[Possible Spam]Re: [Linux4christians] Royalty-Free Pictures of
Jerusalem Christian Holy Sites
samuel.clough at trumpetsofzion.org
Wed May 13 20:36:33 EDT 2009
While a lot of what is called "apostolic" is definitely not apostolic the
New Testament clearly is written with the expectation that the church will
continue to have apostles, just as it should have prophets, teachers,
evangelists, and pastors. In fact the New Testament makes reference to
apostles other than the 12 and other than Paul.
True the disciples were unique apostles, but the apostolic gift continues.
Sadly though it's often claimed and misused by those who are not apostles.
(I highly recommend Art Katz's work Apostolic Foundations - it's life
And for the record I'm not catholic nor defending catholicism. I find that
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 4:04 PM, <htgage3 at chartermi.net> wrote:
> ---- Mike McMullin <mwmcmlln at mnsi.net> wrote:
> > But here the rub, and why I chose to respond to this. It was those
> > Catholics who codified and defended the current Cannon of Scripture, and
> > when the Church looks back at it's early history, it deals with the
> > Catholics and the various Sees that existed.
> Yes they wiped out all the Baptists who had the earliest Bible.
> > Actually I'd call this a good protestation on the subject ;) and it
> > raises the chance to look at that point in the History of the Church.
> > (Pardoning me putting you on the defensive here, but for the point of
> > the question it makes sense to do so.) Where does a Christian who is
> > neither Catholic nor Protestant fall into, in the sense of Church
> > History?
> Christians were originally called "Christians" in derision, mocking them
> and seeking to humiliate them. The original Christians were most definately
> I will not give you Scripture here, I want you to take it upon yourselves
> to look for and prove it to yourselves.
> Do you (we?) fall into it just after the death of the last of
> > the Jewish Bishops?, before the Constantinian seal of approval to
> > Christianity?
> Constantine was the original catholic, he actually started the catholic
> or somewhere prior to the Helenization of Christian
> > thought that hallmarked the great thinking of the early Church?
> Today we see these buildings that are calling themselves "Apostolic." Well,
> I beg to differ from that line of thinking. Why? Those people aren't old
> enough!!! Why? Look at the Scriptures. Specifically Acts 1. What made a
> apostle? With the exception of the Apostle Paul, there were two things that
> had to have happened in their life. 1. They had to have the baptism of John
> the Baptist. Do these guys have that today? Nope. They aren't old enough to
> have that. 2. They must have walked with Christ for the time period that He
> was here on earth teaching His ways. And He started the church. Not a man,
> but the Lord Himself. I've given that reference here before. Prove me wrong.
> To this date, nobody has. Several have disagreed with me, on specific
> points, but nobody has proved me wrong. Why? Because I've given you all
> something that you have most likely never heard before and most likely,
> never will hear being in the church of your choice that is most likely not a
> local, visible New Testament church. All you have to do is to look at what
> they teach. Two clues. Do they practice closed communion? Do they practice
> baptism by immersion? If they don't, they are not the real deal.
> Keep looking. Not my words, but the Lords: Matt 28:18-20, "observe ALL (my
> point) things," now, go 2 Tim 2:15.
> In His Service
> > Mike
> > _______________________________________________
> > Linux4christians mailing list
> > Linux4christians at thelinuxlink.net
> > http://www.thelinuxlink.net/mailman/listinfo/linux4christians
> Linux4christians mailing list
> Linux4christians at thelinuxlink.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Linux4christians