One Church or one church, means what, who is right?

Berean777 said:

It doesn't matter how you think of it, rather it is all about what Jesus thought about it.....that is......

46Jesus replied, “And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.

47“Woe to you, because you build tombs for the prophets, and it was your ancestors who killed them. 48So you testify that you approve of what your ancestors did; they killed the prophets, and you build their tombs. 49Because of this, God in his wisdom said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and others they will persecute.’ 50Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, 51from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all.

52“Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering.”

53When Jesus went outside, the Pharisees and the teachers of the law began to oppose him fiercely and to besiege him with questions, 54waiting to catch him in something he might say.

This tells us what Jesus thought of the establishment and he summed it up in spades.

His charges against it was.......

It was an obstacle to individual's establishing a relationship with God because it placed burdens/conditions

It was corrupt from its beginnings and ended in the corrupt state

It was was finally dispatched by Jesus if you know what I mean and was told what wouldn't happen to it, or 70AD

God's thoughts is what I follow and not human reasonings to what God should or should not have done, to this harlot of Babylon .

Click to expand...

What you say Jesus thought of the ESTABLISHMENT MADE BY GOD doesn't really matter, because God established that establishment, not man. He was speaking of a very specific group of people, not the whole establishment. Do you happen to have a place where God said "have no hierarchy because hierarchy is evil"? No? Then He didn't believe it. Don't put words in Christ's mouth.

Berean777 said:

Boy your way off there.

Click to expand...

No. I'm spot on. This is history. Perception doesn't change it. You can perceive it however you want, but that doesn't make your perception anything other than fiction.

sculleywr said:

"Do not forsake the assembling together of the brethren as some have done" isn't an exhortation. It is a command.

And the Church Paul went to had and venerated Icons. We know this because we dug up their churches, which were covered in Icons and mosaics. So did the Jewish synagogues. Here's one of them:


That's a genuine Apostolic Era synagogue. So when you say he wouldn't go to a church that had Icons, I don't know what you're talking about. Luke was an Iconographer, we have his Icons of the Theotokos and Christ. Four of them still exist. Two are in India, taken there by Thomas. Two are in Greece on Mt. Athos. Here's an Icon that was copied from that Icon of Luke's:

So when you say they wouldn't have Icons, you must be speaking of people from a different universe, because the Apostles in this universe certainly had Icons.

Click to expand...

I don't forsake the assembly, I come online. You don't go to church yourself, so you condemn yourself. Also, I seriously doubt the apostles kissed icons and prayed to anyone other than God. They may have decorated walls, but surely didn't kiss them.

W2L said:

I don't forsake the assembly, I come online. You don't go to church yourself, so you condemn yourself. Also, I seriously doubt the apostles kissed icons and prayed to anyone other than God.

Click to expand...

Yes you do, because you can't assemble online. And since YOU are the only one that thinks that praying is any different than making a request, which they always have done to each other, it's your opinion versus the historical reality.

Online is not an assembly. The gathering is physical. Without physical gathering, you are forsaking the assembly. Period. End of discussion. There was no internet in the time of the Apostles. So the only way you can obey their command is by obeying it the way they intended, not the way that makes it easiest and most convenient. Christianity isn't convenient. The way is NARROW that leads to salvation. It isn't wide. It isn't easy. It isn't convenient. The easy path leads to damnation.

sculleywr said:

No. I'm spot on. This is history. Perception doesn't change it. You can perceive it however you want, but that doesn't make your perception anything other than fiction.

Click to expand...

You're a trouble maker who revels in contention. Your custom title even boasts about it

sculleywr said:

because you can't assemble online.

Click to expand...

Yes I can. I can do whatever my faith allows. You cant maybe, but I can.

W2L said:

Yes I can. I can do whatever my faith allows. You cant maybe, but I can.

Click to expand...

No you can't. That isn't assembling. There is no gathering. There is no Communion. Your church isn't a church cause it can't give you what the Church was designed to give: Communion, Baptism, Chrismation. You disobey God. Don't like it? Change yourself because God isn't changing the Church to match your personal preferences. It will always be a physical gathering. Always has been, always will be.

W2L said:

You're a trouble maker who revels in contention. Your custom title even boasts about it

Click to expand...

Christ was so contentious he was crucified for being contentious. He even turned the tables over in the temple, running around the Temple with a whip!

So thank you for telling me that I follow in the example set by the Apostles and Christ in being contentious. It was their example.

sculleywr said:

Christ was so contentious he was crucified for being contentious. He even turned the tables over in the temple, running around the Temple with a whip!

So thank you for telling me that I follow in the example set by the Apostles and Christ in being contentious. It was their example.

Click to expand...

