a question for "Bible Only" churches

[aquabatix]

In regards to the books of the bible, do you believe that the Catholic Church was not the “true” church anymore/had lost the true faith by the 300s and had no part in putting together the bible? If so, what do you make of the “other” books of the bible, ie the gospels of Mary, Thomas, Phillip, Acts of Peter, etc…? Are these just as valid? Should they have been included? Did the Catholic Church have the right to exclude them? Where they divinely inspired to do so? (Just a question I have had for a while, no bad intentions here)

 

[Dokimas]

In regards to the books of the bible, do you believe that the Catholic Church was not the “true” church anymore/had lost the true faith by the 300s and had no part in putting together the bible? If so, what do you make of the “other” books of the bible, ie the gospels of Mary, Thomas, Phillip, Acts of Peter, etc…? Are these just as valid? Should they have been included? Did the Catholic Church have the right to exclude them? Where they divinely inspired to do so? (Just a question I have had for a while, no bad intentions here)

I make no issue about if or when the CC lost the true faith. I believe the CC started in the 300s with Constantine and the true church is made up of ALL true believers (followers) of Jesus the Chrsit, the Son of the Living God, God in Human flesh.​

I do not accept those writings you mentioned as part of the inspired Word of God, the Bible.

 

[aquabatix]

Ok, if the CC started with Constantine (first time I’ve heard that), and he brought together the Council of Nicea and from there (not finished there) we get the list of books to be contained in the bible, why accept those books? And why do you not accept the others? Have you read them?

 

[Dokimas]

Ok, if the CC started with Constantine (first time I’ve heard that), and he brought together the Council of Nicea and from there (not finished there) we get the list of books to be contained in the bible, why accept those books? And why do you not accept the others? Have you read them?

I have not read them. Have you? Do you accept them? If so, what’s so important about them? Do they contradict things believed by the majority of Christians? If so, what? Is there anything in those writers that ‘corrects’ the NT (27 writings)? If so, what?​

BTW, when are they supposed to have been written?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I make no issue about if or when the CC lost the true faith. I believe the CC started in the 300s with Constantine and the true church is made up of ALL true believers (followers) of Jesus the Chrsit, the Son of the Living God, God in Human flesh.​

I do not accept those writings you mentioned as part of the inspired Word of God, the Bible.

So, you believe God put the scriptures into the hands of a ‘non-true’ Church, to preserve for hundreds of years until we have it in our hands today? Wouldn’t that put hundreds of years of generations under incorrect teachings?

I know you’ve seen the writings of St. Ignatius, where he used the term ‘Catholic Church’, yet it started with Constantine?

I will not speak ill of Constantine. He assured the legalization of Christianity, stopping the persecutions with the penalty of death, and he returned properties to the Christians. Let’s also not forget that Constantine was the first head of government that made Christianity the official ‘state’ religion. A pagan empire, that had persecuted Christianity, was now officially a Christian nation in the eyes of men.

You do accept the letters and epistles that are a part of the New Testament now. Letters and epistles that were preserved by the Catholic Church.

 

[aquabatix]

I have read these other scriptures in their entirety and studied them in school. What I was asking was why YOU don’t accept them, especially considering that you have not read them yourself. Basically, you exclude them based upon the CC’s decision to exclude them from the canon. So is the CC divinely inspired or not. The bible was not “faxed” from heaven. The point is, the bible is relied upon as the end all be all for one’s faith, yet it was the Tradition of the CC that assembled it and decided which books to include. I just don’t see the rational.

 

[Lapey]

I make no issue about if or when the CC lost the true faith. I believe the CC started in the 300s with Constantine and the true church is made up of ALL true believers (followers) of Jesus the Chrsit, the Son of the Living God, God in Human flesh.​

I do not accept those writings you mentioned as part of the inspired Word of God, the Bible.

So what happened from 33 AD to 323, Council of Nicea?

How do you reconcile your belief with fact and historical data?

