Why Bible Alone guys are Wrong

[IlovetheBible]

I know, I was thinking about that as I wrote it, which is why I included both questions together. Yes, people will die for Allah. Yet, remember that the Apostles were first hand witnesses. Actually there were more than 500 first hand witnesses. All 500 hullicinating at the same time? I think not. All 500 lying? Please. I'm sure some would be willing to discredit the story for enough money.

If the Apostles did not really see Jesus Christ alive and in the flesh, If Thomas did not touch the piercings in his body, if it was all a lie, I find it increadibly hard to believe they would all be martyred for a dead lunatic (he claimed to be God, I'm sorry but good teacher just wouldn't fit him if he wasn't the Messiah) on the premise that you could attain eternal life by faith in Him as Savior and God.

 

[DHK]

Why We Believe Jesus Rose from the Dead:

If Jesus did not rise from the dead, the Christian faith is a foolish fantasy. However, if the resurrection of Christ did occur, it confirms His life, message, and atoning work. It is the basis of our hope of life beyond the grave. Christ is alive, and the evidence is overwhelming. Here are some of the reasons we can be so sure.

1. Jesus predicted His resurrection (Matt 16:21; Mark 9:9-10; John 2:18-22).
2. The Old Testament prophesied it (Psalm 16:10; compare Acts 2:25-31; 13:33-37).
3. The tomb was empty and the grave clothes vacant. if those who opposed Christ wished to silence His disciples, all they had to do was produce a body, but they could not (John 20:3-9).
4. Many people saw the resurrected Christ. They looked on His face, touched Him, heard His voice, and saw Him eat (Matt. 28:16-20; Luke 24:13-39; John 20:11-29; John 21:1-9; Acts 1:6-11; 1 Cor. 15:3-8).
5. The lives of the disciples were revolutionized. Though they fled and even denied Christ at the time of His arrest, they later feared no one in their proclamation of the risen Christ (Matt 26:56, 69-75).6. The resurrection was the central message of the early church. The church grew with an unwavering conviction that Christ had risen and was the Lord of the church (Acts 4:33; 5:30-32; Rom. 5:24).
6. Men and women today testify that the power of the risen Christ has transformed their lives. We know that Jesus is alive not only because of the historical and biblical evidence but also because He has miraculously touched our lives.
Kurt E. DeHaan.

Buddha's tomb is occupied.
Mohammed's tomb is occupied.
Confucius' tomb is occupied.
Jesus' tomb is empty. He is alive.

Argue as you will; there is no point in following a loser. The resurrcetion of Christ is a reality.
It is the foundation of our faith.

If Christ be raised from the dead; then everything He said may be counted as true as well. He is Lord.
DHK

 

[Netcurtains3]

Hi Bro Adam,
We might be getting into a tangle about semantics.

You seem to have shifted your position from saying the bible is 100% free from glitches to christianity is 100% free from glitches. I can see in a sense there is a perfect church and a perfect bible - in a theorectical sense. All bibles are in fact translations and these translations are often based apon earlier translations. There is NRIGINAL copy, the translators have different versions to pick from, often with different phrases - sometimes a whole story is missing (eg Yeshua forgiving the adultress). The bit, I originally wrote from Jude's letter - I like the fact it quotes from a science fiction story. When you pick up your bible and read it you have to remember it is NOT God - it is a window into Gods world. I think this also applies to Churches.
In a sense to be bible alone is raising the Bible up as an idol. Fundamentalists often want to go back to the time of the early church. The early church had no new testament bible but they did have Jewish traditions and I suspect the early church had many facets of judaism in it. The Catholic Church does too. Pope Clement I was probably a Jew.
I suspect if we think a physical bible is 100% correct then we have to assume there is a physical church organisation that is 100% correct as well. When the bible was developed Clement I was pope - there was no protestant church. I personally think the bible is theorectically correct and thus the Catholic church is theorectically correct. I can see possible glitches in both.

[ November 25, 2002, 02:56 AM: Message edited by: Netcurtains3 ]

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Netcurtains3:
We might be getting into a tangle about semantics.

no kidding!

I like the fact it quotes from a science fiction story.

Your referring to the history of the Catholic Church?

the early church had many facets of judaism in it. The Catholic Church does too. Pope Clement I was probably a Jew.
When the bible was developed Clement I was pope - there was no protestant church.

