That would be the church

I will go with what Paul wrote. He was clear.

Oldbear83 said:

---

I will go with what Paul wrote. He was clear.

---

Refresh me on what we are talkjng about here.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I will go with what Paul wrote. He was clear.

---

Refresh me on what we are talkjng about here.

---

There were a number of Covenants offered by God, the one we have for our hope as Gentiles, is the Covenant between God and Abraham. Our Catholic friend seems to have missed that, even though Paul was clear in Romans about this..

Question: Did you take the time to read this first post?

Church, for the first 1054 years of Christianity.

A HISTORY OF INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC

"Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set."
Proverbs 22:8

I truly love the amazing amount of discussion in this forum on this topic. Many places have no interest.

Adding works to grace, nullifies grace

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Adding works to grace, nullifies grace

---

I think you might want to clarify that statement.

Someone who has faith will certainly want to do good works, and in that case the work does not nullify God's grace to him.

It is the man who thinks he has earned grace, who will find it eludes him.

Quote:

---

Someone who has faith will certainly want to do good works, and in that case the work does not nullify God's grace to him.

It is the man who thinks he has earned grace, who will find it eludes him.

---

Precisely this. It is the trap the rich young ruler fell into.

Open up your Bible to Judges 18:30. Whose grandson does your Bible say Jonathan, the Son of Gershom is? And why does this seemingly random verse about ancient history matter?

We consider the Bible to be the Word of God, and such to be without error. At least it should be, right? But there are two different kinds of English language Bibles.

The oldest and best Biblical text identifies this Jonathan as the grandson of Moses. This is the Septuagint, the OT of the church since the beginning. It is the OT text cited by the apostles and Jesus himself.

However in the 7th-10th centuries AD a group of Jewish scribes known as the Masorites complied what is called the Masoretic text. This is the definitive OT of rabbinic Judaism. One thing that all Masorites had in common was that they rejected Christ's claim to be messiah. Post reformation rationalists decided to reject the Septuagint and use the Masoretic text as the basis for English OTs.

But what who does this text (and as a result some English Bibles that use it) say Jonathan's grandfather is? Manasseh! Why? "at a later time a scribe decided to change the name to Menashe by inserting the letter "nun." His reason for doing so was to spare our greatest prophet the embarrassment and humiliation of a grandson who was an idolater"

Aside from the issue of editing the Word of God for personal reasons, this creates a "time shift" effect, changing the timing of the migration of the time of Dan and Jonathan's age.

In fact, if you read the chronology of the patriarchs in Genesis, Masoretic editors have introduced many such time shifts into the text in order to make the world seem younger and thereby displace the coming of the Messiah into the future to a time beyond Jesus earthly ministry.

You can go here and compare which bibles maintained the error of the Masorites in this verse and which sought to correct it by referencing the more accurate Septuagint.

https://biblehub.com/judges/18-30.htm

Now this is not a wholesale endorsement of any of those translations, because there are other things you need to watch out for like gender neutral language and other woke editorial choices. Also just because a translation seems to have corrected that editorial choice by someone who rejects Christ in Judges 18:30 doesn't mean that it has been fixed in Genesis.

Just use the Septuagint, the Bible of the Church of the First Millenium to avoid these problems.

Please take the time to read this first post if you haven't yet

Oldbear83 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Adding works to grace, nullifies grace

---

I think you might want to clarify that statement.

Someone who has faith will certainly want to do good works, and in that case the work does not nullify God's grace to him.

It is the man who thinks he has earned grace, who will find it eludes him.

---

I mean that IF you are trusting the works to Save you rather than or in addition to Christ's finshed work on the Cross, the Bible says:

Galatians 5:2-4 KJV
[2] Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. [3] For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. [4] Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

This passage is referring to circumcision, but it is really speaking of adding works for grace for Salvation.

While Galatians 5 is tangentially about works salvation, it is specifically about Judaizing, that is attempting to practice a religion that was an admixture of the Old Covenant made obsolete (Heb 8:13) and the New that replaced it. This problem still exists today among the "I'm a follower of Yeshua" crowd.

Realitybites said:

---

While Galatians 5 is tangentially about works salvation, it is specifically about Judaizing, that is attempting to practice a religion that was an admixture of the Old Covenant made obsolete (Heb 8:13) and the New that replaced it. This problem still exists today among the "I'm a follower of Yeshua" crowd.

---

The Law is about coming to God through works and faith. Today Under grace, we come to God through our faith in Him.. To add any works to grace, nullifies grace..

If you add any work, it is no more grace. This includes Baptism, Church Membership or attendance, Communion, Sacraments, ect.

