One Church or many denominations?

[Fidei Defensor]

12 minutes ago, KiwiChristian said:

i agree, but do not understand your question.

My question is why you said The Word of God tells us what to believe, when I said Scripture tells us what to believe because it comes from Word of God Himself. Sounds like we saying something similar, this is called semantics break down. An example of semantics break down, "Are you saved?," "Are you born again?," "Are you confirmed in Christ?," and "Are you a believer?" All the same question. 

To answer you on High Churches, those typically are Churches with liturgies, but generally they are Anglican, Lutheran, Catholic, Orthodox, and etc.

Edited June 27, 2017 by Fidei Defensor

[KiwiChristian]

1 minute ago, Fidei Defensor said:

My question is why you said The Word of God tells us what to believe, when I said Scripture tells us what to believe because it comes from Word of God Himself. Sounds like we saying something similar, this is called semantics break down. An example of semantics break down, "Are you saved?," "Are you born again?," "Are you confirmed in Christ?," and "Are you a believer?" 

To answer you on High Churches, those typically are Churches with liturgies, but generally they are Anglican, Lutheran, Catholic, Orthodox, and etc.

You are getting very pedantic.

 

When i say Word of God, i mean the Scriptures in this instance.

[Fidei Defensor]

5 minutes ago, KiwiChristian said:

You are getting very pedantic.

 

When i say Word of God, i mean the Scriptures in this instance.

Pendantic eh? Interesting, you want to call my responses something huh? Thus calling me something. Do you know whose fruit that is? Its not the Holy Spirit, but HaSatan, "Then I heard a loud voice shouting across the heavens, "It has come at last--salvation and power and the Kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Christ. For the accuser of our brothers and sisters has been thrown down to earth--the one who accuses them before our God day and night." (Revelation 12:10). 

Debate me, state your case, but if you intend to speak for Catigorica (name of devil in Greek, in Greek New Testament, One who categorizes) then be prepared to be ignored. 
 

[KiwiChristian]

1 minute ago, Fidei Defensor said:

Pendantic eh? Interesting, you want to call my responses something huh? Thus calling me something. Do you know whose fruit that is? Its not the Holy Spirit, but HaSatan, "Then I heard a loud voice shouting across the heavens, "It has come at last--salvation and power and the Kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Christ. For the accuser of our brothers and sisters has been thrown down to earth--the one who accuses them before our God day and night." (Revelation 12:10). 

Debate me, state your case, but if you intend to speak for Catigorica (name of devil in Greek, in Greek New Testament, One who categorizes) then be prepared to be ignored. 
 

God bless you.

 

[Your closest friendnt]

3 hours ago, Fidei Defensor said:

My question is why you said The Word of God tells us what to believe, when I said Scripture tells us what to believe because it comes from Word of God Himself. Sounds like we saying something similar, this is called semantics break down. An example of semantics break down, "Are you saved?," "Are you born again?," "Are you confirmed in Christ?," and "Are you a believer?" All the same question. 

To answer you on High Churches, those typically are Churches with liturgies, but generally they are Anglican, Lutheran, Catholic, Orthodox, and etc.

It's interesting to mention the word semantics. 

Does it mean some  people looks like are in agreement about the same matter but they are not. 

An example is the use of the fraise "the word of God", which has more than one context, or has more than one meaning. 

Like "the word of God", is a double sowrd.......

So far we have: 

"The word of God", as in John 1:1, and Revelation, and 

"The word of God", as in "is a double sowrd..." 

These two exables are from within the Bible NT. 

But "the word of God", referring to the Bible itself is something else. 

Is it correct though, what does it mean to advance. 

In the Bible OT, it was never used by people to referred to it as a whole as "the word of God", 

Why later on, or in our time, what is the proposed? 

Is it correct to do that? 

What is the origin of the use of "the word of God" in this context? 

When it's the first time that it was used and by whom? 

