What is the true church?

[bibleapologist]

Odell,

Also you stated all Churchs that have baptism by imersion are The True Church. I said but it is ok to not agree on the non esentals. Is this true is this what you believe?

That is not at all what I said… The Catholic church (whom I don’t believe is the true Church) does not disregard immersion as a viable means of baptism. In fact in earlier times the Catholic Church practices immersion exclusively.

What I said was that Baptism by immersion was “a distinctive” of a church to be considered a “true church”, but not the only distinctive.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Eden]

Contrary to what you think, the Church does not have authority… only the Apostles had authority (12 of them).

I haven’t seen bibleapologist respond to the reality that there were, in fact, 14 apostles; the additional two known being the result of apostolic succession. This is all from the Word of God.

The Early Christians recorded the existence of apostolic succession:

catholic.com/library/apostolic_succession.asp

(Note that all of the quotes on the link above were written *before *the Canon of the Word of God was set.)

 

[Eden]

What I said was that Baptism by immersion was “a distinctive” of a church to be considered a “true church”, but not the only distinctive.

Can we get down to brass tacks here?

There are four marks of the true Church. The Church is one, the Church is Holy, the Church is catholic and the Church is Apostolic.

catholic.com/library/Pillar.asp

One mark you will not find in the true Church? It’s foundation by John Smyth in 1609 in Amsterdam, as an off-shoot of Anglicanism.

scripturecatholic.com/history.html

 

[Philthy]

Philthy,
I did not ask that question with the intent to place the blame of failed faith on the the follower… but on that which he is following, hence my statement “your walk with Christ was being hindered”.

Of course, but the question ignores the possibility that the person himself may be part of the problem; AND ignores the cloud of witnesses which the Catholic Church has produced bearing fruit and testifying to its goodness. In order to criticize the Church you must abandon all those holy people who have gone before you - it seems a little self absorbed to me.

bibleapologist:

The person in question (as far as my question goes), is assumed to be a sincere seeker and follower of truth.

More sincere than or less sincere than the thousands of saints which preceeded him through the Catholic Church?

bibleapologist:

How does the trinity equate with the Chruch? Are you claiming that the Church is part of the trinity? Or are you claiming that there is no eternal trinity? I know the answer to these questions, I only asked them to show you the rediculous nature of your answer.

You have revealed nothing of the sort. You have simply revealed the impossibility of answering your original question and I am not surprised in the slightest that you balked and whined in the process. You wont be getting an answer to your question from anyone else either. I’ll bring it a little closer to home for you by asking you to give something up other than a person of the Trinity. Care to guess what it might be? If you found that reading the bible caused you to stray from God, would you stop reading the bible? Isnt that so much easier…

bibleapologist:

… the Father and Christ, since they are one cannot contradict each other (we all agree on that).

We do - but for different reasons. I cant say that I would know that as Truth apart from the Church. I might suspect it, but there would be more intelligent people who would take opposing stands from Scripture. I might like to pretend that the bible explicitly reveals the Trinity, but not everyone who reads the bible sees that as truth, do they? Are they all evil? Are they not “sincerely seeking the truth”? Or is it simply not explicit in the bible in the way it should be IF the bible alone were meant to convey that truth?

bibleapologist:

But, you are answering me with the preconceived notion that the Catholic church is one with the trinity; with the same immutability of truth as the trinity. I have one question regarding this thought… Where do you find that in the Bible?

John
www.gideonssword.net

Oh I get it - I’M the problem with all MY preconceived notions which prevent YOU from answering a simple question. YOU are the poor victim…again…all because of that mean Catholic Church and its evil theology.

=bibleapologist]

I have one question regarding this thought…Where do you find that in the Bible??

