MARK 6:3 DID JESUS HAVE BROTHERS AND SISTERS ? *****

[JohnPaul]

Thanks!
View attachment 6711

Anytime GodsGrace, it was my pleasure.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

If a person is living a christianly life and believes they are obeying our God, I do believe they are saved even if their doctrine is wrong. .

Addressing this part first, because I want to give it a huge AMEN!

Ok, now on to talking about everything else--

Of course you're entitled to your opinion.
The reason I can't agree with it is because Jesus was the ultimate and last revelation of God.

John Smith and Muhammad and all the others that claim to have received special insight did not receive it from God. Jesus said a Kingdom divided is a Kingdom lost...a house divided against itself cannot stand.

If Jesus taught something and then others teach something else and Jesus was the last revelation...that means the others are wrong...not Him.

If a person is living a christianly life and believes they are obeying our God, I do believe they are saved even if their doctrine is wrong. Can we be sure any doctrine is correct unless the bible specifically speaks to it?
I don't think so.

(Just explaining my beliefs here, while totally acknowledging that yours are different. Thank you for sharing your perspective, and for you usual gracious manner )

For me, it's a big deal that God doesn't change. He personally spoke and lead His people before Christ's mortal birth, during Christ's mortal life, and afterwards. That doesn't change. Majority of the New Testament was actually written after Christ's Ascension, a lot of it by Paul whom didn't know Christ during His mortal ministry, but still Paul was lead by God all the same and the Bible tells vividly later prophets. God lead His people before and now.

 

[GodsGrace]

Addressing this part first, because I want to give it a huge AMEN!

Ok, now on to talking about everything else--

(Just explaining my beliefs here, while totally acknowledging that yours are different. Thank you for sharing your perspective, and for you usual gracious manner )

For me, it's a big deal that God doesn't change. He personally spoke and lead His people before Christ's mortal birth, during Christ's mortal life, and afterwards. That doesn't change. Majority of the New Testament was actually written after Christ's Ascension, a lot of it by Paul whom didn't know Christ during His mortal ministry, but still Paul was lead by God all the same and the Bible tells vividly later prophets. God lead His people before and now.

I agree.
But what do you mean by "the Bible tells vividly later prophets"....
(you're next to the last sentence).

 

[Jane_Doe22]

I agree.

While the idea is agreed upon, the way the idea is carried out obviously differs between the two of us: myself believing in continuing prophets and revelation, you in the ceasing thereof.

But what do you mean by "the Bible tells vividly later prophets"....
(you're next to the last sentence).

The vividly part was referring to the contents of the Book of Revelation -- hugely vivid.

Aside: thank you for your fantastic posting style here-- I really feel like I'm talking to a great Christian person actually has ears and is interested in respectful two-way dialogue.

 

[WalterandDebbie]

I don't think the names of any sisters are canonical within Scripture.

I think you are correct

 

[101G]

So was I.
:)

The CC is the only church that can trace its roots back to Peter.

Not saying that you're right or wrong, but consider this. The apostle Paul sent a Bishop, and a group of companions with her, to the saints that was in Rome to orginize them into the body the church at Rome.

we have the original letter, here the Book of Romans.

PICJAG.

 

[GodsGrace]

While the idea is agreed upon, the way the idea is carried out obviously differs between the two of us: myself believing in continuing prophets and revelation, you in the ceasing thereof.

The vividly part was referring to the contents of the Book of Revelation -- hugely vivid.

Aside: thank you for your fantastic posting style here-- I really feel like I'm talking to a great Christian person actually has ears and is interested in respectful two-way dialogue.

LOL
Is there another way to speak?
JK
I know what you mean.
It takes TWO to tango!

 

[GodsGrace]

Not saying that you're right or wrong, but consider this. The apostle Paul sent a Bishop, and a group of companions with her, to the saints that was in Rome to orginize them into the body the church at Rome.

we have the original letter, here the Book of Romans.

PICJAG.

Gosh 101.
I'm not sure I know what you mean.
What does the above have to do with the CC being the first church?

