Cross.eyed wrote:Most certainly! Start with Hebrews and tell me what you think. I don't have much time tonight, but if possible, I'll have more on this tommorrow.Genoteleno wrote:scripture to support you claims?
BTW, welcome to the board.
In order for me to answer your question, I'll need to ask you one first: What is your definition and understanding of "church"?Cross.eyed wrote:These are reference to our Christ in the old testament; Gen. 3:15 "seed of the woman" Gen. 49:10- "Shiloh" Num 24:17- "The star out of Jacob" Dt.18:15- "Prophet" Dt.32:15- "Rock of salvation" Job 9:33- "Daysman" Ps 2:2- "The Anointed" Ps. 2:12- "The Son" Isa. 8:14- "Sanctuary", "Stone of stumbling", and "Rock of offence" Isa. 9:6- "Wonderful", "Counsellor", and "The Prince of peace" Isa. 11:1- "Rod out of Jesse" and "The Branch" Isa. 11:10- "An ensign of the people" Isa. 59:20- "The Redeemer" Ez. 34:29- "Plant of renown" Dan. 9:25- "Messiah" Hag 2:7- "The desire of all nations" Mal. 3:3- "Refiner and purifier".
I can't understand how these writers would know about Christ and not be considered as part of our "Church".
It depends upon your definition of Church. There is an organic quality to the church in the sense that all who have been redeemed by Christ are part of the Church Universal. That would extend beyond time and organization but would fail to recognize the differences of different stages of progression in terms of God's plan of salvation.Cross.eyed wrote:These are reference to our Christ in the old testament; Gen. 3:15 "seed of the woman" Gen. 49:10- "Shiloh" Num 24:17- "The star out of Jacob" Dt.18:15- "Prophet" Dt.32:15- "Rock of salvation" Job 9:33- "Daysman" Ps 2:2- "The Anointed" Ps. 2:12- "The Son" Isa. 8:14- "Sanctuary", "Stone of stumbling", and "Rock of offence" Isa. 9:6- "Wonderful", "Counsellor", and "The Prince of peace" Isa. 11:1- "Rod out of Jesse" and "The Branch" Isa. 11:10- "An ensign of the people" Isa. 59:20- "The Redeemer" Ez. 34:29- "Plant of renown" Dan. 9:25- "Messiah" Hag 2:7- "The desire of all nations" Mal. 3:3- "Refiner and purifier".
I can't understand how these writers would know about Christ and not be considered as part of our "Church".
Church Universal Progressive is the best way I know to define it. It seems to me that of the ancients who knew about the coming of Christ's life, death, and resurrection would have essentially the same faith as we do. ..."Blessed are they who have not seen but yet believe."Canuckster1127 wrote:It depends upon your definition of Church. There is an organic quality to the church in the sense that all who have been redeemed by Christ are part of the Church Universal. That would extend beyond time and organization but would fail to recognize the differences of different stages of progression in terms of God's plan of salvation.
I see no disagreement here. Dimensional yes but still the same plan and the same faith. If you see this differently please let me know.There's an organizational dimension as well that is defined as that time following the descending of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and God establishing residence within His people.
This (to me at least) is the progression of the Church with time and purpose a part of the plan. Any other concept confuses me. Revelations teaches a time of trouble and redemption for "Israel" another progression of the same plan which will include the same faith. It was Christ all the way from Genesis to the end of Revelations.Covenenant theology for example, when examining the covenantal means in which God relates to His People would make a strong distinction in terms of defining the "Church" as opposed to "Israel" based upon those covenants and the times affected. You can argue that we're all the Church and perhaps in the sense of eternity and the fellowship we are looking forward to, that would be a helpful concept, but you're going to create confusion if you use the term in that way and fail to recognize the existence of the Church in terms of time and purpose.
I'd be interested in knowing how you what is in the Scripture and how you separate your opinions, edicts, beliefs and personal convictions in coming to the Scripture. Are you speaking about the English Scriptures? The original languages? What have you done to understand the cultural and historical context with which the original audience understood these things? Are you looking for the word "Church" with an English concordance? Are you using the greek word "ecclesia"? Are you aware of any other Greek words that are translated Church and if so does that have any bearing on your understanding? Was the word Church or Ecclesia understood to mean anything else to the original users? Does this factor into your understanding?Thanks for all the comments and thoughts concerning the church (and the wellspring of subjects that came surrounding). The most accurate way of addressing the Biblical structure and purpose of God's church are always to be found within scripture. NO opinions, edicts, beliefs or personal convictions are worthy of consideration because God warns us against such! (Matthew 7:15, Matthew 24:11, 24, 2Peter 2:1, 1John 4:1) Let us, therefore, review what God has revealed concerning HIS church:
Canuckster1127 wrote:I'd be interested in knowing how you what is in the Scripture and how you separate your opinions, edicts, beliefs and personal convictions in coming to the Scripture. Are you speaking about the English Scriptures? The original languages? What have you done to understand the cultural and historical context with which the original audience understood these things? Are you looking for the word "Church" with an English concordance? Are you using the greek word "ecclesia"? Are you aware of any other Greek words that are translated Church and if so does that have any bearing on your understanding? Was the word Church or Ecclesia understood to mean anything else to the original users? Does this factor into your understanding?Thanks for all the comments and thoughts concerning the church (and the wellspring of subjects that came surrounding). The most accurate way of addressing the Biblical structure and purpose of God's church are always to be found within scripture. NO opinions, edicts, beliefs or personal convictions are worthy of consideration because God warns us against such! (Matthew 7:15, Matthew 24:11, 24, 2Peter 2:1, 1John 4:1) Let us, therefore, review what God has revealed concerning HIS church:
The reason I'm asking it that your introductory paragraph is very forceful and seems to imply there is only one way to view the Church within the Scriptures. I happen to agree with that. The Scriptures are the primary source and the best tool we have to understand how to understand the Bible is the Bible itself. However, often the idea that we approach the Scriptures and suspend all of these background factors can be used to land on one interpretation and take any challenge as being a challenge to the Scriptures itself. If you're going to make that strong a claim I'd be interested in knowing what approach, abilities and tools you're bringing to make such strong claims.