 

[Dokimas]

So, you believe God put the scriptures into the hands of a ‘non-true’ Church, to preserve for hundreds of years until we have it in our hands today? Wouldn’t that put hundreds of years of generations under incorrect teachings?

I know you’ve seen the writings of St. Ignatius, where he used the term ‘Catholic Church’, yet it started with Constantine?

I will not speak ill of Constantine. He assured the legalization of Christianity, stopping the persecutions with the penalty of death, and he returned properties to the Christians. Let’s also not forget that Constantine was the first head of government that made Christianity the official ‘state’ religion. A pagan empire, that had persecuted Christianity, was now officially a Christian nation in the eyes of men.

You do accept the letters and epistles that are a part of the New Testament now. Letters and epistles that were preserved by the Catholic Church.

Yawn!!! Putting words in my mouth again. What I’ve ALWAYS said is that the CC in not THE church but many of its member are part of the one true church. I’m quite sure those catholics who were used by the Holy Spirit to cannonize the NT were part of the real universal Christian church which is far bigger than the CC.

 

[Dokimas]

I have read these other scriptures in their entirety and studied them in school. What I was asking was why YOU don’t accept them, especially considering that you have not read them yourself. Basically, you exclude them based upon the CC’s decision to exclude them from the canon. So is the CC divinely inspired or not. The bible was not “faxed” from heaven. The point is, the bible is relied upon as the end all be all for one’s faith, yet it was the Tradition of the CC that assembled it and decided which books to include. I just don’t see the rational.

I do not accept many writings as part of the Bible like the Book of Mormon, the Quran, Eastern Religious writings, etc and I haven’t read them. I don’t have the time nor inclination to read them. I am unaware of the need to read them. I trust in the historians I have read a little from the 27 writings are complete enough to change my life enough to please God.​

BTW, there are many non-catholic Christian theologians that only accept the 27 writings of the NT, not just the CC.

 

[Tonks40]

Yawn!!! Putting words in my mouth again. What I’ve ALWAYS said is that the CC in not THE church but many of its member are part of the one true church. I’m quite sure those catholics who were used by the Holy Spirit to cannonize the NT were part of the real universal Christian church which is far bigger than the CC.

Problem with this argument is that at the time, there was only one Christian Church - the Catholic Church. Why are non-Catholics always trying to make the distinction between members of the “true” universal church and not when no such thing existed? It’s those who have historically left the Church that has created this divide over time.

 

[Libertarian_FL]

I think the early Jesus Movement had it right have all the books, gospels and letters on their own let indiviuduals decide which ones to use and leave the use of these between the worshippper and God. Letting the Holy Spirit be the sole teacher to us through the sacrifice of Jesus as His blood saves us from death and sin that would damn us to Hell.

 

[Dokimas]

So what happened from 33 AD to 323, Council of Nicea?

How do you reconcile your belief with fact and historical data?

Could it be possible that my belief is closer to fact and historical data than yours?

 

[Dokimas]

Problem with this argument is that at the time, there was only one Christian Church - the Catholic Church. Why are non-Catholics always trying to make the distinction between members of the “true” universal church and not when no such thing existed? It’s those who have historically left the Church that has created this divide over time.

When was it called ‘The Catholic Church’? Surely after the NT was written (and I don’t mean collected).​

If I understand your question, what I distiguish between is the universal church as the one real church started by Jesus and the CC as the one real church. I don’t understand your question if this doesn’t answer you.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I think the early Jesus Movement had it right have all the books, gospels and letters on their own let indiviuduals decide which ones to use and leave the use of these between the worshippper and God. Letting the Holy Spirit be the sole teacher to us through the sacrifice of Jesus as His blood saves us from death and sin that would damn us to Hell.

So if you read a passage from scripture and believe the Holy Spirit has guided you, is that enough proof that your interpretation is correct?

