Debaters: Let's have It Out !

by Amazing 124 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Narkissos

  It looks to me like the next tussle could be the battle for the pre-eminent multi-faith group

  Funny, and how true...

  Historically most attempts at unification have resulted in at least one more division.

  transubstantiation ( which to most people is merely a very long string of letters )?

  Don't complain, we have one "s" more (transsubstantiation).

  I am out of the debate as I tend to consider the notion of "apostolic authority" as a foundational myth (as suggested by the variant lists of the "twelve" among other things). But I would acknowledge that as soon as this notion appeared it was meant to found the authority of local bishops (as is clear in the book of Acts, the Pastorals, and Ignatius for instance), hence implying some kind of "apostolic succession". Iow, the doctrine was forged by the "successors" themselves, and could be because the "origins" were already lost in legend. Also, I believe the Protestant notion of "invisible church" to be wholly unscriptural (a second heel of Achilles besides sola scriptura).
• 

  Qcmbr

  LL - I can see that you think as LT does that I'm pushing LDS theology here - I'm not I was answering your specific questions with scriptures as asked. I'm beginning to realise that its almost impossible for me to make a point without it being seen as the LDS manifesto. I can't help loving and being my particular faith but its difficult to post when every point is riposted with a reference to the LDS.
  
  OK let's deal with your points since you've done me the courtesy of time and effort which I'm aware is not easy though I must reject your attack - I do read more than one verse - you can't ask me for scriptures and then suggest I should have also footnoted the bible just in case I didn't read enough context.
  
  If the reading of the scripture regarding Jesus being the only holder of the Melichizedek Priesthood (and you might want to look into why it was thus called and what it is as opposed to the Aaronic or Levitical Priesthoods and also how it was an order not a one off person) then the RC church has been very foolish to continue calling priests. I don't think they are that stupid rather that your interpretation is merely different and no more valid. Hebrews 7. 1 Peter 2. Revelation 20.6
  
  Baptism is a sacrament http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrament
  
  John 14:15 (read the whole chapter)You are Christs through obediance to the law not by a simple holy spirit- the spirit is the end result not the precursor. Acts 5:32 suggests that you cannot get the spirit without obedience to God. Romans 18:15 shows that obedience in action is an aim of the preaching. 2 Thess. 1:8 punishment for disobedience.
  
  Have a look at Acts 5 when people raise up alternate organisations without authority.
  
  Acts 6:3 gives an example of authority over the congregation.
  
  And finally - LDS don't claim to teach a different Gospel.
• 

  Qcmbr

  LT:
  Is the Christian's home here or with our Lord? - you and I are here so right now we are where we should be.
  
  
  Given that the OT was a shadow of that to come, is the temple physical or spiritual? Both - there was a physical temple but there is also symbolism in the temple in which truths were hidden. The body is also likened to a temple (Jesus referred to his own body as such.) In reminding those who actually assumed God lived inside the temple as His home it was made abundantly clear that God did not live therein. What is actually interesting is what was teh temple actually for - what was its real purpose?
  
  Is our High Priest mortal or immortal? If you refer to Jesus then immortal.
  
  This doesn't negate the need to congregate orderly and acknowledge that some have the subordinate gift to "rule" but, to those who have room for it, the "kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36) it is "within" (Luke 17:21). I think we can see the symbolism used to describe the Kingdom of God which by a literal reading must be here (within you) but not here (still to come) physical (consuming all kingdoms at the end) but also a philosophy (it could be preached.)
  
  None of these give any strong footing to ignore the authority of the priesthood , to seek after it and to become a physical part of the body of christ.
  
  The RC church has a very legitemate claim to gather its followers together to administer the sacraments by the priesthood it assumes. To reject the need for or the continued observance of sacraments isn't warranted anywhere in scripture IMO.
• 

  lovelylil

  Q,

  I don't want to steal this thread from Jim. But in ALL of the proof scriptures you gave about the Mormon re-establishing the priesthood, including the one in Hebrews, none of these texts speak about re-establishing an earthly priesthood. I gave you several other whole chapters to read in Hebrews that clearly show that the old arrangement of an earthly priesthood that has to offer sacrifices or give sacrements, was done away with when Christ became the Perfect High Priest for the Christian church. The old earthly priesthood was a shadow of the new perfect one. The imperfect (aaronic) was a shadow of the Melchizadek priesthood. You mention the RCC and thier priesthood, well if they are claiming the earthly priesthood over believers in the same way as the LDS, then they are Just are wrong as the LDS church.

  As far as the other point - you have yet to show me anywhere in the NT that it says the church went into total darkness and the apostolic order had to be re-established. Christ promised to be with his church and he has been always.

