Today’s church’s misunderstandings

[CS1]

it is quite regular that some people who are challenged on their beliefs rubbish learning. Surprising really as you rely on 66 books.

I have over 1,000 books in my personal library. I am widely read because I like to see every side to the argument before I draw my own conclusion.

The word of God says to study to show yourselves approved to God, (not CS1) a workman not ashamed. That is what I do and am proud of the fact. I know a lot of people are content to live on the Sunday homily and nothing else but God has given me a thirst for knowledge and his word so I have nothing to apologise for. I am the sort of person that enjoys learning and I am not going to apologise for that. I am the sort of person that listens to all sorts of views and I am not going to apologise for that. I am ther sort of person that does not rubbish people who know a lot more than me. I am the sort of person that acknowledges recognised scholars and what they teach. I am the sort of person that recognises a person who has been annointed with the gift of teaching.

In other words, I did not come down in the last shower and whether I am lost or not is not for you to decide. That is God's decision. As for me, I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed to him against that day.

I do rely on 66 books and much more also.

You assume you are the only person with a 100 book library LOL that is nothing. The word of God does say to study amen.
But for one to learn you must be teachable, you are not. A teacher is only as good as he is humble and willing to continue to learn. I am sure you are proud of your facts, and accomplishments and I render honor to those whom honor is due.

You assume you know alike more than others and you should apologize for that. You suggest others do not know what you know, and you should apologize for the TOO. you assume one only relies on the 66 books of the Bible, that you should apologize for too.

Many here rely on the 66 books and much more listen you might learn something, we rely on the 66 books of the Bible which the word Bible means " Books"

it is the inerrant word of God. So Yea, we should rely on it. 2. We have a relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit who we too must rely on. We have the Eyewitnesses who have testified of what they have seen throughout history and yes we should study to know what they have said AND judge it by what the 66 Books say as to if the testimony is Truth.

If you think God is impressed with your level of knowledge, he is not. How you apply what you know, testify to your wisdom.



many of us have commentaries, bible dictionaries, learned Greek and Hebrew, or currently doing so. You errored in thinking you were the only one with 100 books Big deal. I would rather have one book with 66 in it and have the Holy Spirit help as I study that than 100 other books written about the one book that has 66 books in it.

I leave you with this.

1cor 1:21

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.

Notices in this Letter your knowledge or mine was not taken into account.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

The first day of the week is incorrectly interpreted. In several cases, it means on one of the sabbaths in the Greek.

I think we need to look at the whole passage.

vs 1. when the sabbath had passed. "diagenomai - to pass. to be over, to go through to elapse."

vs 3. on the first (the word "day" was added, that is why it is in italics.) of the "sabbaton - Saturday, week, period of seven days, period of seven years, the seventh day of the week"

in order to properly translate it you have to look at the whole passage not just the verse.

In verse 1. It says the sabbath had past or was over, we cant then say in verse three, it was on the sabbath (Saturday)as you are suggesting. So we use a different interpretation as was suggested by @CS1 . We see as an example in Daniel. Sabbath was used to determine a week of days or a week of years 7 in number. So using this with the fact the yesterday sabbath had been completed. The only interpretation possible was the first of the "week of 7 days" or the first of the week. or as we see. the first day of the week.

 

[Truth7t7]

I do rely on 66 books and much more also.

You assume you are the only person with a 100 book library LOL that is nothing. The word of God does say to study amen.
But for one to learn you must be teachable, you are not. A teacher is only as good as he is humble and willing to continue to learn. I am sure you are proud of your facts, and accomplishments and I render honor to those whom honor is due.

You assume you know alike more than others and you should apologize for that. You suggest others do not know what you know, and you should apologize for the TOO. you assume one only relies on the 66 books of the Bible, that you should apologize for too.

Many here rely on the 66 books and much more listen you might learn something, we rely on the 66 books of the Bible which the word Bible means " Books"

it is the inerrant word of God. So Yea, we should rely on it. 2. We have a relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit who we too must rely on. We have the Eyewitnesses who have testified of what they have seen throughout history and yes we should study to know what they have said AND judge it by what the 66 Books say as to if the testimony is Truth.

If you think God is impressed with your level of knowledge, he is not. How you apply what you know, testify to your wisdom.



many of us have commentaries, bible dictionaries, learned Greek and Hebrew, or currently doing so. You errored in thinking you were the only one with 100 books Big deal. I would rather have one book with 66 in it and have the Holy Spirit help as I study that than 100 other books written about the one book that has 66 books in it.

I leave you with this.

1cor 1:21

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.

Notices in this Letter your knowledge or mine was not taken into account.

