This do in remembrance of me Luke 22:19

[Helen]

The Bible did not produce the Church T or F
The Church produced the Bible T or F
The Church is not built upon the Bible T or F
The Church is built upon the apostles and prophets T or F
Christ did not leave a written book to guide His Church T or F
he (Christ) left living MEN empowered by the Holy Spirit. T or F

Blessings
-

It is true that the Bible did not produce the Church. Christ Himself is the cornerstone and is building the Church. It is HIS Church.

The Church did most assuredly NOT produce the Bible. The Old Testament was in existence long before any Christian church at all and Peter himself testified that Paul's writings were Scripture. With just a couple of exceptions, the books of the New Testament were accepted as inspired Scripture by 200 A.D. at the latest, over 100 years before the Roman Catholic Church came into existence. And, in fact, the RCC accepted books and still does, which were refused by the early Christians.

Christ most certainly did leave a Book for His Church. He quoted constantly from the Old Testament Scriptures, validating them. The New Testament gives the history of Christ, the beginning of the Christian church, and some letters of encouragement and correction by Paul, James, John, Peter, and Jude. None of this is the product of the Roman Catholic Church, nor is Revelation.

And God has made sure we have access to the languages the Scriptures were written in so we can check meanings and intentions. Greek and Hebrew are known and studied today. Even paleo-Hebrew is still known although not used.

The Roman Catholic Church in no way at any time produced any Scriptures. They have only re-interpreted them and added to them and then added pronouncements which override Scripture.

Sorry, but I'll stick with what Christ Himself and the early Christians stuck with -- the actual Scriptures.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Helen:

"It is true that the Bible did not produce the Church. Christ Himself is the cornerstone and is building the Church. It is HIS Church."

GE:

True. But still, the Bible produces the Church. The Scriptures is our 'sole authority'. Church without doctrine is not possible; and doctrine is based upon the Scriptures or is falsely based upon the Scriptures. The true Church with its doctrine - its message - will be "according to the Scriptures"; the lie's church, will not be "according to the Scriptures".

So there in fact is, this sense, in which the Scriptures makes the Church, while the Church after the Apostles' time, NEVER makes the Scriptures. That would be Roman Catholicism that claims it does.

 

[Eliyahu]

Both Helen and GE,

Both of you are correct. I checked Helen's sentence by sentence and found no problem with it at all. It was well pointed out that Jesus validated OT by numerous quotations. Also she pointed out the time sequences rightly on this issue.

What GE did well was about the churches after the Bible was established, especially the local churches which must follow the Bible, based on Sola Scriptura. This refutes the intention of RC's bringing Apocrypha.

What I may add is about "the church in the wilderness" in OT times mentioned by Stephen in Acts 7:38, which may be translated " Assembly" as well. It may be called a Primitive Church in the wilderness.

Anyway, it is a provocative catchphrase if one say " My church defined your Bible".

 

[Matt Black]

It is true that the Bible did not produce the Church. Christ Himself is the cornerstone and is building the Church. It is HIS Church.

The Church did most assuredly NOT produce the Bible. The Old Testament was in existence long before any Christian church at all and Peter himself testified that Paul's writings were Scripture.

But who wrote the books of the New Testament?

With just a couple of exceptions, the books of the New Testament were accepted as inspired Scripture by 200 A.D. at the latest

Interesting...by whom? How? Which books?

over 100 years before the Roman Catholic Church came into existence

Really?? And when might that have been? By what event?

Christ most certainly did leave a Book for His Church. He quoted constantly from the Old Testament Scriptures, validating them. The New Testament gives the history of Christ, the beginning of the Christian church, and some letters of encouragement and correction by Paul, James, John, Peter, and Jude. None of this is the product of the Roman Catholic Church, nor is Revelation.

I'm fail to see how Christ could have 'left' all of that for His Church, since the NT did not exist until several decades after His Ascension!

Sorry, but I'll stick with what Christ Himself and the early Christians stuck with -- the actual Scriptures.