Romans 11:6 KJV
[6] And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

True, but in that verse Paul is directly addressing a very specific set of works. As Christianity grew and spread bringing both former practitioners of Judaism and former practitioners of Pagan religions into the New Covenant, those who rejected Christ were fully aware of what this meant for their obsolete covenant…particularly after the temple without which it could not be practiced was destroyed.

Realitybites said:

---

True, but in that verse Paul is directly addressing a very specific set of works. As Christianity grew and spread bringing both former practitioners of Judaism and former practitioners of Pagan religions into the New Covenant, those who rejected Christ were fully aware of what this meant for their obsolete covenant…particularly after the temple without which it could not be practiced was destroyed.

---

Paul is addressing any and all.works.

Grace is when God.does something for you, that you can't so for yourself. We access God's grace by our Faith.

Romans 5:1-2 KJV
[1] Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: [2] by whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

Please take the time to read this first post if you haven't yet

Many peoples problem is not that they dont know, it's that they don't know that they don't know and therefore they act like they do know

Realitybites said:

---

While Galatians 5 is tangentially about works salvation, it is specifically about Judaizing, that is attempting to practice a religion that was an admixture of the Old Covenant made obsolete (Heb 8:13) and the New that replaced it. This problem still exists today among the "I'm a follower of Yeshua" crowd.

---

The Old Covenant was not made obsolete by Christ, He fulfilled it. He said so Himself.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

While Galatians 5 is tangentially about works salvation, it is specifically about Judaizing, that is attempting to practice a religion that was an admixture of the Old Covenant made obsolete (Heb 8:13) and the New that replaced it. This problem still exists today among the "I'm a follower of Yeshua" crowd.

---

The Law is about coming to God through works and faith. Today Under grace, we come to God through our faith in Him.. To add any works to grace, nullifies grace..

If you add any work, it is no more grace. This includes Baptism, Church Membership or attendance, Communion, Sacraments, ect.

Romans 11:6 KJV
[6] And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

---

Where does the admonishes of James 2 about works fit in?

18 But someone will say, "You have faith, and I have works." Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believeand tremble!

Oldbear83 said:

---

I see some are still confusing the Roman Catholic Church for Christ's Catholic Church.

---

Please help me better understand this statement. I can't figure out what it means.

I've been of the R&P board for a minute. Just glancing causally at some of the posts and this one caught my attention.

TIA!

I cannot speak for Oldbear but the word "Catholic" means universal. My take is that it refers to Christ's church which is all Christian's everywhere regardless of denomination. Do this means Catholics, Baptist's, Methodists, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic christians, etc.

The labels we use are man made, not God's.

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I see some are still confusing the Roman Catholic Church for Christ's Catholic Church.

---

Please help me better understand this statement. I can't figure out what it means.

I've been of the R&P board for a minute. Just glancing causally at some of the posts and this one caught my attention.

TIA!

---

Maybe it questions the apparent exclusion from the kingdom of God (as a consequence of not having been born again) of all people whose faith is Eastern Orthodox, for example?

historian said:

---

I cannot speak for Oldbear but the word "Catholic" means universal. My take is that it refers to Christ's church which is all Christian's everywhere regardless of denomination. Do this means Catholics, Baptist's, Methodists, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic christians, etc.

The labels we use are man made, not God's.

---

Well, I guess this would be where Oldbear and I differ in opinion. Christ only established one Church - the Catholic Church. All the other denominations, however well intentioned, split from it.

I don't' believe he sees it that way, despite historical proof.

canoso said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I see some are still confusing the Roman Catholic Church for Christ's Catholic Church.

---

Please help me better understand this statement. I can't figure out what it means.

I've been of the R&P board for a minute. Just glancing causally at some of the posts and this one caught my attention.

TIA!

---

Maybe it questions the apparent exclusion from the kingdom of God (as a consequence of not having been born again) of all people whose faith is Eastern Orthodox, for example?

---

As I understand it, the Eastern Orthodox (as well as Catholics) have been born again - the Bible way - John 3:5.

I may be missing your point. I do apologize, if that is the case.

Jesus Christ did not create what we call the Catholic Church. He never called for a hierarchical structure with anyone but Himself as the head and never said anything about Rome as the HQ of the church. Structurally, all the churches in this'd first years were local in Jerusalem, Athens, Corinth, Ephesus, Rome, etc.

The Catholic Church organization that we know did not exist in the first 2-3 centuries after Christ. Christ spoke of the Christian church, His church, which is all believers. That's still true today and the radical guy in the fancy clothes living in the Vatican has nothing to do with most of them today.

historian said:

---

Jesus Christ did not create what we call the Catholic Church. He never called for a hierarchical structure with anyone but Himself as the head and never said anything about Rome as the HQ of the church. Structurally, all the churches in this'd first years were local in Jerusalem, Athens, Corinth, Ephesus, Rome, etc.