I couldn't remain silent on your self proclaimed correction of Mustaphadrink, who has openly taught orthodoxy concerning a womans role in the Church, while you stray from biblical truth.

As you openly deny that Bishops and Elders are to be men, and you openly deny the presented scripture below

Gods Words Are Very Clear On A Womans Role In The Church, And They Aren't Changing Anytime Soon.

Silence, Subjection, Obedience

(It Is A Shame For Women To Speak In The Church)

1 Timothy 2:11-14KJV
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

1 Corinthians 14:33-35KJV
33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I couldn't remain silent on your self proclaimed correction of Mustaphadrink, who has openly taught orthodoxy concerning a womans role in the Church, while you stray from biblical truth.

As you openly deny that Bishops and Elders are to be men, and you openly deny the presented scripture below

Gods Words Are Very Clear On A Womans Role In The Church, And They Aren't Changing Anytime Soon.

Silence, Subjection, Obedience

(It Is A Shame For Women To Speak In The Church)

1 Timothy 2:11-14KJV
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

1 Corinthians 14:33-35KJV
33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

You have your own doctrinal issues. I would not try to correct someone else as if you are perfect. Especially when his correction of another was founded. Not everyone has perfect doctrine we should show some humility when discussing the word.

 

[Dino246]

I couldn't remain silent on your self proclaimed correction of Mustaphadrink, who has openly taught orthodoxy concerning a womans role in the Church, while you stray from biblical truth.

Your post is nothing other than an unjustified personal attack. It's despicable.

 

[Truth7t7]

You have your own doctrinal issues. I would not try to correct someone else as if you are perfect. Especially when his correction of another was founded. Not everyone has perfect doctrine we should show some humility when discussing the word.

The words that were spoken are factual and true, the ole splinter and beam parable applies

If I'm shown to be wrong in scripture I'll change my position, others defy Gods clear words in rebellion, it's that simple

 

[Truth7t7]

Your post is nothing other than an unjustified personal attack. It's despicable.

I disagree, your claims are just more false accusation, my statement is a factual opinion through observation.

Cs1 approves of women Bishops and Deacons just as you do, this is against historical orthodoxy and Gods words, it's that simple

2 Timothy 3:1-3KJV
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

 

[eternally-gratefull]

The words that were spoken are factual and true, the ole splinter and beam parable applies

If I'm shown to be wrong in scripture I'll change my position, others defy Gods clear words in rebellion, it's that simple

You have been shown before. You refuse because you THINK you are right.

If you think you are right. no one can change your mind. If we look we are all this way.

The fact is. CS1's calling out of Mustaphadrink and his thinking of the first day of the week being on the sabbath (Saturday) was correct. Because as I showed in a post above, the sabbath can be translated many ways as CS1 suggested.

It does not matter what CS1 thinks of women. That has no bearing on if he was right or wrong in calling out Mustaphadrink.

Your just attacking. Your pride needs to turn to humility.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Your post is nothing other than an unjustified personal attack. It's despicable.

I find it odd he does not look at to what was said my Mustaphadrink and discuss that, instead of attaching someone. because he disagrees on a totally different topic.

 

[Dino246]

I disagree, your claims are just more false accusation, my statement is a factual opinion through observation.

Cs1 approves of women Bishops and Deacons just as you do, this is against historical orthodoxy and Gods words, it's that simple

2 Timothy 3:1-3KJV
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

You’re being a fool. My accusation is right on target. There is no need to address issues from another thread in this thread. Your comment was both off-topic and off-colour.

 

[Truth7t7]

You’re being a fool. My accusation is right on target. There is no need to address issues from another thread in this thread. Your comment was both off-topic and off-colour.

"False Accusations"

2 Timothy 3:1-3KJV
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

 

[eternally-gratefull]

"False Accusations"

2 Timothy 3:1-3KJV
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

The topic of this thread is not woman as deacons. So you are the false accuser here. So go find a mirror and read that passage to yourself then confess your sin.

 

[Truth7t7]

You have been shown before. You refuse because you THINK you are right.

If you think you are right. no one can change your mind. If we look we are all this way.

The fact is. CS1's calling out of Mustaphadrink and his thinking of the first day of the week being on the sabbath (Saturday) was correct. Because as I showed in a post above, the sabbath can be translated many ways as CS1 suggested.

It does not matter what CS1 thinks of women. That has no bearing on if he was right or wrong in calling out Mustaphadrink.

Your just attacking. Your pride needs to turn to humility.

No pride, but truth

You dont run around correcting others when a beam is in your own eye

Do you also believe women should be Bishops/Deacons against the scripture in historical orthodoxy?