So...just the Old Testament, then.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Both Helen and GE, Both of you are correct. I checked Helen's sentence by sentence and found no problem with it at all.

This is just too funny, Eliyahu going around and determining what is and isn't correct teaching...who Eliyahu gave you the authority to determin what is and isn't correct teaching?
-

 

[Agnus_Dei]

It is true that the Bible did not produce the Church. Christ Himself is the cornerstone and is building the Church. It is HIS Church.

And the Catholic Church would agree…

You make it sound as though the RCC believes that the Church is theirs and not Christ’s. That’s simply not true Helen. I’m very disappointed in you. From someone who combats evolution with science, I took you for someone who knew how to objectively research. If what you allude above to is what you believe, then you’ve been told what to think and you may want to redevelop your critical thinking skills…because they’re certainly a little rusty in this area.

I can’t personally combat evolution, because I’m not versed in the scientific elements. Now I could go and find a website and simply regurgitate it, but that does me no good, unless I understand what I’m speaking of.

In regard to Catholicism, I was taught as a Baptist, that the independent, fundamental Church was the NT Church. And all other churches were basically corrupt is some form of doctrine. I’m a history buff, love history, Civil War, Early American History…love to read…so I wanted to trace this NT Church I called home back to the Apostles, so I was given some material, but all leads generally dead ended around the 1500’s and what leads did go beyond the 1500’s were very vague and iffy for my taste for history anyway. I wanted to find anyone of the Baptististic line that walked with the Apostles…needless to say…I was disappointed.

I had to be honest with myself, how could I sincerely believe that the IFB Church was the NT Church Christ founded, when there’s no solid record through the Apostolic Church era, to back their claim?

I’ve spent over 3 years studying Early Church History, the Great Church Fathers and Doctors, Apostolic Fathers who walked and were disciples of the very Apostles themselves. I was already indoctrinated in all the anti-Catholic propaganda as a IFB and the Catholic Church was the least of my concern, since they were the most corrupt of all…but look where I am now…on the banks of the Tiber…

My mission here is not to convert or convince others of the Catholic faith is the true Church. I'm already convinced of that. I just want to ensure that what's being expounded upon here is done so in a fair and balanced light.

The Church did most assuredly NOT produce the Bible. The Old Testament was in existence long before any Christian church at all and Peter himself testified that Paul's writings were Scripture.

I believe in my post to webdog, I qualified what I meant when I say ‘Bible’ in my signature Helen…the same Bible you hold today in your hands…a table of contents of 66 books of both the Old and New Testament.

Table of contents Helen, that’s the key here. You are familiar with a table of contents aren’t you? They do more than just tell us the pages on which the constituent books begin. They tell us that the Bible is a collection of books, and that Helen, implies that there was a collector(s).

So Helen, when was the table of contents of our Bible settled, year and by whom?

With just a couple of exceptions, the books of the New Testament were accepted as inspired Scripture by 200 A.D.

So the bible as we have today with a table of contents as today was in circulation before 200 AD? Cool…care to document what council or person(s) developed that table of contents by determining what books were and weren’t Authoritive?

over 100 years before the Roman Catholic Church came into existence.

This is my favorite line…when the Roman Catholic Church came into existence…so Helen, when did the RCC come into existence…who founded the RCC…It’s my understanding that there was one Church and after the great schism of 1051 (?), Eastern Church later became (Greek Orthodox) and Western Church became (Roman Catholic). So since the Church was one, it’s my job to discover of the two, which is the true authentic Church, or in other words, who broke away from whom.

And, in fact, the RCC accepted books and still does, which were refused by the early Christians.

In fact Helen, even before the Bible’s table of contents were verified and accepted, the Ecumenical Councils always re-verified the books of the Bible and guess what…the Apocrypha was apart of that listing.

Refresh my memory Helen…Why did Luther exclude the Apocrypha from his German translation and while were on Luther, why did Luther feel the need to include a commentary in his translation?

Christ most certainly did leave a Book for His Church. He quoted constantly from the Old Testament Scriptures, validating them.