For the record, you and I dont agree on the Bible yet because you havent told me by what authority apart from the Church as the pillar and foundation of Truth that we can have the Bible. Nor have we come to agreement that the Bible is meant to convey all the truth regarding the Church and that there is a corresponding verse for each truth of Christianity. It says almost nothing about the Church when you come right down to it. For the sake of argument, however, I will return a verse to you that says to me that the Church will be given the charism of infallibility - it is when Christ tells the apostles that they will be led into all truth. You grabbed it to justify your personal interpretations guided by the holy Spirit - making yourself the “you”. I’ll take the “you” in that verse to mean the Church, which at the time was comprised of the Apostles - the people Christ was speaking to when he said “you”. There is another verse which logically requires that the Church be infallible. It is from John 20. Christ breathes on them and says “receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins are retained are retained”. To my mind it is impossible for God to grant such authority without simultaneously granting the charism of infallibility. This is because forgiveness of sin requires God’s perfect justice be met and He cannot simply “accept” the decision if, in fact, it were not perfectly just. Therefore they must be led to make a perfectly just, infallible decision.

 

[Philthy]

Pro 20:1 Wine [is] a mocker, strong drink [is] raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.

John - please be reasonable. Does this say that drinking wine is forbidden in church? It’s not even close. OT quotes need to be pretty specific - God was not shy with the “thou shalt not” back then.

Mar 15:23 And they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh: but he received [it] not.

He didnt drink wine mingled with myrrh while being crucified - what a surprise. Again, does this have anything to do with drinking wine in church?

Luk 1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb.

Ibid

Eph 5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; (a contrast between wine "proverbs 20:1, and submission to the Holy Spirit)

Not one verse will simply come out and say “dont drink wine”? Getting drunk is different than drinking wine.

Deu 32:14 Butter of kine, and milk of sheep, with fat of lambs, and rams of the breed of Bashan, and goats, with the fat of kidneys of wheat; and thou didst drink the pure blood of the grape.
John
www.gideonsword.net

Your rationale is so bizarre. How can you know full well that Christ’s first miracle was to turn water into wine at a wedding feast, know full well that he used the analogy of the vine and vineyard, know full well that at the last supper he drank wine and shared it with his apostles, know full well that he commanded them to do the same in the future and then scrape together this pathetic collection of verses aimed at supporting something that just doesnt make any sense. I dont get it. Does anyone else on this forum get this at all?

 

[Philthy]

Odell,
That is not at all what I said… The Catholic church (whom I don’t believe is the true Church) does not disregard immersion as a viable means of baptism. In fact in earlier times the Catholic Church practices immersion exclusively.

What I said was that Baptism by immersion was “a distinctive” of a church to be considered a “true church”, but not the only distinctive.

John
www.gideonsword.net

Do you really mean to tell us that you believe the act of baptism to be irrelevant (no salvific consequence) but the method to be critical? That just wreaks of man-made tradition to me…
I can’t think of a single verse that speaks of the NECESSITY of full immersion baptism - let alone as a distinctive mark of the true church. Dont get me wrong - there is absolutely nothing wrong with full immersion if you have the means to do it. In the Didache(ad 90) all forms of baptism are discussed - including infant baptism - and although full immersion is recommended if available, there is nothing wrong with partial immersion or “sprinkling” if need be.

 

[Philthy]

Regarding drinking wine:

1Tim 4:1-5
Now the Spirit explicitly says that in the last times some will turn away from the faith by paying attention to deceitful spirits and demonic instructions through the hypocrisy of liars with branded consciences. They forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected when received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the invocation of God in prayer.

• Wine is a food that God created
• He created it to be received
• We are to receive it with thanksgiving
• It is made holy by the invocation of God in prayer

 

[Odell]

Odell,
You misinterpreted my statement, I do not believe in apostolic succession… Apostolic succession is re-laying the foudation of the Apostles.

I really dont get it John you believe that The Church is founded on the apostles. And you believe this. So did the Chruch die with the apostles?

If it did then how can any Church claim to the The Church Jesus founded? The Church being the True Church.

You claim to be the True Church, But how if you didnt get it from the apostles? Did you Just pick up the bible and read it to make up your own Church?

In fact that is very must what your denomination did do.

No, I don’t exclusively mean contraception. I don’t think it is wise to base the entirety of your Christian life on abstinence of ONE aspect of conformity to the world, although contraception is one of those areas that Christians have conformed.

