Search results

No, I do not deny that "GOD is the author of the bible and all scriptures within". However, cannot agree with your denial of the historical fact that the Catholic Church canonized our Bible. And that you don't consider Catholics to be our brothers and sisters in Christ. Nor your claim that...

Thou shalt not kill. (except Canaanites)

How soon we forget. Catholicism was the only church until Protestantism split away.

That's good. But answer the questions too, please. (I know they weren't addressed to you originally.) So, do you deny the historical fact that the Catholic Church canonized our Bible? Do you consider Catholics to be our brothers and sisters in Christ?

So, do you deny the historical fact that the Catholic Church canonized our Bible? Do you consider Catholics to be our brothers and sisters in Christ?

Start by not assuming they are all lost.

Are you suggesting that I look for trouble? lol But is there one titled: Is Protestantism wrong? That is the question. I can't imagine a Catholic asking that question.

The Catholic Church gave us our scriptures. They were the ones who canonized the Bible for us. We need to thank them for providing it for us. Thanks. Sola Scriptura would not be possible without the Bible they gave us. Should we bite the hand that feeds?

Your spelling is atrocious. Maybe we should work on that instead. In what sense would Catholicism be wrong? Is Protestantism wrong? If you are a Christian, you are either one or the other. If you were raised Catholic, might you still be Catholic? (most likely) Would that be wrong? I...

The two example you give are seemingly not public confessions. What do you conclude from that?

Fair enough. Here's your to-do list. Get with it. Matthew 10:8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received; freely give.

What do you propose to do?

I would ask, how much of that is practical and how much is spiritual?

Yes, there was an existing model for congregational meetings already in place with the way synagogues were run. And also culturally in the secular realm with the Greeks and Romans having meetings with speakers.

I think that this is more of a practical consideration than a spiritual issue. Two or three families meeting as a congregation in a house is one thing. They couldn't even support a full-time pastor. As I understand it, synagogues were established that way. As soon as you had ten families...

You have a point in terms of problems with modern movements, but that has little to do with why the pattern of two baptism that we see established quite clearly in the NT was lost within a few centuries after the church was formed.

I think public speaking was well developed by then. The Greeks and Romans had their amphitheaters and philosophers of all sorts would address crowds and engage in debate. Otherwise, your interpretation on this seems valid. Someone's home would probably not be set up like our church sanctuaries.

That's a good point. On the flip side of that, why would those standing yield to those sitting down?

I think there was a platform in the front, as we have today. And someone might stand on the platform to read or preach.

Thanks for that post. I want to add a comment to this part. This is something I noticed about the passage that shows another aspect of how different things were back then. Here's the verse, comments below. 1 Corinthians 14:30 And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first...