Sheshbazzar

Obviously you do not 'fully associate' with any Church organization that has any doctrine or rules that you do not personally agree with.
Thus one might well wonder what identifiable and recognizable Church or religious organization it is that does meet your criteria, and receives stamp of approval?
You trash countless hundreds of millions of believers that confess Jesus Christ as their Saviour, and themselves to be Christians.
And state that believers should not associate with these, in your view, FALSE Christians.
- Yet you repeatedly refuse to reveal what Denomination, congregation, or place of communal worship it -is- that -is- acceptable in your scheme of things.

If anyone is therefore guilty of assembling or associating with what, is in your view, the 'WRONG' or a 'FALSE' Church, the responsibility for that must rest in your refusal, or inability to disclose what Denomination, congregation, or place of communal worship, where it is that everyone "agrees one every matter of importance" (I presume you meant to spell 'on') -is- the acceptable one and only TRUE™ Christian Church.

Each of these Church's you reject, came together, and have stayed together because they agreed on every matter which they deemed to be of importance.
So what maketh thee to differ???

And reasonably, out of all the gatherings of Jesus Christ worshipers on this earth, HOW do you expect others to be able to locate these unmarked and unidentifiable gatherings of the TRUE™ believers, where only the TRUE™ Doctrine and the TRUE™ Faith are practiced?

How are we to know which out of the hundreds or thousands of Doctrines held by these thousands of contradictory and squabbling TRUE™ believers, is the TRUE™ faith?

WHERE -name even ONE location- DO these 'TRUE™ Christians' of yours meet?

WHERE do YOU spend YOUR Sundays?

Telling us that the TRUE™ Christian Church' is 'invisable' is tantamount to admitting that such is unidentifiable and to all practical intents DOES NOT EXIST.

How in the hell can anyone single out and 'persecute' a church that cannot even be identified or located???


So don't blame us, or other Christians if they cannot find their way to your particular nut-job variation of a 'church'.



.

Iskander

Yes, it sounds nice, but very fragile.
You have probably heard that Jesus came to deliver the kingdom of God, but left us the Church, instead.

I value your comments on the visible, being that it is the place where I dwell, but of the afterlife I know nought


Saint-Exupéry wrote that what is essential is invisible to the eyes. I read le petit prince when my daughter was doing French. I love that little book still


– Adieu, dit le renard. Voici mon secret. Il est très simple :
on ne voit bien qu’avec le coeur. L’essentiel est invisible pour les
yeux.
Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
LE PETIT PRINCE
1943

sotto voce

That was a Catholic, describing his own outfit. Though of course he was thrown out for his honesty.

Yet he stayed a Catholic. You see, educated Catholics love double-think. They find cognitive dissonance no problem at all. But then they have no consciences, to speak of. They love to steal, all sorts of things. They steal decontextualised bits of Protestantism, and fellow Catholics think they are wonderful because they think that Catholicism thought of it. The intelligent Catholic is always dishonest. The honest Catholics are those who don't realise that the clever ones are crooks. Of course, today the honest ones are moving out as they discover the truth.

Now why are Catholics always either duped or 'dupers'? The Catholic goes to Mass declaring that he or she is not in Christ, is not a Christian. If he/she was in Christ, he/she would not be going to Mass in order to be in Christ— until the next time that sin was committed, which could well be before leaving the place of worship. This was the Roman way— keep the plebeians dependent on the imperially appointed sacerdotes (priests) by never letting them think that they have achieved peace with deity. "For if they think they have 'arrived', what will become of us fat, disgusting patricians? Woe!" This sacerdotalism continued, made to look pious with a lick of 'Christian' whitewash when the empire called itself by that name. The Eastern Orthodox have similar pagan arrangements, of course. Both sorts say they are Christian, but they abuse that word, because the word 'christ' means one who saves; but Catholics and Orthdox die not knowing whether they are saved. And nobody can be justified unless he/she believes that he/she is justified.

They really are a billion light years from Christianity. There is simply no comparison at all. Protestants are at least capable of being Christians, because they treat Jesus as Christ, nominally, anyway, declaring that faith justifies because Jesus was, is, Christ. Though anyone who agrees with Catholics/Orthodox that they are Christians does them a deep disservice, and is either ignorant or not Christian, and there are a lot of 'Protestants' around in this stupefyingly theologically ignorant world of the present who tell them so.

Sheshbazzar

Then there is the third 'sort' that is full of words abusing the Word of ὁ Xριστὸς and those who are Χριστιανός ἐπ᾽ ἀληθείας.

The 'sort' that has no LOVE for ὁ θεὸς or for The Word of γραφή -and does not even know the definition of χριστὸς, nor enough Scripture to be able to RESPECT and to recognise, and to indicate, that there is a difference between χριστὸς and ὁ Χριστός.

χριστὸς DOES NOT mean, nor translate as 'one who saves', and neither do the words ὁ χριστὸς, χρίσῃς, ἔχρισεν, χρισθῆναι, ὁ κεχρισμένος, Χριστοῦ or Χριστιανός.

One such as this 'sort' is NOT a 'Χριστιανός' ἐπ᾽ ἀληθείας. And the λόγον ζωῆς is far from such 'sort'.

>"One such as this 'sort' is NOT a 'Christian' in truth. And the Word of Life is far from such 'sort'."