Canuckster1127 wrote:I'd be interested in knowing how you what is in the Scripture and how you separate your opinions, edicts, beliefs and personal convictions in coming to the Scripture. Are you speaking about the English Scriptures? The original languages? What have you done to understand the cultural and historical context with which the original audience understood these things? Are you looking for the word "Church" with an English concordance? Are you using the greek word "ecclesia"? Are you aware of any other Greek words that are translated Church and if so does that have any bearing on your understanding? Was the word Church or Ecclesia understood to mean anything else to the original users? Does this factor into your understanding?Thanks for all the comments and thoughts concerning the church (and the wellspring of subjects that came surrounding). The most accurate way of addressing the Biblical structure and purpose of God's church are always to be found within scripture. NO opinions, edicts, beliefs or personal convictions are worthy of consideration because God warns us against such! (Matthew 7:15, Matthew 24:11, 24, 2Peter 2:1, 1John 4:1) Let us, therefore, review what God has revealed concerning HIS church:
The reason I'm asking it that your introductory paragraph is very forceful and seems to imply there is only one way to view the Church within the Scriptures. I happen to agree with that. The Scriptures are the primary source and the best tool we have to understand how to understand the Bible is the Bible itself. However, often the idea that we approach the Scriptures and suspend all of these background factors can be used to land on one interpretation and take any challenge as being a challenge to the Scriptures itself. If you're going to make that strong a claim I'd be interested in knowing what approach, abilities and tools you're bringing to make such strong claims.
"THE" scriptures are the written word of God. Otherwise known as "THE HOLY BIBLE". This is where all my "opinions, edicts, beliefs and personal convictions' come from. They are not MY personal writings or any personally accepted scripts that weren't God-breathed. I'm no different than any person who will honestly study the word, believe and obey what IT says without believing anything supposedly "left out "or translated "incorrectly" into it. We have far too many "scholars" who have, rather than taking the word as sufficient (1 Timothy 3:16-17) attempt to make it fit their own personal beliefs by utilizing bits and pieces of phrase and uncertain terminology. Anyone who honestly studies without interference from outside sources should strive to (2Ti 2:15) "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." Who did God expect would most readily accept His teachings? (1 Corinthians 1:18-31) "18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."
I certainly agree that the Bible is the foundation and not our study, however, I don't believe those passages indicate that study is unneccessary in proper perspective and subordinate to the Word of God itself.20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.
26 Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29 so that no one may boast before him. 30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31 Therefore, as it is written: "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord."
Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. (1 John 4:1)
Since God is all knowing it is safe to commit one's self to His scripture (His word) "as is" without worry as to the connotations of the time and/or circumstance when it was written. God is the same now as He was then, He never changes. Thus we can conclude, without reservation, that God's word is also unchangable. I know this, because His word tells me this. It's not an opinion.
Hi zeppmeister,zeppmeister wrote:...Its rebuilding was accompanied with a promise. Because the first church was destroyed by abusive pastors, this time, when Christ rebuilds it, He gave an assurance that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” What does that mean? Was He able to rebuild the church? Jesus said,“I will rebuild my church.” Was He able to do it? If He did, where was it built? Is it in the Philippines? in the far east? in Rome? in the US? If it had been rebuilt, how is it called? What is its name?
Sorry, but you've asked question after question within your replies and it's tough getting all the answers back in one reply... OK, FIRST... I DID go into 4 points, previously, which defined what the church is and its function..you might want to look back at that! Secondly, I said nothing in reference to study being unnecessary... it IS, indeed, a God-given instruction (2 Tim 2:15). My point was that God's word is "unchangeable". My question for you (if I'm understanding what you're saying) is: why do you feel that our current English translations aren't to be trusted? Comparative translations have been around for a long while. Surely you don't think that something as throughly scrutinized and examined (as the holy scriptures have been throughout the years) would suddenly become unreliable. This just doesn't make good sense. Knowing Greek and/or Hebrew is wonderful and if that's what you feel the need to do..then more power to you! However, I am not convinced that this is an absolute necessity due to any minimal inaccuracy's within our current English translations. You also asked "which" do I think is the inspired translation? If a translation is true to its mission, then they all are inspired simply by being a duplication of the oldest manuscripts that were/are available. Number three: No I'm not naive enough to think myself above and beyond error, however, YES, you did get the point that whenever we represent scripture exactly as it's written and then "someone" disagrees.. then YES that person is ultimately disagreeing with God's instruction. This is why I don't rely on my own understanding, but on Gods instruction. It's NOT MY interpretation as long as I am (or anyone) is "rightly dividing the word of truth"(2 Tim 2:15).Canuckster1127 wrote:Canuckster1127 wrote:That's amazing. So you approach the Word of God and you have nothing in your mind, your experience, your thinking, your culture and your education that has any impact on how you read those Scriptures? Or you're able to set all of them apart without identifying them?