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

12 hours ago, Fidei Defensor said:

The Roman term was first used when the Roman Catholic Church began to break apart from Eastern Church prior to 1054 A.D. when two churches schism. It was term that denoted "The Roman Rite" oppose to "Byzantine Rite" of mass and services, and what language was being used helped foster the divide, those of Roman Rite using Latin, and those of Byzantine Rite using Greek. These two separate churches were one, and founded by Constantine who had both St. Peter's Basilica built in Rome, Italy and The Hagia Sophia (Church of Holy Wisdom) built in Constantinople (Istanbul), Turkey. The system of ecclesiology, rite, and beyond that the Roman Catholic Church uses is from Byzantine or Eastern Church, however it uses Latin and changed certain rituals to fit their understanding, an example being the Filoque, and other traditions. The Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Church were one church from 333 A.D. to 1054 A.D., but doctrinal, theological, and ethnic differences caused them to inevitably split and schism into different churches. 

-Citations: The Orthodox Church  by Bishop Kallisos/Timothy Ware, Church History in Plain Language by Bruce Shelley 4th Edition, The Orthodox Church Simple Guides by Katherine Clark, and Church History Made Easy by Timothy Paul Jones P.H.D. 

See my research has come to a different conclusion. Do you have any church documents Orthodox or Catholic that calls the Catholic Church "The Roman Catholic Church". Because my reading says that the term Roman Catholic started as a pejorative to distinguish between "papist" Catholic and Anglicans who consider themselves "The Catholic Church". Since the Latin rite is of Rome, the Latin rite Catholics never took offense and thus became known as Roman Catholics. Has nothing to do with the Roman empire, Constantine or the Great Schism.

 

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

On 6/24/2017 at 1:33 PM, Judas Machabeus said:

I'll quote your whole post so that I'm not accused of cherry picking again  ..... but it's really only one part I would like to ask for clarification (so to be clear I am cherry picking  lol).

I would like to ask. Where all believers Apostles? Because the context of this verse is Jesus speaking to the apostles and not to his disciples. I believe that all believers are disciples but not all disciples were apostles. So I'm curious if you are putting all disciples on the same level as the apostles?

So two questions in there:

Where all believers Apostles?

are putting all disciples on the same level as the apostles?

Do disciples have the authority to bind and loose things in heaven?

For me, when taken into the context of the entire passage Jesus is establishing his authority on earth. First time we see the binding and loosing language is with Peter, than with the Apostles (NOT disciples). We see Jesus setting structure and authority among his disciples and verse 20 is not talking about disciples its talking about the apostles. Where ever 2 or more apostles are gathered in Jesus's name he is there among them. This is where the councils of the Church get their authority to do things like close the canon of scripture and declare which books are inspired and which are not. We see in Act's that the disciples acknowledge this authoritative structure when they send Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem to have the problem with the Judaizers dealt with. Paul was an apostle, why didn't he just make the decision himself? Because it's when 2 or 3 are gathered.

 

On 6/24/2017 at 8:51 PM, Fidei Defensor said:

Actually Apostle is a gift not a position, "Now these are the gifts Christ gave to the church: the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, and the pastors and teachers." (Ephesians 4:11 NLT, I have checked the Greek and it is gifts, not post.) Another place in Scripture we see Gifts as in The Gifts of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:4-11). So yes, this is true for all believers, because we follow the teachngs of Jesus through Apostles, "“I am praying not only for these disciples but also for all who will ever believe in me through their message. ²¹ I pray that they will all be one, just as you and I are one—as you are in me, Father, and I am in you. And may they be in us so that the world will believe you sent me," (John 17:23) and the fact is we follow the Apostle's teachings, "They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer." (Acts 2:42). I believe everything Jesus said to Apostles is for all Christians, because Jesus didn't say, "Just for these apostles," he may have said it to them, but it is generalize statement, like He said to Nicodemius, "For God so Loved the World.." (John 3:16) but we don't say, well that only applies to Nicodemius or when Jesus said to free loading believers in John 6, "For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day." (John 6:40) because he was talking to them it was only for them. 

