/Christ/ - Christianity General

[CX2]

 

[supadrayk]

You're right by saying that the Church is the Body of Christ, but you're creating a false dilemma by suggesting that it cannot also be a visible institution. In the New Testament, "house churches" were not standalone entities, but local expressions of a singular, visible Church operating under a unified authority. When Saint Paul wrote to the church in Corinth (a collection of house churches), he spoke with a clear, administrative authority to settle disputes, discipline members and appoint leaders. If the Church were merely an abstract gathering of believers, then he would have no basis to command them or demand their submission to his apostolic authority.
The verses you cited (like 1 Peter 2:5) describe our identity as members of Christ, but they do not negate the necessity of governance. The New Testament is full of instructions for a visible, orderly structure
Let me give you some specific examples:
- Appointment of Leaders: St. Paul instructs Timothy and Titus to formally appoint elders and deacons (1 Timothy 3, Titus 1). If the Church were only an informal 'gathering,' why would there be specific requirements and a formal process for ordaining leaders?
- Ecclesiastical Discipline: In Matthew 18:17, Jesus commands that if someone refuses to listen to the Εκκλησία, they are to be treated as a gentile. This instruction is impossible to follow if there is no visible, identifiable authority to represent the Church’s judgment.
- The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15): This is clearly proof of a visible, authoritative structure. The Apostles met as a body to settle a doctrinal dispute that affected all believers. They didn't tell everyone to just "gather in Jesus' name" and hope for the best, they issued a mandatory order to all the churches.
You say that we belong to the Church through the Holy Spirit (which we agree with), however, the Holy Spirit works through the visible order that the Apostles left behind. If the Church is just a collection of whoever happens to be gathering, you have virtually no way to distinguish the Church of Christ from any group that uses His name but teaches heresy. The visible structure (the bishops, the creeds and the councils) is not meant to replace the Holy Spirit, rather it is the historical way that the Spirit has managed to maintain the "one faith" (Ephesians 4:5) for 2000 years, preventing the very schism and fragmentation that we see today.

I didn't mean it cant also be a visible institution, obviously it can be, Εκκλησία is interchangeable in that matter, but its not only a visible institution and its not limited to one specific name as such. We are all the church if we unite under the name of Jesus and his teachings, thats the point. And there is to be an order in the church, a hierarchy, but never does the bible mention such thing as a pope, or ecumenical patriarch, these are added layers not found in the scriptures. There is only one head of the church and it is Jesus Christ.

 

[korg]

I didn't mean it cant also be a visible institution, obviously it can be, Εκκλησία is interchangeable in that matter, but its not only a visible institution and its not limited to one specific name as such. We are all the church if we unite under the name of Jesus and his teachings, thats the point. And there is to be an order in the church, a hierarchy, but never does the bible mention such thing as a pope, or ecumenical patriarch, these are added layers not found in the scriptures. There is only one head of the church and it is Jesus Christ.

You're right, Christ IS the the one and only Head of the Church. However, recognizing Christ as the Head does not mean He left His body (the Church) without visible leadership on earth. He gave authority to His apostles, and they, in turn, ordained bishops to ensure the faith was preserved after they passed. This isn't about "adding layers" to Christ's authority, but rather about the stewardship He established to keep His followers united.
When you dismiss the hierarchical structure (bishops, councils, patriarchs) as "man-made additions", you must address how the Church maintained unity before the New Testament was even fully written or canonized. Without a visible structure, particularly in the role of the bishop, who held the authority to resolve doctrinal disputes? The New Testament doesn’t need to explicitly mention "Pope" or "Patriarch" to illustrate the established order of authority.
Scripture does actually tell us some things about the Hierarchical role of the Church

We know the apostles had successors since Paul directly instructs Timothy and Titus to appoint elders and overseers (or bishops) in every city (Titus 1:5, 1 Timothy 3). This was the system that the Apostles established.