The Catholic Church organization that we know did not exist in the first 2-3 centuries after Christ. Christ spoke of the Christian church, His church, which is all believers. That's still true today and the radical guy in the fancy clothes living in the Vatican has nothing to do with most of them today.

---

I'll bite. Who was the first pope of the Catholic Church and when was he appointed/elected?

Coke Bear said:

---

canoso said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I see some are still confusing the Roman Catholic Church for Christ's Catholic Church.

---

Please help me better understand this statement. I can't figure out what it means.

I've been of the R&P board for a minute. Just glancing causally at some of the posts and this one caught my attention.

TIA!

---

Maybe it questions the apparent exclusion from the kingdom of God (as a consequence of not having been born again) of all people whose faith is Eastern Orthodox, for example?

---

As I understand it, the Eastern Orthodox (as well as Catholics) have been born again - the Bible way - John 3:5.

I may be missing your point. I do apologize, if that is the case.

---

It isn't my point, which may be why you're missing it. God's point is and always has been that religion as such, that is to say all religion, whatever religion, is the primordial hindrance to a personal relationship with God through His Son.

canoso said:

---

It isn't my point, which may be why you're missing it. God's point is and always has been that religion as such, that is to say all religion, whatever religion, is the primordial hindrance to a personal relationship with God through His Son.

---

I think I understand your point, but I want to ensure that I DONT make a strawman out of it ...

Are you saying that religion hinders our personal relationship with Jesus?

Coke Bear said:

---

historian said:

---

Jesus Christ did not create what we call the Catholic Church. He never called for a hierarchical structure with anyone but Himself as the head and never said anything about Rome as the HQ of the church. Structurally, all the churches in this'd first years were local in Jerusalem, Athens, Corinth, Ephesus, Rome, etc.

The Catholic Church organization that we know did not exist in the first 2-3 centuries after Christ. Christ spoke of the Christian church, His church, which is all believers. That's still true today and the radical guy in the fancy clothes living in the Vatican has nothing to do with most of them today.

---

I'll bite. Who was the first pope of the Catholic Church and when was he appointed/elected?

---

A false contention, as Christ alone leads the Church.

There are countless examples of proud people who thought themselves worthy to be some kind of mini-Christ.

Their fates are horrific.

Quote:

---

Are you saying that religion hinders our personal relationship with Jesus?

---

Can someone point me to a specific Bible verse that says "to be saved, you must have a personal relationship with Jesus?"

This is a website that claims to list them.

https://www.openbible.info/topics/having_a_personal_relationship_with_christ

And I don't see one that says this is what is required.

Perhaps this is part of our problem, a softheaded remant of the hippie Jesus movement. It's not religion, it's a relationship!

2 Timothy 2:3-4 - Endure hardship as a good soldier of Christ Jesus, avoiding distractions from civilian affairs.

Philippians 2:25 - Paul refers to Epaphroditus as a fellow soldier in the work of Christ.

Hebrews 11:34 - Some conquered kingdoms and gained what was promised, showing faith like soldiers in battle.

How many enlisted soldiers have a "personal relationship" with their general? They listen to him, obey him, carry out his orders.

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

Are you saying that religion hinders our personal relationship with Jesus?

---

Can someone point me to a specific Bible verse that says "to be saved, you must have a personal relationship with Jesus?"

---

I do not support the view of a "personal relationship" with Jesus where Jesus is your "buddy" who just accepts you for who you are. But what is meant by a "personal relationship" with Jesus being required for salvation, is simply that your salvation comes by way of a personal, one-to-one interaction with Jesus directly, where you come to faith and trust in Jesus in your heart, and Jesus knows you and counts you as one of his, and he enters your life by way of his Spirit. Salvation happens at this kind of personal level - NOT at the corporate level by way of a church organization making it happen through certain rites and rituals and other steps that only they can dispense, which is what Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy believes. Salvation is between you and God/Jesus, and no one else. No bishop, priest, sacraments, Mary, or the saints is needed as an in-between. A man stranded on a deserted island who comes to true faith and trust in Jesus, who never gets water baptized, who never confesses to priests, and who never takes part in the Eucharist.... is saved and belongs to Jesus' church - his body of believers. Period. This is the clear witness of all of Scripture. This simple truth has been and is still being distorted and obscured for nearly two millenia.


"Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me." - Revelation 3:20


YOU open the door. JESUS himself comes in. Personally. YOU and JESUS eat and fellowship together, one to one.

NO church organization, bishop, priest, sacrament, Mary, or saint needed in between.