I like the way you take so much credit for the church fathers being popes. In fact the first pope wasn't until Leo (440-61), yet the Catholics have him listed as Pope #45 on their list. They don't even consider that the Catholic Church didn't exist before the fourth century.

For a history of the church look here:
History of the Church
DHK

 

[IlovetheBible]

John 1:1-5
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [2] The same was in the beginning with God. [3] All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. [4] In him was life; and the life was the light of men. [5] And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

I would suggest reading a book on Bible origins, perhaps it will give you some more light into the issue. No one here has said that the Bible is God. I don't know why you keep bringing that issue up. But the Bible was inspired by God. It was, as scripture says "God breathed". So once again if you are going to claim that the Bible has errors, then you must claim God is in error. There is no way around it.

The New Testament cannon is no simple thing to discuss. It wasn't simply thrown together by a group of rich Christians and called the New Testament. There were at least a dozen cannons by different people of the day. (You should read some of the books that some wanted in the cannon- books about talking crosses, Jesus who never actually died, and in fact never came here physically- some pretty messed up stuff).

I have to go to work, but I'll get more into the OT and NT cannon tonight.

 

[Netcurtains3]

DHK,
Got to be frank with you. No Catholic in their right mind would get their view of the Catholic Church from a protestant historian. I would be willing to get my view of Catholic church history from the Catholic church or an Oxford academic.

Bro,
Thats right Yeshua IS THE WORD - not the bible. The writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit and the editors and translators and committees and the tea lady and the men who cleaned the toilets and of course the readership. To take the bible out of context of "The Universal Church" ends up with people believing all sorts of Wacko nonsense. It is possibly/probably unsafe for people like me to quote big chuncks of the bible to prove some point or other - it should be an experts job. I do quote from the bible but it is playing with dynamite.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

More like a double-edeged sword, eh ?

 

[Netcurtains3]

Bro Curtis,
Yes Indeed.
If you look at the life of St. Irenaeus (around about AD125 to AD190) you will note there was loads of trouble with people who held beliefs not consistant with Christian teaching. He did quote from the bible but I think the main thrust of his arguments were to stick with the TRADITIONS handed down by the APOSTLES through the CATHOLIC CHURCH. He wasn't so much interested in what the people of Lyons thought as what the Catholic Church as a whole thought. The "official" view was the important view. I know this seems hard and almost "nazi" by todays wishy washy standards but it would take someone of very strong convictions to say Irenaeus was wrong. Remember Irenaeus was writing at the time when there was no TV or mass communications - to keep Christianity going in those days would need some form of central control - Ordinary uneducated people HAD A RIGHT to know what was koshur christian teaching and what was not.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Netcurtains3:
Got to be frank with you. No Catholic in their right mind would get their view of the Catholic Church from a protestant historian. I would be willing to get my view of Catholic church history from the Catholic church or an Oxford academic.

No Baptist in the right mind would trust revisionist history put out by the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church tries to sweep under the rug all their atrocities of the past. Would you read the history of Russia put out by Stalin and/or his biographers? How about the history of Germany put out by Hitler and/or his biographers?
So Roman Catholics read only Roman Catholic history? How biased can one be? The persecutors read about themselves and give themselves a good white-wash while they are at. How many times have you seen "Foxes Book of Martyrs" been discredited, by Catholics? That in itself is a good example.
DHK

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I believe those who rightly divide, study, and pray, will do just fine with the Bible. If you follow it's instructions, and ignore everything else that people try to add, and fight to keep what others will try to take away, you can be complete.

 

[Netcurtains3]

I'm getting convinced, reading the history of the Catholic Church that it is indeed the REAL Catholic Church of the bible.

My problem is a STAGE 2 problem.

My rational mind tells me the problems of the Medieval Catholic Church were problems of too much power. It is a bit like us thinking the Afghanis are political heretics so let us bomb them into the stone age. The West is, in a sense, all powerful.

MY QUESTIONS:
============
1) Has the Catholic Church resolved this problem of "absolute power corrupting" or has it just brushed the problem under the carpet by simply apologising for past mistakes but not addressing the probable root cause of the problems of the past ( eg " all power" in the hands of a few leads to corruption)?
2) Has God given us the protestant Church to keep Christianity in balance and sane and correct (eg like the checks and balances in the political system)?
3) If Protestantism is from God then doesn't it follow that protestantism is often (not always) as valid and part of the Greater Catholic Church as any other part of the Catholic Church?