And I know I've already mentioned this before, but in Acts 15 (The Council of Jerusalem) we see that the authority to set a dispute was not merely a "group of believers", but the Apostles and elders gathered in a
formal, visible council. This is the exact model of the Ecumenical Councils. They are not acting as "additional layers", but as the Church exercising the authority Christ gave it to protect the truth.

If the Church was only defined by gathering in "Jesus' name" then we would encounter a significant issue: countless groups claim to be united in His name, yet they teach conflicting views about who Jesus is and how salvation occurs. Without a clear, objective standard of authority descending from the Apostles, "unity" risks becoming an abstract feeling rather than a tangible reality. The hierarchy isn’t a replacement for Christ, it serves as the historical, visible boundary that He placed to protect His garden from being overrun by conflicting interpretations.

If Christ intended the Church to be a visible body, but left no objective way to resolve disputes between these "house churches", why did the early Church immediately begin ordaining bishops and holding councils to maintain one, visible, common faith?"

 

[korg]

vidrel related

 

[worldatwar]

did Claus love Christ?

 

[myexdrew]

did Claus love Christ?

Claus only loved black women

 

[myexdrew]

vidrel related

View attachment 123091

Boring video

 

[Rizgar Gulan]

You're right by saying that the Church is the Body of Christ, but you're creating a false dilemma by suggesting that it cannot also be a visible institution. In the New Testament, "house churches" were not standalone entities, but local expressions of a singular, visible Church operating under a unified authority. When Saint Paul wrote to the church in Corinth (a collection of house churches), he spoke with a clear, administrative authority to settle disputes, discipline members and appoint leaders. If the Church were merely an abstract gathering of believers, then he would have no basis to command them or demand their submission to his apostolic authority.
The verses you cited (like 1 Peter 2:5) describe our identity as members of Christ, but they do not negate the necessity of governance. The New Testament is full of instructions for a visible, orderly structure
Let me give you some specific examples:
- Appointment of Leaders: St. Paul instructs Timothy and Titus to formally appoint elders and deacons (1 Timothy 3, Titus 1). If the Church were only an informal 'gathering,' why would there be specific requirements and a formal process for ordaining leaders?
- Ecclesiastical Discipline: In Matthew 18:17, Jesus commands that if someone refuses to listen to the Εκκλησία, they are to be treated as a gentile. This instruction is impossible to follow if there is no visible, identifiable authority to represent the Church’s judgment.
- The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15): This is clearly proof of a visible, authoritative structure. The Apostles met as a body to settle a doctrinal dispute that affected all believers. They didn't tell everyone to just "gather in Jesus' name" and hope for the best, they issued a mandatory order to all the churches.
You say that we belong to the Church through the Holy Spirit (which we agree with), however, the Holy Spirit works through the visible order that the Apostles left behind. If the Church is just a collection of whoever happens to be gathering, you have virtually no way to distinguish the Church of Christ from any group that uses His name but teaches heresy. The visible structure (the bishops, the creeds and the councils) is not meant to replace the Holy Spirit, rather it is the historical way that the Spirit has managed to maintain the "one faith" (Ephesians 4:5) for 2000 years, preventing the very schism and fragmentation that we see today.

You're right, Christ IS the the one and only Head of the Church. However, recognizing Christ as the Head does not mean He left His body (the Church) without visible leadership on earth. He gave authority to His apostles, and they, in turn, ordained bishops to ensure the faith was preserved after they passed. This isn't about "adding layers" to Christ's authority, but rather about the stewardship He established to keep His followers united.
When you dismiss the hierarchical structure (bishops, councils, patriarchs) as "man-made additions", you must address how the Church maintained unity before the New Testament was even fully written or canonized. Without a visible structure, particularly in the role of the bishop, who held the authority to resolve doctrinal disputes? The New Testament doesn’t need to explicitly mention "Pope" or "Patriarch" to illustrate the established order of authority.
Scripture does actually tell us some things about the Hierarchical role of the Church

We know the apostles had successors since Paul directly instructs Timothy and Titus to appoint elders and overseers (or bishops) in every city (Titus 1:5, 1 Timothy 3). This was the system that the Apostles established.

