Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Lol this statement brings back memories of sitting in a pew on Sunday morning, Sunday night and even on Wednesday night prayer meeting.
Not much preaching, teaching, praying or loving the members of the body of Christ with a different name on their place of worship, but a whole lot of fear of hellfire and damnation being spread to the kiddies.
Even the names of the denominations are the same ones
They were first called "Christians" at Antioch". Sounds manmade to me..just making a point
Yes indeed. The name "Christians" was man made and not commanded by God, Jesus, the Apostles or scripture. Scripture just tells us someone first called the disciples "Christian" at Antioch. And some people want to make a church around that man made name. So typical of what men do when men follow men rather than God and His word.
If music began in the heart of God, it is only fitting that it be offered back to Him. And so we find such Scriptures as:
'I will sing unto the Lord as long as I live:
I will sing praise to my God while I have any being.' (Psalm 104:33; 146:2)
Scripture abounds with such exhortations to sing God's praises. They occur up to four times in one verse (Psalm 47:6) as the Bible seeks to drive home the importance of musically worshipping our Creator.
However, there are two ways of singing God's praises: we can direct our song solely to God, or we can use music to tell others how praiseworthy God is.
Expressions like 'sing unto the Lord' clearly indicate when the former type of praise is in focus.
Flick through the Bible. After finding about sixty such references to singing to God, you might get the impression God is trying to tell you something!
We shall see later that it is quite Scriptural to sing about God, but the emphasis is upon singing to Him.
Worshipping the majestic Lord of heaven and earth is the highest use anything can ever be put to. The fact that the Almighty has ordained that music be used for this exalted purpose indicates how highly esteemed earthly music is.
It is customary to place musical worship at the beginning of church services. This is consistent with Psalm 100:
'Come before His presence with singing.' (Verse 2)
'Enter into His gates with thanksgiving,
and into His courts with praise.' (Verse 4)
It would be wrong, however, to conclude from this practice that musical worship is a mere preliminary. On the contrary, it is first priority.
Until we have adequately used music to bless, honour and express our love to the One who gave us the gift, we have no right to use our God-given gift for any lesser purpose. Do we give worship the primacy that our Lord deserves? We can put music to trivial uses that carry no eternal reward. But we will be thankful forever for the earthly time we spend worshipping our Creator and Redeemer. Communing with the sovereign Lord of glory is our highest calling. May we never lose sight of this.
Just for the record...when I say I am a member of the church of Christ I am not talking about a building with that name on it!!!!
I suppose you would prefer that I say, " I am a member of the churches of Christ??
I believe that there is only one church, one body of Christ. That is what the Eph. 4 chapter says.
Each congregation of the church meet in differant places. There is no way the church can all meet in the same place!!!
I am not sure what you are trying to prove by your Spirit comments????
Thank you so much, I like how you are able to articulate very well.
The first church was Jewish and it remained Jewish for at least 130 years, perhaps more. They worshped like Jews do and Jesus was the main man because Jesus was a Jew.
Having said that: The oldest institution in Western Civilization is the Catholic Church.
Ancient writings show the RCC already had some shape in 107.
Quote:
Ignatius of Antioch
The earliest recorded evidence of the use of the term "Catholic Church" is the Letter to the Smyrnaeans that Ignatius of Antioch wrote in about 107 to Christians in Smyrna. Exhorting Christians to remain closely united with their bishop, he wrote: "Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."[11][12][13]
The so called protestant churches of Christ are quite new. The oldest protestant church are the Luterans, but they arrived 1500 years too late.
WIKI
There are no "protestants" when you can use the secular authority to wipe them out at least as far as overt dissention. When a religion no longer has that capability, why then those "protestants" are able to survive and multiply. The history of the institutional church prior to the successful reformation is a bloody one.
“ The oldest institution in Western Civilization is the Catholic Church. Ancient writings show the RCC already had some shape in 107. Quote: Ignatius of Antioch
The earliest recorded evidence of the use of the term "Catholic Church" is the Letter to the Smyrnaeans that Ignatius of Antioch wrote in about 107 to Christians in Smyrna. Exhorting Christians to remain closely united with their bishop, he wrote: "Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."[11][12][13]
This is the second time I've noted a similar inaccurate use of the quote by the same poster. It is the historian in me that is bothered by abuse of history. I have noted that the use of the word καθολικος by Ignatius in approx. 100 a.d. is being incorrectly applied to the Roman Catholic Church.
My point is that this us of this adjective by Ignatius did not apply to the later economical / political / social / military / religious organization that took shape in later centuries and became the Roman Catholic Church. Ignatius was speaking of the church “universal” or the “general” churches of his day, rather than the Roman Church which took shape and became what became known as the Roman Catholic church in a later time period.