  Peace, Lilly
• 

  lovelylil

  Q,

  One more thing. All believers make up the royal priesthood of God. The church does not need an earthly priesthood to make atonement for their sins anymore. Christ is the High Priest for the Church and the Priest of the new, better convenant. And Christ's kingdom is a heavenly, spiritual one. Not an earthly, physical one.

  1 Peter 2:9,10 (About the Church)

  9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

  Here are some scriptural texts that show the Church are the believers, no matter where they may be gathered: And that they did not have to gather in any one place. Their faith in Christ and anointing with the Holy Spirit made them part of the Church or Christ's body. They built the church on Christ and the foundation laid by the prophets and Apostles. And the Holy Spirit designated some as Apostles, prophets, teachers, evangelizers, etc. See LT's comments about this.

  Acts 15:4
  When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.

  1 Corinthians 1:2
  To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours:

  1 Corinthians 16:1
  [ The Collection for God's People ] Now about the collection for God's people: Do what I told the Galatian churches to do

  2 Corinthians 8:1
  [ Generosity Encouraged ] And now, brothers, we want you to know about the grace that God has given the Macedonian churches.

  1 Thessalonians 1:1
  Paul, Silas and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace and peace to you.

  No matter what denomination, or what organization you belong to or where you gather for worship, if you are "in Christ" you are IN The church and you ARE the church.

  Anyway, I will put this to rest on my part and let you hash things out with someone else. I don't know what else I can say to help you understand the church or how Christ deals with it. LT, Jim, Grace, And many others made great points here. Perhaps you can go back and read them again. If you are happy in the Mormon church, thats great. Good luck to you.

  Peace, Lilly
• 

  Farkel

  Jim, my old friend,

  : So, Let's have it out ... let's post all the concerns, issues, claims, and even nasty remarks against the RC Church, Baptists, Presbyterisn, Angelican, Episcopal, Methodist, Non-Denominational, Pentecostal, Assembly of God, Mormon, Church of Christ, Free Bible Students, Dawn, and whomever else you want to criticize.

  You simply cannot shine shit. Why bother? Those religions are ALL flawed, very human and very stupid. They all (to some degree) base their philosophy on a very flawed, very human and very stupid book that some uninformed people think is sacrosanct. I piss on it. It is the most disgusting guide book ever offered to mankind, except for the Koran. Now THAT book is worth pissing on by incontinent elephants!

  Farkel
• 

  LittleToe

  Q:
  Sorry old chap. Your thinking appears to be so biased from being raised as a LDS that you don't even seem to see the holes in the string vest that everyone else is driving articulated lorries through (16-wheelers, for our American friends).

  And btw, I already addressed that I don't charge you with "pushing LDS theology". It was me that drew you out, rather than you proselytising, and I accepted that. I repeat that I'm merely amused by the irony of you attacking a tenet of another faith that your own faith supports

  Doug:Good to see ya, pal. Hope all is well with ya

  Didier:
  I disagree

  The analogy of being living stones in a spiritual house (1Pet.2:5) and a nation (1Pet.2:9, and others) surely permits such a rendering? I'm going to dip into good old Covenant Theology here, and suggest that the contract was for a hereditary possession and had religious links only insomuch as the object of devotion was the same God. That surely doesn't speak of a specific denomination amongst those vying for position in the religion known as Christianity? Whilesoever a denomination meets the basic criteria of the NT (especially pertaining to "love") shouldn't it suggest that they are included?

  Raising again the Pauline issue of the tradition of the apostles, was this ever actually written down by them?
• 

  lovelylil

  LT,

  I think you summed it all up well. Thanks. Because I am too tired to debate anymore with Q.

  If people want to believe they are the only "true" Christians because they belong to a certain denomination, or keep certain rules, or participate in certain sacrements, or understand the bible in a certain way, or are the only ones who can trace their roots back to the Apostles, then more power to them. But I for one am glad they are not going to judge me as to whether or not I am a true Christian. And I will stick to my foolish notion that believers are in all denominations or no particular denomination, and that if you have the Spirit in you and faith in Christ, he willingly accepts you into his Church.

  And I will let the Lord Jesus, who I accept as My High Priest, sort everything else out when he arrives. Peace everyone! Lilly

  Jim, thanks again for all your hard work and starting this thread. It was a good oppportunity to see what others believe out there and to better understand why. I learned a few good things myself today and you helped broaden my mind a little.
• 

  UpAndAtom

  To quote a source of information far wiser than I...
  
  "...the church is within yourself and not in any pope nor preacher, nor in any building but in self! For thy body is indeed the temple of the living God, and the Christ becomes a personal companion in mind and in body; dependent upon the personality and individuality of the entity as it makes practical application of the tenets and truths that are expressed."
  
  Edgar Cayce Reading 5125-1
• 

  lovelylil

  I have an uncle who loves Edgar Cayce! Thanks for sharing that quote. Lilly