were truly "set in order" on the day of Pentecost, then surely that doctrine would have been part of that order, no?

Quite the opposite, though. St. Paul in 1 Cor DEMANDS that people belong to the same church, not separating themselves by which apostle they follow. St. Clement of Rome in the late 1st c confirms that view in a letter to the exact same Church at Corinth. St. Ignatius of Antioch confirms the universal one-ness of the Church, saying that each christian in each city must be united to their ONE Bishop.

They ALL viewed as an impossiblity that there would be division WITHIN the Body of Christ - there can only be division FROM the Body. To separate oneself and form a new group - to schism - was entirely to separate oneself from the covenant community - to enter that unknown (where the Church is UNSURE and withholds judgment).

It is ironic that in calling unreasonible all those who disagree with ecumenism you are in essence being dogmatic about a view unique to your particular sect. :wink:

In Christ,
Macarius



Catholic church denomination does not appear in The Bible. Greek Orthodox denomination does not appear in the Bible. Roman Catholic denomination does not appear in the Bible.

What does appear? Certainly not any denomination! Rather we read of the "church" (a called-out assembly), "church of God," "the church of God at Corinth," "the churches of Judea," "church of the living God."

Christ is the head of the "church." No man can never be the head of the "church!"

What is the main difference? The "church" is the body of Christ. The assembly of called-out ones who Love and serve Christ. A denomination is a religion, such as the Greek Orthodox or the Roman Catholic, which are Pseudo versions of Churchianity, trying to imitate Christianity and the "church."

[SpiritWoman]

Catholic church denomination does not appear in The Bible. Greek Orthodox denomination does not appear in the Bible. Roman Catholic denomination does not appear in the Bible.

What does appear? Certainly not any denomination! Rather we read of the "church" (a called-out assembly), "church of God," "the church of God at Corinth," "the churches of Judea," "church of the living God."

Christ is the head of the "church." No man can never be the head of the "church!"

What is the main difference? The "church" is the body of Christ. The assembly of called-out ones who Love and serve Christ. A denomination is a religion, such as the Greek Orthodox or the Roman Catholic, which are Pseudo versions of Churchianity, trying to imitate Christianity and the "church."

Funny how you use the very thoughts and writings of the church of Christs founders against them.

This is what makes it laughable to the very ones that know it's origins in historical context, and don't cut off branches from the very trunk of the tree.

The very words you percive as truth were written by those who Macarius so meticulously listed yet you refute thier very meaning and the result of it's historical outcome.

Those historical forefathers were promoting thier own agenda, just as the new theologians promote today, and causes evolution and deviation from it's original meaning.

Litigation is a process. Arguement, and justification leads to, at best awakening, or could also lead to fundamentalist radical ideologies at worst.

Polarities. The very thing these words you quoted were thought of by it's forefathers and expressed as illigitimate in the church body.

You can call a Church non-denominational but it's still a building, with a body of beleivers, and with it's leaders and it's theological practices un-acceptable to all other efforts or percieved orthodox beleifs of the path to Christ.

Non-demonination is a word that divides just as much as the RCC is a word, in the body of Christ.

This is Judeb3's perversions. Next would be Burntofferings radical schisms of the Book of Revelation.

Both of which do not contribute to, but radicalizes ideologies and cause division in the Body of Christ.

Peace
SW

[BibleMan]

Funny how you use the very thoughts and writings of the church of Christs founders against them.

This is what makes it laughable to the very ones that know it's origins in historical context, and don't cut off branches from the very trunk of the tree.

The very words you percive as truth were written by those who Macarius so meticulously listed yet you refute thier very meaning and the result of it's historical outcome.

Those historical forefathers were promoting thier own agenda, just as the new theologians promote today, and causes evolution and deviation from it's original meaning.

Litigation is a process. Arguement, and justification leads to, at best awakening, or could also lead to fundamentalist radical ideologies at worst.

Polarities. The very thing these words you quoted were thought of by it's forefathers and expressed as illigitimate in the church body.

You can call a Church non-denominational but it's still a building, with a body of beleivers, and with it's leaders and it's theological practices un-acceptable to all other efforts or percieved orthodox beleifs of the path to Christ.

Non-demonination is a word that divides just as much as the RCC is a word, in the body of Christ.

This is Judeb3's perversions. Next would be Burntofferings radical schisms of the Book of Revelation.

Both of which do not contribute to, but radicalizes ideologies and cause division in the Body of Christ.

