WHICH IS THE "TRUE" CHRISTIAN CHURCH?

Interesting reading...

www.religioustolerance.com...


[Edited on 21-11-2002 by TheBandit795]

[Edited on 21-11-2002 by TheBandit795]

Actually, I think a very good case could be made for the Jewish Christians being the "true church" after reading those articles. I always wondered why the Christian churches swore they followed the Bible to the letter -- and then didn't elect their priests from the proper tribe or do any of the offerings and sacrifices or obey any of the laws (like not wearing mixed blend fibers). Yeah, I know what they say (perfect sacrifice, etc)... that's what the ministers at all the churches told me when I asked.

Thanks for the link... something to chew on.

The problem with deciding which is the "true church" is the problem that Truth seems to always fall over.

That of mistaking one denomination as "true" and all the rest as "false"

The true church is the body of believers, those believers may come from many denominations and may hold some views that are contradictory, but their lives are devoted to God, and to him they try and serve.


Its like americans ... not all people in america are american citizens, and not all american citizens are in america.

Some are living in other countires, yet your passport identifies you as to your nationality whereever you live.

The fact that you are in america does NOT prove that you are american citizen, you could be a tourist visiting ...

So just because you attend a chuurch does not mean you are a christian, nor do you become a christian by attending one church over another...

These are arguments put forward by people who truely don't know the nature of christianity, which is trans culture, and trans denominations.

It's impossible to anser the question as it is put here -which suggests it isn't actually a question: merely a concatenation of words.
"which" suggesting there must be an answer
"is" -singular ONE answer
"true" -menaingless here without some clue as to what "false" might mean
"Christian" equally elusive
"church" building, hierachy,clergy, set of doctrines?

I guess even starting at the beginning it's difficult -from Matthew 18 you have the verses with "two or three are gathered in my name" which might be taken to mean that any such gathering of believers is in some sense a "church"
But you have Christ saying: "upon this rock (i.e. Peter) I shall build my church", which can be taken to indicate the primacy of Roman Catholicism.
Or one might look to the records as to which is "oldest". Historically, the earliest churches must have been rather Greek, or at least Aramaic, in flavour; but theer are strong claims from Coptic (Egyptian/Ethiopian) churches.

Unless a question more precise is put, I don't know, maybe something like: " which established church is closest to the Bible's teachings" ( and that's full of obvious question-begging), it's hard to see how such a question can lead to much.

I guess that on some very crude set of indices such as "number of believers multiplied by years in existence", the Roman Catholics might have a case: but how one could find indices that weren't crude, or could be measured convincingly, I can't see how one could verify any claim.

Unfortunatly numbers are meangless, as for most of history people are 'christinaized' born into a 'christian' society, and attend church out of a cultural obligation. Not "christ followers"

This also happened in the East where they had "rice Christians" who said they were christian to get the benefits of the missionary organizations.

So raw stats are meaningless. ... except in the countries where christians are oppressed like china, THEN its a good indication

As I say, N-C: only the crudest of indices are available unless a poster makes a point that is susceptible to close analysis and the normal logical operations.
One can get lost even on what appears to be a well-signposted path: e.g. who are "true" Roman Catholics: you have Old Catholics, the current Church, Opponents of Vatican II, people who broke away under the leadership of Monsignor Lefebvre a generation ago when the liturigical language was changed from Latin to the vernacular: what have the beliefs of a highly sophisticated Western Jesuit in common with those of a Peruvian potato-farmer? etc. etc.
Clear responses here on ATS demand clarity in the language of the original poster.

I truley "know" that god set up a church with the sacraments
of perfection, the one true church of christ which i believe is catholicism.

why??

I hated religion two years ago, and through literal miracles god placed me in his church.

The bible literally talks about how you should behave "in" the church.

you cannot behave 'in" humans.

It says women should keep silent and not talk "in" church.

i gave many passages indicating he did infact creat a literal place of worship.

having literal huge miracles lead me into the church just confirm this.

also one last point.

The church has had a numerous amount of miracles since its beggining until now that were
uninterupted. this is a historical fact.

many miracles have happened to the eucharist.

many saints bore the stigmata.

many sister saints suffered the literal wounds of christ.

a saint named padre pio cured a blind women without pupils.

he also had the stigmata.

having stigmatas and curing the blind are not everyday happenings.

these are signs from god, you may reject them but you cannot deny them. For those who truley want to believe god will
lead you to the truth of him.

netchicken you can honestly sit here and say these miracles did not happen, when im sitting
here telling you god sent me into the church by the same miracles???

why?

I will just never understand any of you guys, and how you can not see gods calling into
his church.

It will be revealed to the world one day though.

peace.

The Translation Conspiracy

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

How the Translations of the Bible in English Have Promoted Error

Regardless of what is about to be written, I want you to know that the errors in English translations of the Bible have not stopped G-d from forming valid and effective relationships with many people. G-d, because of who He is, can do a great work in His people despite the general incapacity of human flesh, however He does not want His people ignorant.


www.messianic.com...