Your right, contraception is a mockery of the sactity of marriage… procreation illustrates the work of the Holy Spirit in the “new birth”, just like the Abrahamic covenant illustrated the same new birth by evangelism… To practice contraception is to squelch the symbolism behind the work of the Holy Spirit.

Im glad we agree on somthing. But you are wrong in celebacy it in no way mocks Marriage.

Odell,

That is not at all what I said… The Catholic church (whom I don’t believe is the true Church) does not disregard immersion as a viable means of baptism. In fact in earlier times the Catholic Church practices immersion exclusively.

 

[Odell]

One other thing give me your best post on why there is no such thing as apostolic succession. I want you to use scripture. And I want you to answer the scripture that has been given to you on apostolic succession from everyone that has posted scripture on this very topic.

If he leaves any scripture out In witch he probly didnt intend to do. It is hard for him to respond to every one of us and every argument. But I would like to see his arguments behind his belife that the apostolic succession is false.

So if he did not answer your question regarding this please ask again.

 

[Magicsilence]

I think John is missing something here.

We do not walk with Christ and just have a Church for the sake of having one.

To walk truly with Christ is to be in His Church, which is his body.

Peace and God Bless.

p.s John, I read the chapter on the Eucharist in the bible, and I felt the Holy Spirit was telling me that Christ was being LITERAL about His Body and Blood. Nothing to do with the Catholic Church.

Therefore, I am right, and therefore you are wrong.

Therefore, you are blind to the truth.

Does that logic seem irrational? If it does, then you need to take a look at your own logic, because that is how you are operating.

 

[bibleapologist]

Philthy,

I like intelligent, well thought out posts like this one!

Of course, but the question ignores the possibility that the person himself may be part of the problem; AND ignores the cloud of witnesses which the Catholic Church has produced bearing fruit and testifying to its goodness. In order to criticize the Church you must abandon all those holy people who have gone before you - it seems a little self absorbed to me.

My question is in reference to a hypothetical situation. I understand that in real life there would be extinuating cicumstances. I qualified my question as hypothetical with an “if” in the beginning.

Originally Posted by bibleapologist
The person in question (as far as my question goes), is assumed to be a sincere seeker and follower of truth.

More sincere than or less sincere than the thousands of saints which preceeded him through the Catholic Church?

Well, I don’t think it matters. That would depend on whether or not those saints were confronted with the same false teaching. Those “thousands of saints” are responsible for acting according to their own consciences.

You wont be getting an answer to your question from anyone else either. I’ll bring it a little closer to home for you by asking you to give something up other than a person of the Trinity. Care to guess what it might be? If you found that reading the bible caused you to stray from God, would you stop reading the bible? Isnt that so much easier…

Sure, I’ll answer that… ABSOLUTELY! And I have. I used to read the NIV, and the NASB until I found that those versions misrepresented doctrines. I also found that it was nearly impossible to memorize scripture while studying more than one version.

Oh I get it - I’M the problem with all MY preconceived notions which prevent YOU from answering a simple question. YOU are the poor victim…again…all because of that mean Catholic Church and its evil theology.

No, your preconceived notions cannot prevent me from answering a question. But the traditions you put faith in have prevented you from answering the crucial question I asked you.

For the sake of argument, however, I will return a verse to you that says to me that the Church will be given the charism of infallibility - it is when Christ tells the apostles that they will be led into all truth.

That verse in John 16 could not have meant the Apostles exclusively. By a closer examination of the text, Jesus was referring to the subject as the Holy Spirit, and that Holy Spirit (when it would be given), would guide them in all truth. Jesus also went so far to say that the Apostles could not bear the fulness of the truth without the Holy Spirit. This is the same Holy Spirit we are all given for the same purpose of revealing truth…

Col 1:9 For this cause we also, since the day we heard [it], do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding;

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Philthy,

Your rationale is so bizarre. How can you know full well that Christ’s first miracle was to turn water into wine at a wedding feast, know full well that he used the analogy of the vine and vineyard, know full well that at the last supper he drank wine and shared it with his apostles, know full well that he commanded them to do the same in the future and then scrape together this pathetic collection of verses aimed at supporting something that just doesnt make any sense. I dont get it. Does anyone else on this forum get this at all?

