( Insert Church here) by Choice and Why Thread

[MennoSota]

Cause I wasn't raised christian and when I was convinced God existed and my brother at the same time too I told him to go find a church and he visited a bunch, Dutch reformed, all those other things I dont even know how they call em, Catholic and pentecostal and the pentecostal one was the most fun one according to him so he took me there. I didn't feel an urge to go to Dutch reformed later cause that was way too boring, I knew that from weddings from family. One year I went to a cult where God was always grumpy cuz that guy was his personal mouth piece. Then I didnt want to go anymore and my mom took me to an evangelical one. That was better but also boring. Found a charismatic one after that where I met my ex, then he started a church.

LOL, the deciding factor was boring vs non-boring? Does God have to make you feel warm and fuzzy in order to attend? Where would you place the importance of teaching biblical truth in your decision making for choosing a church?

 

[MennoSota]

I am a Catholic because the Catholic Church was close to my house and I like Catholic teaching and Catholics have a wide variety of things that allow for community involvement. Fundamentally I am a Catholic because Catholicism is true.

How do you know it is true? Is it true because the church says it's true or because you have tested the teaching against scripture to affirm it's veracity? Be a Berean.

 

[Imalive]

LOL, the deciding factor was boring vs non-boring? Does God have to make you feel warm and fuzzy in order to attend? Where would you place the importance of teaching biblical truth in your decision making for choosing a church?

Ah you learn that later that that's important. It's not the first thing you care about when you just get saved. First church was great in explaining the gospel simple for new believers, but that was it. They had nothing else, so I searched for another church. Most evangelical ones here don't have good Bible studies. The pastors dont get paid, they have a full time job and dont have much energy left to prepare something for sunday.
It's one of the reasons I find evangelical here in Holland dull, they dont teach anything. I read stuff from Dutch reformed on fora and was like: wow. They know the Bible, but I just really cannot listen if someone talks boring. I fall asleep.

 

[MennoSota]

Ah you learn that later that that's important. It's not the first thing you care about when you just get saved. First church was great in explaining the gospel simple for new believers, but that was it. They had nothing else, so I searched for another church. Most evangelical ones here don't have good Bible studies. The pastors dont get paid, they have a full time job and dont have much energy left to prepare something for sunday.
It's one of the reasons I find evangelical here in Holland dull, they dont teach anything. I read stuff from Dutch reformed on fora and was like: wow. They know the Bible, but I just really cannot listen if someone talks boring. I fall asleep.

LOL, it's not anything I care about because going to church is not about me. We worship God by glorying in the God revealed in scripture.

 

[MoreCoffee]

How do you know it is true? Is it true because the church says it's true or because you have tested the teaching against scripture to affirm it's veracity? Be a Berean.

It's true both because the Church says so and because Jesus said that what the Church teaches is what he teaches. But I am happy to concede that people who reject the Catholic Church for whatever reasons will see the matter differently. By the way the people at Berea were Jews not Christians and their example was superior to the reaction in Thessalonica but it was not good. They checked up on Paul's claims about Jesus by consulting their Jewish scriptures (probably the Septuagint translation of the old testament into Greek but possibly a Hebrew/Aramaic text was also available for those who could read those languages) because they didn't accept his words at face value. That was better than the direct opposition that the Jews in Thessalonica offered but it is not what Christians are called to do. Doubting an apostle's testimony to Jesus Christ is not a great start to Christian faith but it is not nearly as bad as rejecting it. So back to what the Church says being what Jesus says. Have a look at this passage. You can accept it or reject it as you please. I choose to accept it.

Luke 10:16 'Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me, and whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.'​

 

[MennoSota]

It's true both because the Church says so and because Jesus said that what the Church teaches is what he teaches. But I am happy to concede that people who reject the Catholic Church for whatever reasons will see the matter differently. By the way the people at Berea were Jews not Christians and their example was superior to the reaction in Thessalonica but it was not good. They checked up on Paul's claims about Jesus by consulting their Jewish scriptures (probably the Septuagint translation of the old testament into Greek but possibly a Hebrew/Aramaic text was also available for those who could read those languages) because they didn't trust his words at face value. That was better than the direct opposition that the Jews in Thessalonica offered but it is not what Christians are called to do. Doubting an apostle's testimony to Jesus Christ is not a great start to Christian faith but it is not nearly as bad as rejecting it. So back to what the Church says being what Jesus says. Have a look at this passage. You can accept it or reject it as you please. I choose to accept it.

Luke 10:16 'Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me, and whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.'​

Please provide scripture to prove this.

"It's true both because the Church says so and because Jesus said that what the Church teaches is what he teaches."

Where do we find Jesus ever referring to the church at Rome?

Why does Luke give commendation to the Bereans for expecting a person to prove their point in God's word?
You are projecting your bias into the text to force your interpretation.

What is the context around Luke 10? I can tell you this. It wasn't the church at Rome because there was no church at Rome when Jesus walked the earth.

MoreCoffee, you are engaged in very typical RC eisegesis where a person projects whatever they want on any text, even though the context goes against the interpretation. Please study what it means to exegete a passage.
Observe
Question
Interpret
Apply

Context, Context, Context

 

[MoreCoffee]

Luke 10:16 'Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me, and whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.'

Paul wrote a letter to the Christians in Rome. Did he write one to the folk in your town?

Luke does not commend the Berean Jews for testing Paul's teaching. He compared them to the Thessalonian Jews. He never said "well done Berean Jews, you are sceptical about Paul's teaching and that is a good thing". What he did say is "These Jews were more receptive than those in Thessalonica, for they welcomed the message very eagerly and examined the scriptures every day to see whether these things were so."