.

sotto voce

Then nothing. These people in every case reckon that a Scripture of 66+ books is 'Sacred'. They admit that they put their own views on the same level as deity, yes, but at least they make some acknowledgement that the Bible including NT exists and has validity. They even reckon to follow it as Scripture, however irrational or even farcical that claim may be considered. They have no source for the word 'Christ' other than the NT interpretation of the OT of the word. Therefore, views that do not include the NT usage of 'Christ' are not relevant in this particular discussion, and may be dismissed as trollery.

So what is the meaning of this word in the NT? In fact, the Hebrew word behind the Greek one was one that was well known by those who wrote the NT, being either Jews or fully recognising the OT concept of Messiah. The word 'messiah' literally means 'anointed with oil', not in the medical sense, but in a ritual sense of special appointment. The first anointing in the OT is of a priest, one who offers sacrifices on behalf of others in order to save them from some peril. Later, prophets and kings were anointed, but their roles were contingent upon the soterial one, and are considered contingent likewise in the case of Jesus.

Zechariah, a priest of the Temple in Jerusalem, spoke of his son, "You will go on before the Lord to prepare the way for him, to give his people the knowledge of salvation through the forgiveness of their sins, because of the tender mercy of our God, by which the rising sun will come to us from heaven to shine on those living in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the path of peace." Luke 1:76-79 NIV

That son of a priest was John, known as the Baptiser. Even before meeting Jesus, John exclaimed, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" One of his disciples told his brother, "We have found the Messiah" (Jn 1:29, 41). So the phrase 'the Messiah' was understood to mean 'the one who saves from sins', or 'Saviour'.

Earlier, holding the neonate Jesus in his arms, the loyal Jew Simeon had said: "My eyes have seen your salvation." Lk 2:30 NIV

So whatever others may think, the writers of the NT considered that the Messiah or Christ was saviour. But Catholics/Orthodox die without knowing if they have done enough to be saved. So, by the precepts of their own scriptural resources, they have no Christ, and to call them Christians is perhaps the ultimate disservice and irresponsibility. They certainly cannot be said to have any significance in determining canon, by any significant scholar.

Sheshbazzar

It is said in a certain place; And again (and again, and again, and again); Christian believers compose but ONE Body of Christ;
Nothing is more pathetic than that 'christian' who is so insecure, so inferiour, and so lacking in love of his neighbors, and of his brothers in the household of Faith, that the only way to exalt himself, or make himself appear to be something, is by daily putting his fellow believers down.

It is said; What then can we know about you sotto voce?

You have now made well over 2,000 Posts on this board. How many can you locate where instead of expressing you daily dose of contempt for your fellow believers in The Lord Jesus Christ, you have expressed your unqualified love for ALL who believe and love The Lord Jesus Christ, and have honored and praised them?

How many instances can you present where you have respected, honored and given preference views of other Christians above your own?



.

tanya

absolutely, resolutely, with conviction, disagree, most heartily, sir.

The word "christ" means anointed, not saviour. You are misusing the Greek language.

But, please teach me, who anointed Jesus? Herakles was anointed by the populace. Alexander was anointed by the populace. David was anointed by the populace. Persian princes, and Egyptian rulers were anointed. When was Jesus head covered with olive oil, and under whose direction was that action taken?

sotto voce

We are missing the point. Actual anointing was pictorial in its purpose; physical allegory of abstract, spiritual anointing, appointment as 'prophet, priest and king', as the phrase has it. Jesus is considered 'anointed' or appointed because his words are considered prophecy (in the widest sense of the word); because his death is considered a priestly sacrifice; and because his sacrifice makes him lord (voluntarily). So it is believed that Jesus did not need official ritual, as comic pseuds do. He demonstrated the justice of ascription of his roles by fulfilling them. Which is the best way.

sotto voce

Now just look at that, folks. We can modernise (or just misspell, if you're British) 'neighbour', yet we cannot let go of that sodding archaic 'Thou shalt'.

Is that reluctant faith, or is it reluctant faith?

tanya

Sorry, I seem to be in a disagreeable mood today (and most days, one supposes....)

Nope. Cannot agree. AT ALL.

Watch a football game, or soccer match or tennis, or whatever strikes your fancy.

Would the crowd participate with similar enthusiasm if the football (or soccer ball, or baseball or basketball, or hockey puck, or whatever) were a virtual image, only, not a genuine ball. Just an imaginary ball.

Not likely.

Crowds back then had no television, no radio, no internet, no newspapers, no method of communicating except by crowding together in an amphitheatre or town square, to watch ANOINTMENT.

But it wasn't just "watching" was it? Nope. The crowd back then, was incorporated into the ceremony, just as today, at a football contest, one observes the entire stadium of folks shouting, waving, standing, cheering. They WANT to participate.....

Back then, the crowds cheered their leaders, especially when those leaders had led an army to victory over a hated oppressor, as had been the case for Alexander of Macedonia.

When he liberated the Jews from the yoke of the hated Persians, the Jews were ecstatic. He truly had been a messiah. Riding a big white horse, at the head of his huge army, the defeated Persians in tow, it had been a SPECTACLE, when he marched through Jerusalem.

The olive oil, then, as now, a precious commodity, was WASTED, deliberately, by pouring it uselessly on the person's head, to show the public's adoration for this hero, bestowing a precious substance over him, and onto the ground, thrown away to indicate their willingness to sacrifice something toward his cause.

It was genuine celebration, not virtual. REAL images, not fake, and certainly not "physical allegory". The bible acknowledges this, by claiming that one little old gal washed Jesus with olive oil, before his death.

So much for his "anointment".