You are right… Jesus did drink wine, turned water into wine, and used the analogy of the vine and the vinyard, and at the last supper drank wine with the Apostles… But, can you prove that it was new wine, or old wine? Since Jesus was perfectly sinless, His actions would have never been immoral in any way.

If wine were a mocker, why would Jesus partake in that, and act in such a way to condone consuming it? The truth is, the type of wine that Jesus turned into wine was the “pure blood of the grape” (Duet. 32:14). Which was also called wine… as was “old wine” which was the fermented type.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Philthy,

Your rationale is so bizarre. How can you know full well that Christ’s first miracle was to turn water into wine at a wedding feast, know full well that he used the analogy of the vine and vineyard, know full well that at the last supper he drank wine and shared it with his apostles, know full well that he commanded them to do the same in the future and then scrape together this pathetic collection of verses aimed at supporting something that just doesnt make any sense. I dont get it. Does anyone else on this forum get this at all?

You are right… Jesus did drink wine, turned water into wine, and used the analogy of the vine and the vinyard, and at the last supper drank wine with the Apostles… But, can you prove that it was new wine, or old wine? Since Jesus was perfectly sinless, His actions would have never been immoral in any way.

If wine were a mocker, why would Jesus partake in that, and act in such a way to condone consuming it? The truth is, the type of wine that Jesus turned into wine was the “pure blood of the grape” (Duet. 32:14). Which was also called wine… as was “old wine” which was the fermented type.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Philthy,

In the Didache(ad 90) all forms of baptism are discussed - including infant baptism - and although full immersion is recommended if available, there is nothing wrong with partial immersion or “sprinkling” if need be.

That is an understandable teaching coming from an organization that does not understand the symbolism behind baptism.

Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

When I was baptized in water, it was WATER that I was immersed in… This verse says that we are to be baptized into Christ. This alludes to the word baptism being used to symbolize what happens when a person becomes a child of God.

Romans 6:4 continues that same analogy by describing the act of immersion in water, and how it directly illustrates the “new birth”.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Philthy,

Regarding drinking wine: You quoted…

1Tim 4:1-5
Now the Spirit explicitly says that in the last times some will turn away from the faith by paying attention to deceitful spirits and demonic instructions through the hypocrisy of liars with branded consciences. They forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected when received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the invocation of God in prayer.

Wine is a food that God created
He created it to be received
We are to receive it with thanksgiving
It is made holy by the invocation of God in prayer

This is precisely why I have chosen not to read certain modern versions of the bible, like the New American Bible. The King James Version quotes the verse this way…

1 Tim 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. 4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: 5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Your version gives a general allusion to “anything” that God has created… this allows for alcoholic beverages… but it also allows for Marijuana, peyote, mushrooms (as far as mind altering natural substances). And it also allows liberty in consuming Poison Hemlock, Foxglove, Henbane, etc. (which are deadly natural substances).

I believe a more accurate interpretation of Paul’s letter to Timothy can be found in the King James Bible. Paul only refers to meat, as something that will be abstained from in the “latter times”. The only group of people that I know of in this day, that [commands] to abstain from meat AND forbids to marry… is the Catholic Church.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Magic silence,

p.s John, I read the chapter on the Eucharist in the bible, and I felt the Holy Spirit was telling me that Christ was being LITERAL about His Body and Blood. Nothing to do with the Catholic Church.

Therefore, I am right, and therefore you are wrong.

Therefore, you are blind to the truth.

Does that logic seem irrational? If it does, then you need to take a look at your own logic, because that is how you are operating.

I appreciate your ability to reason. You make a very good point. But, I’m sorry, the type of logic you are describing is not the way I am operating.

You are the first one on this thread who has said that; what they accept as truth has originated as revelation from God through the Holy Spirit… everyone else has claimed the authority of the Church, and it’s traditions.

