"Sanctify them through thy truth, thy word is truth."
Lakeside - I'd say this is pretty close to what you want. Where does it say the church is truth?
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
"Sanctify them through thy truth, thy word is truth."
DHK, you still have not quoted any Verse or Verses from the Lord Jesus in the NT of your KJV Bible that tells us that the Bible or Holy NT Scriptures are more authoritative than His church, that Jesus loved the Holy Bible or Holy Sacred Scripture more than His Church, that Jesus preached that his new found Christian faith was formed or based on his Bible and not His Church, you still are neglectful in pointing out those verses, it should be an easy task for you to accomplish, for if you can't, it will only be proven that your whole position on Sola Scriptura is collapsing in ruins.
Yes, their is one church. Unfortunately you are not grasping what that is. *God only gave us One Church, formed on His Apostles/ successors. nowhere in the NT does Jesus ever say that the Holy Bible is above his church [meaning One Apostolic Church ] to the contrary, Jesus gave all authority to His Apostolic church as in [Luke 10: 16 ] Christ loved His Church nothing about Him loving his bible as His church [ see Eph.5; 25-26 ] Church, not churches or all Christians, is the pillar/foundation of truth [ see 1 Tim.3: 15 ]. Christ protects His Church [ Matt.16: 18=20 ], no verse where God protects His Bible as much as His Church [ and for the last 2,000 years his Church has weathered many a bad storm ] We are to obey his Church as found in Book of Heb. 13 or 18; 17 ]
his Church contains "good and bad ' people as in { Matt.5: 13-16; matt.13: 1-9 } Now show me a verse from Jesus [in red in your KJV Bibles where Jesus gave more emphasis to His Holy Bible than his Church, remember I said more emphasis to his Holy Bible than His ' One ' church.
1. The church that you believe in is built on a lie. It can be shown by Scripture that if Peter was ever in Rome it was not for more than one year, and in that year he was there as a prisoner awaiting death, not as a leader of a church. He never was a bishop of Rome.God only gave us One Church, formed on His Apostles/ successors. nowhere in the NT does Jesus ever say that the Holy Bible is above his church [meaning One Apostolic Church ] to the contrary, Jesus gave all authority to His Apostolic church as in [Luke 10: 16 ] Christ loved His Church nothing about Him loving his bible as His church [ see Eph.5; 25-26 ] Church, not churches or all Christians, is the pillar/foundation of truth [ see 1 Tim.3: 15 ]. Christ protects His Church [ Matt.16: 18=20 ], no verse where God protects His Bible as much as His Church [ and for the last 2,000 years his Church has weathered many a bad storm ] We are to obey his Church as found in Book of Heb. 13 or 18; 17 ]
his Church contains "good and bad ' people as in { Matt.5: 13-16; matt.13: 1-9 } Now show me a verse from Jesus [in red in your KJV Bibles where Jesus gave more emphasis to His Holy Bible than his Church, remember I said more emphasis to his Holy Bible than His ' One ' church.
DHK, you still have not quoted any Verse or Verses from the Lord Jesus in the NT of your KJV Bible that tells us that the Bible or Holy NT Scriptures are more authoritative than His church, that Jesus loved the Holy Bible or Holy Sacred Scripture more than His Church, that Jesus preached that his new found Christian faith was formed or based on his Bible and not His Church, you still are neglectful in pointing out those verses, it should be an easy task for you to accomplish, for if you can't, it will only be proven that your whole position on Sola Scriptura is collapsing in ruins.
annsni, the church tells you that it is Apostolic and Catholic as stated 110 A.D.
Jesus only taught his apostles the fullness of the Christian faith. Jesus gives those very same apostles His Authority see Luke 10; 16 . He tells them that he will build a church [ one church ] see Matt 16; 15- 19 ] Jesus tells his apostles to go out into the "whole World /Universal the Greek word meaning katholic/ Catholic.
annsni, the church tells you that it is Apostolic and Catholic as stated 110 A.D.
Jesus only taught his apostles the fullness of the Christian faith. Jesus gives those very same apostles His Authority see Luke 10; 16 . He tells them that he will build a church [ one church ] see Matt 16; 15- 19 ] Jesus tells his apostles to go out into the "whole World /Universal the Greek word meaning katholic/ Catholic. In Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke, Simon,s name was " Kepha" [ which means a massive rock ] Later this name was translated into Greek as "Petros [ John 1: 42 and into English as Peter. Christ gave Peter alone the " keys of the kingdom Matt.16: 19 ] Jesus also gave similar power to the other apostles Matt.18:18, but only to Peter was given the keys, symbols of his authority to rule the church in Jesus, absence.