That must be very convenient. You can simply assert that your interpretation of Scripture is what the Scriptures say and if anyone, even a sincere believer with a different understanding a passage can be said to be disagreeing with the Scriptures instead of you.
Sounds to me like you may be establishing a Theocracy and changing your name to "Theo".
I certainly agree that the Bible is the foundation and not our study, however, I don't believe those passages indicate that study is unneccessary in proper perspective and subordinate to the Word of God itself.20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.
26 Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29 so that no one may boast before him. 30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31 Therefore, as it is written: "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord."
Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. (1 John 4:1)
Since God is all knowing it is safe to commit one's self to His scripture (His word) "as is" without worry as to the connotations of the time and/or circumstance when it was written. God is the same now as He was then, He never changes. Thus we can conclude, without reservation, that God's word is also unchangable. I know this, because His word tells me this. It's not an opinion.
My original questions stand by the way. You have yet to address how you determine the definition of the Church within the Bible.
Do you truly believe that the English Bible is to be read as it appears to us in our Culture and language without seeking to understand the original languages? Which English Bible? Do you have a translation that you accept as inspired above and beyong any other Bible? On what Basis? Is this something you find within the Bible itself or are you bringing something to it from the outside, namely your own decision as to which English Bible to accept?
Fair enough. I'm trying to challenge you here, not necessarily completely disagree with you. I believe the Scriptures are reliable as well and I believe the translations are very reliable, particularly the more recent ones such as the NIV and NASB.Genoteleno wrote:Sorry, but you've asked question after question within your replies and it's tough getting all the answers back in one reply... OK, FIRST... I DID go into 4 points, previously, which defined what the church is and its function..you might want to look back at that! Secondly, I said nothing in reference to study being unnecessary... it IS, indeed, a God-given instruction (2 Tim 2:15). My point was that God's word is "unchangeable". My question for you (if I'm understanding what you're saying) is: why do you feel that our current English translations aren't to be trusted? Comparative translations have been around for a long while. Surely you don't think that something as throughly scrutinized and examined (as the holy scriptures have been throughout the years) would suddenly become unreliable. This just doesn't make good sense. Knowing Greek and/or Hebrew is wonderful and if that's what you feel the need to do..then more power to you! However, I am not convinced that this is an absolute necessity due to any minimal inaccuracy's within our current English translations. You also asked "which" do I think is the inspired translation? If a translation is true to its mission, then they all are inspired simply by being a duplication of the oldest manuscripts that were/are available. Number three: No I'm not naive enough to think myself above and beyond error, however, YES, you did get the point that whenever we represent scripture exactly as it's written and then "someone" disagrees.. then YES that person is ultimately disagreeing with God's instruction. This is why I don't rely on my own understanding, but on Gods instruction. It's NOT MY interpretation as long as I am (or anyone) is "rightly dividing the word of truth"(2 Tim 2:15).Canuckster1127 wrote:Canuckster1127 wrote:That's amazing. So you approach the Word of God and you have nothing in your mind, your experience, your thinking, your culture and your education that has any impact on how you read those Scriptures? Or you're able to set all of them apart without identifying them?
That must be very convenient. You can simply assert that your interpretation of Scripture is what the Scriptures say and if anyone, even a sincere believer with a different understanding a passage can be said to be disagreeing with the Scriptures instead of you.
Sounds to me like you may be establishing a Theocracy and changing your name to "Theo".
I certainly agree that the Bible is the foundation and not our study, however, I don't believe those passages indicate that study is unneccessary in proper perspective and subordinate to the Word of God itself.20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.
26 Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29 so that no one may boast before him. 30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31 Therefore, as it is written: "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord."
Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. (1 John 4:1)
Since God is all knowing it is safe to commit one's self to His scripture (His word) "as is" without worry as to the connotations of the time and/or circumstance when it was written. God is the same now as He was then, He never changes. Thus we can conclude, without reservation, that God's word is also unchangable. I know this, because His word tells me this. It's not an opinion.
My original questions stand by the way. You have yet to address how you determine the definition of the Church within the Bible.
Do you truly believe that the English Bible is to be read as it appears to us in our Culture and language without seeking to understand the original languages? Which English Bible? Do you have a translation that you accept as inspired above and beyong any other Bible? On what Basis? Is this something you find within the Bible itself or are you bringing something to it from the outside, namely your own decision as to which English Bible to accept?