What church is the true church?

[Pegg]

Can the "True church" be decided by scripture alone? Or by what method does one discern?

the scriptures (NT) lay the foundation for belief, practice & structure

The only way to measure a churches resemblance is to examine the scriptures. If a church if fulfilling all of the the beliefs, practices and is structured in the same way as the scriptures specify, then you can accept that it is the true church as founded by Jesus 12 apostles.

 

[Straw Dog]

the scriptures (NT) lay the foundation for belief, practice & structure

The only way to measure a churches resemblance is to examine the scriptures. If a church if fulfilling all of the the beliefs, practices and is structured in the same way as the scriptures specify, then you can accept that it is the true church as founded by Jesus 12 apostles.

If I go by that method, then I am led to believe that the early Quakers represented the purest form of early Christianity. They honestly do seem to seek the original Christian principles as they are realized within the present moment.

If you do disagree with my results, then please explain at which point I have gone wrong in my assessment. Are we really at odds? Or is there still common ground beneath the artificial distinctions which we have created? Furthermore, what creates the distinctions to begin with?

 

[roger1440]

Can the "True church" be decided by scripture alone? Or by what method does one discern?

It is kind of a paradox. Scripture may put us on the path but the further we traverse it the more we must let go of it. The problem I have is that I must use scripture to prove my point, LOL.To embrace God we must let go of everything in our grasp.

“Let nothing disturb you;​

Nothing frighten you.​

All things are passing.​

God never changes.​

Patience​

obtains all things.​

Nothing is wanting to him​

who possesses God.​

God alone suffices.”​

Saint Teresa of Avila​

 

[Pegg]

If I go by that method, then I am led to believe that the early Quakers represented the purest form of early Christianity. They honestly do seem to seek the original Christian principles as they are realized within the present moment.

If you do disagree with my results, then please explain at which point I have gone wrong in my assessment. Are we really at odds? Or is there still common ground beneath the artificial distinctions which we have created? Furthermore, what creates the distinctions to begin with?

I really admire the work that the Quakers have done and the focus on individual goods works is certainly in harmony with christian teaching.

However, there is one aspect that they really have failed to achieve...that is the unity Christ admonished his followers to have among themselves.

1 Corinthians 1:10 "I exhort you, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that you should all speak in agreement, and that there should not be divisions among you, but that you may be fitly united in the same mind and in the same line of thought.”

Philippians 2:2 make my joy full in that YOU are of the same mind and have the same love, being joined together in soul, holding the one thought in mind,

1Peter 3:8 Finally, all of YOU be like-minded...

Quakers in different places do not all hold to the same beliefs....some do not even profess a belief in God but claim to be athiests...there are many sects among Quakers too. So if this was Christs church, they would all be on the same page... there is also one of their practices which is against Christian teaching (same sex marriages)

 

[McBell]

The only way to measure a churches resemblance is to examine the scriptures.

ALL of the scriptures, or just your favorite 66 books?

 

[Pastadamus]

I vote for none of them.

 

[Pegg]

ALL of the scriptures, or just your favorite 66 books?

all of the canonized books, yes

 

[Straw Dog]

I really admire the work that the Quakers have done and the focus on individual goods works is certainly in harmony with christian teaching.

However, there is one aspect that they really have failed to achieve...that is the unity Christ admonished his followers to have among themselves.

1 Corinthians 1:10 "I exhort you, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that you should all speak in agreement, and that there should not be divisions among you, but that you may be fitly united in the same mind and in the same line of thought.”

Yet, there are divisions among all Christian sects. So nobody speaks in agreement?

Philippians 2:2 make my joy full in that YOU are of the same mind and have the same love, being joined together in soul, holding the one thought in mind,

1Peter 3:8 Finally, all of YOU be like-minded...

Quakers in different places do not all hold to the same beliefs....some do not even profess a belief in God but claim to be athiests...there are many sects among Quakers too. So if this was Christs church, they would all be on the same page... there is also one of their practices which is against Christian teaching (same sex marriages)

I actually consider the diversity of beliefs to be a strength rather than a weakness. Diversity makes a populace more adaptable to drastically changing circumstances. "Beliefs" are only ideas in our minds after-all. If there is only one single way of life that we all must conform to, then why does nature tend toward diversity? How does a monoculture benefit us in the long run? Why are we driven to be individuals if there is only one true way of thinking?