If you truly are as sensitive to the leading of the Holy Spirit as you claim you are, I would like to ask you to read the article I wrote on that particular passage of scripture… then return to this thread and rebut that article without any preconceived notions from the Catholic Church.

Here is the article… “The Bread of Life, did Jesus teach transubstantiation”

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Eden,

I haven’t seen bibleapologist respond to the reality that there were, in fact, 14 apostles; the additional two known being the result of apostolic succession. This is all from the Word of God.

I have responde to that “claim” by an article I published here.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Odell]

Philthy,
Sure, I’ll answer that… ABSOLUTELY! And I have. I used to read the NIV, and the NASB until I found that those versions misrepresented doctrines. I also found that it was nearly impossible to memorize scripture while studying more than one version.

ABSOLUTELY and I Have. I used to be baptist until I was leed by the holy spirit into the Catholic Church. I dont think the same Holy Spirit is going to leed me back out

that verse in John 16 could not have meant the Apostles exclusively. By a closer examination of the text, Jesus was referring to the subject as the Holy Spirit, and that Holy Spirit (when it would be given), would guide them in all truth. Jesus also went so far to say that the Apostles could not bear the fulness of the truth without the Holy Spirit. This is the same Holy Spirit we are all given for the same purpose of revealing truth…

let me get this right and let me know if this is wrong. you can just pick up the bible and the Holy Spirit will help you decern the truth? Thats not we believe we believe that you can come to some truth. But you need the help of succession.

Philthy,

Your version gives a general allusion to “anything” that God has created… this allows for alcoholic beverages… but it also allows for Marijuana, peyote, mushrooms (as far as mind altering natural substances). And it also allows liberty in consuming Poison Hemlock, Foxglove, Henbane, etc. (which are deadly natural substances).

Its funny I new you would say somthing along these lines. first of all I cant remember who it was but they said somewhere in the bible that it says to have wine for acasunal illness. I dont think grape juice will help your illness. The bible would not tell us to do something that would be a sin John.

regarding drugs. God created everything. even cocane are catholics sugesting that since God created everything and it is good than cocane is good. Yes we are if it is used withen the perameters that God created it for. Do you know cocane has been used in delegate eye surgery. I dont think that would be abusing what God created. Do you? Now lets look at alcohol can we abuse it? absolutly not that is why the bible says we can not get drunk. But no where does it say you cant drink it John.

I believe a more accurate interpretation of Paul’s letter to Timothy can be found in the King James Bible. Paul only refers to meat, as something that will be abstained from in the “latter times”. The only group of people that I know of in this day, that [commands] to abstain from meat AND forbids to marry… is the Catholic Church.

Do you even read what people post you. The Church does not forbid marriage. IM A MARRIED CATHOLIC go figure. Jesus says some will renounce marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The ONLY GROUP I KNOW IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH who renounces marriage for heaven.

And we dont make any body abstain from meat would you like me to go back to the whole lets follow the RULES post. We simply ask for those to abstain from meat on fridays. In a way to honor that that is the day our Lord died. So I ask what is wrong with that I do it every Friday. And there is not a friday that goes by that I dont forget this is the day he died for me. I dont know about you but it is lot easer for friday just to become another day of the week Im pretty sure you forget the imposrtance of that day. But I dont John Its kind of hard too when people mock you at work for honoring Jesus death.

I also asked you to give your very best post agains apostolic succession where is it?

I also want an answer to this which I posted earler.

I really dont get it John you believe that The Church is founded on the apostles. And you do believe this. So did the Chruch die with the apostles?

If it did then how can any Church claim to the The Church Jesus founded? The Church being the True Church.

You claim to be the True Church, But how if you didnt get it from the apostles? Did you Just pick up the bible and read it to make up your own Church?

 

[bibleapologist]

Odell,

let me get this right and let me know if this is wrong. you can just pick up the bible and the Holy Spirit will help you decern the truth? Thats not we believe we believe that you can come to some truth. But you need the help of succession.