Peace
SW




You did not deal at all with what I stated in my post and ramble on about words about non-denomination is a building and Jude3b is a perversion and a bunch of other nonsensical statements. If you think another TWEB member is a pervert, take it up with them. But spare me. I don't need to know your feelings and opinions about others if it is derogatory.

I don't know you, but why didn't you just address what I posted - rather than writing down a bunch of other stuff?

My comment to something you said about Non-denminational and its still a building.

I assume you mean that a Non-denominational "church" still uses or has a physical building and you recognize that physical building as being the "church" to them. Is that your point?

The "church" is indeed a building, but not a man-made physical structure. It is an Organic structure. The "church" was puchased with the very blood of Jesus. He also "built" (Matt. 16:18); that is, organized it. "In whom (Christ) all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord." (Eph. 2:21).

I'll say it again, the "church" is a building, a house; that is, an organic structure. The architect and builder of this house of God is also its organizer.

But "he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house." And "he that built all things is God" (Heb. 3:3-4)

[Joe Gofish]

When the Bible uses the words "the church," it always refers to all those who trust in Jesus Christ alone for salvation. Those who are saved, born-again are THE CHURCH OF GOD, the body of Christ.

When the Bible uses the words "the church," it never refers to the Roman Catholic religion or to its members!

"Unto THE CHURCH OF GOD which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord..." (I Cor. 1:2)

ROMAN CATHOLICISM CLAIMS TO BE THE ONE TRUE CHURCH, yet there is not even one verse of Scripture to validate this or that ever even mentions any Roman Catholic church or religion. If Christ only had one true church and it was Roman Catholic, that would mean that Christ only died for Roman Catholics.

QUESTIONS-

(1) WOULD ANYONE SUGGEST THAT GOD ONLY LOVES ROMAN CATHOLICS?

(2) WOULD ANYONE SUGGEST THAT CHRIST DIED ONLY FOR ROMAN CATHOLICS?

(3) DOES ANYONE REALLY BELIEVE THAT ALL NON-ROMAN CATHOLICS WILL BURN IN HELL, BECAUE THEY DO NOT BELONG TO THE "ONE TRUE CHURCH (OF ROMAN CATHOLICISM)?"

(4) HOW CAN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION BE THE ONE TRUE CHURCH? The Roman Catholic Catechism says it is, the Bible says no its not!

(5) IS THE APOSTLE PETER REALLY THE ROCK AS ROMAN CATHOLICISM CLAIMS? OR IS GOD OUR ROCK, AS THE BIBLE CLAIMS?

Please consider why I ask these questions:

The Apostle Paul was not a Roman Catholic, yet he knew that Christ loved him and died for him. Certainly, no one would dare say that the Apostle Paul was not a Christian because he was not a Roman Catholic.

He wrote:

"Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also LOVED THE CHURCH, and gave himself for it;" (Eph. 5:25)

The Apostle Paul certainly knew that Christ loved him and the entire church of God, the body of Christ!

Paul even proclaimed:

"And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us..." (Ephesians 5:2)


jUDE THE MORE YOU POST THE MORE WE CAN SEE HOW LITTLE YOU KNOW, Just the word RCC was not used until after 1054AD, The word Church that the bible talks about was the way or Universal church the word Catholics do not get its name until about 105 AD.
Jude you are NOT going to get good info from Jack Chick books .
Keep posting so as to let people see how little you know and how WRONG you are you do a very good job of that

Please avoid responding to the same post repeatedly. You may use post a reply instead of reply.

[Joe Gofish]

Exactly! I agree!

I don't think there's a christian denomination (any) that I HAVEN'T heard say they were the "true church" and nobody else is, and yes, that includes Catholicism. Not to offend anyone, but I think denominations (any) say that because they have a superiority attitude. I mean why else would denominations say such things? It's the "we have the truth, and no one else does" attitude. I kind of laugh at that in a way, trying to imagine God on judgement day saying to someone, "well, you weren't a Jehovah's Witness, so it's off to hell you go" or "you weren't Baptist, so it's off to hell you go". It's absurd that there are actually people who think they'll be judged based on what denomination they belonged to, instead of what was in their hearts, or what they did to help others, or tried to follow his commands whole heartily. (which is what God really wants from us).

jude just has so much hate that it is hard for him to say the FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH WAS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. tHE CHURCH IS THE BODY OF CHRIST,ITS HARD FOR JUDE TO UNDERSTAND any thing that is catholic.

