The scriptures came from men inspired by Holy Spirit to communicate God’s Word to His people. The earliest assemblies of Christians were able to compare writings and practices against what they knew to be true from interaction with Jesus Christ and His Apostles. To the extent any assembly is filled with Holy Spirit and thus worships consistent with those early Christians, they are His church.
There is a lot of fake history in this post so I will try and dispel as much of it as I can...
You have it completely backwards. The Scriptures they (assuming you are referring to the Bereans) searched were the Greek Septuagint, not the New Testament, which did not yet exist and its compilation was centuries away. The Gospel only existed in spoken form, so what Paul was teaching (that a man named Jesus, who had died and rose from the dead and is the Christ) was extra-Biblical teaching. This account in Acts with the Bereans affirms two things: The validity of the Septuagint (which includes the Deuterocanonical books) and the value of extra-Biblical teachings, both of which violate the modern Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura.
As an aside, what verse from the Septuagint do you think the Bereans would have used to validate St. Paul’s claims? Things to consider...
- Think about who the Bereans were. (They were Greek-speaking Jews)
- Think about what St. Paul was telling them about Jesus —> that He is the Christ who suffered, died and rose again. (Acts 17:3)
- What prophesy in the Old Testament matches this —> stating a man who claims to be the actual Son of God would suffer, be put to death and in the end be triumphant?
- What verse of from Scripture do the Jewish rulers quote to Jesus at the foot of the cross? (cf Luke 23:35)
Is there a verse
so explicit as to affirm what St. Paul was telling them? Hint: It's not in the Protestant Bible!
Thus the idea of “canon”, which referred to a measuring rod, was introduced to discern writings and practice that were consistent with the teachings of Jesus and His Apostles.
This is also incorrect. Canon referred to which Scriptures could be read at Mass. The reason why the collection of books in the New Testament is called the “New Testament” is because those writings were read when Christians gathered to celebrate the “New Testament”, that is, the Eucharist.
The Gospels did not start the Church. Rather, the Church started the Gospels. The Church did not come out of the Gospels. Rather, the Gospels came out of the Church. The Church preceded the New Testament. The early Christians did not come to believe in Jesus because the Gospels recount the story of Him. Rather, the early Christians wrote down the stories of Jesus because they already believed in it. The Church already believed and her members set down much of these beliefs and traditions in what we call the Gospels.
See —-> Luke 1:1-4
When the Emperor Constantine made Christianity the “official” religion of the Roman Empire about 300 years after the resurrection of Jesus, the official attempt to “christianize” pagan practices began. And also the persecution of those who disagreed with the “official” church.
This too is incorrect. Constantine did not make Christianity the official religion of the Roman empire, Theodosius did in 380 A.D. when the Edict of Thessalonica was issued. Furthermore, Constantine was an Arian. Isn’t it curious Arianism did not prevail?
The bishop of Rome took the title Pontiff Maximus, which meant the high priest of all religions. Worship of “saints” was introduced as a way to convince Roman soldiers that Christianity was no different from the worship of their ancestors.
This is also incorrect. The bishop of Rome did not give himself the title Pontiff Maximums. The words mean "chief bridge builder” and it was given to the bishop of Rome after the Roman Empire split into two. The Western emperor, Gracian, bestowed the title on Pope Damasus, who became the first pope to have this title. It was a highly symbolic gesture at the time, signifying the bishop of Rome as the chief bridge builder between the East and West and that religious authority rests not in emperors, but in the bishop of Rome.
As for the veneration of the saints, their commemoration and intercession is contained in the Church's earliest liturgies, some, like
the liturgy of Saint James, dates to the first century. Furthermore, early Church architecture testifies to the veneration of the saints as many early Churches had altars over the tombs of the early saints and martyrs.
Lex orandi, lex credendi.
When Constantine died, the bishop of Rome forged a will to make it appear Constantine left the control of Rome to him. With the army under his control, any who disagreed with his “pronouncements” found themselves subject to punishment and death. He claimed he had direct succession from Peter, who he claimed to be the first bishop of Rome, even though there is absolutely no scriptural or historical record of that being true.
I'm sorry but this is also incorrect. Ever hear of Julian the Apostate? Do you know why he earned that title? After Constantine, the seat of Roman power lie in the East, not West. Logically, the Patriarch of Constantinople should have had the authority you claim. But he didn’t. Why do you think that is?
Furthermore, every early Church history traces the bishop of Rome back to Peter.
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, III.3.3 (c. 175 A.D.) —->
https://books.google.com/books?id=cxIRDAAAQBAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PT520&dq=irenaeus against heresies&pg=PT203#v=onepage&q&f=false
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, V.6.1 (c. 323 A.D.) —->
Eusebius
St. Augustine, Letter of Generosus, Epistle 53:2 (c. 400 A.D.) —->
https://books.google.com/books?id=VHPYAAAAMAAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PA204&dq=letter to generosus&pg=PA205#v=onepage&q&f=false
The church sought control of every aspect of a person’s life. You could only be saved if a priest said so, and had to come back often to receive salvation per the whims of these men. This led to abuse of power that continues to this day with (some) perverts claiming they control your salvation, and abusing your children while they do it.
Non-sequitur. (Argumentum ad passiones.)
The church invented purgatory as a way to extort money from its people. Those that died didn’t go directly to hell, but to this place of torment until they paid for there sins. Luckily, donations to the church could lessen the time of torment.
Incorrect again. The Church did not invent purgatory, as it was a belief of the Jews. For example in Jewish faith:
In
Judaism,
Gehenna is a place of purification where, according to some traditions, most sinners spend up to a year before release.
Regarding the time which purgatory lasts, the accepted opinion of R. Akiba is twelve months; according to R. Johanan b. Nuri, it is only forty-nine days. Both opinions are based upon Isa. lxvi. 23–24: "From one new moon to another and from one Sabbath to another shall all flesh come to worship before Me, and they shall go forth and look upon the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against Me; for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched"; the former interpreting the words "from one new moon to another" to signify all the months of a year; the latter interpreting the words "from one Sabbath to another," in accordance with Lev. xxiii. 15–16, to signify seven weeks. During the twelve months, declares the baraita (Tosef., Sanh. xiii. 4–5; R. H. 16b), the souls of the wicked are judged, and after these twelve months are over they are consumed and transformed into ashes under the feet of the righteous (according to Mal. iii. 21 [A. V. iv. 3]), whereas the great seducers and blasphemers are to undergo eternal tortures in Gehenna without cessation (according to Isa. lxvi. 24).
The righteous, however, and, according to some, also the sinners among the people of Israel for whom Abraham intercedes because they bear the Abrahamic sign of the covenant are not harmed by the fire of Gehenna even when they are required to pass through the intermediate state of purgatory ('Er. 19b; Ḥag. 27a).
[127]
The Jewish faith.
Purgatory - Wikipedia
Part 1 of 2