 

[101G]

Gosh 101.
I'm not sure I know what you mean.
What does the above have to do with the CC being the first church?

the RCC was not the first organized church.

PICJAG

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Gosh 101.
I'm not sure I know what you mean.
What does the above have to do with the CC being the first church?

the RCC was not the first organized church.

PICJAG

I think we can all agree that--
A) There was some organization in the early church (speaking of when Paul was alive). This degree of organization was very different than what we think of today (us 21st century people can't fantom a communication taking hours to reach a person, let alone months).
B) Time passed, organizational stuff changed.
C) By 1054 there is undoubtably a Roman Catholic Church and various Orthodox Churches.

How diligantly A connects to B then to C people will disagree on. A Catholic person will say very diligently to the Catholic Church. An Orthodox person will point to the Orthodox Church. And a million other possible answers too.

 

[GodsGrace]

the RCC was not the first organized church.

PICJAG

Which one was?

 

[GodsGrace]

I think we can all agree that--
A) There was some organization in the early church (speaking of when Paul was alive). This degree of organization was very different than what we think of today (us 21st century people can't fantom a communication taking hours to reach a person, let alone months).
B) Time passed, organizational stuff changed.
C) By 1054 there is undoubtably a Roman Catholic Church and various Orthodox Churches.

How diligantly A connects to B then to C people will disagree on. A Catholic person will say very diligently to the Catholic Church. An Orthodox person will point to the Orthodox Church. And a million other possible answers too.

When the Orthodox broke away in about 1,000AD...it leaves a question as to which one can be traced back to the beginning. THIS is my only problem..I can't think of any other church that goes all the way back to Peter.

It would seem to me that the ortho splintered from the original church because of disagreement regarding the authority of the Pope. I wouldn't know how to debate this. Just don't know enough about them.

It seems that if there's even a protestant church...like an A of G church I know of in Milan....some came out of that church to create a new one...so wouldn't it be the one that LEAVES that breaks the connection from A to B?

(and they left because of a question regarding Jesus' divinity --)

 

[Jane_Doe22]

When the Orthodox broke away in about 1,000AD...it leaves a question as to which one can be traced back to the beginning. THIS is my only problem..I can't think of any other church that goes all the way back to Peter.

It would seem to me that the ortho splintered from the original church because of disagreement regarding the authority of the Pope. I wouldn't know how to debate this. Just don't know enough about them.

This is probably a word-choice / schematics thing nitpicky thing --
I wouldn't say that it was the Orthodox breaking away from the RCC. Or the RCC breaking away from the Orthodox. More that the previous group split in two, forming both Orthodox and RCC.

It seems that if there's even a protestant church...like an A of G church I know of in Milan....some came out of that church to create a new one...so wouldn't it be the one that LEAVES that breaks the connection from A to B?

(and they left because of a question regarding Jesus' divinity --)

Protestants were a break away from Catholicism. And then Protestants routinely break away from Protestants, forming more and more groups.

Which one was?

What is your personal answer to this question, GG?

 

[101G]

I think we can all agree that--
A) There was some organization in the early church (speaking of when Paul was alive). This degree of organization was very different than what we think of today (us 21st century people can't fantom a communication taking hours to reach a person, let alone months).
B) Time passed, organizational stuff changed.
C) By 1054 there is undoubtably a Roman Catholic Church and various Orthodox Churches.

How diligantly A connects to B then to C people will disagree on. A Catholic person will say very diligently to the Catholic Church. An Orthodox person will point to the Orthodox Church. And a million other possible answers too.

spot on but I'm going to answer GG with something else.

PICJAG.

