Did Jesus write the Bible or build a church?

[fellowChristian]

Wait a minute!! If you that good at giving evidence of when all of those differing denominations were established then when was that non-denominational “Bible church” established that just opened up around down the street? Hmmm?

Ha stumped ya didn’t I.

You think you’re so clever

It just opened up?! So established between 1900 -2007

I need more information then that silly

Non-denominational Christian churches are almost exclusively derived from the Protestant movement, as a fundamental part of Catholicism.

We have a new non-denominational church or two. One is owned by the pastor who runs the place (for lack of better word)
And you ask

What is the pastors name?

Charlie Brown (examp)

what denomination were you before this?

Lutheran

who founded that?

Martin Luther

And what was he before that?

Catholic

Remember you were suppose to do the rest. using my formula

 

[fellowChristian]

Oh, come on! You know very well that throughout the book of Acts baptism was done “in the name of Jesus” while, much later, the Catholic church opted for the “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” formula, which they took from Matthew’s Great Commission verses (28:19). Now, either the first Apostles misunderstood Christ’s words and the RC church corrected them or the Apostles understood exactly what Christ was saying.
Eusebius Pamphilli, Bishop of Caesarea (270 - 340 AD) wrote in his commentaries’ 18 quotes of Mat. 28:19 the following “Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you” Now the question arises - Who fiddled the books?

Who fiddled with your mind?
What are you saying? You sound very confused?! Where are you getting your info from?

Matthew 28:19

19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

 

[avflf]

Who fiddled with your mind?
What are you saying? You sound very confused?! Where are you getting your info from?

Matthew 28:19

19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

I get my info from the Bible, where else? It appears that either you are genuinely confused or you are arguing for the sake of arguing. I know what Mat. 28:19 says but I did point out that the Apostles did not baptise as Mat. 28:19 says they should and I questioned who was right. Quite simple, really.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

I get my info from the Bible, where else? It appears that either you are genuinely confused or you are arguing for the sake of arguing. I know what Mat. 28:19 says but I did point out that the Apostles did not baptise as Mat. 28:19 says they should and I questioned who was right. Quite simple, really.

We answered you as to Mt 28. You never responded to our answer directly. But merely restated your postion. Moreover, it has never been clear what exactly your position is. If that is not arguing for the sake of arguing, then I do not know what is.

Also, I do not see the logic in calling someone confused. If you were to set out your position in a logical manner with links to support your claims, it would be much easier to understand what you are saying. So if there is any source of confusion it would be the result of the lack of clarity in your posts so far.

Also, I am just wondering how closely this little detour is to the original topic of the thread.

 

[Teflon93]

We answered you as to Mt 28. You never responded to our answer directly. But merely restated your postion. Moreover, it has never been clear what exactly your position is. If that is not arguing for the sake of arguing, then I do not know what is.

Also, I do not see the logic in calling someone confused. If you were to set out your position in a logical manner with links to support your claims, it would be much easier to understand what you are saying. So if there is any source of confusion it would be the result of the lack of clarity in your posts so far.

Also, I am just wondering how closely this little detour is to the original topic of the thread.

This seems to be a common problem with our Protestant interlocutors in particular.

Simple, linear argument, please. If you have the truth on your side as you believe, why be afraid of simple, linear arguments?

Here is an example.

1. Jesus claimed to be founding a Church, “Upon this rock I will build my church.”
2. Nowhere in the Bible does Christ claim to be writing Scripture, nor does he call for it to be rewritten.
3. The Holy Bible was not produced until centuries after Christ died. The Gospels were not written until at least the middle of the 1st century and well after Christ died.
4. The Church has existed from Pentecost to the present day, and existed prior to the written Gospels.
5. Therefore, Christ built the Church; he did not write the Bible (although he did inspire its writing).

Simple. Linear. Argument.

You can take issue with any or all of the above, or challenge the reasoning in-between.

 

[estesbob]

Who fiddled with your mind?
What are you saying? You sound very confused?! Where are you getting your info from?

Matthew 28:19

19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

He claims the Catholic Church changed this verse and claims we should Baptize only in the name of Jesus Christ.