Anyone can be an apostle, evangelist, teacher, prophet, and pastor, they are gifts to edify and help the Church. They are not posts reserved for the Twelve Disciples and Paul. Lest anyone forget there were many other disciples, "The Lord now chose seventy-two^[a] other disciples and sent them ahead in pairs to all the towns and places he planned to visit. ² These were his instructions to them: “The harvest is great, but the workers are few. So pray to the Lord who is in charge of the harvest; ask him to send more workers into his fields. ³ Now go, and remember that I am sending you out as lambs among wolves. ⁴ Don’t take any money with you, nor a traveler’s bag, nor an extra pair of sandals. And don’t stop to greet anyone on the road," (Luke 10:1-4), "he said to them all: "Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me," (Luke 9:23), and "After that, He appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep." (1 Corinthians 15:6). Even term disciple isn't special, like for the Twelve, there were many more. 

As for cherry picking, I forgive when it happened in past and I understand sometimes people want to only address a specific part of the post.  
 

Quote

Actually Apostle is a gift not a position, "Now these are the gifts Christ gave to the church: the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, and the pastors and teachers." (Ephesians 4:11 NLT, I have checked the Greek and it is gifts, not post.) Another place in Scripture we see Gifts as in The Gifts of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:4-11).

While writing an article on Mary being co-mediatrix I came across this verse

1 Tim 2:7

For this I was appointed preacher and apostle (I am speaking the truth, I am not lying), teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.

I too checked the greek here and this is what I found:

appointed: tithemi and it's meanings are many. To place in a horizontal posture, utterly prostrate (this one I found very interesting because this is how Catholic Priest are ordain or "appointed"). To advise, appoint, bow, commit, conceive, give, kneel down, lay, make, ordain, purpose, put, set (forth), settle, sink down.

preacher: kerux and its meaning  - a herald of divine truth, preacher

apostle: apostolos and its meaning - a delegate, an ambassador of the Gospel, officially a commissioner of Christ (with miraculous powers):- apostle, messenger, he that is sent.

I agree with Paul in Ephesians that all those are gifts from God. So are my children, they have a wonderful give from God, doesn't mean they are not my children just because they are a gift from God. Like wise, the appointed/ordained position of apostle is as such as well. God's gift to his church does not stop the gift from being what it is and that's an appointed position not one that you just become as a manner of your own doing.

Quote

Anyone can be an apostle, evangelist, teacher, prophet, and pastor, they are gifts to edify and help the Church. They are not posts reserved for the Twelve Disciples and Paul. Lest anyone forget there were many other disciples

Anyone can be an apostle. Okay lets start with the distinction between disciple and apostle.

apostle: apostolos and its meaning - a delegate, an ambassador of the Gospel, officially a commissioner of Christ (with miraculous powers):- apostle, messenger, he that is sent.

disciple: mathetes and its meaning - a learner, i.e pupil:- disciple.

I content that all the apostles were disciples BUT NOT all disciples are apostles and scripture makes that distinction. Only 14 men were ever referred to as apostles and that's it. They were also called disciples but only the 14 were called apostles. Also, all revelation is generally to be accepted as being completed by the death of the last apostle. If what you say is true than their is no death of the last apostle and thus we can still have new revelation and add to the bible.

-------------------------------------------

edit

-------------------------------------------

OH and I am curious to hear your answer to my one question I didn't see it addressed:

Do disciples have the authority to bind and loose things in heaven?

Edited June 27, 2017 by Judas Machabeus
I think its obvious ;)

[Your closest friendnt]

2 hours ago, Yowm said:

Very little difference except in matters of time and space. 

The living Word of God came to the prophets and apostles, spoke, and what was spoken is written in the Bible.

That's why we call the Bible the 'Word of God' as well.

2 Peter 1:21 KJV
[21] For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Hebrews 1:1-2 KJV
[1] God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, [2] Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

 

 

I don't mean to be misanderdood, and in the Bible, in the New Testament, we have the words of Jesus, and to be fair and promote credibility and realibility, we must point out that Jesus did not write anything down, that is known and accepted that Jesus did not keep a diary, and no one of his disciples was substituting for Jesus to record what he said. 

If that was the case, and no one has claimed it was, we would have one account of the life and ministry of Jesus, and not as we have today an abundance of different accounts written by different minds. 

To start with the authors of the Gospels, we can understand that no one claimed that he recorded his account of the Gospel in the same manner as John recorded the book of Revelation. 

