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!
Do you understand what you post and read??
DHK,
I was a Catholic, and I got saved. Then I saw the contradictions between the Bible and the Catholic religion. I had a choice to make. Either obey God and leave the Catholic Church, or disobey God and remain in the Catholic Church. Continual disobedience is a mark of an unbeliever.
There are two things wrong with this approach.
Your last statement is entirely false. God gave us the Word of God. It was given to us entirely apart from the Catholic Church. It had nothing to do with the Catholic Church. In fact through the ages the Catholic Church tried to destroy it not preserve it. Find out what happened to William Tyndale, and his Bible.
These communities of believers were independent Baptist churches that have existed in every age outside of the Catholic Church. They have existed before the Catholic was established in the fourth century even from the time of the Apostles, though by different names. Churches are communities of regenerated baptized believers, independent of one another. Such was the case in the New Testament and in the early centuries.
But that is not what is said is it? Salvation is through Christ alone. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. It is by faith and faith alone that one is saved. It is through the preaching of the cross, not the church. I was saved entirely outside of the Catholic Church, in fact outside of any church. The Catholic Church is apostate. There is no salvation in the Catholic Church.
No there were not churches independent of each other and had their own rules in the NT.
Do you think the completed Bible just dropped out of the sky?
No there were not churches independent of each other and had their own rules in the NT.
Although this council was held at the church at Jerusalem where James was the pastor, it was not a church council per se. It was a council where the Apostles presided and the Apostles had the final say. It was upon the advice on the experiences of Paul and Peter that the final decision was made by James, the pastor of the church. The decision was made because of the heresy being spread by the heretical Judaizing teachers that followed Paul wherever he went.
Paul tries to settle disputes in that one particular church who had that specific problem. What has that got to do with other churches. This supports the notion of independent churches. The problem works in favor of independent churches not against it. He was addressing the problems specific to the independent Baptist church at Corinth, however carnal it may have been.
Paul was teaching the Corinthian church that Christ was not to be divided, not any other church. He addressed this church only for this problem. He addressed other churches according to their needs. Every church had their own needs. When he addressed the church at Thessalonica, he addressed them about the Second Coming, and the resurrection of those that had gone on before them. Each independent church had their own specific problems which Paul addressed. They were not connected one to another. They were independent each from the other. The church in Jerusalem was in Judea; but the church in Corinth was in Greece. What possible connection could they have with each other? FYI, they did not have the internet.
That is correct. Paul is specifically referring to the Old Testament, upon which Timothy was raised.
Not true. James and Matthew, as well as the epistles to the Corinthians were all written in the 50's They were all early books. It was only John's writings that were written late in the 90's. The early believers recognized Scripture as they were being written. They were not as stupid as modern people think they were. They were not cavemen, with matching mentalities. You people have been indoctrinated with evolution too much. Check the second epistle of Peter. Peter recognized the writings of Paul as Scripture, and he recognized the writings of all the apostles as Scripture. It is apparent that he knew which was Sctipture and which was not. Read the third chapter carefully. If you can't find it yourself, ask again and I will give you specific references and explain them to you once again.
Sure the word "catholic" means universal. There is no argument there. That doesn't mean that Ignatius was referring to the "Catholic Church." It is just an assumption that you are making.
Why do you question the intelligence of the early believers. You constantly infer that the intellect of Peter, Paul, and the other Apostles and early beievers is next to zero. You insult them. These believers were able to discern what books were inspired and which were not, just as the Jews were able to tell which books belonged in the Old Testament canon and which were not. After all they had the translated Hebrew canon into Greek (the Septuagint) by 250 B.C. Yet you render these Christians as totally incapable without the Catholic Church. Amazing!
Why bother? I trust the Apostles. Why don't you?
Then you are saying that ALL religions are OK because they don't think the Catholic church is necessary. Then what is the point?!
The point is that God will judge you based on your knowledge of His will and how you responded to that knowledge in good conscience.
Yes I do. But apparently you do not. You are a very confused person.
That much is true.
Concerning the Gospel of Matthew is where you are really out to lunch. It seems that you have swallowed liberal scholarship (out to destroy the Bible) hook, line, and sinker. Matthew was the first gospel to be written. If, as Catholic tradition contends, it was written in Aramaic first, then it was written as early as 45 A.D. Most Protestants believe that there was no Aramaic edition, and that Matthew wrote in Greek only. That being the case the Gospel was written between 50 and 55. The view that this gospel was written after 70 A.D., is because the destruction of Jerusalem occurred in that year. The liberals do not believe in the ability of Christ to predict the future, and therefore assign a later date to the gospel of Matthew. To believe this later date theory is only a sign of your disbelief in Christ, or your ignorance of the Bible. Which do you plead to?
Mark, written around 60, was written with the Romans in mind, and presents Christ as the Servant of God. Note there is no genealogy in Mark for people are not concerned with the ancestry of a servant. Mark 10:45 is the theme verse.
Luke, written about 61,62 presents Christ as the Perfect Man. He presents much of the human aspects of Christ that the other gospels don't. One reason for this may be that Luke himself was a physician.
It is quite certain that the Gospel of John, the three Epistles of John, as well as the Book of Revelation, were all written by the same person, and that is John the Apostle. John wrote this Gospel about 90 A.D., well after the others. His purpose in writing was to show to the world that Christ was deity—the Son of God. His second purpose was to write supplemental information to the first three gospels that had already been written as much as 30-40 years earlier.
The next book is not a letter or an epistle, but a historical book, the Book of Acts, written by Luke.
So here you just don't believe the Bible do you?
It was durnig his imprisonment. But the date was more like 63, not 55. Paul was not in prison then.
You know, it is much simpler just to accept the Bible as true, then to trust lying liberal so-called scholarship.
The First Epistle of Thessalonians may have been the earliest of Paul's epistles, but it is certainly not the oldest book of the New Testament. It was written about 52 A.D. James epistle was written between 45 and 50, and Matthew was also written before First Thessalonians.
That only shows how corrupt and liberal the Catholic Church has begun. Go to ancient sources. Go to conservative sources that beleive the Bible. Why go to people that don't believe the Bible in the first place?
Who are these scholars that you depend on? Just believe the Bible. It is much more simple. That is why we have the Bible as our final authority in all matters of faith and practice.
1Timothy was written about 64, and 2Timothy was the last epistle that Paul wrote just before he was martyred in 67 A.D. To say that they reflect a "later era," is pure speculation without any foundation in fact. To deny Pauline authorship is to deny the veracity and inspiration of God's Word.
Although the authorship cannot be known for sure, it is probable that Paul wrote Hebrews.
James, no doubt the first book of the New Testament to be written, is a book that was written to give advice for pracitical Christian living.
Why do you listen to "modern scholarship" who enjoy tearing down the Scriptures and deny the inspiration of the Word of God? This book was written by Peter. See 1Pet.1:1, and take your argument up with God. It was written from Babylon as it says it was. It's theme centers around suffering, for the Christians were undergoing an intense persecution by Nero at that time.
Again, you doubt what God himself says, and listen to "modern lying scholarship."
Why is it so hard for you to believe the Bible instead of your own ideas and opinions. The names of the authors are given.
You are at least 25 years off. Jude was written no later than 75. Consider: Jude was the half brother of Jesus. Jesus was born in 4 B.C., died 29 A.D. at the age of 33. If Jude was born within four years of Jesus birth, (or 4 years after), then Jude would be 100 years old at the time of writing (if the epistle was written in 100). Since the average age was 50-60, this is almost impossible, especially taking into consideration that all of the apsotles except for John were martyred.