The organization that took shape later was quite different in form and function and doctrine than the simply and single congregation Ignatius is referring to in approx. 100 a.d.
I hope this simple correction will be allowed to stand. If we have to review the reasons and history as to the differences between Ignatius Church reference and the Roman Catholic Church, I think the discussion will be counterproductive, painful and a frustrating process involving public discussion of uncomfortable points. Please accept this friendly and simple adjustment of the use of καθολικος rather than have to go through the unpleasant process of detailed discussion as to why this correction needs to be made.
That the Roman Congregation was neither the original congregation, nor the oldest congregation nor do we have evidence that it gained Peter’s authority will already be obvious to most readers. This is not to say that the Roman Church did not evolve into an immensely powerful and influential religious force. However it is not the specific organization referred to by Ignatius' use of the word καθολικος in post # 155.
That the Roman Congregation was neither the original congregation, nor the oldest congregation nor do we have evidence that it gained Peter’s authority will already be obvious to most readers. This is not to say that the Roman Church did not evolve into an immensely powerful and influential religious force. However it is not the specific organization referred to by Ignatius' use of the word καθολικος in post # 155.
Post #155 said : This is the second time I've noted a similar inaccurate use of the quote by the same poster. It is the historian in me that is bothered by abuse of history. I have noted that the use of the word καθολικος by Ignatius in approx. 100 a.d. is being incorrectly applied to the Roman Catholic Church.
Actually, I did made a mistake by using the term RCC. R meaning Roman. At this time it was simply the Catholic Church.
If one reads the letters of Ignatius it is clear the CC already had a formal hierarchy with bishops and priests. The mass was already in place with specific instructions about the eucharyst.
Clear lens said in post # 157 " I hope this simple correction will be allowed to stand. If we have to review the reasons and history as to the differences between Ignatius Church reference and the Roman Catholic Church, I think the discussion will be counterproductive, painful and a frustrating process involving public discussion of uncomfortable points. Please accept this friendly and simple adjustment of the use of καθολικοσ rather than have to go through the unpleasant process of detailed discussion as to why this correction needs to be made. "
Julian658 said in post # 159 " Actually, I did made a mistake by using the term RCC. R meaning Roman "
Julian658; If I am not allowed to let my correction stand, perhaps it is necessary, in order to discuss in greater context, some more reasons as to why καθολικοσ circa 100 a.d. cannot apply to the Roman Religious movement (besides the fact that the Roman Catholic Church did not exist at that time...)
Julian658 perhaps you and I can discuss some points differentiating the religion that became the Roman religious movement and churches from the original Christian movement and churches.
The Roman movement did nothave Petrine Authority where as the early Christian movement DID have Petrine and other apostolic authority
For example, the earliest Christian religious movement consisting of individuals "called out" (the root concepts of εκ-κλεσσια) did have apostolic authority whereas the Roman religious movement was left in the same position as all other Christian congregations and movements. It never was able to demonstrate Petrine authority from any authentic data from the earliest periods, but instead, political machinations created strong motivations to create "back claims" from later centuries.
The Early Christian movement differed in it’s doctrinal Characteristics
Doctrinally, the Roman church lost much of the early doctrines which distinguished the early Christian Church; the Roman church changed some of the early doctrines which distinguished the early Christian Church; and the Roman church created doctrines which did not exist in the same form in the early Christian Church.
The Early Christian movement differed in it’s manner of growth
The early Christian movement did not achieve political / economic / military / religious growth and influence through political and monetary schemes or through oppressive mechanisms whereas these often characterized the early and mid stages of growth of the Roman religious movement.
The Early Christian movement differed in the source of many of it’s base doctrines
The church that became the Roman religious Movement achieved it’s major doctrinal expression and maturation through the use of theologians who created; systematized and packaged a system of doctrines which the Roman movement aggressively spread through it’s various methods of influence, whereas the earlier Christian Movement achieved major doctrinal expression through Prophets and apostles who delivered doctrines they received by revelation from God.
There are many other basic characteristics of difference that distinguished the original and authentic Christian movement and it’s various congregations and doctrines from the Church that became the Roman Catholic movement and church. I understand the desire to claim that one’s church IS the "original" church, especially if one has been taught this for a large portion of one’s life. However, historically, the claim is not viable.
If it is agreeable to you, can we discuss one of the most common and most basic claims of the Roman Church first, that is, the nature of the historical claim that Peter ever gave special authority to an obscure bishop of a roman congregation. And then afterwards, discuss the other examples of differences I am claiming, from a historical context?
Clear
ειειτςεισιω
Last edited by Clear lens; 09-13-2013 at 10:36 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
