Christian: Demoninations - Good or Bad? (Jesus Christ, ritual, Earth, Kingdom)

[No*s]

Scott, I'd frubal you for that one...it's a better answer than mine, but I can't now...

[Scuba Pete]

On the day we call the day of the sun, all who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place.

The memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits.

When the reader has finished, he who presides over those gathered admonishes and challenges them to imitate these beautiful things.

Then we all rise together and offer prayers* for ourselves . . .and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation.

When the prayers are concluded we exchange the kiss.

Then someone brings bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together to him who presides over the brethren.

He takes them and offers praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and for a considerable time he gives thanks (in Greek: eucharistian) that we have been judged worthy of these gifts.

When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all present give voice to an acclamation by saying: 'Amen.' When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give to those present the "eucharisted" bread, wine and water and take them to those who are absent.
St. Justin, Apol. 1, 65-67:PG 6,428-429; the text before the asterisk (*) is from chap. 67.

Acts 20:7 On the first day of the week we came together to break bread.

I Timothy 4:13 Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching.

I Corinthians 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

Well Scott,

This is from the scriptures, and works fine for us. I think that predates what you have written by at least a few weeks. Whaddaya think???

[No*s]

Originally Posted by NetDoc

[/color]

Acts 20:7 On the first day of the week we came together to break bread.

I Timothy 4:13 Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching.

I Corinthians 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

Well Scott,

This is from the scriptures, and works fine for us. I think that predates what you have written by at least a few weeks. Whaddaya think???

And they blatantly teach what St. Justin was saying: the Eucharist. When the Christians worshipped, they gathered together and broke bread, and thus, ate the Body of Christ. When Jesus instituted the Eucharist, He plainly said it was His Body and Blood.

It is in perfect harmony with what Scott put up.

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by NetDoc

Whaddaya think???

Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19-20 - the Greek phrase is "Touto estin to soma mou." This phraseology means "this is actually" or "this is really" my body and blood.

1 Cor. 11:24 - the same translation is used by Paul - "touto mou estin to soma." The statement is "this is really" my body and blood. Nowhere in Scripture does God ever declare something without making it so.

Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19 - to deny the 2,000 year-old Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, Protestants must argue that Jesus was really saying "this represents (not is) my body and blood." However, Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke, had over 30 words for "represent," but Jesus did not use any of them. He used the Aramaic word for "estin" which means "is."

I think we may be on to something here...... the Apostles tought it to their disciples, it's in the Bible..... I guess it's pretty conclusive.

So, I guess the question is..... why do you doubt the witness of both history and scripture?

Scott

[Scuba Pete]

It is in perfect harmony with what Scott put up.

THAT was my point. You don't need anything BUT the scriptures to know how to conduct worship.

[chris9178]

Personally I'd like to see one church united - whether it's under Catholocism or not doesn't matter. The only thing is, I think there should be different sorts of services for people. People should be able to worship God the best way that they are able to. You can't expect the Charismatics to worshi[ the same way as Catholics. And you shouldn't just label them off as kooks, because David danced around a city naked in a sign of worship to the Lord. I think that its just as pleasing to God as a sincere, pious persons worship is. As far as doctrine goes, I'm with most of you - it should come straight from the Bible. Christ resurrected, and the Son of God - Dogma. Once saved always saved - Opinion.... don't ostracize people for believing it, but don't make it doctrin either. In the end, we will be judged by our fruits, not our opinions.
Well, I didn't go into much detail at all, andthis post could drag out into a novel, but for the sake of brevity I'll leave it there.

[chris9178]

By the way..... just to clear any vagueness that may arise from that post.... I believe denominations are very bad for Christianity.

[No*s]

Originally Posted by chris9178

Personally I'd like to see one church united - whether it's under Catholocism or not doesn't matter. The only thing is, I think there should be different sorts of services for people. People should be able to worship God the best way that they are able to. You can't expect the Charismatics to worshi[ the same way as Catholics. And you shouldn't just label them off as kooks, because David danced around a city naked in a sign of worship to the Lord. I think that its just as pleasing to God as a sincere, pious persons worship is. As far as doctrine goes, I'm with most of you - it should come straight from the Bible. Christ resurrected, and the Son of God - Dogma. Once saved always saved - Opinion.... don't ostracize people for believing it, but don't make it doctrin either. In the end, we will be judged by our fruits, not our opinions.
Well, I didn't go into much detail at all, andthis post could drag out into a novel, but for the sake of brevity I'll leave it there.

Here's something to consider .

Maybe there still is one Church. Those that broke away from her broke away from the Church, and thus, the churches are not part of the Church.

When you cut off your hand, it dies, because it is no longer part of the body. Why not look at the sects that way?

[No*s]

Originally Posted by NetDoc

THAT was my point. You don't need anything BUT the scriptures to know how to conduct worship.

You need tradition to uphold the authority of Scripture, translators to bring it across, and so on...and of course the tradition of Sola Scriptura .

Seriously, though, you seem to acknowledge the laying on of hands as essential to ordination. Who, then, ordained your ministers? Eventually they broke away from something, where did these minister's authority come from, or rather, where did they get their ordination?

If the authority of a minister ceases while being corrupt, then they had no valid ordination, and thus, cannot have the ordination prescribed by the New Testament.

However, if it is valid, then we have valid ministers in all denominations, even the extremes like the LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses, various minor cults, and so on. Further, ministers regularly convert to another religion, and this indellible grace goes with them, and as such, it lends validity where they go.

In the first case, the authority is invalidated, because it ceased long ago. In the latter case, it validates the various religions of the world, because God continues his ordination down through it...corruption and heresy aren't a problem.

How, then, do you address the problems your approach creates?