_______________________________________________________

From Admin:

I don't know how many times we need to say this, apparently not enough. Link to pieces of external content! Do not past the entire piece.

[Edited on 22-11-2002 by William]

...yes, some interest here (although one despairs at the Emperor "Theodosian" ((adjective) when they mean Theodosius: a bit like Queen Victorian or William Shakespearean, and do not indicate that he was Emperor of only half the empire -Eastern: hence, irrelevant in Rome -or that the Theodosian Code, true use of adjective, dealt with all Roman law and was not religious in focus).
Still, a bit of interest but always dig deeper: these sites tend to have their own agenda's and are seldom excessively concerned with facts or scholarship.
Often a good idea to search them first and see who they are, who owns them, and what they are all about.

of course.

God also says.

men who think they have wisdom do not, for their mind is empty.

also, " i do not reveal this to the learned but to the child like "


i say every night " i believe in the catholic church "

Am i lying?

Do you "know" im lying?

would god creat miracles to lead me into a lie?

do you think god works like that?

have you seen my life and how this has happened to me?


theres nothing else to say.

btw, catholic means universal, and god uses church as gathering.

universal gathering.

But how useless is it to keep pleading to you people?

peace.

Ageed Estragon so libid was I of truths application of the word Church. I felt that presenting a link which offered the origin of the word could make me feel better.

I stand accused and as a reuslt guilty of all but making my point.

Fear not, intrepid posters: English "church" is from the Greek for the Lord "kyrios" (as in Kyrie Eleison) -adjectival form "kyriak-" and the Graeco/Latin "k" in this position (i.e depending upon adjacent vowels) became regularly "ch" in most Old English dialects (but preserved as "k" in Scots "kirk") became regularly "ch" in English as in:
"cheese" oposite Latin "caseu..", German "Kaese":
English "chin", German "Kinn"; "Chapman" beside German Kaufmann (from latin: caupio."
etc. blah...yawn...sigh

No one -even Estragon - knows the etymology of Odyssey's "Circe"

the rest is a hotch-potch of seventh-hand scholarship: and even if there were any logic there (there ain't) this would invalidate any and all conclusions and inferences (arguments from false premises, is it not?)

But a jolly good example of how to try to wreck a discussion!

..ignoring the nonsense about linking "circumspect" straight from Latin = "all around", hence "circular" hence "circle" hence (appropriately here) "circus" - and nothing whatsoever to do with Homeric "Circe",
what any Hebrew word ahs to do with the New Testament is a moot point at best: but fellow-posters (while the actually full understanding does require some knowledge of Semitic vocalic sustems and the triliteral word root) one's first stop should still be Strong's concordance:
www.sacrednamebible.com...

as you'll see -countless meanings of "shamar" - suggesting at least that the KJV boys knew a little about the language and how to translate it according to context.

The point on "ecclesia" (if it is a "point" is equally seventh-hand, old hat and dreary)
It literally means "those summoned/called out" but what something "literally/etymologically" means is often irrelevant -as Estragon so frequently labours to illustrate.
"calculus" "means": "little pebble"..so??

It's how the word is/was used: which effectively means a knowledge of the written records, in this case. And there are ample records to show that the word had the sense of "assembly" in a secular sense as well as "congregation" in a Jewish or Christian sense.
No convincing point can be made on any aspect of the "literal meaning" of "ecclesia" as far as "the church" is concerned - it's as ludicrous as pointing to the etymology of "pastor" and insisting that the man must keep sheep.

I know he is wrong Estragon, but let me point out that in many of his posts he makes a statement and then as a result of his misspellings he effectively denies what he said.

I feel that anyone who uses the term "You people" is a bigot (point
blank). I can respect his right to post
but he lies so much.

And why does he keep insisting that his life is an example. What are the computers connected to our brains or something

I am not a biggit.

"you people"

I meant those who can not see that im being sincere about jesus and
whats led me here.

Do you think im lying about witnessing miracles of christ?

Do you think the saints miracles are all fake??

answer those two and you will have your answer.

peace.

You could be delusional and as far as what you think about the saints they could be the result of hallucinations. One could draw such a conclusion if you behaved like a bigot. "Truth" this is a Internet forum not an ESP Think tank funded by the CIA. You seem to want "us people" to acknowledge you for what you say you are, but who's 100% of what you are?

I have in my life experienced events which make what you call miracles look like Sesame Street reruns. To me there is always more "truth" so for the most part I maintain my composure and do not make a big deal of them.


That you say you are sincere is nice but it does not really mean anything except of course to you (which is as it should be). I guess that is your answer.

Here's is some material for the surge of christians here on the board lately...

The true Christian Church are the orthodox Christians of eastern Europe: Greece, Russia and former Soviet States, Former Yugoslavia etc.