Bible or church,what does the bible say

[Bill_Pick]

What did Jesus Christ come down from heaven to found? Was it the Bible?
Or was it a teaching Church?

 

[Monica4316]

In the Bible, it says **the Church **is the pillar and foundation of truth

Christ started a Church. This Church interprets Scripture. We know we are interpreting Scripture correctly if it matches the Church’s interpretation.

 

[phoenix3212]

Taking the Bible on a purely historic level, it is clear that Jesus founded a Church. Seeing as that Church existed for 400 years without a Bible, it’s clear which came first

 

[MelanieAnne]

Jesus came to found a Church, not write a book. The Church was here before the Bible.

 

[koranist]

Jesus came to preach and his disciples preached and spread the word and that formed the scriptures. Without the scriptures there is no Chruch. Jesus was not a protestant or a catholic, these are interpretations and doctrines. There were followers of Jesus who passed on the scriptures but there were many sects that came along. Its the scriptures that must be looked at.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Jesus came to preach and his disciples preached and spread the word and that formed the scriptures. Without the scriptures there is no Chruch. Jesus was not a protestant or a catholic, these are interpretations and doctrines. There were followers of Jesus who passed on the scriptures but there were many sects that came along. Its the scriptures that must be looked at.

I think you are a little confused the Bible tell us the CHURCH is the pillar of truth and not the Bible,The Church was here 300 or 400 years B4 the Bible so your statement "Without Scriptures there is no Church is false,by the time we got the bible the Church was on its 4 or 5 pope

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Jesus came to preach and his disciples preached and spread the word and that formed the scriptures. Without the scriptures there is no Chruch. Jesus was not a protestant or a catholic, these are interpretations and doctrines. There were followers of Jesus who passed on the scriptures but there were many sects that came along. Its the scriptures that must be looked at.

Actually with out the Church there would be no Bible as it was the Church, the Catholic Church, that determined what books make up the Bible.

 

[koranist]

Actually with out the Church there would be no Bible as it was the Church, the Catholic Church, that determined what books make up the Bible.

What came first, the Bible or the Church? (Nov. '01)

As you know, the Holy Bible consists of both the Old and New Testaments. The God-inspired author of the first five books of the Old Testament was the Holy and Glorious Prophet Moses the Godseer who lived around 1355-1235 BC. The book authored by the Holy and Glorious Prophet Malachi (the last book in the Hebrew canon of the Old Testament) was written around 400 BC. And the book of III Maccabees (the last book in the Septuagint Old Testament) was authored in the 1st century BC. Unlike the books of the Old Testament, which originated during a period extending over nearly 1,300 years, all the books of the New Testament were written within a period of somewhat less than 50 years (from AD 49-95). The Bible of the first Christians consisted of the Septuagint version of the Old Testament. Later, as the books which now comprise the New Testament began to appear, a local church might also possess a few of the apostolic Epistles and perhaps one or two of the Gospels. But it was not until the fourth century that the Church, through her bishops, began to issue authoritative pronouncements concerning which books were to be included in the canon of the New Testament and which were not. St. Athanasios the Great, in his Festal Letter of AD 367, was the first to name the twenty-seven books, which we now know as the New Testament, as being exclusively canonical.

Also:

Thank you for the opportunity to answer this for you. I am not trying to make a joke here; the short answer is, “Both.” Please allow me to explain.

The church was established on the day of Pentecost in the year 29; 50 days after the death of Jesus. Before this time, every mention of the church in Scripture is written using future tense. Every instance after this is written in past tense.

However, the church existed in God’s mind (foreordained), though not in physicality, from the creation.

In addition, the Old Testament is part of the Bible. It was completed some 430 years before Christ was born. Jesus quoted from it.

Finally, the church had her birth about 20 years before the first of the New Testament was written. Much of it was written historically; that is looking back to the beginning of Christ’s life and the birth of the church.

In conclusion, part of the church (the creation thought) existed before any Scripture was written. Some Scripture was written before the physical birth of the church. Some Scripture was written after the birth of the church. As a whole unit (OT and NT), the Scripture was not fully in existence before the church in its physicality.

I pray this has made sense to you. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to ask.

 

[Bill_Pick]

What came first, the Bible or the Church? (Nov. '01)

As you know, the Holy Bible consists of both the Old and New Testaments. The God-inspired author of the first five books of the Old Testament was the Holy and Glorious Prophet Moses the Godseer who lived around 1355-1235 BC. The book authored by the Holy and Glorious Prophet Malachi (the last book in the Hebrew canon of the Old Testament) was written around 400 BC. And the book of III Maccabees (the last book in the Septuagint Old Testament) was authored in the 1st century BC. Unlike the books of the Old Testament, which originated during a period extending over nearly 1,300 years, all the books of the New Testament were written within a period of somewhat less than 50 years (from AD 49-95). The Bible of the first Christians consisted of the Septuagint version of the Old Testament. Later, as the books which now comprise the New Testament began to appear, a local church might also possess a few of the apostolic Epistles and perhaps one or two of the Gospels. But it was not until the fourth century that the Church, through her bishops, began to issue authoritative pronouncements concerning which books were to be included in the canon of the New Testament and which were not. St. Athanasios the Great, in his Festal Letter of AD 367, was the first to name the twenty-seven books, which we now know as the New Testament, as being exclusively canonical.