.

 

[MennoSota]

Luke 10:16 'Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me, and whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.'

Paul wrote a letter to the Christians in Rome. Did he write one to the folk in your town?

Luke does not commend the Berean Jews for testing Paul's teaching. He compared them to the Thessalonian Jews. He never said "well done Berean Jews, you are sceptical about Paul's teaching and that is a good thing". What he did say is These Jews were more receptive than those in Thessalonica, for they welcomed the message very eagerly and examined the scriptures every day to see whether these things were so.

LOL, I already showed you why Luke 10:6 does not apply to the church at Rome. The context does not even fit with your argument.

Your comment comparing Paul writing to the church at Rome and not to my town is a red herring fallacy.

Read for yourself what Luke wrote about the Bereans.

Acts of the Apostles 17:11-12
[11]And the people of Berea were more open-minded than those in Thessalonica, and they listened eagerly to Paul’s message. They searched the Scriptures day after day to see if Paul and Silas were teaching the truth.
[12]As a result, many Jews believed, as did many of the prominent Greek women and men.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Okay, whatever you prefer is okay with me. I am not going to follow you but you're welcome to hold whatever opinions you please.

 

[Imalive]

The Jews nowadays who read for themselves instead of listening to rabbi's and first go to the O.T for it, are coming to Jesus.
There was one Jewish woman who was married to a Catholic and he didnt want to denounce Jesus for her, so she decided to show him herself that he was wrong from the Bible LOL and got saved.

 

[Imalive]

It's true both because the Church says so and because Jesus said that what the Church teaches is what he teaches. But I am happy to concede that people who reject the Catholic Church for whatever reasons will see the matter differently. By the way the people at Berea were Jews not Christians and their example was superior to the reaction in Thessalonica but it was not good. They checked up on Paul's claims about Jesus by consulting their Jewish scriptures (probably the Septuagint translation of the old testament into Greek but possibly a Hebrew/Aramaic text was also available for those who could read those languages) because they didn't accept his words at face value. That was better than the direct opposition that the Jews in Thessalonica offered but it is not what Christians are called to do. Doubting an apostle's testimony to Jesus Christ is not a great start to Christian faith but it is not nearly as bad as rejecting it. So back to what the Church says being what Jesus says. Have a look at this passage. You can accept it or reject it as you please. I choose to accept it.

Luke 10:16 'Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me, and whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.'​

It's not bad. Paul warned false teachers would come.
I checked the Bible a lot. Translaters make mistakes.
Dutch says: she will be saved, bringing forth children. English translation: she will be saved in childbirth. Totally different thing and thus no pain w the last one.

 

[Albion]

It's not bad. Paul warned false teachers would come.
I checked the Bible a lot. Translaters make mistakes.
Dutch says: she will be saved, bringing forth children. English translation: she will be saved in childbirth. Totally different thing and thus no pain w the last one.

Not only cant I find an English translation that agrees with the Dutch one you referred to--and I checked over a dozen of them--but the Dutch wording is obviously wrong because it cuts off the rest of the verse that is variously translated like this--in childbirth IF she... or as assuming that she...

The point about childbirth is qualified there.

Read the whole thing and it cannot just mean *Oh yes, women will have children.*

See here:

15But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.

 

[Imalive]

Not only cant I find an English translation that agrees with the Dutch one you referred to--and I checked over a dozen of them--but the Dutch wording is obviously wrong because it cuts off the rest of the verse that is variously translated like this--in childbirth IF she... or as assuming that she...

The point about childbirth is qualified there.

Read the whole thing and it cannot just mean *Oh yes, women will have children.*

See here:

15But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.

Dutch also says if ... but it says she gets saved, same word as for eternal salvation if she does that and meanwhile brings forth children.

 

[Albion]

Dutch also says if ... but it says she gets saved, same word as for eternal salvation if she does that and meanwhile brings forth children.

Very well. I was wondering about that and thought that you'd merely shortened the verse for convenience sake. I understand doing that. BUT since that is so...and the whole sentence is not in dispute, I don't see how it can be argued that the two different translations, English or Dutch, really are very much different from each other in meaning.

You can say that the woman brings forth children, but if that's not germane to the bigger point that the verse is making about salvation, it seems out of place or so incidental that we might ask "why is this mentioned at all?"

 

[MennoSota]

It's not bad. Paul warned false teachers would come.
I checked the Bible a lot. Translaters make mistakes.
Dutch says: she will be saved, bringing forth children. English translation: she will be saved in childbirth. Totally different thing and thus no pain w the last one.

Kinda like Jerome screwed up the Vulgate...

 

[MennoSota]

Dutch also says if ... but it says she gets saved, same word as for eternal salvation if she does that and meanwhile brings forth children.

What does the greek say? This is why pastors learn hebrew and greek. We seek to understand what the writers meant.
For us who don't read greek or hebrew there are many resources to help us understand what the writers meant.

 

[YESLORDIWILL]

What does the greek say? This is why pastors learn hebrew and greek. We seek to understand what the writers meant.
For us who don't read greek or hebrew there are many resources to help us understand what the writers meant.

good resource

 

[MennoSota]

good resource

I was thinking more about Vine's Greek lexicon, Young's Concordance, and Unger's Bible dictionary, but multiple English translations can be helpful as well.

 

[YESLORDIWILL]

blue letter bible provides more than just multiple English translations.