I'm sorry, but it just doesn't add up.

 

[Pegg]

Yet, there are divisions among all Christian sects. So nobody speaks in agreement?

there are over 30,000 different christian sects... they become a sect of another because someone disagrees with something. So they start a new sect which fits with their own ideas.

But Jesus also had an idea... anyone who is supposedly following him should be conforming to 'his' ideas, not their own. Should they call themselves 'Christian' if they are not following Christs teachings???

I actually consider the diversity of beliefs to be a strength rather than a weakness. Diversity makes a populace more adaptable to drastically changing circumstances. "Beliefs" are only ideas in our minds after-all. If there is only one single way of life that we all must conform to, then why does nature tend toward diversity? How does a monoculture benefit us in the long run? Why are we driven to be individuals if there is only one true way of thinking?

I'm sorry, but it just doesn't add up.

Diversity in nature is a good thing. But diversity in God is not. God is 'one', the bible says. He has a single mind because he is an individual. Religion should be about HIM, not us.
If i wanted to get to know you as a person, I wouldnt find 10,000 other people who are not you, and gather information about them....thats not going to help me find out about you.

 

[gnostic]

i didnt mention this point earlier, but the list of the 12 tribes found in Revelation is not the same 12 tribes of Isreal.

If you look closely, and compare the two lists, Isreals 12 tribes are different.

I'll give you some time and see if you can find the difference. And because its not a 'literal' list of the 12 tribes of isreal.... it shouldnt be taken literally.

I don't take anything written in Revelation seriously, because I see it nothing more than a madman's BS rantings.

The 12 tribes of Israel is the 12 tribes of Israel.

And it does state 12 tribes of Israel, even though it replaced the tribe of Dan with Levi, and used Joseph instead of Ephraim.

Perhaps the author made a mistake with the Levi-Dan tribe. Do you think the author can't make a mistake? The author was human, wasn't he?

...And bl@#dy insane one that.

That you want to falsely interpret 12 tribes of Israel as something else, like true Christians, is just another blatant nonsense and dishonesty I would expect from a Christian.

I know very well the propaganda that Christians throughout history have used, taking texts out-of-context (the Original Sin, the serpent of Eden as the Devil/Satan, identifying the morning star as Lucifer/Satan/Devil (Isaiah 14:12), virgin birth with Mary and Jesus (Isaiah 7:14), etc) or repeatedly make wrong predictions about the end of the world (in Revelation), one after another (the Norman Conquest, the Black Death, Hundred Years' War, World War I, the alignments of planets (in 1984, 1987, 2012), the year 2000), the number of anti-Christ or the Beasts, etc).

 

[Pegg]

I don't take anything written in Revelation seriously, because I see it nothing more than a madman's BS rantings.

The 12 tribes of Israel is the 12 tribes of Israel.

And it does state 12 tribes of Israel, even though it replaced the tribe of Dan with Levi, and used Joseph instead of Ephraim.

Perhaps the author made a mistake with the Levi-Dan tribe. Do you think the author can't make a mistake? The author was human, wasn't he?

...And bl@#dy insane one that.

That you want to falsely interpret 12 tribes of Israel as something else, like true Christians, is just another blatant nonsense and dishonesty I would expect from a Christian.

I know very well the propaganda that Christians throughout history have used, taking texts out-of-context (the Original Sin, the serpent of Eden as the Devil/Satan, identifying the morning star as Lucifer/Satan/Devil (Isaiah 14:12), virgin birth with Mary and Jesus (Isaiah 7:14), etc) or repeatedly make wrong predictions about the end of the world (in Revelation), one after another (the Norman Conquest, the Black Death, Hundred Years' War, World War I, the alignments of planets (in 1984, 1987, 2012), the year 2000), the number of anti-Christ or the Beasts, etc).

if you dont believe it, then how do you figure that you know what it means?

If John didnt use the literal list of 12 tribes, why should it be viewed as a literal list of the 12 tribes? It quite clearly is not a literal list.

But dont let that stand in the way of accusing a jewish man of not knowing the 12 tribes of Isreal....

carry on.

 

[Shermana]

Maybe because Dan had a falling out?