Also:

Thank you for the opportunity to answer this for you. I am not trying to make a joke here; the short answer is, “Both.” Please allow me to explain.

The church was established on the day of Pentecost in the year 29; 50 days after the death of Jesus. Before this time, every mention of the church in Scripture is written using future tense. Every instance after this is written in past tense.

However, the church existed in God’s mind (foreordained), though not in physicality, from the creation.

In addition, the Old Testament is part of the Bible. It was completed some 430 years before Christ was born. Jesus quoted from it.

Finally, the church had her birth about 20 years before the first of the New Testament was written. Much of it was written historically; that is looking back to the beginning of Christ’s life and the birth of the church.

In conclusion, part of the church (the creation thought) existed before any Scripture was written. Some Scripture was written before the physical birth of the church. Some Scripture was written after the birth of the church. As a whole unit (OT and NT), the Scripture was not fully in existence before the church in its physicality.

I pray this has made sense to you. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to ask.

This person must not be a Christian he/she dates are way off on the facts,unless they are talking about Jewish faith they just do not match with Christians faith.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

What came first, the Bible or the Church? (Nov. '01)

As you know, the Holy Bible consists of both the Old and New Testaments. The God-inspired author of the first five books of the Old Testament was the Holy and Glorious Prophet Moses the Godseer who lived around 1355-1235 BC. The book authored by the Holy and Glorious Prophet Malachi (the last book in the Hebrew canon of the Old Testament) was written around 400 BC. And the book of III Maccabees (the last book in the Septuagint Old Testament) was authored in the 1st century BC. Unlike the books of the Old Testament, which originated during a period extending over nearly 1,300 years, all the books of the New Testament were written within a period of somewhat less than 50 years (from AD 49-95). The Bible of the first Christians consisted of the Septuagint version of the Old Testament. Later, as the books which now comprise the New Testament began to appear, a local church might also possess a few of the apostolic Epistles and perhaps one or two of the Gospels. But it was not until the fourth century that the Church, through her bishops, began to issue authoritative pronouncements concerning which books were to be included in the canon of the New Testament and which were not. St. Athanasios the Great, in his Festal Letter of AD 367, was the first to name the twenty-seven books, which we now know as the New Testament, as being exclusively canonical.

Also:

Thank you for the opportunity to answer this for you. I am not trying to make a joke here; the short answer is, “Both.” Please allow me to explain.

The church was established on the day of Pentecost in the year 29; 50 days after the death of Jesus. Before this time, every mention of the church in Scripture is written using future tense. Every instance after this is written in past tense.

However, the church existed in God’s mind (foreordained), though not in physicality, from the creation.

In addition, the Old Testament is part of the Bible. It was completed some 430 years before Christ was born. Jesus quoted from it.

Finally, the church had her birth about 20 years before the first of the New Testament was written. Much of it was written historically; that is looking back to the beginning of Christ’s life and the birth of the church.

In conclusion, part of the church (the creation thought) existed before any Scripture was written. Some Scripture was written before the physical birth of the church. Some Scripture was written after the birth of the church. As a whole unit (OT and NT), the Scripture was not fully in existence before the church in its physicality.

I pray this has made sense to you. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to ask.

What Bill said plus.

There was no Bible until the Church, in an Ecumenical Council, actually said what books were inspired and part of the actual Canon. With out the Church how would we know what books belong? If you look, the Jewish faith has not totally agreed what books belong in their scriptures, some only take the Pentateuch while other groups also include the Major (and some even the Minor) Prophets.

If you look at the Catholic Bible it has books that the Jews do not use.

The Bible as we have it today is a product of the Church. With out the Church we would have to deal with all those other books out there that claim to be inspired, like the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Judas just to name two of the many, many books that are not part of the Canon of the Bible.

By your username I take it that you are a muslim. I do not expect you to (either) know the truth or care about it as you have your own agenda. If you are not a muslim then you are just mistaken.

 

[koranist]

What Bill said plus.

There was no Bible until the Church, in an Ecumenical Council, actually said what books were inspired and part of the actual Canon. With out the Church how would we know what books belong? If you look, the Jewish faith has not totally agreed what books belong in their scriptures, some only take the Pentateuch while other groups also include the Major (and some even the Minor) Prophets.

If you look at the Catholic Bible it has books that the Jews do not use.

The Bible as we have it today is a product of the Church. With out the Church we would have to deal with all those other books out there that claim to be inspired, like the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Judas just to name two of the many, many books that are not part of the Canon of the Bible.

By your username I take it that you are a muslim. I do not expect you to (either) know the truth or care about it as you have your own agenda. If you are not a muslim then you are just mistaken.