Matthew 7:3-5KJV
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

 

[Truth7t7]

I find it odd he does not look at to what was said my Mustaphadrink and discuss that, instead of attaching someone. because he disagrees on a totally different topic.

Because a poster teaches and believes against biblical historical orthodoxy, while trying to correct others

Do you also believe and teach women could be Bishops/Deacons against scripture and historical orthodoxy?

Matthew 7:3-5KJV
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

 

[Blackpowderduelist]

Duelist, when you study church history the corruption in the Church worked through Constatine in his new State Church established

The Alexandrian Egyptian philosophical schools corrupted Constatine & Rome, Origen, Arius, Eusebius, Etc

Eusebius of Caesarea was a student of Origen the Heretic, and was a follower of Origen & Arius in their teachings that Jesus Christ was a created being, etc "Arianism"

Yes The Day Of Easter "Predates" Jesus Christ, and this being the fertility rites of the pagans, with bunnies and eggs being fertility symbols

Its Duelist that dosent understand that 85% of the Church didnt participate in the 325AD Nicean Council that was Called for by Constantine and led by Eusebius, They Opposed Both

After this 325 Nicean Council, Eusebius banished Athanasius who opposed the heretics and Arianism, with the power of Constatine to enforce his decision

The State Church Was Born, And It Persecuted The True Church, Outside Its Grips

Another Prime Example Of Non-Biblical Traditions In Practice Today Is (Infant Baptism) That Was Inherited From Roman Catholicism

The Anabaptist Were Heavily Persecuted By Rome, Because They Defied Roman Catholicism In This

I have studied Constantine in depth, and it's just not true. That's a popular myth, but it's error. Constantine did not even attend the council of Nicaea. There is written record all the way back.
Such as Christians celebrating the resurrection of Jesus dating all the way back to the 2nd century. This is about a hundred years before Constantine.
Constantine submitted to being baptized and commissioned 2 basilicas to be build and commissioned St Peters cathedral be built. By the time it was rebuilt and the vatican was built the old cathedral was in very bad condition and was out of use.
Also the Roman empire fell into Germanic hands not long after Constantine died.
Under the germanic kings that took control of Rome, the catholic church had no authority.
Papal power didn't come into play until 756 when Pepin king or Franks, invaded Italy, freeing Are from the Lombards and gave large regions of Italy to the Pope, who was at that time simply the bishop of Rome. This began papal power.

 

[Gideon300]

The church today says that the Sabbath was cancelled. As proof they tell of Mary’s discovery of the risen Christ on Sunday. It doesn’t make sense that the time of a discovery should change what God tells us He created on the seventh day, or that a time of discovering something establishes when it happened, but that is the way they think.

The Lord gave us a new covenant, one we are told makes the old covenant obsolete. The church tells us that God knew he make a mistake so he cancelled the old covenant. I guess they think that God is like them and they know they make mistakes so they say so does the Lord. As if the Lord was just another human.

The church goes on and on about the mistakes the Lord has made. They say the sacrificial system didn’t work at all for atonement of sin even though scripture tells us it did. When the blood of cattle was used to feed the Lord, like pagans fed idols and not as a symbol of Christ, God hated it so the church tells us it was a mistake of the Lord to establish it.

The church tells us OT scripture can be in error. OT scripture tells us that God guides us to praise and celebrate His plan of salvation for us with feasts for all generations. The church tells us that is an error, that the feasts are to be treated the same way cutting the foreskin is treated.

Scripture tells us to celebrate Christ with Passover, the church says God cancelled that. They made up a new way to do it and named it using pagan gods to inspire them to make up a name for this replacement.

Demons are attracted to the church, undermining it is undermining the Lord. They have done a mighty work, they will still fail in the end.

You appear to know the doctrines and practices of every church in the world. That's impressive. I have to say that I don't recall the Lord being fed the blood of cattle.

I don't know any Christian who states that God made a mistake with the Old Covenant. I know many who say, correctly, that the New Covenant supersedes the old. I did not come to that conclusion because I heard it preached. I read it for myself in God's word.

Your understanding of God's word is flawed to say the least. Or do you reject the New Testament as being scripture? You've made a lot of extremely critical assertions - backed up by nothing.

 

[Truth7t7]

I have studied Constantine in depth, and it's just not true. That's a popular myth, but it's error. Constantine did not even attend the council of Nicaea. There is written record all the way back.
Such as Christians celebrating the resurrection of Jesus dating all the way back to the 2nd century. This is about a hundred years before Constantine.
Constantine submitted to being baptized and commissioned 2 basilicas to be build and commissioned St Peters cathedral be built. By the time it was rebuilt and the vatican was built the old cathedral was in very bad condition and was out of use.
Also the Roman empire fell into Germanic hands not long after Constantine died.
Under the germanic kings that took control of Rome, the catholic church had no authority.
Papal power didn't come into play until 756 when Pepin king or Franks, invaded Italy, freeing Are from the Lombards and gave large regions of Italy to the Pope, who was at that time simply the bishop of Rome. This began papal power.