How Helen could Christ leave the Old Testament Scriptures, when the OT was already in existence LONG before Christ was born? During the great commission did Christ instruct His Apostles to go forth and write a book? Or better yet, collect writings and form a NT?

Yes, the Catholic Church agrees that Christ quoted from the OT and thus validated them…no problem there.

The New Testament gives the history of Christ, the beginning of the Christian church, and some letters of encouragement and correction by Paul, James, John, Peter, and Jude.

No problem here for Catholics.

None of this is the product of the Roman Catholic Church, nor is Revelation.

What? You’re saying that the RCC states that the above mentioned letters are a product of the RCC? They’re the product of the authors themselves under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The Church on the other hand did in fact determine which of these letters were authoritative and I believe that Holy Spirit had just as much to do with that as did in aiding the writing of these letters.

By the way, Paul and Peter both wrote other letters as did other Apostles that didn’t make the cut…why do you think that those didn’t measure up? And again, who determined which of the numerous letters various Churches had were in fact authoritative?

The Roman Catholic Church in no way at any time produced any Scriptures.

Huh? As in ‘wrote’ Scripture? Take care how you word your statements.

They have only re-interpreted them and added to them and then added pronouncements which override Scripture.

This is a ‘which Greek text’ issue that fundamentalist love to debate, even the thousands of various sects of Protestantism can’t agree and even funnier is that some fundamentalist sects can’t even agree…

Sorry, but I'll stick with what Christ Himself and the early Christians stuck with -- the actual Scriptures.

Did St. Polycarp carry around a leather bound Bible with a table of contents of 66 books we have today?
-

 

[Eliyahu]

This is just too funny, Eliyahu going around and determining what is and isn't correct teaching...who Eliyahu gave you the authority to determin what is and isn't correct teaching?
-

I can discern what is wrong and what is right.

1 Cor 6

2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? 4 If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. 5 I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?


Are you unhappy not to hear that you are right? Don't follow the path of Cain in Genesis 4.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

I can discern what is wrong and what is right.
1 Cor 6
Are you unhappy not to hear that you are right? Don't follow the path of Cain in Genesis 4.

Anyone can dicern what right and wrong is, it's that little voice in your gut that says what's right and wrong before you do it.

What we're discussing here is what is right and wrong as pertaining to correct theological teaching Eliyahu. Does 1 Corinthians 6 give you the authority to determine correct theologically teaching? Better re-read the verse again...
-

 

[Eliyahu]

Anyone can dicern what right and wrong is, it's that little voice in your gut that says what's right and wrong before you do it.

What we're discussing here is what is right and wrong as pertaining to correct theological teaching Eliyahu. Does 1 Corinthians 6 give you the authority to determine correct theologically teaching? Better re-read the verse again...
-

What about this one then?
1 John 2:
27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.


Do you need a priest or ECF's writings?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I can't explain the creation; still I believe God spoke and it was;
I can't explain regeneration; yet believe --- what a miracle!
A Christian believes nothing but miracles.

Just so with the Bible. All of a sudden, one could almost say, we had the Bible as it is today -- a miracle just as great as creation or salvation.

But what is most amazing is that God destined and directed the coming into being of this which He calls His Word. He created it so to speak, and even saved it from its antogonists -- the very Church itself that wrote it! Because the Church is wicked -- as wicked as its members and leaders in fact. The lilly that grows from the mud beneath ....

I believe this Bible in spite of everything; it teaches me Christ; and it teaches me the antichrist. One cannot help to recognise this antichrist easily; it exalts itself above the Word of God. It is only the Roman catholic Church that elevates itself to the position of God. Everyone who has followed this very thread could see for himself.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

What about this one then? 1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

Eliyahu, you really shouldn’t take one verse and try and force it into something its not. Ask yourself these questions…who was Johns audience and what was the purpose of John’s letter. It’s suggested that John wrote this letter as a part rebuke of a known Gnostic by the name Cyrinthus, who was denying the humanity of Christ during this time period.

Keep in mind to that these letters and epistles were written to specific Church leaders and therefore the subjects, so when John say “you”, the “you” are the leaders of the Church the letter was written too.

