Are there any protestant preachers/teachers that you do agree wit er do like? What is your stance on the television broadcast thin that is TBN? I have heard alot of folks bad mouth this an that, but how come? Is this a matter of either one religion bein the only way to Christ er bein right etc, er is there sumthin more to thins?

I can say, there is a preacher on TBN I cain't stand, Rod Parsely, I really disagree wit that guy.

But I like Jesse Duplantis, John Hagee, I really like Van Impe (prophecy stuff think I messed his name up) Carl Baugh Creation in the 21st centry. I like TD Jakes, an that one gal... I always want to tell er YOUR NOT BLACK! hehe she does it so well, Paula... mmmm maybe it's Paula White, she's a good teacher as well.

I've grown enough in my walk wit the Lord (not braggin jes where I feel I am in life) that I don't want jes the baby food of a new believer, I want the meat of the Lord, I want to be taught bout God, not jes the need to be saved stuff, I want to know God more an more, an I really enjoy watchin some of the teachers rather then the preachers.

I will also say I have *tired* to watch the catholic channel.. think it's called INSP er sumthin I don't recall.... I sit there wantin to pull my hair out, endin up wit a huge headache an normally yellin at the tv screen. Such a decieved people I feel.

They are all, without a single exception, false teachers. They do not teach the same gospel presented by Christ. This isn't about "religion" it's about authentic faith versus appealing lies made up by people much much later. There may be a residue of truth in some of what they say, but they are ultimately teaching an empty gospel of men.

I agree with that of course. Just like you, it isn't a matter of being snooty or holier-than-thou, it's just that what they are teaching doesn't line up with correctly interpretted scripture.

Let me toss out the name of another protestant pastor: Billy Graham. Do you all agree with him?

I have great respect for his courage, resolve, and influence, but his gospel is at variance from the true gospel of Christ. He proclaims Christ, but his teachings are at odds with scripture.

For example the follow scripture is not affirmed by Rev. Graham:

This is unambiguous, but some who can't accept it try to explain it away, comparing it to Christ's metaphor of being a door, which was clearly a metaphor, whereas the above is a mystical reality. It was always understood by the apostles down through the centuries as being a literally partaking of Christ's Body and Blood, occuring miraculously and unexplainably by the power of the Holy Spirit. Any gospel that leaves this out has no life in it.

Basil

Geez, Basil..You're pretty harsh there...

Not entirely. His teachings are closer than Mr. Osteen's, however, but doesn't line up with what was taught by Christ to the apostles. Not to say that he isn't a good man or hasn't achieved great things, just some of his teachings are not quite what Christians believed for the first 1000 years of christianity. He is a good, well intentioned man, but his traditions of scriptural interpretation are still off... Isn't he Southern Baptist?

Is he still alive or did he die?? The last time I saw him he was so old..

:hide: I don't know what's going on in the world!!

Disclaimer: These are our beliefs and opinions, so please don't get your panties in a wad, people...

Thanks

:P

Yes, he is a Southern Baptist.

He is still alive, his wife died earlier this year.

I really didn't mean that to be harsh, because I know Billy Graham's intentions are good and on a personal level, I really like him. He'd still be fairly close to the top on my list of people I'd like to meet. However truth is truth, so I cannot say that what he teaches is accurate--not because I'm so smart that I can shoot down Billy Graham, it's just that the truth has been revealed and preserved within the Church, and I believe that it's teachings are the same passed to the Apostles by Christ, so because Rev. Graham is teaching something different, I cannot believe him over Christ's truth, regardless how much he is admired by many people.

Basil

An that's that... I agin must rest my case. I will not argue stupidity over supposed who is the first church, an all that other literal bullshit. If it means more to you bout bein the very first church an all that over the actual truth then I say go ahead, put your faith an your trust in man, in some buildin, in the thin that is the orthodox faith.

My ex wife was really not much different then the stuff I hear ya'll "spewin" though she was pentencostal, jes sooooo wraped up in this particular buildin, this particular pastor of it, hero worship an the whole deal, I really don't see much difference between the orthodox an the catholic, an it's sad really. Because witout a doubt, you both believe that anyone an everone else who is not of your faith is lost an goin to hell. We cain't possibly have the truth because we aren't orthodox, an catholic would say because we are not catholic. What a tremendous tragedy....

Ya know... that brins up an interestin point... Basil you love sayin thins like *I* seem to believe that it's impossible for God, er *I* believe that God couldn't preserve His church an all this other crap that you spew, yet... does the reverse of that not also work? I mean, I actually think protestants out number orthodox 2 to 1 I think, an then there's catholic which I wouldn't hamper a guess at the ratio... seems to me... if we're all so damn lost an goin to hell, couldn't I say the same of you? That you must believe that God cain't keep His people in line, He's uncapable because there's jes so many false teachers an the like... it's of course crap, jes like what you have said is.

I knew the answer to my question when I asked it, an I know what catholics would say had we any here, it's truly sad. Really is. Everone pay attention, cause this has pretty much come out of the horses mouth, ANY show on TBN, ANY protestant preacher, IS a false teacher an the truth does not live in them.... I believe there's some scripture bout that... might havta look it up later...

I'm really disappointed here actually, String an Basil want us to 'understand' their faith, which I am all for really, I prefer understandin, but then we always end up at the same place over an over agin, a matter of who is right, who is wrong, who was first an who gives a shit.....

That right there, I think, is the basis on which we'll all have to shake hands, agree to disagree, and go out for a glass of :wine: or something so we can still be friends.

I personally find it offensive that the Orthodox religion can across-the-board stamp my pastor as "a false teacher" without even having heard him, simply because he's not teaching under the Orthodox doctrine.