Heres his orignal post:

Originally Posted by avflf
Oh, come on! You know very well that throughout the book of Acts baptism was done “in the name of Jesus” while, much later, the Catholic church opted for the “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” formula, which they took from Matthew’s Great Commission verses (28:19).

It is a very odd contention given:

**Matthew 28:19 (King James Version) **

19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Last Time I checked the venerable King James Bible was not a Catholic Bible

 

[avflf]

We answered you as to Mt 28. You never responded to our answer directly. But merely restated your postion. Moreover, it has never been clear what exactly your position is. If that is not arguing for the sake of arguing, then I do not know what is.

Also, I do not see the logic in calling someone confused. If you were to set out your position in a logical manner with links to support your claims, it would be much easier to understand what you are saying. So if there is any source of confusion it would be the result of the lack of clarity in your posts so far.

Also, I am just wondering how closely this little detour is to the original topic of the thread.

But I did tell you, well not you you specifically but in thread I said that according to the Book of Acts the Apostles did not baptised anyone “in the name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” but rather “in the name of Jesus”. If you are saying that I did not give specific ‘Chapter and Verse’ referrences that is correct. I just said Acts. Here it is Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5.

 

[briang72]

I posted this link earlier, and noticed no response to it, so I thought maybe it was overlooked.

The only response necessary to avflf is here

 

[avflf]

He claims the Catholic Church changed this verse and claims we should Baptize only in the name of Jesus Christ.
It is a very odd contention given:

**Matthew 28:19 (King James Version) **

19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Last Time I checked the venerable King James Bible was not a Catholic Bible

According to the Apostles, yes, the Church should baptise “in the name of Jesus” for the HS had led the disciples of Jesus “into all truth” Jn. 16:13.

 

[estesbob]

But I did tell you, well not you you specifically but in thread I said that according to the Book of Acts the Apostles did not baptised anyone “in the name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” but rather “in the name of Jesus”. If you are saying that I did not give specific ‘Chapter and Verse’ referrences that is correct. I just said Acts. Here it is Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5.

So according your personal imterperation of Scripture we have to ignore Mathew? And somehow the Church by following Jeusus’s great commission are practicing heresy?

What you have given is a case history as to why Sola Scriptura is a false doctrine.Ffaced with what you think is a contradiction in Scripture you **personally **decide how to interpert the verses, choose the version you personally think is correct and then condemn anyone who does not agree with your **personal **interperation.

 

[Teflon93]

So according your personal imterperation of Scripture we have to ignore Mathew? And somehow the Church by following Jeusus’s great commission are practicing heresy?

What you have given is a case history as to why Sola Scriptura is a false doctrine.Ffaced with what you think is a contradiction in Scripture you **personally **decide how to interpert the verses, choose the version you personally think is correct and then condemn anyone who does not agree with your **personal **interperation.

The Atomic Church of Me strikes again!

 

[estesbob]

According to the Apostles, yes, the Church should baptise “in the name of Jesus” for the HS had led the disciples of Jesus “into all truth” Jn. 16:13.

So you reject the Trinity? At least you are consistent because one who beleives in Sola Scritpura MUST reject the Trinity

 

[estesbob]

The Atomic Church of Me strikes again!

he has met god and he is him.

 

[malachi_a_serva]

Might I ask where in the bible does it say that the bible is the sole authority?

I see in 1Timothy 3:15 it says

**1 Timothy 3:15 **

15 but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the** household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth. **

**It does not say the bible is the “pillar and support of all truth” it says the church is.

And if you lived anytime before 1517 all the way back to the time of Christ the “church” they are talking about is the Catholic Church.

So let me ask you a question did Christ build a church or did He write a book?

Did the church write a book or did the Bible build a church?

Remember the Apostles? They were the Church at the begining.Then 3000 were added that day.**

Acts 2:41
So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about **three thousand souls. **

42They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ **teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. **

**3000 souls added that day! Added to what?

The Bible? Or The Church?
And notice how the “devoted themselves”. I don’t see “reading the bible.”**
**
And what about this verse?**

**John 20:30 **

30 Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which **are not written in this book; **

Where is the rest?