Hence 1 John 2:27, is referring to those unauthorized to teach…other words heretics. John’s instructions are to not listen to the teachings of those unauthorized to teach, b/c they (the leaders) have already been taught the truth by the Apostles themselves and the truth they teach can only come from the Holy Spirit Christ promised to guide and protect His Church. The anointing refers to the catechetical instruction given by the Church hierarchy. The Holy Spirit teaches us (me and you) through the Church, so when the bishops teach, it’s actually the Holy Spirit teaching through them…Remember Christ said that He would be with His Church until the end of the age.

My speech and my preaching were not with words of human wisdom, but…of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2:4; Matt. 10:20)

The Holy Spirit may be our ultimate teacher, but this dosen’t mean there are no human teachers that the Holy Spirit teaches through.

So Eliyahu, 1 John 2:27, doesn’t give you, individuals authoritative power in interpret Scripture…Look at the thousands of different competing Sects in Protestantism…This is what happens when people abuse verses as 1 John 2:27 and others and exactly why Luther included a commentary in his German translation of the Bible

Do you need a priest or ECF's writings?

Who would've understood the Apostles teachings better? The Apostolic Church Fathers or the Reformers?
-

 

[Agnus_Dei]

A Christian believes nothing but miracles. Just so with the Bible. All of a sudden, one could almost say, we had the Bible as it is today -- a miracle just as great as creation or salvation.

Please somebody pinch me to ensure I’m not dreaming here. After a quote as such, how can I or anybody really take you serious…
-

 

[DQuixote]

I cannot believe that after 2,000 years Christians still debate this. I'm amazed that it is even an issue. What a waste of time, time that could be devoted to prayer, fasting, Bible study, helping others in the community with real bread and real fruit juice, with shoes for their feet, clothing.............. how "wasteful" can we get while following in His footsteps.

Thank you, Helen, for your proper insights, nontheless.

:jesus: <----- We need no other argument, we need no other plea.

 

[Eliyahu]

Eliyahu, you really shouldn’t take one verse and try and force it into something its not. Ask yourself these questions…who was Johns audience and what was the purpose of John’s letter. It’s suggested that John wrote this letter as a part rebuke of a known Gnostic by the name Cyrinthus, who was denying the humanity of Christ during this time period.

Keep in mind to that these letters and epistles were written to specific Church leaders and therefore the subjects, so when John say “you”, the “you” are the leaders of the Church the letter was written too.

So, does RCC limit the application of this portion of Bible to the gnostics?
In other words, RCC teaches that the laypeople cannot interpret the Bible?

Read this:
1 Cor 14:
29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge. 30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace. 31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.

There is no limitation, but the believers can interpret and prophesy. Is it limited to the priests?

Hence 1 John 2:27, is referring to those unauthorized to teach…other words heretics. John’s instructions are to not listen to the teachings of those unauthorized to teach, b/c they (the leaders) have already been taught the truth by the Apostles themselves and the truth they teach can only come from the Holy Spirit Christ promised to guide and protect His Church. The anointing refers to the catechetical instruction given by the Church hierarchy. The Holy Spirit teaches us (me and you) through the Church, so when the bishops teach, it’s actually the Holy Spirit teaching through them…Remember Christ said that He would be with His Church until the end of the age.[/quote]
Heretics can be brought by so-called Nico-laitanes as well ( Rev 2:6, 2:15). Who are the authorized persons? Authorized by whom? Who has the authority to authorize?

Eventually we can hear their testimony about how they were saved, how they started to believe, then how their actual lives are as we read 1 Tim 3:1-7, we can check their testimony and their lives. The whole processes require the hearing and discerning by the believers. There was no college mentioned in the Bible at all. Again, in this process the Holy Spirit in the Believers heart teaches them. All the true believers are the Priests ( 1 Peter 2:5-9, Rev 1:6, 5:10). If we are priests, can the priests not discern what is wrong and what is right?

