ECT Can you be a Christian and not go to church?

[MennoSota]

Peter personally pastored the church that is in Rome, until he was murdered/unjustly executed by Nero. He was the chief of the Apostles, to whom Christ said that He'd give 'the keys.' When Peter died, his pastorate did not die with him, but he was succeeded in his office, by Linus, the second Pope/supreme pastor of the one Church.
A thing that the Catholic Church herself acknowledges.
All of them who believe that Christ Jesus is risen from the dead, are.

Peter may have been at Rome. It is the traditional story, but there is no information in the Bible to prove your claim. If Peter actually was at Rome, he would have evangelized and taught others. That does not mean he was an elder or a bishop in Rome. Again, that claim you make is unsubstantiated story made-up by your denomination.
Second, your church butchers Jesus comment where Jesus says "I am the ROCK, you (Peter) are a rock with which I will build my church." Peter, like everyone in the body of Christ is one of the rocks that make up God's elect.
The papacy didn't come into existence until the Roman government took over the Roman church and the leader took the same Latin phrase that the Ceasars had claimed as a spokesman for the gods. That was nearly 400 years after Peter died. Therefore Peter was never a Pope. In addition, we know that Peter was married so he never met the celibacy rules that Rome demands.
Please, research this history outside of the propaganda you have swallowed.

 

[Idolater]

No I didn't. There is a remnant of elect in the church at Rome. It's just not the only historic church or even the first historic church.

What in your view are the others?

 

[Idolater]

Peter may have been at Rome. It is the traditional story, but there is no information in the Bible to prove your claim.

Well, that depends upon what you make of him writing from 'Babylon.' So it's not that there's 'no information in the Bible,' it's that you apparently believe that he was actually in Babylon.

If Peter actually was at Rome, he would have evangelized and taught others. That does not mean he was an elder or a bishop in Rome. Again, that claim you make is unsubstantiated story made-up by your denomination.

It's unbelievable to me that you don't think that he pastored the Church. Pastors were elders/overseers/bishops.

Second, your church butchers Jesus comment where Jesus says "I am the ROCK, you (Peter) are a rock with which I will build my church."

Matthew 16:18 KJV doesn't read like that.

Peter, like everyone in the body of Christ is one of the rocks that make up God's elect.

A living stone, yes. But Peter was more than that too.

The papacy didn't come into existence until the Roman government took over the Roman church and the leader took the same Latin phrase that the Ceasars had claimed as a spokesman for the gods. That was nearly 400 years after Peter died. Therefore Peter was never a Pope.

If you reject that Peter actually pastored/shepherded the Church, then I guess you'll believe whatever you'd like in its place. But for those who accept that Peter was a pastor, and that he was the supreme pastor of the church that is in Rome when he died/was murdered, then that's all we need to establish that the office, the pastorate of the church in Rome, was a real office, and that therefore, he who succeeded Peter in that pastorate is Peter's successor, and that's all that anybody's ever meant by 'the papacy,' no matter when you think the actual name for the office was created.

In addition, we know that Peter was married so he never met the celibacy rules that Rome demands.

Celibacy for clergy is a Church discipline, a choice that she has made, and one that she can change if she sees the need to change it.

Please, research this history outside of the propaganda you have swallowed.

Likewise.

 

[MennoSota]

What in your view are the others?

The first church was in Jerusalem as was the first council. Then we read about Antioch, which sent Paul and Barnabas on a missions trip. Then we see the churches in Galatia, Corinth, Ephesus, Thessalonica, Collassai, Laodicea, Sardis, Smyrna, Philadelphia, etc. These were all established churches. It wasn't until nearly 400 CE that the Roman government made Christianity the State sponsored church and then demanded from the other churches that it follow the church found in the capital city. The only people who found the Roman church to be "THE" church was those who used it for political and economic gain. The people who sought to obey God were very often killed by the church at Rome.