And if you are a Christian who believes in Christ and you lived in 1516 you were Catholic.
1413? Catholic
1300? Catholic
1289? Catholic
1179? Catholic
1000? Catholic
900,800,700,600,500,400,300,200,100,99,80,70,67? Catholic.

Why? Because Martin Luther (a Catholic) had not been excommunicated until 1517 and had not started the Lutheran Denomination.The first in a series of other Denominations.

King Henry the VIII (Catholic) until he made himself a “pope” of the Church of England.

Trace a church! Go on I dare you! You will trace it back to the Catholic Church. How old is your Church?

I myself get confussed to see the huge impact this would make against The Bible. I look at it as Jesus established a church…Jesus also determined we needed a Bible…

Saying where in the Bible does it say the Bible is the sole authority is the same as asking where in the Bible does it say the pope is infallible when speaking “ex-cathedra”…or where in the Bible does it say Mary ascended bodily into Heaven.

My point being that if the RCC can claim that certain things “came to be” to “evolved/developed” to be Doctrines, why couldn’t the infalliblity and sole authority of the Bible be one of them.

 

[mtr01]

My point being that if the RCC can claim that certain things “came to be” to “evolved/developed” to be Doctrines, why couldn’t the infalliblity and sole authority of the Bible be one of them.

Because if this were the case, *sola scriptura *would be logically inconsistent. For the SS adherent, the Bible is the only/final/infallible source of authority for the Christian. If *SS *is not found in the pages of Scripture, then there is no way to know if it is correct, or just a false “tradition of men”.

 

[estesbob]

My point being that if the RCC can claim that certain things “came to be” to “evolved/developed” to be Doctrines, why couldn’t the infalliblity and sole authority of the Bible be one of them.

Leaving aside the fact that all the things you metioned dodnt really “evolve” at all the answer to the above questionis because it is a self contradicting proposition. It like saying why cant a light be on and off at the same time. If Scripture is the sole authority and doesnt say so then by its very defintion Scripture cant be the Sole Authority

 

[Ani_Ibi]

But I did tell you, well not you you specifically but in thread I said that according to the Book of Acts the Apostles did not baptised anyone “in the name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” but rather “in the name of Jesus”. If you are saying that I did not give specific ‘Chapter and Verse’ referrences that is correct. I just said Acts. Here it is Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5.

No. That is what you said before we answered you. Then you did not respond to our answers. Please respond to our answers. Tautology is not discussion. This is a discussion board. Thank you.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

According to the Apostles, yes, the Church should baptise “in the name of Jesus” for the HS had led the disciples of Jesus “into all truth” Jn. 16:13.

But Matthew said to baptise in the Name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost.

Is Matthew not an Apostle?

I asked you this before. You haven’t answered yet.

 

[avflf]

I posted this link earlier, and noticed no response to it, so I thought maybe it was overlooked.

The only response necessary to avflf is here

Sorry to disappoint you briang72 but that link just shows me how other doctrines crept into the Church with the passing of years.I shall comment only on the Didache, which the article gives as 70 AD for its composition. On this dating the following applies:
“Some commentators argue for a date of effective origin as early as around 70 or soon thereafter,[4] and others as late as the later 2nd century[5] or even the 3rd century.[6] There is simply no way to fix an absolute date to anything more specific than the broad range between 70 and the third century. All the best arguments have not been determinative. Those in favor of an earlier date have tended to push for their own point of view, and those contrary to theirs” Wikipaedia.
Now let’s turn to the subject of Baptism. This is what the Didache says: “Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.” Notice the introduction of extra-Biblical requirements?
From the simplicity of the baptism of the Ethiopian
(Act 8:35-38) “Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.” where all it required was faith/belief.
From “repent and be baptised” it became “repent- fast for 2 days- and be baptised”.

 

[estesbob]

Sorry to disappoint you briang72 but that link just shows me how other doctrines crept into the Church with the passing of years.I shall comment only on the Didache, which the article gives as 70 AD for its composition. On this dating the following applies:".

WOW!!! So in Sola Scriptura when Scripture allegedly differs on something the earliest writings win!!! What if there is a tie? Do you like flip a coin?