Holy Mother, please keep
all unborn children safe today.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Yawn!!! Putting words in my mouth again. What I’ve ALWAYS said is that the CC in not THE church but many of its member are part of the one true church. I’m quite sure those catholics who were used by the Holy Spirit to cannonize the NT were part of the real universal Christian church which is far bigger than the CC.

I wasn’t trying to put words in your mouth.

Looking at your statement this thought immediately comes to mind. You state the Catholic Church is only a part of the one true Church. The Catholic Church has much documentation to establish it’s history. What we are lacking is any documentation of the presence of any other Church that would have made up the one true Church, as you view it.

Because of my statement above, it’s easy for me to see there was only one Church. History, both Church and secular, establishes the date of the ‘other’ Christian Churches being founded and it’s hundreds of years later, all much closer to the present time than the time Christ built a Church.

 

[KathleenGee]

The books not used either were heretical --in contrast to definition of Who God in Jesus Christ found in the Nicene Creed, or did not have the mark of universality of church.

Those who decided what books to put into the Bible were recognized by believers as consecrated to God in the Truth and animated by the Holy Spirit in Scripture and the Church instituted by Christ.

 

[aquabatix]

I do not accept many writings as part of the Bible like the Book of Mormon, the Quran, Eastern Religious writings, etc and I haven’t read them. I don’t have the time nor inclination to read them. I am unaware of the need to read them. I trust in the historians I have read a little from the 27 writings are complete enough to change my life enough to please God.​

BTW, there are many non-catholic Christian theologians that only accept the 27 writings of the NT, not just the CC.

You would do well to read the other Christian scriptures if you want to validate your “univeral true church” theory because the members of this church before Constantine, (and since the time of Paul for that matter) were reading these as well. From Gnostics to Arians to Pelagians (and more!), these groups were reading some of what you have in your bible and some you do not. Why? Because the scriptures that were excluded were found (by the CC) to be inauthentic because of when written, who wrote it, where ot came from or conflicts in teaching that went as far as teaching Jesus was never human but only a mystical disguise or that He was never crucufied but traded places with Simon of Cyrene. You should do more research or expand your view of Christianity to accept these other views that might say Jesus wasn’t even God.

 

[Dokimas]

I wasn’t trying to put words in your mouth.

Looking at your statement this thought immediately comes to mind. You state the Catholic Church is only a part of the one true Church. The Catholic Church has much documentation to establish it’s history. What we are lacking is any documentation of the presence of any other Church that would have made up the one true Church, as you view it.

Because of my statement above, it’s easy for me to see there was only one Church. History, both Church and secular, establishes the date of the ‘other’ Christian Churches being founded and it’s hundreds of years later, all much closer to the present time than the time Christ built a Church.

Fair enough. I have no right to suggest you can’t believe the history as you have studied it. That’s not my point or perspective. I just think history isn’t quite that way.

 

[Lapey]

Could it be possible that my belief is closer to fact and historical data than yours?

Opinion and doctrine taught does not make history or fact. Read the Early writtings and the bible without a goal to prove me wrong, but a goal to see the truth and it will be revealed to you.

Facts are facts, they are on the side of the Roman Catholic Church. To say otherwise is just wrong.

 

[Lapey]

You would do well to read the other Christian scriptures if you want to validate your “univeral true church” theory because the members of this church before Constantine, (and since the time of Paul for that matter) were reading these as well. From Gnostics to Arians to Pelagians (and more!), these groups were reading some of what you have in your bible and some you do not. Why? Because the scriptures that were excluded were found (by the CC) to be inauthentic because of when written, who wrote it, where ot came from or conflicts in teaching that went as far as teaching Jesus was never human but only a mystical disguise or that He was never crucufied but traded places with Simon of Cyrene. You should do more research or expand your view of Christianity to accept these other views that might say Jesus wasn’t even God.

Paul was long gone before any of these heresies came in to being, especially the writtings about them. Some scholars believe the gnostics were not on the scene untill middle to late second century. Arian heresay came later than that.