I believe in the Gospel more than you, trust me.

Anyways these writings I quoted are by Christians. The Gospel of Thomas and Judas and so on are legitimate scriptures. The Church canonized based on various reasons and politics and chronology and sectarian reasons were some of them. Also many were from the Gnostics who were seen as heretical or probably were not loyal to Rome. I have seen a documentary about this and in fact I have it in my disk drive called “Banned from the Bible”. All Christians and historians.

I am a Koranist. But what do you know what that is.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Neither, Jesus came to reform Judaism. His followers continued to worship in the temple in Jerusalem as Jesus followers after his death. Many of Paul’s earliest converts were not true pagans but God worshipers (pagans who followed Judaism in many ways). He taught in the synagogues. The Jesus followers were thrown out by the Jews after the fall of the temple in 70 CE. People began meeting then exclusively in homes. It was then that the Gospels were written, and they simply attested to a fact then, an existing church.

It is well known that the Gospel writers played with the oral traditions of what Jesus said and did to accomplish their theological purposes. Any look at the synoptics tells this as Luke and Matthew used Mark’s stories but redefined them for their own purposes.

I can see why people believe he started a church, but to suggest he came to earth to create a bible is rather odd, since he wrote nothing nor instructed anyone to write anything. LOL…

Jesus lived and died within his own faith tradition, and never suggested his followers should do otherwise anywhere that I can see.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

What Bill said plus.

By your username I take it that you are a muslim. I do not expect you to (either) know the truth or care about it as you have your own agenda. If you are not a muslim then you are just mistaken.

What an utterly uncharitable thing to say. Do you always makes such brash accusations against people you don’t know based on their what you “assume” is their religious affiliation?

 

[East_Anglican]

A lot of Roman Catholics say that truth comes from The Church.

A lot of Protestants say that truth comes fromThe Bible.

I’ll go with Jesus and poor scorn on both.

Jesus said “The Holy Spirit shall lead you into all truth”

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

What an utterly uncharitable thing to say. Do you always makes such brash accusations against people you don’t know based on their what you “assume” is their religious affiliation?

No more uncharitable than his comment of believing the Gospel more than me or his other comment on the scriptures.

[bold emphasis added]

I believe in the Gospel more than you, trust me.

Anyways these writings I quoted are by Christians. The Gospel of Thomas and Judas and so on are legitimate scriptures. The Church canonized based on various reasons and politics and chronology and sectarian reasons were some of them. Also many were from the Gnostics who were seen as heretical or probably were not loyal to Rome. I have seen a documentary about this and in fact I have it in my disk drive called “Banned from the Bible”. All Christians and historians.

I am a Koranist. But what do you know what that is.

The (so-called) Gospels of Thomas and Judas are garbage and not true Gospels.

A Koranist, one who believes in the Quran alone, you do not believe in the Hadith collections. So I apologize for calling you a Muslim as I believe that those who follow the faith of Islam would not consider you one.

So if you follow the Quran alone then how can you follow the Gospel too?

 

[Bill_Pick]

What an utterly uncharitable thing to say. Do you always makes such brash accusations against people you don’t know based on their what you “assume” is their religious affiliation?

Well I for one think he was right I said it was way off to be a Christian. Some times you can tell from the answer.,Check it out I think the poster was right.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

What an utterly uncharitable thing to say. Do you always makes such brash accusations against people you don’t know based on their what you “assume” is their religious affiliation?

Well I for one think he was right I said it was way off to be a Christian. Some times you can tell from the answer.,Check it out I think the poster was right.

Thank you Bill.

I do not think it is uncharitable to point out the truth. It is a fact that Muslims will view our Holy Scriptures differently.

Also, other Christians will sometimes view them differently. Non-Catholic Christians will try to cut the Church out of it as many of them believe in Sola Scriptura which means that the Church must be cut out.

But it is a fact that the Bible is a product of the Church. The Church met in an ecumenical council and guided by the Holy Spirit determined the Canon of Holy Scripture, by doing so they determined what books were inspired and what books were not.

So koranist’s comment that the Gospels of Thomas and Judas are as inspired as the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John is plain false in the view of a Catholic.

koranist must remember that this is a Catholic forum and what we know as the Truth he might disagree with but that does not change our view or make it wrong.

 

[Eleve]

It is one thing to disagree, but another thing entirely to say that Muslims do not know or care about the truth because of some “agenda.”

 

[Bill_Pick]

It is one thing to disagree, but another thing entirely to say that Muslims do not know or care about the truth because of some “agenda.”

Are you saying Muslim care about what a Christian have to say, I have a beach lot in Kansas and its for sell. Let me know it you like you like beach

 

[Eleve]

As the Bible was written by Jews and Christians, and Muslims regard the Bible to be a (corrupted) revelation of God, yes, I’d say that Muslims do care what Christians have to say.

Incidentally, if you think that “caring about the truth” is the same as “caring about one other group’s belief on the truth,” then I have a book on semantics to sell you…