I ask very similar questions on a Catholic Apologist site so it would be nice to see what mainstream protestants think.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Netcurtains3:
I'm getting convinced, reading the history of the Catholic Church that it is indeed the REAL Catholic Church of the bible.

Then you have not spent enough time "objectively" studying both history and the Bible. You cannot conscientiously know what the Bible says and believe it, and knowing what the Catholic church teaches, believe it at the same time, and still be a Christian. The two have opposing systems of belief. You must make a choice. Either you believe the Bible and Biblical Christianity or you believe in Roman Catholicism; you cannot believe in both.

My problem is a STAGE 2 problem.

The explanation given above is why you have this problem.

My rational mind tells me the problems of the Medieval Catholic Church were problems of too much power. It is a bit like us thinking the Afghanis are political heretics so let us bomb them into the stone age. The West is, in a sense, all powerful.

My rational mind tells me that when Jesus promised that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His church, He meant what He said. He wasn't referring to the corrupt Catholic organization, or to various Protestant organizations that have gone astray, and that also have had there share in persecutions. He was referring to believers that are called out in every age living holy lives, standing against the corruption of the so-called church. Those whom God has truly redeemed by His blood, and have an assurance of eternal life and forgiveness of sins. Such was his church. It numbered more than 3,000 on the Day of Pentecost. The Roman Catholic Church has no claim over this church that was in Jerusalem.

[QUOTE[MY QUESTIONS:
============
1) Has the Catholic Church resolved this problem of "absolute power corrupting" or has it just brushed the problem under the carpet by simply apologising for past mistakes but not addressing the probable root cause of the problems of the past ( eg " all power" in the hands of a few leads to corruption)?[/QUOTE]
No, it has always been a church using absolute corrputing power. Even today it faces many lawsuits which it is doing it's best to cover up. It is interesting that the Anglican church in Canada will settle its law suit cooperating with the government for 25 million dollars, for sexual abuses in the past. The Catholic Church still refuses to settle anything.

2) Has God given us the protestant Church to keep Christianity in balance and sane and correct (eg like the checks and balances in the political system)?

No, the protestants were reformers. They tried to reform the Catholic Church from within. Out of it came some good--the reformation. But all in all some of those reformers (Calvin, Luther) were some of the greatest persecutors of Baptists that lived. Alongside of the Catholics and Anglicans they were just as bad.

3) If Protestantism is from God then doesn't it follow that protestantism is often (not always) as valid and part of the Greater Catholic Church as any other part of the Catholic Church?

What is from God are those who are born again, baptized after they are saved or born again (adults), and then voluntarily formed into local churches. Denominational Organizations like the Catholic Church and Protestant Churches have never been from God.
DHK

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Netcurtains3,

I would answer your question concerning Protestantism in this way, as a graduate student in Catholic theology:

Protestantism is an evil, but God does splendid things with evil. Look, for instance, at Christ's suffering on the cross and what came from that. Because of the Protestant Revolt of the 16th century, the Church was able to reform herself in splendid ways through the Council of Trent and subsequent reforms.

Protestant theology is similar to Orthodox Christian theology, but it diverges on significant points that are contrary to divine truth: e.g. its prevalent nominalism and reductionalistic tendencies.

Protestants are not part of the Catholic Church in the sense of full communion, and their faith communities are not churches; the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has stated in "Dominus Iesus" that only the Eastern Orthodox have churches in the ecclesial sense because they retain valid apostolic succession as well as a valid sacramental life. However, it is possible that individual Protestants are in partial communion with the Church of Jesus Christ by the grace of their baptism.

I suggest printing Dominus Iesus out and reading it next to a cup of coffee; it's a great summary of our faith pertaining to these issues:

Click here to view Dominus Iesus

God bless,

Carson

[ November 25, 2002, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

[IlovetheBible]

Protestantism is an evil, but God does splendid things with evil

Matthew 12:25
Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, "Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand.