He rebuked people like you, who judged others for things they didn't do themselves. That's you. You want everyone to join your church yet you wont join theirs, and you don't even go to church yourself yet you hound me to go.

W2L said:

He rebuked people like you, who judged others for things they didn't do themselves. That's you. You want everyone to join your church yet you wont join theirs, and you don't even go to church yourself yet you hound me to go.

Click to expand...

He judged them for disobeying God's command for their own manmade traditions. I'm judging you for something that I attempted to do to the best of my ability. I attend as often as I am able. I don't CHOOSE to be out of Church. I do have membership in a Church and take part as oft as able. So quit playing the ad hominem tu quoque, because it's a completely different situation. Christ judged the Pharisees for replacing the command of God with their own tradition. The command of God is to gather, physically, with the Church. Your tradition is to forsake that gathering.

So I ask you the same question Christ asked the Pharisees: "Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?"

sculleywr said:

He judged them for disobeying God's command for their own manmade traditions. I'm judging you for something that I attempted to do to the best of my ability. I attend as often as I am able. I don't CHOOSE to be out of Church. I do have membership in a Church and take part as oft as able. So quit playing the ad hominem tu quoque, because it's a completely different situation. Christ judged the Pharisees for replacing the command of God with their own tradition. The command of God is to gather, physically, with the Church. Your tradition is to forsake that gathering.

So I ask you the same question Christ asked the Pharisees: "Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?"

Click to expand...

As I said, I come here for fellowship. I sure don't feel commanded to join your church, that's for sure. Only a fool prefers conflict over love and peace

Christ teaches peace not contention. He spoke spiritually in order that his followers would speak in a way that his enemies couldn't understand. Christ didnt look for contention, but it came to him via the blind guides who loved contention instead of peace.

Only a fool would argue and think it will make a person want to join their church.

W2L said:

As I said, I come here for fellowship. I sure don't feel commanded to join your church, that's for sure. Only a fool prefers conflict over love and peace

Click to expand...

This is not fellowship. It isn't the Church. Only a fool prefers peace over Truth and obedience. By your estimation, the Apostles and Christ were fools, because they were constantly in conflict, constantly. Here's the descriptions of a fool from Proverbs:

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered.

Doing wrong is like a joke to a fool, but wisdom is pleasure to a man of understanding.

Folly is a joy to him who lacks sense, but a man of understanding walks straight ahead.


Look at these things. You trust in your own mind. You despise instruction because you, yourself, say you need no instruction. You disobey God's command. In point of fact, you find joy in that sin.

W2L said:

Christ teaches peace not contention. He spoke spiritually in order that his followers would speak in a way that his enemies couldn't understand. Christ didnt look for contention, but it came to him via the blind guides who loved contention instead of peace.

Only a fool would argue and think it will make a person want to join their church.

Click to expand...

He was contentious as can be. Peace for the sake of peace is not peace, but folly. Think of this, what would have happened if the people of France had not resisted the Nazis when the Nazis came into France. What if they had said that contention was worse than freedom from the Nazi army? Or maybe if the Russians had done that when the Nazi army began Operation Barbarossa? What if the British had said they weren't going to fight the Luftwaffe when the Germans bombed London?

Refusing contention doesn't always lead to peace. Contention leads to peace when the Truth wins out over the lie. Scripture says we are in a BATTLE, not a peaceful time. We must do battle with sin, with heresy, and with Satan himself.

Proverbs 20:3 It is to one’s honor to avoid strife,
but every fool is quick to quarrel.

W2L said:

Proverbs 20:3 It is to one’s honor to avoid strife,
but every fool is quick to quarrel.

Click to expand...

Avoiding strife to hold to a lie and disobedience isn't wise, though. So when strife leads to obedience, then it is good. Think of this, when you raise a child, you punish the child to correct his ways. That is visiting strife upon the disobedient child to lead him to obedience. Whether it is physical spanking as I was raised, or punishments like grounding or other punishments, they are still strife. Strife is not always bad. IT is when a person seeks strife for strife's sake that it is foolishness. Strive for the Truth. It is a battle we are in. Satan longs to lead people into what you are doing. It is easy for him to attack you when you are all alone. You make yourself an easy target. This is Why Paul commands gathering:

Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.

You are a sheep on your own. A sheep alone is easy pickings for a lion.

sculleywr said:

Avoiding strife to hold to a lie and disobedience isn't wise, though. So when strife leads to obedience, then it is good. Think of this, when you raise a child, you punish the child to correct his ways. That is visiting strife upon the disobedient child to lead him to obedience. Whether it is physical spanking as I was raised, or punishments like grounding or other punishments, they are still strife. Strife is not always bad. IT is when a person seeks strife for strife's sake that it is foolishness. Strive for the Truth. It is a battle we are in. Satan longs to lead people into what you are doing. It is easy for him to attack you when you are all alone. You make yourself an easy target. This is Why Paul commands gathering:

Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.