John,s account of how he wrote the book of Revelation is found within the book of Revelation. 

With the Gospels the only thing we can say without any doubt is that the authors were eye witnesses to some of the events that took place, and not to all, but they must have heard of the events that took place from others who were eye witness, or the heard it from others who heard it from the eye witness, as it pass on. 

No one claimed "the word of God", came to me and asked me to wtight this down, and pass it on while I am still alive.

In fact no one of the Apostles and the prophets use this kind of sentence, "the word of God", not even Jonh ever use this term or made this claim. 

John said JESUS CHRIST appeared to me and asked me to record what he is going to show me, and I had not previous knowledge or thoughts of what I was told to record, besides knowing about Jesus Christ and his Gospel, and during my ministry, and my interactions with the Holy Spirit, and my own witness and the witness of others. 

We have other accounts where the Holy Spirit spoke to a disciple , while they were alone or in the presence of others. 

And that communication was by visions and by the word of the Holy Spirit in their heart, that means no one knew but them. 

Only JESUS CHRIST was the first one to say that he has the word of the Heavenly Father, (JESUS empasizes when he said: "the Heavenly Father" and he made the distinction that he is not referring to the Father of the Jews only, or and the Israelites). 

In some instances people heard in a particular setting the "voice", of the Heavenly Father". 

After the Penticost many of the disciples must have heard the word of the Heavenly Father within their hearts, or in other words they heard the Heavenly Father speaking to them within their hearts.

And they also experience   to hear JESUS talking to them and that was the promise of Jesus to his disciples , "if you love me and keep my commandments, I and the Father will come and make our abode within you". 

And of course we have the Heavenly Host quidance and the Holy Spirit's quidance within our hearts and throu other and diverse ways. 

So the disciples must have experience and had learned to distinguish the voice of the Father from the voice of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. 

Happy were they. 

so to say "the word of God", and referring to the Bible the NT, is a fraise outside the Bible. 

It includes the word of God, to JESUS during his earthy ministry, and the word of Jesus as to the disciples , and to Paul and to John, and the word of the Holy Spirit and narations of the works of Jesus and the disciples by third parties. 

PS 

I don't want to go there and say it has the words of Peter when he denied JESUS, and the words of the women, and his mother, ps,.......the devils, the Pharisees, the Romans and so on.

Gredibility and Realibility is an issue when the praise "the word of God" is use for the Bible as a whole, even creating many problems for Believers and students of the Bible, and Pastors. 

 

Edited June 27, 2017 by Your closest friendnt

[Fidei Defensor]

5 hours ago, Judas Machabeus said:

See my research has come to a different conclusion. Do you have any church documents Orthodox or Catholic that calls the Catholic Church "The Roman Catholic Church". Because my reading says that the term Roman Catholic started as a pejorative to distinguish between "papist" Catholic and Anglicans who consider themselves "The Catholic Church". Since the Latin rite is of Rome, the Latin rite Catholics never took offense and thus became known as Roman Catholics. Has nothing to do with the Roman empire, Constantine or the Great Schism.

 

The Orthodox documents are contained in the two sources by Timothy Ware (Part I of His Book The Orthodox Church, Ware is Bishop of Orthodox Church in England) and Katherine Clark's The Orthodox Church Simple Guides. As for Roman Catholic documents, well I doubt they will be as unbiased because its from the scholars who want people to believe St. Peter is the First Pope, when Peter never went to Rome (there is no documental proof, Paul in Rome in New Testament mentions all the apostles in Rome in his letter to Romans and other epistles he wrote from prison in Rome, he never mentions Peter, and the sources that say Peter was head of Church of Rome conflict, with Irenaeus saying Peter was founder of Church of Rome, and Eusebius saying Peter founded the Church of Antioch, both of which are wrong, Peter actually was in Babylon/Iraq when he wrote 1 Peter and 2 Peter in the New Testament). All the Apostolic sources (Polycarp, Irenaeus, Clement, Barnabas, and etc.) as suspect because they contradict the New Testament, even Josephus' accounts have flaws in them. 

Edited June 27, 2017 by Fidei Defensor