 

[Frank]

Hi Joe:
The Godhead is revealed as three in the Old Testament. Gen. 1:2,27. In Ezekiel 11:5, the Bible says," And the Spirit of the Lord was upon me, and said unto me, Speak: thus saith the Lord: Thus have ye said, O house of Israel: for I know the things that come into your mind, every one of them. There are many references to the Holy Spirit of God in the Old Testament. Eze. 2:2;3:24-27,Gen.6:3;41:38, Ex.31:3,Num 27:18, Neh.9:20, Psalms 51:11.
The list of prophetic scriptures supporting Christ as divine in the Old Testament are numerous as well. Gen. 3:15, Gal. 4:4,Is. 53:6-11, Dan.9:26, Zech.12:9; 13:6,Is. 9:6,Mi. 5:2, Is.8:18,Ps. 22:22, Dan. 7:13. Gen. 49:10,Num. 24:17,I Sam. 2:10, Is.6:1;11:10;32:1.
There are at least a thousand references to God in the Old Testament.
The Jews had ample evidence to know the divine nature of Elohim. Moses, the captain of the Jewish faith penned the words in Gen. 1:1-27.

 

[IlovetheBible]

Originally posted by Netcurtains3:

Bro,
Thats right Yeshua IS THE WORD - not the bible. The writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit and the editors and translators and committees and the tea lady and the men who cleaned the toilets and of course the readership. To take the bible out of context of "The Universal Church" ends up with people believing all sorts of Wacko nonsense. It is possibly/probably unsafe for people like me to quote big chuncks of the bible to prove some point or other - it should be an experts job. I do quote from the bible but it is playing with dynamite.

Your still missing my point. You are right about one thing though: Scripture is dangerous. Why? Because people are scared to death of change. And scripture changes hearts. God never said the teachings of the Catholic church will convict hearts (thankfully God has worked within the RCC though to reach people). He said that the Holy Ghost will convict of sin, and scripture is used to do that.

Romans 1:16
I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.

I agree, when you suddenly start saying that the "universal church" is a group of of hiarchial rich people, things are quickly thrown out of whack. I have always found it fascinating that the Catholic church says that its leaders can be fallible but the church itself is not. What is a church made of but people? If its people are fallible the church is fallible.

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Adam,

You wrote, "If its people are fallible the church is fallible."

And then the canon of Scripture that you have is fallible, which means that there could very well be books in your Bible that are not inspired by God.

Individuals in the Church are fallible except for when the Holy Spirit guarantees infallibility. It is the Spirit that cannot err. People can err. When the Holy Spirit uses people to not err, people do not err because the Holy Spirit uses them. This is the case with Holy Scripture. It is the case in determining the canon of Holy Scripture (of which you are missing 7 books and several chapters).

God bless,

Carson

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:

You wrote, "If its people are fallible the church is fallible."

And then the canon of Scripture that you have is fallible, which means that there could very well be books in your Bible that are not inspired by God.

Of course if this were true Carson, then all truth would be relative; there would be no absolutes. All that is absolute: the Ten Commandments, etc. are found in the Word of God. If the Word of God is fallible, and cannot be trusted then we have no guide, no rock, no footing, no light to guide our way in the darkness. We will fail hopelessly groping in the dark for something firm to stand on. "Thou shalt not steal" Well not really. All truth is relative. The Bible is fallible. So its okay to steal if you feel like it. What's right for me, may not be right for you. Situation ethics, you know. The only absolute is there are no absolutes. Throw away the Bible it isn't absolutely true. Right! That is what the Humanist wants you to believe anyway.

Jer.23:29 Is not my word like as a fire? saith the LORD; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?
DHK

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

I guess it's acording to what your definition of "Is" is. Thank you very much, Bill Clinton...

Joseph Botwinick

 

[BobRyan]

Netcurtains
I'm getting convinced, reading the history of the Catholic Church that it is indeed the REAL Catholic Church of the bible.

Even many non-Catholics can see that the first century Christian church eventually became corrupt and merged with paganism forming the RCC.

The Catholic Historian and best selling Catholic Author Thomas Bokenkotter all-but concedes that point.

But the question to be answered on this thread is HOW in the world could the RCC ever get back to embracing the Apostolic church practice recorded in Acts 17:11

Here we have unbelievers studying OT scripture alone - to see IF the Apostolic teaching of the FIRST apostles - is correct. "To see whether those things were so" as the text says.

That method is never embraced by any pro-RC posts on this board - or sources in print. You're probably asking yourself "Now I wonder why that is...".

hmmm

makes us all wonder about that.

In Christ,

Bob