From Bible;
The Church is One: Rom.12:5; 1 Cor 10:17, 12: 13
The Church is Holy ; Eph 5: 25-27, Rev. 19: 7-8
The Church is catholic ; Matt. 28; 19-20, Rev. 5: 9-10
The Church is Apostolic: Eph.2: 19-20
IOW, you have no answer to the actual facts of history, the facts that I have presented you, namely:DHK, want to hear another fantasy shepherd story:
There was this Shepherd His name was Jesus He as a Shepherd of His flock, had many millions of different commands for each of His sheep. The end result is that sheep all over the world are so confused they can't stay in their own pasture , they must always keep searching for another pasture with a confused shepherd as confused as they are.
Now here is a more realistic story of a Shepherd named Jesus: Jesus the Chief Shepherd wants His sheep to be united with the same commands, so Jesus the Chief Shepherd has a fold that follows His earthly shepherds because Jesus taught only those earthly shepherds the very same commands, and they taught other earthly shepherds those very same commands. so what we have is a world- wide fold of sheep that follow in Jesus' green pasture. Most of those sheep stay in that huge one green pasture.
1. The church that you believe in is built on a lie. It can be shown by Scripture that if Peter was ever in Rome it was not for more than one year, and in that year he was there as a prisoner awaiting death, not as a leader of a church. He never was a bishop of Rome.
The foundation of Catholicism is built on a lie.
2. If the first pope is a lie, then all the succeeding popes fall like dominoes. They also are lies. There is no succession.
3. There was no "Church," only "churches," as the word "ekklesia" indicates. Paul went on 3 missionary journeys and established over 100 churches, none of which were connected together in a denomination.
4. Paul wrote to 13 churches or pastors of churches, whose letters make up half of the NT.
5. Jesus wrote to 7 pastors of 7 churches, all independent of each other in the book of Revelation, all existing churches at that time. There were no bishops (in the RCC hierarchical definition of the term), only pastors and deacons. There were no denominations.
There was no such thing as "The Church." No such thing existed.
You believe in a fantasy, based on the lie that Peter was in Rome as the first pope, and that he was there for 25 years. Who told you that lie, and why do you believe it?
You should care. It is the foundation of your religion and it is based on a lie.DHK, it doesn't matter to me if Peter was in Rome or not, [ but I truly believe he was because the early Christians say Peter was in Rome they were there, you and your congregation was not } wherever Peter is there is the Catholic Church.
"My second string historians--incompetent"?? Those would be: Peter himself, Paul, Luke, the Holy Spirit of God, and the Scriptures He has given to us. That is quite a blasphemous statement you have made, especially calling the Holy Spirit incompetent. Remember, I proved to you that Peter was not in Rome, using the Scriptures alone. So what incompetent historians did I use? Just whom are you referring to?It's really funny how you in the minority believe in your history and interpretation as being authentic, when the most scholarly Historians have proved your second string historians as incompetent.
And all this is of greater value to you than the Word of God itself??We have the early Christian writings along with secular historical data, we have main-line Protestant church archives of the 16th century church that agree with early Catholic history, we have even the early Protestant church fathers agreeing that the papists gave us the Holy Bible, we have the early Roman writers that verify of the early Christians receiving the Eucharist, we have early Jewish writers that write about how it was the Catholic Church that gave the Holy Bible it's Canonical List of Holy Books that compile the Christian Holy Bible. The Dead Sea Scrolls support the Catholic OT.
Nothing but the inspired Word of God. And that is not sufficient for you.What evidence besides a Holy Bible hijacked from the Catholic Church, that you inadequately interpret do you have ? The answer is nothing.
DHK, it doesn't matter to me if Peter was in Rome or not, [ but I truly believe he was because the early Christians say Peter was in Rome they were there, you and your congregation was not } wherever Peter is there is the Catholic Church.
It's really funny how you in the minority believe in your history and interpretation as being authentic, when the most scholarly Historians have proved your second string historians as incompetent. We have the early Christian writings along with secular historical data, we have main-line Protestant church archives of the 16th century church that agree with early Catholic history, we have even the early Protestant church fathers agreeing that the papists gave us the Holy Bible, we have the early Roman writers that verify of the early Christians receiving the Eucharist, we have early Jewish writers that write about how it was the Catholic Church that gave the Holy Bible it's Canonical List of Holy Books that compile the Christian Holy Bible. The Dead Sea Scrolls support the Catholic OT. What evidence besides a Holy Bible hijacked from the Catholic Church, that you inadequately interpret do you have ? The answer is nothing.