That’s exactly what I’m saying… and that is what Magicsilence said also… I think you might be missing something Odell. Jesus statement in John 16 exlpicitly implicates the Holy Spirit as the one who is to reveal truth, by ignoring that truth you only give yourself the option of trusting “flesh and blood” to reveal things to you.

regarding drugs. God created everything. even cocane are catholics sugesting that since God created everything and it is good than cocane is good. Yes we are if it is used withen the perameters that God created it for.

1 Timothy 4:1-4 is only referring to things to be eaten, and then only specifically referring to animals (meats). Verse 4 is the one that tells us that specifically. Are you under the impression that cocaine is an animal, or that alcohol is an animal? Or are you claiming that the grape is an animal?

Do you even read what people post you. The Church does not forbid marriage. IM A MARRIED CATHOLIC go figure. Jesus says some will renounce marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The ONLY GROUP I KNOW IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH who renounces marriage for heaven.

The Catholic Church does forbid marriage for priests, bishops, popes, that is not forbidding marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Those ministers actually cannot competently do the work of God without a helpmeet. Paul also describes the qualifications for a bishop… 1 Timothy 3:2 says a Bishop should be the husband of one wife… not 0 wives.

I really dont get it John you believe that The Church is founded on the apostles. And you do believe this. So did the Chruch die with the apostles?

That question has no foundation in truth at all. I am working on an article that will give you all the information you asked for… and then some. I will send you a link to it, or post it to this thread when I am done (it will be much too large for posting here).

You claim to be the True Church, But how if you didnt get it from the apostles? Did you Just pick up the bible and read it to make up your own Church?

I don’t personally claim to be the only true church, I only claim to be part of the true church, which is a spiritual kingdom with Christ as it’s head… which is joined together by the Holy Spirit now, but will not be physically joined together until we get to heaven. You can read my description of this here.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[MrS]

The Catholic Church does forbid marriage for priests, bishops, popes, that is not forbidding marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Those ministers actually cannot competently do the work of God without a helpmeet. Paul also describes the qualifications for a bishop… 1 Timothy 3:2 says a Bishop should be the husband of one wife… not 0 wives.

*Actually, thanks to the Church, you should understand this as being an acknowledgement that some of the early church leaders were already married… and if so they were given their duties with an understanding that they would not remarry… *

the Church has always tried to see that suitable people are chosen as the ministers (key words: suitable and chosen)
A person needs qualifications in the form of human qualities and ability.

The “husband of one wife” is also a requirement of “elders” and “deacons”. It does not mean that the person is under an obligation to marry, but he must not have married more than once. The condition is meant to ensure that one be married only once because in the culture of THAT time, second marriages were looked at with mistrust among both Gentiles and Jews.

Celibacy is appropriate to the priesthood because by perserving virginity for the sake of the Kingdom, priests are more readily able to cling to Christ with an undivided heart. They are less encumbered

By the way, a condition of a Bishop is also "he must not be a recent convert. It was unwise then and unwise now to give responsibility to the young and recent converts.

Those ministers actually cannot competently do the work of God without a helpmeet

is just a silly statement…their helpmate is the Bride of Christ, and Christ Himself.

That question has no foundation in truth at all. I am working on an article that will give you all the information you asked for… and then some. I will send you a link to it, or post it to this thread when I am done (it will be much too large for posting here).

I don’t personally claim to be the only true church, I only claim to be part of the true church, which is a spiritual kingdom with Christ as it’s head… which is joined together by the Holy Spirit now, but will not be physically joined together until we get to heaven. You can read my description of this here.

John
www.gideonsword.net

Sorry John, we/I know you mean well… but the Promise that the Holy Spirit would lead into all Truth was made to the Apostles and hence their successors. You just don’t have the authority to make the scriptures or the Teachings of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church say what you want them to say.

This discussion could be interesting… posters are referring to various understandings of 1Timothy… yet I don’t think the question has been asked…

If you are a member of the “true” church… where are your priests, your deacons, and your bishops?

.