Just doesn't make sense to me. :nono:

It's not a matter of "Orthodox" doctrine. If it were some doctrine they invented, then it'd be as worthless as any other man-made teachings. If anyone cares to see if man got into things and messed it up, please show me the evidence, but if man didn't, then it's clear these are God's teachings, so we should embrace them as revealed truth.

We can agree to disagree and still be friends at the end of the day. I don't mind any attacks, because I'm not defending my personal beliefs, these go far beyond me.

It has been stated on numerous occasions throughout the forum that this is not what we believe. We cannot make that judgement. Does no one hear or pay attention when we say we do not believe that?? :wall:

Being "first" isn't what this is about. This is about whether God has preserved his Truth unchanged or not. You will either accept that He can and did keep his promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against his church, or not. Maybe it did all fall to crap after the apostles died....Unless you are willing to do real research and find the answer, there is not point discussing this. I personally have been staying away from getting very deep into that particular area of the discussion because I feel that this is going nowhere....It has been presented in such a way that you all have immediately put up your defenses and pulled out your guns..And so I stay away from the talk about historical continuity. You dont care whether God preserved the Truth. You have your opinion that he did not and that no one has the right to say that he did. I understand that and I am not arguing with you on that because that would be pointless. All I would get are accusations and criticisms like the ones posted today...That is why I started the other thread where we can discuss our different beliefs in more of a compare and contrast sort of way so that we can come to a more clear understanding of where we all stand and how we all view things....IMO, that would make a lot more sense than all the stuff going on here...

Aaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwww I wanted to wad my panties...... dammit foiled again.....

Ha!!!! And while you're straightening out your panties, take a chill pill while you jellin' and hold your horses too!!!


:rolf:

.
.
Transubstantiation


So it sounds like your saying that if so-called believers DON'T believe in the above, then their "Gospel" is "empty"?


If thats true...how are you different from the Catholic Church in doctrine? Seems you're very close...icons, praying to saints, transubstantiation, confession to priets, etc...


Does the Orthodox Church also have a top dog (like the pope?) whose poop don't stink?

Without acknowledging Christ's gift of His body and blood, as true food and drink, the gospel is empty. It is through participation in these gifts that we become partakers of His divine nature and begin to be transformed, or restored back into the undistorted image of God. "This is Bible," he says thumping monitor while viewing biblegateway.com .

This is the center of Christian worship for all time. We don't try to explain the unexpressible reality of this mystery with convoluted explanations, which still exceed our finite ability to comprehend it. The Orthodox view is closer to consubstantiation, if we have to put some sort of label on it, but most just believe Christ achieves making bread and wine His body and blood by a miracle of the Holy Spirit. It's beyond our comprehension to understand, so it's believed by faith, founded securely on the Word of God.

We don't believe in the immaculate conception of Mary. She was born like us all, free from the guilt of sin.

We don't believe in original sin, or that we are born already guilty of sin, passed down to us from Adam. The Roman Catholic Church believes this, which is why they then have to believe in the immaculate conception of Mary, as a way to explain how Mary was born free from sin. The correct understanding is that we are all born free from the guilt of sin, although our nature is still prone toward sin, which binds us to the fate of sinning and being yoked to death.

We don't believe in purgatory.

We don't believe in indulgences, which the Roman Catholic church still teaches, although they don't sell them anymore, as far as I know.

We don't believe in the juridical view of Christ's death, which states He died to appease God's wrath against sinners. As the NT reveals: God is love. The OT view of God was a shadow, but it His nature as fully good and benevolent become fully revealed in the NT. His mercy endures forever. Our worst sins affect God about as much as a fistful of sand thrown into the ocean affects it. Yes Christ's death was a payment in a metaphorical sense, but not one paid to God the Father, but instead His death was a price paid to conquer death for us. He came on a rescue mission, which was the will of God the Father. They were all on the same side, seeking to rescue mankind, as unworthy as we are.

We do not believe in the supremecy of any bishop over others (i.e. no Pope). In the NT it was clear that all the Apostles acted as equals in council. They came together to resolve problems and seek God's will in a collegial way, as equals. Each apostle, and bishop who succeeded them was the shepherd only over his area. This is they structure that still exists in Orthodoxy.

We do not believe in the infallibility of any man in any context. The Roman Catholics made it official dogma in the 1800s, that the Pope speaks infallibly "ex cathedra," when speaking from the "chair of Peter." This is hogwash. No man is capable of reliably speaking infallibly. We can all prolaim some truths, but to rely on any single man to be able to give infallible truth, which sometimes even contradicts earlier established truth, is sad.

Most Roman Catholics do not use many icons, although I hear it's becoming more common lately, almost as a trend for them. Icons are pictoral scripture. Like a comic book version to help us understand the gospel visually, rather than just our hearing it, or textually seeing it.

No, we have no top dog. The Ecumenical Patriarch is the bishop, who's scope of service only covers part of Turkey, but is honored as the "first among equals," since the departure of the bishop of Rome from the Church. He is located in the former emperial city of Constantinople, which was an important center of Christianity. Now, because of the genocide and cruel restrictions placed on Chrisitians by the Muslim Turks, and former Ottoman Empire, there are only a few thousand Christians in his region, but he still hold the honorary recognition as being first among equal bishops, but again he has no authority over any other bishop. They all stand shoulder to shoulder, and as far as I know their poops all stink. :rolf:

:happy:

Is "poops" the correct terminology for more than one "poop" I wonder?? :blink:

I was wondering that too. :unsure: Is it like sheep, with same form representing plaural numbers also?




:fan: Yep, it stinks.