 

[MennoSota]

Well, that depends upon what you make of him writing from 'Babylon.' So it's not that there's 'no information in the Bible,' it's that you apparently believe that he was actually in Babylon.
It's unbelievable to me that you don't think that he pastored the Church. Pastors were elders/overseers/bishops.
Matthew 16:18 KJV doesn't read like that.
A living stone, yes. But Peter was more than that too.
If you reject that Peter actually pastored/shepherded the Church, then I guess you'll believe whatever you'd like in its place. But for those who accept that Peter was a pastor, and that he was the supreme pastor of the church that is in Rome when he died/was murdered, then that's all we need to establish that the office, the pastorate of the church in Rome, was a real office, and that therefore, he who succeeded Peter in that pastorate is Peter's successor, and that's all that anybody's ever meant by 'the papacy,' no matter when you think the actual name for the office was created.
Celibacy for clergy is a Church discipline, a choice that she has made, and one that she can change if she sees the need to change it.
Likewise.

Is Rome Babylon? If so, the church at Rome is Babylon. Do you prefer that?

 

[Right Divider]

Well that's what I said all along.

No, you're claiming that the church in Jerusalem (which is Israel) and the church which is His body are identical. They are not.

That's one example, do you have another? And, nobody's talking about that 'church' here. There is no confusion here unless you insist.

There many church in the Bible. You try to conflate them.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Peter personally pastored the church that is in Rome, until he was murdered/unjustly executed by Nero. He was the chief of the Apostles, to whom Christ said that He'd give 'the keys.' When Peter died, his pastorate did not die with him, but he was succeeded in his office, by Linus, the second Pope/supreme pastor of the one Church.
A thing that the Catholic Church herself acknowledges.
All of them who believe that Christ Jesus is risen from the dead, are.

Fix your quote tags, you have my name in quotes from MennoSota

 

[genuineoriginal]

Yeah, that idea was invented from whole cloth in the 1500s to justify the Reformation. Question: Were the Apostles 'hidden?' How about the bishops, for example Timothy and Titus, were they too 'hidden?' The notion of 'hidden Church' is not found in the Bible. You made it up, or worse, you simply accept what someone else made up, and not from Scripture either.

Of course "hidden Church" is not found in the Bible, since it is the true believers who are hidden throughout Christianity.

There is one Church in Scriptures, composed of local churches/dioceses, each composes of living, breathing Christians, who are not 'hidden.' They're all in communion with one another, and they all together form one Body/the Church.

There are seven churches in Revelation (Apocalypse), none of them are the church in Rome.

Matthew 16:18 KJV to the contrary then.

Jesus did not state He would build his church on Peter in Matthew 16:18

Besides, Matthew 16:16 KJV is Trinitarian, a very brief confession that Jesus Christ is God, and the exact way in which He is God---'the Son of the Living God.'

Adam was the son of God.

Luke 3:38 38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.​

We have the power to become the sons of God.

John 1:12 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:​

The Trinity doctrine is problematic because it teaches people to believe that Jesus is God and to ignore that the Bible keeps calling Jesus the Son of God.

John 3:36 36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.​

How do you answer this question:
Do you believe Jesus is the Son of God?

Trinitarians always think the question is asking:
Do you believe Jesus is God the Son?

 

[genuineoriginal]

The people who sought to obey God were very often killed by the church at Rome.

That is why God often hid the true believers from the church at Rome.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

How do you answer this question:
Do you believe Jesus is the Son of God?

Trinitarians always think the question is asking:
Do you believe Jesus is God the Son?

What do you think the words "the Son of God" are referring to?

Thanks!

 

[genuineoriginal]

What do you think the words "the Son of God" are referring to?

It is obviously a reference to one male individual (son) and his relationship to another individual (God).
It is obviously not a reference to one individual and his relationship with himself.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

It is obviously a reference to one male individual (son) and his relationship to another individual (God).
It is obviously not a reference to one individual and his relationship with himself.

So how can the Lord Jesus say that He was before all things if the Father existed before He did?:

"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist" (Col.1:16-17).​

When the Lord Jesus said that God is His Father and that He is the Son of God the Jews understood that He was making himself equal to God. And the Lord Jesus did not deny that He is equal to God.

 

[genuineoriginal]

So how can the Lord Jesus say that He was before all things if the Father existed before He did?:

"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist" (Col.1:16-17).​

When the Lord Jesus said that God is His Father and that He is the Son of God the Jews understood that He was making himself equal to God. And the Lord Jesus did not deny that He is equal to God.

