View Full Version : anyone want real church?
John L. Jesus
08-26-2013, 05:45 PM
http://jesuschristsfamily.webs.com
RandyWayne
08-26-2013, 05:47 PM
The Nation of JE'SUS Christ
?
houston
08-26-2013, 05:54 PM
No. No thanks. Church people annoy me. I couldn't live with them.
The Lord has called for a solemn assembly of His Saints, for 24/7/365 Corporate Family Living, just as it was in the beginning, so it is today in the end-time Church Family & Body of Christ. His Church is the same yesterday, today, and forever. We have ALL THINGS COMMON here.
Michael The Disciple
08-26-2013, 06:45 PM
The Nation of JE'SUS Christ
?
Where is the link?
http://jesuschristsfamily.webs.com
I have "real church" so I am good. Thank you for asking though.
Michael The Disciple
08-26-2013, 07:33 PM
Not much info about them.
Anyone want real "called out ones"? Huh?
Praxeas
08-26-2013, 08:29 PM
I have "real church" so I am good. Thank you for asking though.
No you don't...otherwise why post what he did? :icecream
Sister Alvear
08-27-2013, 06:14 AM
ckeck the IP and see if it is coming from Brazil....
Aquila
08-27-2013, 06:24 AM
We should want "real church" we should be "real church".
We should want "real church" we should be "real church".
Amen!
Michael The Disciple
08-27-2013, 06:36 AM
Ok I am interested. Is this a Oneness Pentecostal group?
http://jesuschristsfamily.webs.com
Here we go with this collectivist heresy again...
Pressing-On
08-27-2013, 01:26 PM
No. No thanks. Church people annoy me. I couldn't live with them.
I heard someone once say, "I'd rather spend some time in church with a few hypocrites than spend an eternity in hell with the lot of them." :heeheehee
Michael The Disciple
08-27-2013, 01:54 PM
Here we go with this collectivist heresy again...
The true doctrine of having all things common is just as Biblically sound as tongues being the evidence of the Spirit baptism.
The true doctrine of having all things common is just as Biblically sound as tongues being the evidence of the Spirit baptism.
no it is not. good grief. The book of acts points out that the church in Jerusalem held things in common. The bible does not teach that as a doctrine on any level.
Further the church in Jerusalem fell into awful poverty and had to be supported by other churches around the Roman world.
In fact the Jerusalem church became a near afterthought within a generation.
lets not take a comment from scripture and start calling it "doctrine" It wasnt. It isnt.
Michael The Disciple
08-27-2013, 02:48 PM
no it is not. good grief. The book of acts points out that the church in Jerusalem held things in common. The bible does not teach that as a doctrine on any level.
Further the church in Jerusalem fell into awful poverty and had to be supported by other churches around the Roman world.
In fact the Jerusalem church became a near afterthought within a generation.
lets not take a comment from scripture and start calling it "doctrine" It wasnt. It isnt.
We make doctrine from the book of Acts concerning both baptism in Jesus name and the Holy Ghost with tongues.
I will not criticize Apostolic practice. One thing cannot be denied in contrasting the Church then and now.
Acts 4:32-35
32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. 33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. 34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them , and brought the prices of the things that were sold , 35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need .
The Church then was glorious. It was thriving.
Modern Church is pitiful in comparison.
They did not NECCESSARILY all live in one place but none said what he had was his own.
The same principal was in the Corinthian Church.
2 Cor. 8:13-15
13 For I mean not that other men be eased, and ye burdened: 14 But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality: 15 As it is written , He that had gathered much had nothing over ; and he that had gathered little had no lack .
If saints of their own free will wanted to all live together in one place sharing all things common it certainly is not heresy.
Praxeas
08-27-2013, 03:09 PM
Clarke
And had all things common - Perhaps this has not been well understood. At all the public religious feasts in Jerusalem, there was a sort of community of goods. No man at such times hired houses or beds in Jerusalem; all were lent gratis by the owners: Yoma, fol. 12. Megill. fol. 26. The same may be well supposed of their ovens, cauldrons, tables, spits, and other utensils. Also, provisions of water were made for them at the public expense; Shekalim, cap. 9. See Lightfoot here.
Therefore a sort of community of goods was no strange thing at Jerusalem, at such times as these. It appears, however, that this community of goods was carried farther; for we are informed, Act_2:45, that they sold their possessions and their goods, and parted them to all, as every man had need. But, this probably means that, as in consequence of this remarkable outpouring of the Spirit of God; and their conversion, they were detained longer at Jerusalem than they had originally intended, they formed a kind of community for the time being, that none might suffer want on the present occasion; as no doubt the unbelieving Jews, who were mockers, Act_2:13, would treat these new converts with the most marked disapprobation.
That an absolute community of goods never obtained in the Church at Jerusalem, unless for a very short time, is evident from the apostolical precept, 1Co_16:1, etc., by which collections were ordered to be made for the poor; but, if there had been a community of goods in the Church, there could have been no ground for such recommendations as these, as there could have been no such distinction as rich and poor, if every one, on entering the Church, gave up all his goods to a common stock. Besides, while this sort of community lasted at Jerusalem, it does not appear to have been imperious upon any; persons might or might not thus dispose of their goods, as we learn front the case of Ananias, Act_5:4.
Nor does it appear that what was done at Jerusalem at this time obtained in any other branch of the Christian Church; and in this, and in the fifth chap., where it is mentioned, it is neither praised nor blamed. We may therefore safely infer, it was something that was done at this time, on this occasion, through some local necessity, which the circumstances of the infant Church at Jerusalem might render expedient for that place and on that occasion only.
Timmy
08-27-2013, 11:06 PM
I wonder if John L. Jesus is related to that Jesus H. Christ I've heard so much about. :hmmm
RandyWayne
08-27-2013, 11:16 PM
I wonder if John L. Jesus is related to that Jesus H. Christ I've heard so much about. :hmmm
Until I was ten, that is what I thought MY name was. . . .
http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/090/448/BillCosbyHimself4-450.jpg
I wonder if John L. Jesus is related to that Jesus H. Christ I've heard so much about. :hmmm
I wonder if Dan Brown knows about him!
vBulletin® v3.8.5, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.