Which one was?

understand something, the church alway existed since Adam, listen, Acts 7:38 "This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us"
now listen to our Lord's words very carefully, Matthew 16:18 "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it". did you notice what our Lord and saviour said? ... "BUILD", not start his church. the church was his from day ONE in the beginning. it's "HIS" church. and been calling many into it. notice Isaiah 28:16 "Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste". that STONE is Jesus christ. and to Get into his Church one must DIE to enter in. hence the reason for baptism. one cannot enter by flesh and blood but in Spirit, hence one must be "BORN AGAIN". so to be born... again, one must first die, .... NATURALLY, or be changed before or at his comming.

so the church, .... HIS church, his body was already here in the earth relm. and when she fell, or was disobedient, she needed RESTORATION, (Spiritually) from the foundation up. so hence the words of our Saviour, "I will BUILD" my church on a new foundation. and that church is in Spirit, and the very gates of hell cannot prevail aganist it, NOT THE SPIRIT.

so if someone want to speak of the first universal Church, then start at the beginning.

PICJAG.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

spot on but I'm going to answer GG with something else.

PICJAG.

understand something, the church alway exosted since Adam, listen, Acts 7:38 "This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us"
now listen to our Lord's words very carefully, Matthew 16:18 "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it". did you notice what our Lord and saviour said? ... "BUILD", not start his church. the church was his from day ONE in the beginning. it's "HIS" church. and been calling many into it. notice Isaiah 28:16 "Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste". that STONE is Jesus christ. and to Get into his Church one must DIE to enter in. hence the reason for baptism. one cannot enter by flesh and blood but in Spirit, hence one must be "BORN AGAIN". so to be born... again, one must first die, .... NATURALLY, or be changed before or at his comming.

so the church, .... HIS church, his body was already here in the earth relm. and when she fell, or was disobedient, she needed RESTORATION, (Spiritually) from the foundation up. so hence the words of our Saviour, "I will BUILD" my church on a new foundation. and that church is in Spirit, and the very gates of hell cannot prevail aganist it, NOT THE SPIRIT.

so if someone want to speak of the first universal Church, then start at the beginning.

PICJAG.

@101G , weren't you an SDA? (I'm trying to remember, but am super fuzzy there)

 

[101G]

@101G , weren't you an SDA? (I'm trying to remember, but am super fuzzy there)

no, (smile)

PICJAG.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

no, (smile)

PICJAG.

Do you have any institutional affliction (of course being under the Christian umbrella)? Or a your of a lone person (of course being under the Christian umbrella)?

 

[101G]

Do you have any institutional affliction (of course being under the Christian umbrella)? Or a your of a lone person (of course being under the Christian umbrella)?

I'm just what the Lord Jesus, and all who follow him are. "holy", not the denomination who call themselves "holiness". we who belive are called to be "holy", see 1 Peter 1:15 & 16. my affiliation with a denomination is none. my beliefs system is "diverfied Oneness".
so no I'm not alone as a christian. other words, as the bible puts it, "I'm no longer a servant, but a son of God, meaning as the bible states, I'm a free man, and not alone ... (smile).

PICJAG.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

I'm just what the Lord Jesus, and all who follow him are. "holy", not the denomination who call themselves "holiness". we who belive are called to be "holy", see 1 Peter 1:15 & 16. my affiliation with a denomination is none. my beliefs system is "diverfied Oneness".
so no I'm not alone as a christian. other words, as the bible puts it, "I'm no longer a servant, but a son of God, meaning as the bible states, I'm a free man, and not alone ... (smile).

PICJAG.

I just meant 'lone' as in not afflitated with any other group of believers. Of course you're under the Christian umbrella. :)

 

[GodsGrace]

This is probably a word-choice / schematics thing nitpicky thing --
I wouldn't say that it was the Orthodox breaking away from the RCC. Or the RCC breaking away from the Orthodox. More that the previous group split in two, forming both Orthodox and RCC.

Ooooh No!
You just created a third group.
There was no other group....

Protestants were a break away from Catholicism. And then Protestants routinely break away from Protestants, forming more and more groups.

Agreed,,,but I'm not happy about this.
Jesus said we should remain one.
John 17:21
Even with the bible as a guide, we can't seem to agree.

What is your personal answer to this question, GG?

If there's one church,,,,and then a group breaks away,,,,I'd say the original is the one that goes back to the beginning.

I'd have to say the Catholic Church IS the original church.
Why? Because the Bishops of the early church developed into the Pope, and the Ortho don't have a pope (not with that name anyway)..so, I'd have to say the CC.