[SpiritWoman]

You did not deal at all with what I stated in my post and ramble on about words about non-denomination is a building and Jude3b is a perversion and a bunch of other nonsensical statements. If you think another TWEB member is a pervert, take it up with them. But spare me. I don't need to know your feelings and opinions about others if it is derogatory.

I don't know you, but why didn't you just address what I posted - rather than writing down a bunch of other stuff?

My comment to something you said about Non-denminational and its still a building.

I assume you mean that a Non-denominational "church" still uses or has a physical building and you recognize that physical building as being the "church" to them. Is that your point?

The "church" is indeed a building, but not a man-made physical structure. It is an Organic structure. The "church" was puchased with the very blood of Jesus. He also "built" (Matt. 16:18); that is, organized it. "In whom (Christ) all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord." (Eph. 2:21).

I'll say it again, the "church" is a building, a house; that is, an organic structure. The architect and builder of this house of God is also its organizer.

But "he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house." And "he that built all things is God" (Heb. 3:3-4)

Oh I dealt with your post. You just didn't like the truth of my statement.

You are completely right about the Church being the body of Christ and not a physical man made structure. My point exactly! But theology in the body of one congregation differ from another and become grossly amputated. As in Judeb3's statements and obsession with Satan being the RCC.

When you deal with division within the body of Christ, you have to bring out the truth in a sect of people who would proclaim themselves righteous while other parts of Christs body as not. How do you condemn part of the Christ's body to hell? When the command is made whole in the ressurection of Christ? This causes fallibility, questions to it's strengths in truth as commanded and ordained of G_D as a whole. It's perfection then appears flawed to those whom we would bless with it's message.

This causes division, amputation for the better of the body. It is wrong period. This causes chaos to grow in the body and therefor sprouts disease.

Is this how we would show our love for Christ or how Christ would love us?

Peace
SW

[Joe Gofish]

When the Bible uses the words "the church," it always refers to all those who trust in Jesus Christ alone for salvation. Those who are saved, born-again are THE CHURCH OF GOD, the body of Christ.

When the Bible uses the words "the church," it never refers to the Roman Catholic religion or to its members!

"Unto THE CHURCH OF GOD which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord..." (I Cor. 1:2)

ROMAN CATHOLICISM CLAIMS TO BE THE ONE TRUE CHURCH, yet there is not even one verse of Scripture to validate this or that ever even mentions any Roman Catholic church or religion. If Christ only had one true church and it was Roman Catholic, that would mean that Christ only died for Roman Catholics.

QUESTIONS-

(1) WOULD ANYONE SUGGEST THAT GOD ONLY LOVES ROMAN CATHOLICS?

(2) WOULD ANYONE SUGGEST THAT CHRIST DIED ONLY FOR ROMAN CATHOLICS?

(3) DOES ANYONE REALLY BELIEVE THAT ALL NON-ROMAN CATHOLICS WILL BURN IN HELL, BECAUE THEY DO NOT BELONG TO THE "ONE TRUE CHURCH (OF ROMAN CATHOLICISM)?"

(4) HOW CAN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION BE THE ONE TRUE CHURCH? The Roman Catholic Catechism says it is, the Bible says no its not!

(5) IS THE APOSTLE PETER REALLY THE ROCK AS ROMAN CATHOLICISM CLAIMS? OR IS GOD OUR ROCK, AS THE BIBLE CLAIMS?

Please consider why I ask these questions:

The Apostle Paul was not a Roman Catholic, yet he knew that Christ loved him and died for him. Certainly, no one would dare say that the Apostle Paul was not a Christian because he was not a Roman Catholic.

He wrote:

"Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also LOVED THE CHURCH, and gave himself for it;" (Eph. 5:25)

The Apostle Paul certainly knew that Christ loved him and the entire church of God, the body of Christ!

Paul even proclaimed:

"And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us..." (Ephesians 5:2)

HAHAHAHA Jude you are one funny man or Girl.
If the Apostles had taught Calvinist principles, the Catholic Church would be teaching them.

The Apostles didn't teach them, so neither does the Church. The Church teaches what the Apostles taught before, during, and after the NT was written. Period.

Calvinism is a 16th century interpretation of the NT that was never seen by any Christian before him.

All Protestant denominations result from a different interpretation of the same, 66-book cut version of the Bible. Calvinism is no exception.

The Catholic Church did not come out of the Bible; rather, the Bible came out of the Church. Any Bible-based church is not the one Christ founded. The Church founded by Christ wrote the NT and formed the Bible when she was nearly 400 years old. The New Testament is based on the Church.