We will disagree again, you posed a 16th century in St. Peter's Basilica trying to sluff off my claim he donated and built it in 319AD, you downplay Constantine as if he had no relevance in the history of what is now Roman Catholicism

Constantine built the original St. Peter's Basilica, And Also Built The "Lateran patriarchate" where the Popes have resided

Constantine is the foundation and father of Roman Catholicism the State Church, a (Fact)

In Love

Wikipedia: St. Peter's Basilica
Old St. Peter's Basilica was the 4th-century church begun by the Emperor Constantine the Great between 319 and 333 AD.[26] It was of typical basilical form, a wide nave and two aisles on each side and an apsidal end, with the addition of a transept or bema, giving the building the shape of a tau cross. It was over 103.6 metres (340 ft) long, and the entrance was preceded by a large colonnaded atrium. This church had been built over the small shrine believed to mark the burial place of St. Peter, though the tomb was "smashed" in 846 AD.[27] It contained a very large number of burials and memorials, including those of most of the popes from St. Peter to the 15th century. Like all of the earliest churches in Rome, both this church and its successor had the entrance to the east and the apse at the west end of the building.[28] Since the construction of the current basilica, the name Old St. Peter's Basilica has been used for its predecessor to distinguish the two buildings.

Wikipedia: Lateran Palace
The Domus Laterani came into the possession of the emperor when Constantine I married his second wife Fausta, sister of Maxentius. Around 312, Constantine had razed the imperial horse-guards barracks adjoining the palace, which was known as Domus Faustae or "House of Fausta" by this time; the equites singulares Augusti had supported Maxentius against Constantine. He commissioned the construction of the Basilica di San Giovanni in Laterano on the site.[2] The Domus was eventually given to the Bishop of Rome by Constantine.

As Byzantium grew less able to help prevent Lombard incursions, the papacy became more independent of the Empire. Prior to the early eighth century, the residence of the bishops of Rome was not called a palace, but rather the "Lateran patriarchate".[3] The incentive to refurbish the Lateran patriarchate as a true palace was to create an imperial residence from which the pope could exercise not only spiritual but also temporal authority.

 

[Truth7t7]

I have studied Constantine in depth, and it's just not true. That's a popular myth, but it's error. Constantine did not even attend the council of Nicaea. There is written record all the way back.
Such as Christians celebrating the resurrection of Jesus dating all the way back to the 2nd century. This is about a hundred years before Constantine.
Constantine submitted to being baptized and commissioned 2 basilicas to be build and commissioned St Peters cathedral be built. By the time it was rebuilt and the vatican was built the old cathedral was in very bad condition and was out of use.
Also the Roman empire fell into Germanic hands not long after Constantine died.
Under the germanic kings that took control of Rome, the catholic church had no authority.
Papal power didn't come into play until 756 when Pepin king or Franks, invaded Italy, freeing Are from the Lombards and gave large regions of Italy to the Pope, who was at that time simply the bishop of Rome. This began papal power.

Yes Roman Emperor Constantine called the council,and less than 15% of the early church fathers attended, they wanted nothing to do with Constantines newly formed Church State

As previously mentioned, after this council, (Eusebius of Caesarea) Constatines Pope, had Athanasius banished using Constatines civil powers, for his opposition to the Arians, The State Church was formed

Wikipedia: First Council of Nicaea (/naɪˈsiːə/; Greek: Νίκαια [ˈnikεa]) was a council of Christian bishops convened in the Bithynian city of Nicaea (now İznik, Turkey) by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in AD 325.

Constantine had invited all 1,800 bishops of the Christian church within the Roman Empire (about 1,000 in the east and 800 in the west), but a smaller and unknown number attended. Eusebius of Caesarea counted more than 250,[22] Athanasius of Alexandria counted 318,[11] and Eustathius of Antioch estimated "about 270"[23] (all three were present at the Council).

 

[Dino246]

No pride, but truth

You dont run around correcting others when a beam is in your own eye

Do you also believe women should be Bishops/Deacons against the scripture in historical orthodoxy?

Matthew 7:3-5KJV
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Which part of "off-topic" don't you understand?

 

[Truth7t7]

Which part of "off-topic" don't you understand?

Matthew 7:3-5KJV
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.