 

[gnostic]

If John didnt use the literal list of 12 tribes, why should it be viewed as a literal list of the 12 tribes? It quite clearly is not a literal list.

Just because John didn't list exactly all 12 tribes, with only one mistake, hardly mean that it wasn't talking about the 12 tribes of Israel. It is obvious a mistake.

I am not the one who think people, even authors of any NT books or letters to be perfect, with or without the so-called Holy Spirit. Do you seriously think apostles or disciples can't make mistake?

And when you considered that the Roman Pauline church of the 4th century was the one who arranged the canonical, and the Revelation had barely made it into the bible, and if I was a Christian, I would think twice in taking Revelation seriously or literally.

 

[Xchristian]

yeah, i know about 7 million of them who dont

That's an American myth, more modern but too much failed prophecies ruined them.

 

[Shiranui117]

Just because John didn't list exactly all 12 tribes, with only one mistake, hardly mean that it wasn't talking about the 12 tribes of Israel. It is obvious a mistake.

I am not the one who think people, even authors of any NT books or letters to be perfect, with or without the so-called Holy Spirit. Do you seriously think apostles or disciples can't make mistake?

And when you considered that the Roman Pauline church of the 4th century was the one who arranged the canonical, and the Revelation had barely made it into the bible, and if I was a Christian, I would think twice in taking Revelation seriously or literally.

Actually, no. It wasn't the "Roman Pauline church" that arranged the canon of Scripture. Every Christian had been using the Septuagint OT from the get-go already. The first one to put out the list of NT books as we know it today was the Patriarch of Alexandria, Athanasius, in 367. And the Alexandrian Church was far from being Roman...

 

[Avoice]

They weren't Israelites yet, they were Hebrews, commonly called "Jews", which incidentally is not related to the Mosaic laws.

Roger1440's post which my comments address, did.

 

[Desert Snake]

Roger1440's post which my comments address, did.

Actually I was correcting the terminology in both your comments, as they weren't technically correct, though Roger did not use the term 'Jews' in that case wrongly, it has become a generic term to describe Hebrews, and Israelites.

 

[no-body]

those writings were written during the apostles time, and the apostles used and authorised their use...they could confirm that what was written was a true account.

Thats why the early church kept catalogues of the apostle approved writings.

by the end of the first century, only the apostle John was alive...after he died, the cannon was officially closed because there were no longer any apostles alive who could substantiate what was being written. and everything written up to the end of the 1st century was all that was needed.

Citations/proof? This contradicts everything I've read about the historicity of the canonical gospels.

 

[ChristineES]

If we take verses of context and string them with other verses- as most do in any denomination(most bible studies I have been a part of that have done that- including Baptist, Jehovah's Witnesses, and United Church of Christ), we can come up with anything we want. That is why I read the Bible as a whole rather than reading a verse here and a verse there. Those kinds of things we ought to take into consideration.

 

[gnostic]

Actually, no. It wasn't the "Roman Pauline church" that arranged the canon of Scripture. Every Christian had been using the Septuagint OT from the get-go already.

shiranui117, you of all people, being of Eastern Orthodox Christian and all, should know better (than Pegg, and even me) that it is not that simple.

Before the canon of the bible, by the Roman church, the OT Septuagint Bible also included the Apocrypha, and not all churches included Apocryphal texts. Of the time, when the Septuagint being translated and written, there was no distinction between what are now considered canonical from that of the Apocryphal literature.

And during the 1st century, some authors included knowledge of the Pseudepigrapha, like that of Book of Jubilees and Book of Enoch. Even the Dead Sea Scrolls, which included some Aramaic fragments, included both of these books.

Depending on what types of the churches (Protestant, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, etc) we are talking, some included the Apocrypha, as "Apocrypha", and some don't, and each could have different canonical requirements than yours, such as Pegg's JW.

What I am trying to say, is that there is no easy solution to the whole canonical shebang, because there is just one canonical selection.

And the Alexandrian Church was far from being Roman...

Didn't say it did. But there were commonality between East and West, before the division, completely divided the two. Both East and West (include Vatican), had divided what was canonical and what wasn't in the Council of Carthage, 397 CE. Later translations either keep or omit the non-canonical Apocrypha. And I am not going to really argue with you the question of canonical of which church accepted what, because church history is far more complex (because of all the different sects), and it is really boring to me.