Please avoid responding to the same post repeatedly. You may use post a reply instead of reply.

[squarepants]

Oh I dealt with your post. You just didn't like the truth of my statement.

You are completely right about the Church being the body of Christ and not a physical man made structure. My point exactly! But theology in the body of one congregation differ from another and become grossly amputated. As in Judeb3's statements and obsession with Satan being the RCC.

When you deal with division within the body of Christ, you have to bring out the truth in a sect of people who would proclaim themselves righteous while other parts of Christs body as not. How do you condemn part of the Christ's body to hell? When the command is made whole in the ressurection of Christ? This causes fallibility, questions to it's strengths in truth as commanded and ordained of G_D as a whole. It's perfection then appears flawed to those whom we would bless with it's message.

This causes division, amputation for the better of the body. It is wrong period. This causes chaos to grow in the body and therefor sprouts disease.

Is this how we would show our love for Christ or how Christ would love us?

Peace
SW

Very well said, Spiritwoman!

[Joe Gofish]

When the Bible uses the words "the church," it always refers to all those who trust in Jesus Christ alone for salvation. Those who are saved, born-again are THE CHURCH OF GOD, the body of Christ.

When the Bible uses the words "the church," it never refers to the Roman Catholic religion or to its members!

"Unto THE CHURCH OF GOD which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord..." (I Cor. 1:2)

ROMAN CATHOLICISM CLAIMS TO BE THE ONE TRUE CHURCH, yet there is not even one verse of Scripture to validate this or that ever even mentions any Roman Catholic church or religion. If Christ only had one true church and it was Roman Catholic, that would mean that Christ only died for Roman Catholics.

QUESTIONS-

(1) WOULD ANYONE SUGGEST THAT GOD ONLY LOVES ROMAN CATHOLICS?

(2) WOULD ANYONE SUGGEST THAT CHRIST DIED ONLY FOR ROMAN CATHOLICS?

(3) DOES ANYONE REALLY BELIEVE THAT ALL NON-ROMAN CATHOLICS WILL BURN IN HELL, BECAUE THEY DO NOT BELONG TO THE "ONE TRUE CHURCH (OF ROMAN CATHOLICISM)?"

(4) HOW CAN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION BE THE ONE TRUE CHURCH? The Roman Catholic Catechism says it is, the Bible says no its not!

(5) IS THE APOSTLE PETER REALLY THE ROCK AS ROMAN CATHOLICISM CLAIMS? OR IS GOD OUR ROCK, AS THE BIBLE CLAIMS?

Please consider why I ask these questions:

The Apostle Paul was not a Roman Catholic, yet he knew that Christ loved him and died for him. Certainly, no one would dare say that the Apostle Paul was not a Christian because he was not a Roman Catholic.

He wrote:

"Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also LOVED THE CHURCH, and gave himself for it;" (Eph. 5:25)

The Apostle Paul certainly knew that Christ loved him and the entire church of God, the body of Christ!

Paul even proclaimed:

"And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us..." (Ephesians 5:2)

The Church is the body of Christ for all belivers the FIRST Christian Church was the Catholic Church,first called universal and then in 105 AD called Catholic.all the other Christian churches did not get here until the 1500's

Please avoid responding to the same post repeatedly. You may use post a reply instead of reply.

[BibleMan]

Oh I dealt with your post. You just didn't like the truth of my statement.

You are completely right about the Church being the body of Christ and not a physical man made structure. My point exactly! But theology in the body of one congregation differ from another and become grossly amputated. As in Judeb3's statements and obsession with Satan being the RCC.

When you deal with division within the body of Christ, you have to bring out the truth in a sect of people who would proclaim themselves righteous while other parts of Christs body as not. How do you condemn part of the Christ's body to hell? When the command is made whole in the ressurection of Christ? This causes fallibility, questions to it's strengths in truth as commanded and ordained of G_D as a whole. It's perfection then appears flawed to those whom we would bless with it's message.

This causes division, amputation for the better of the body. It is wrong period. This causes chaos to grow in the body and therefor sprouts disease.

Is this how we would show our love for Christ or how Christ would love us?

Peace
SW



Where have I ever condemned part of Christ's body to Hell?

[SpiritWoman]

Where have I ever condemned part of Christ's body to Hell?

I'm not saying you are, or anyone else for that matter because G_D is the only judge.

But Judeb3's posts certainly assume it, and therefore reveals a weakness in the body that it's forefathers never intended.