KJV was written by Trinitarians who imposed their bias upon the translation.
The KJV translates Strong's G1722 in the following manner: in (1,902x), by (163x), with (140x), among (117x), at (113x), on (62x), through (39x), miscellaneous (264x).
Here is a literal translation:

Colossians 1:16-17 YLT 16 because in him were the all things created, those in the heavens, and those upon the earth, those visible, and those invisible, whether thrones, whether lordships, whether principalities, whether authorities; all things through him, and for him, have been created, 17 and himself is before all, and the all things in him have consisted.​

Do you think that there is any difference between "by him" and "in him"?
Do you think that there is any difference in how the same word is used in the phrases "in him" and "in the heavens".

 

[Jerry Shugart]

KJV was written by Trinitarians who imposed their bias upon the translation.
The KJV translates Strong's G1722 in the following manner: in (1,902x), by (163x), with (140x), among (117x), at (113x), on (62x), through (39x), miscellaneous (264x).
Here is a literal translation:

Colossians 1:16-17 YLT 16 because in him were the all things created, those in the heavens, and those upon the earth, those visible, and those invisible, whether thrones, whether lordships, whether principalities, whether authorities; all things through him, and for him, have been created, 17 and himself is before all, and the all things in him have consisted.​

Do you think that there is any difference between "by him" and "in him"?
Do you think that there is any difference in how the same word is used in the phrases "in him" and "in the heavens".

Why didn't you address the following because that in itself answers your question:

"and himself is before all."​

 

[genuineoriginal]

Why didn't you address the following because that in itself answers your question:

"and himself is before all."​

That doesn't answer my questions to you about what your thoughts are.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

That doesn't answer my questions to you about what your thoughts are.

Since the Lord Jesus was before all things then that means He wasn't a created Being.

And besides that I think that the word "by" is the correct understanding and not "in" because of what we read here:

"And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands" (Heb.1:10).​

 

[genuineoriginal]

Since the Lord Jesus was before all things then that means He wasn't a created Being.

The scriptures states 10 times that Jesus was begotten.
Here is one of them

Hebrews 1:4-6 4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. 5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? 6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.​

And besides that I think that the word "by" is the correct understanding and not "in" because of what we read here:

"And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands" (Heb.1:10).​

That is a quote from one of the Psalms, find out what it states in context and who it is referring to.

Psalm 102:24-28 24 I said, O my God, take me not away in the midst of my days: thy years are throughout all generations. 25 Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands. 26 They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed: 27 But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end. 28 The children of thy servants shall continue, and their seed shall be established before thee.​

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The scriptures states 10 times that Jesus was begotten.

He was begotten when He was raised from the dead:

"God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee" (Acts 13:33).​

That is a quote from one of the Psalms, find out what it states in context and who it is referring to.

The author of the book of Hebrews makes it plain that it is referring to the Lord Jesus:

"And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail. But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?" (Heb.1:10-13).

The earth and the heavens are the work of the hands of the Lord Jesus. And since He was before all things (Col.1:17) and He created all things (Col.1:16) then common sense dictates that He is not a created Being.

He is the "Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last" (Rev.22:13).

 

[Right Divider]

[MENTION=4345]genuineoriginal[/MENTION], [MENTION=10]Jerry Shugart[/MENTION]

This is not a trinity/anti-trinity thread.

 

[Idolater]

Of course "hidden Church" is not found in the Bible, since it is the true believers who are hidden throughout Christianity.

That is an insane opinion, very convenient for you, and, what I said still stands: 'Hidden Christians'/'hidden Church' is made up, and not found in Scripture.

There are seven churches in Revelation (Apocalypse), none of them are the church in Rome.

All of them were in communion with the church in Rome, because all churches composed the one Church, the Body of Christ.

Jesus did not state He would build his church on Peter in Matthew 16:18

Fine. Agree to disagree.

Adam was the son of God.

Luke 3:38 38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.​

We have the power to become the sons of God.

John 1:12 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:​

The Trinity doctrine is problematic because it teaches people to believe that Jesus is God and to ignore that the Bible keeps calling Jesus the Son of God.

John 3:36 36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.​

How do you answer this question:
Do you believe Jesus is the Son of God?

Yes, as John 3:16 KJV and John 3:18 KJV describe:
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life... He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Trinitarians always think the question is asking:
Do you believe Jesus is God the Son?

'Trinitarians,' if they're not Catholic or Orthodox, are plagiarists.