Christ didn't say that He would be with His church until the end of ages, but He said " I am with you always even unto the end of the world" ( Matt 28:20). There is Salvation even outside the Church, and the Church doesn't mean Roman Catholic which have a lot of problems with Idolatry and Paganism such as Transubstantiation, Purgatory, Papacy, Mary worship, Compulsory Celibacy, Prayer to the dead, Prayer for the dead, Infant Baptism, Church Hierarchy, etc.

My speech and my preaching were not with words of human wisdom, but…of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2:4; Matt. 10:20)

The Holy Spirit may be our ultimate teacher, but this doesn’t mean there are no human teachers that the Holy Spirit teaches through.

So Eliyahu, 1 John 2:27, doesn’t give you, individuals authoritative power in interpret Scripture…Look at the thousands of different competing Sects in Protestantism…This is what happens when people abuse verses as 1 John 2:27 and others and exactly why Luther included a commentary in his German translation of the Bible

That's the weakness of RCC. RC could not interpret the Bible and all the time quickly bring the interpretation from others- so-called priests or fathers. That is one of the big differences between True Christians and Catholics. True Christians can discern the doctrines and teachings with the guidance of Holy Spirit, which Catholics may not.

Who would've understood the Apostles teachings better? The Apostolic Church Fathers or the Reformers?

Both cannot be the comparison at all. Only the comparison between Bible and others exists. Therefore Apostles' writings in the Bible governs all the cases. What I meant by ECF's was not the NT writings but the ECF after NT was established such as Polycarp, Iraeneus, Papias, etc. Those ECF have no authority over the Bible teachings. Bible has all teachings necessary for our spiritual life.
RCC always try to deviate the people from the Bible.
When it comes to Purgatory, RC brings Apocrypha.
When it comes to Transubstantiation, they bring ECF's.


You could never answer my questions about Medical Lab Test and about Prohibition of Eating Blood in the Law.
If you believe that ECF can teach you better, try to find out what they said about the contradiction between Transubstantiation and Law.

When I read some of the quotations of ECF's I found that they said that the believers should take the Bread and Wine with such Belief that the Bread is the Flesh of Jesus and Wine is the Blood of Jesus, which doesn't mean that they believed they are drinking the Blood despite the prohibition by the Law, they ate the Bread as if they ate the Flesh of Jesus, with such belief. They never showed any clue that they thought the Bread and Wine are turning to Flesh and Blood, at all.

That's why I asked you to bring any ECF's commentary to override the Law, which you could never bring so far.

 

[Matt Black]

A Christian believes nothing but miracles.

Just so with the Bible. All of a sudden, one could almost say, we had the Bible as it is today -- a miracle just as great as creation or salvation.

Whaaa...?! :laugh: This thread just gets funnier and funnier! So...plop! There's the Bible - just like the Book of Mormon.

 

[Matt Black]

What about this one then?
1 John 2:
27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

Yawn...:sleeping_2: That was against the Docetists....Next!

 

[Eliyahu]

Yawn...:sleeping_2: That was against the Docetists....Next!

As if the Truth against Docetism didn't apply to any other heretics.

 

[Matt Black]

Just establishing the context rather than random proof-texting, which anyone, including the Devil, can do.

 

[Eliyahu]

Just establishing the context rather than random proof-texting, which anyone, including the Devil, can do.

It's not Random unless one can prove the theory by Med Lab Test or can prove the Biblical explanation that Jesus instructed Disciples drink Human Blood despite the Law prohibiting Blood drinking.

None of ECF explained that one should or can drink Blood despite the Law of OT. None of them proclaimed such Heresy before RCC brought it into Christendom. Nobody could bring such writing proving ECF claimed such heresy.

I am glad that I don't drink Human Blood as other Heretics do!

 

[Eliyahu]

Actually there is a great similarity between Docetism and Transubstantiation, because Docetism taught the illusion of Christ and Transubstantiation is a kind of Illusion which can never be proven by Medical Lab Test.

If the Transubstantiation is not Illusion, it is Delusion, substantiated neither by Science nor by Bible, which rejects even the Faith that we reckon them as a Reminder in Remembrance of Him.