If my memory serves me, you attached your first post to Macarius meticulous explaination of the intensions of the original church fathers, and the history that surrounds it.

In this context, I replied.

Peace
SW

[Pilgrim]

FYI, Bibleman is Jude3b's sock puppet account. Don't feed the trolls.

[Jezz]

FYI, Bibleman is Jude3b's sock puppet account. Don't feed the trolls.
Hmmm, if that's true, then shouldn't it be suspended?

[Pilgrim]

Hmmm, if that's true, then shouldn't it be suspended?
Yes.

[SpiritWoman]

FYI, Bibleman is Jude3b's sock puppet account. Don't feed the trolls.

Sock Puppet Account?

[Pilgrim]

Sock Puppet Account?
Jude was put in the matrix for breaking the rules. That's when all your posts must be reviewed by modertors before they are released to the forum. To get around this he created a different account and pretended to be someone else.
I guess dishonesty is character trait of all members of the "Biblica Church of God" eh?

[Joe Gofish]

Funny how you use the very thoughts and writings of the church of Christs founders against them.

This is what makes it laughable to the very ones that know it's origins in historical context, and don't cut off branches from the very trunk of the tree.

The very words you percive as truth were written by those who Macarius so meticulously listed yet you refute thier very meaning and the result of it's historical outcome.

Those historical forefathers were promoting thier own agenda, just as the new theologians promote today, and causes evolution and deviation from it's original meaning.

Litigation is a process. Arguement, and justification leads to, at best awakening, or could also lead to fundamentalist radical ideologies at worst.

Polarities. The very thing these words you quoted were thought of by it's forefathers and expressed as illigitimate in the church body.

You can call a Church non-denominational but it's still a building, with a body of beleivers, and with it's leaders and it's theological practices un-acceptable to all other efforts or percieved orthodox beleifs of the path to Christ.

Non-demonination is a word that divides just as much as the RCC is a word, in the body of Christ.

This is Judeb3's perversions. Next would be Burntofferings radical schisms of the Book of Revelation.

Both of which do not contribute to, but radicalizes ideologies and cause division in the Body of Christ.

Peace
SW

THIS MAY HELP Jude after leaving the CC then left the Baptist churh and is now calling him self non-denominational , That whats is behind this post

[Joe Gofish]

When the Bible uses the words "the church," it always refers to all those who trust in Jesus Christ alone for salvation. Those who are saved, born-again are THE CHURCH OF GOD, the body of Christ.

When the Bible uses the words "the church," it never refers to the Roman Catholic religion or to its members!

"Unto THE CHURCH OF GOD which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord..." (I Cor. 1:2)

ROMAN CATHOLICISM CLAIMS TO BE THE ONE TRUE CHURCH, yet there is not even one verse of Scripture to validate this or that ever even mentions any Roman Catholic church or religion. If Christ only had one true church and it was Roman Catholic, that would mean that Christ only died for Roman Catholics.

QUESTIONS-

(1) WOULD ANYONE SUGGEST THAT GOD ONLY LOVES ROMAN CATHOLICS?

(2) WOULD ANYONE SUGGEST THAT CHRIST DIED ONLY FOR ROMAN CATHOLICS?

(3) DOES ANYONE REALLY BELIEVE THAT ALL NON-ROMAN CATHOLICS WILL BURN IN HELL, BECAUE THEY DO NOT BELONG TO THE "ONE TRUE CHURCH (OF ROMAN CATHOLICISM)?"

(4) HOW CAN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION BE THE ONE TRUE CHURCH? The Roman Catholic Catechism says it is, the Bible says no its not!

(5) IS THE APOSTLE PETER REALLY THE ROCK AS ROMAN CATHOLICISM CLAIMS? OR IS GOD OUR ROCK, AS THE BIBLE CLAIMS?

Please consider why I ask these questions:

The Apostle Paul was not a Roman Catholic, yet he knew that Christ loved him and died for him. Certainly, no one would dare say that the Apostle Paul was not a Christian because he was not a Roman Catholic.

He wrote:

"Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also LOVED THE CHURCH, and gave himself for it;" (Eph. 5:25)

The Apostle Paul certainly knew that Christ loved him and the entire church of God, the body of Christ!

Paul even proclaimed:

"And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us..." (Ephesians 5:2)

So what Jude is saying that Our Lord Jesus Christ started a invisible church,Why did He leave the world and leave us with an invisible church ? Jude do you have a answer

Please avoid responding to the same post repeatedly. You may use post a reply instead of reply.