You are a sheep on your own. A sheep alone is easy pickings for a lion.

Click to expand...

You don't understand the nature of the spirit. I abide in Christ daily through the spirit, that spirit doesn't need physical contact either. Surely anyone who follows the spirit would desire physical fellowship, not because its exhorted but because of love. I feel love and joy and it makes me desire it more and more. However, I don't have that luxury. I believe god uses people like me to open your blinded spiritual eyes. You see only with your natural eyes and that's really sad because you miss so much. You quarrel for no good reason as well. because you argue for EO at the expense of other Churches, and you spread or share no love, no joy, but just needless contention stemming from an immature understanding of faith.

To contend for the faith is to contend for love. I do that, but you don't hear it.

sculleywr said:

The Pharisees weren't the Church hierarchy, though. They were only a single sect out of six sects of Jews that were in the Jewish Church. The Sanhedrin were also only part of the hierarchy, too. There is no time where Christ condemns the HIERARCHY. He condemns individual members and groups of members. But He doesn't condemn the whole hierarchy. To be frank, the Pharisees weren't even part of the hierarchy, since they weren't actually priests of the Jewish hierarchy. So you completely failed to even come close to properly understanding this Scripture.

Christ never condemned the hierarchy, because that would be calling God a sinner, and Christ never did that.

Click to expand...

You can't be serious right!

Let me expound it for you in simple laymans terms......

47Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them. 48Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers: for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres. 49Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute: 50That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; 51From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple:

Jesus is talking about the church fathers, the fathers who claimed to have the Abrahamic faith. After all Zechariah was slaughtered at the altar and in the temple by the blessings of the church fathers.

Not only did Jesus attack the church establishment, but he condemned the church fathers from the church's foundational beginnings and further more he tells the Chief Patrairch where he can go, to hell that is......

62Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” 63But Jesus remained silent.

The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.”

64“You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

65Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. 66What do you think?”

“He is worthy of death,” they answered.

67Then they spit in his face and struck him with their fists. Others slapped him 68and said, “Prophesy to us, Messiah. Who hit you?”

Do you know what Jesus meant when he said.....

But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

Jesus is telling the patriarch of the Jewish church, that he is going to see in the not too distant future the Son of Man sitting in a position of ultimate power and is coming as the Mighty One to judge those who rejected him, this would include the Patrairch standing before him. So in other words the Patrairch is told that he is going to hell for what he is about to do.

What were you saying?

@sculleywr said the following......

Christ never condemned the hierarchy, because that would be calling God a sinner, and Christ never did that

sculleywr said:

What you say Jesus thought of the ESTABLISHMENT MADE BY GOD doesn't really matter, because God established that establishment, not man. He was speaking of a very specific group of people, not the whole establishment. Do you happen to have a place where God said "have no hierarchy because hierarchy is evil"? No? Then He didn't believe it. Don't put words in Christ's mouth.

Click to expand...

It does very much matter what Jesus thinks friend, because contrary what you say, when Jesus speaks, it is the Father speaking through his Living Word.

Jesus charged the fathers of the church establishment from its very foundational beginnings until Zechariah, as murderers.

Remember that the old covenant with the church fathers was a conditional one and Jesus is letting them know that this institution is a miserable failure from its beginnings.

Now this statement could also apply to the conditional new covenant that he has made with many and it would be a covenant that God made with each and every individual, rather than an institution. There is a big difference in how the new covenant applies, for it is not institutionally based like the old covenant was, that is why it is written.......

Study the versus below and understand that the old covenant was institutionally focussed on a group of people called the Israelites. God says that the old covenant was conditional and that the house of Israel, that is the church did not remain faithful to his covenant. The new covenant is not made with a church institution, rather it is made with individuals and that is why it is written that God will see to it that he will write his laws in their individual hearts and that no one individual will tell his neigbour to know God, for all will know him from the least to the greatest.

9It will not be like the covenant

I made with their ancestors

when I took them by the hand

to lead them out of Egypt,

because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,

and I turned away from them,

declares the Lord.

10This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel

after that time, declares the Lord.

I will put my laws in their minds

and write them on their hearts.

I will be their God,

and they will be my people.

11No longer will they teach their neighbor,

or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’

because they will all know me,

from the least of them to the greatest.

The new covenant doesn't apply to a religious institution as a whole, but rather is individually entered and is also conditionally based, dependant on the individual establishing a real and tangible one to one relationship with the Son of God.