And I know I've already mentioned this before, but in Acts 15 (The Council of Jerusalem) we see that the authority to set a dispute was not merely a "group of believers", but the Apostles and elders gathered in a
formal, visible council. This is the exact model of the Ecumenical Councils. They are not acting as "additional layers", but as the Church exercising the authority Christ gave it to protect the truth.

If the Church was only defined by gathering in "Jesus' name" then we would encounter a significant issue: countless groups claim to be united in His name, yet they teach conflicting views about who Jesus is and how salvation occurs. Without a clear, objective standard of authority descending from the Apostles, "unity" risks becoming an abstract feeling rather than a tangible reality. The hierarchy isn’t a replacement for Christ, it serves as the historical, visible boundary that He placed to protect His garden from being overrun by conflicting interpretations.

If Christ intended the Church to be a visible body, but left no objective way to resolve disputes between these "house churches", why did the early Church immediately begin ordaining bishops and holding councils to maintain one, visible, common faith?"

noob will you use your noggin to type something for once. That is blatantly GPT-written

did Claus love Christ?

Complicated. He wanted a German Christianity most of all but he didn't like it much because of its universalism and humble culture, although he mostly limited persecutions to catholics as protestants were supportive of the NSDAP, also see Positive Christianity and the Gottgläubige

 

[Rizgar Gulan]

Claus only loved black women

Can you talk about anything else but noob? No wonder you post 30 messages a day if your only reason to be here is to vent your noob fetish and puberty hormones somewhere

 

[korg]

noob will you use your noggin to type something for once. That is blatantly GPT-written

Rick May raped me when I was very little so no not really

 

[_73]

noob will you use your noggin to type something for once. That is blatantly GPT-written

Ai generated debate to boost pph

 

[korg]

Ai generated debate to boost pph

exactly bro

 

[myexdrew]

Can you talk about anything else but noob? No wonder you post 30 messages a day if your only reason to be here is to vent your noob fetish and puberty hormones somewhere

Problem shemmycuck? You don't want to mess with me and my gang

 

[Rizgar Gulan]

Rick May raped me when I was very little so no not really

He is alive and well in Thessaloniki under the name of Ριχάρδος Μάιος.

Problem shemmycuck? You don't want to mess with me and my gang

It's a gross sight. God will gift you access to black women by making you get AIDS and sending you straight to hell after you succumb to it, there are plenty of sheboons there.

 

[myexdrew]

It's a gross sight. God will gift you access to black women by making you get AIDS and sending you straight to hell after you succumb to it, there are plenty of sheboons there.

All black women go to heaven you dirty wh*te

 

[Rizgar Gulan]

All black women go to heaven you dirty wh*teView attachment 123186

They're all nominal though

 

[myexdrew]

They're all nominal though

Keep coping heaven is filled to the BRIM with black people brah

 

[Rizgar Gulan]

Keep coping heaven is filled to the BRIM with black people brah

This is why your ex ditched you, dummy. Ignorant fucking indian MONGOLOID she had to call her brother to knock the lights out of your wimpy underweight dalit ass before moving onto someone else. I doubt that she'd even have a brother to beat you up because if you scored a belgian girl then she must be extremely inbred to entertain the idea of dating a desi

It's called noobhell for a reason

 

[myexdrew]

This is why your ex ditched you, dummy. Ignorant fucking indian MONGOLOID she had to call her brother to knock the lights out of your wimpy underweight dalit ass before moving onto someone else. I doubt that she'd even have a brother to beat you up because if you scored a belgian girl then she must be extremely inbred to entertain the idea of dating a desi

It's called noobhell for a reason

Are you actually leaking YTBOIS will kill themselves knowing us indian CHADS will take over

 

[Rizgar Gulan]

Are you actually leaking YTBOIS will kill themselves knowing us indian CHADS will take over
View attachment 123236

Fuck you noob