Did Jesus write the Bible or build a church?

[Ani_Ibi]

…Faced 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.

But he has not given us his interpretation of Matthew yet. I asked him to do so, but he hasn’t.

 

[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:
“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”.

And the point is???

 

[estesbob]

But he has not given us his interpretation of Matthew yet. I asked him to do so, but he hasn’t.

I believe he said the Church fiddled with the book.

 

[mtr01]

And the point is???

It’s a diversionary tactic. He had no direct reponse to the question, so he answered another. The point was not about fasting prior to baptism, but use of the Trinitarian formula. Note, that in his quote, it doesn’t say that Stephen baptized the Ethiopian “in the name of Jesus”.

 

[Teflon93]

I believe he said the Church fiddled with the book.

Wow, the Protestant Bible’s getting lighter all the time?

Any bets on when it will get down to pamphlet size containing only the verses referenced again and again in support of sola fide/sola scriptura?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

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 of the following:

1. The onus of proof for Sola Scriptura is on those who hold it out as Truth. The Catholic Church does not hold Sola Scriptura out as Truth.
2. Dogma and Doctrines did not change. Their understanding may have grown in fullness and in application, but they did not change.
3. The growth of dogma or doctrine must be based on some seed of Truth in the first place. Sola Scriptura developed out of the mind of Luther Only. There was no seed of Truth there at all. In fact Luther even admitted that he made it up.
4. Absolutely no evidence at all exists for Sola Scriptura.
5. Faith cannot be unreasonable.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Teflon93:

Wow, the Protestant Bible’s getting lighter all the time?

Oh sheesh! I never thought of that. Now Matthew’s gone?

:crying:
How did that happen?

Teflon93:

Any bets on when it will get down to pamphlet size containing only the verses referenced again and again in support of sola fide/sola scriptura?

Pamphlet size or tract size? Kind of reminds me of that other Great Book: 1984.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

avflf:

Sorry to disappoint you briang72 but that link just shows me how other doctrines crept into the Church with the passing of years.

How? Please explain.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

avflf:

Notice the introduction of extra-Biblical requirements?

Yes.

avflf:

From “repent and be baptised” it became “repent- fast for 2 days- and be baptised”.

There is a difference there, isn’t there?

I guess there is your proof for Tradition. Thank you. You said it so much more eloquently than we have been able to.

I have a question for you: Did Jesus write the Bible or build a Church?

 

[jmcrae]

I assumed that anyone discussing the Bible would be knowledgable of the Scripture.

Everyone here is knowledgable of the Scriptures, but not everyone has the same interpretation. If you think a certain passage means something, it’s important to say what you think it means, so that others can follow your reasoning.

The relevance stems from a number of posts ago regarding my comment that the 1st C church differed from the 4th C one.

If the changes from the first century until the fourth century were not organic in nature, building grace upon grace, but rather, were adding error to the mix, then why did the Protestant Reformation not occur until the 16th century - more than a millenium later?

After all, there was very little visible or structural difference between the Catholic Church of the 16th century and the Catholic Church of the fourth and fifth centuries. (The Bible was put together at the end of the fourth century, and began to be promulgated during the early part of the fifth century. Every Church in Christendom had a Bible by 450 AD. This was one sigificant change that occurred in the fourth century, but I would consider it an organic change rather than an error or reversal of doctrine.

You must know (sorry, me and my suppositions again) that the Apostles were supposed to be led to ALL truth when the HS was sent. Thus, it is reasonable to accept that “in the name of Jesus” was and is the correct formula for baptism.

See Matthew 28:19. The Apostles were using the Trinitarian formula, just as Christ commanded them to do.

“In the name of Jesus” was a short-form signifying the Trinitarian formula, in the same way that we name the other prayers and liturgical formulae we use with a line of the prayer itself - the “Our Father,” the “I Believe,” the “Hail Mary,” etc.

 

[avflf]

But he has not given us his interpretation of Matthew yet. I asked him to do so, but he hasn’t.

Ani Ibi,
Please forgive me if I miss an entry and don’t reply to it. You must understand my Inbox gets loaded from posts that a lot of you send me and sometimes when I click on the answer link it does not take me to that particular post and by the time I scroll for it there is a whole lot of new posts. The burden of being one against many, well not really “against” but sometimes I feel snowed under. Mat. 28:19 is interesting because it goes against what Jesus had been saying all along ie (Mat 15:24) But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (Mat 15:26) But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.(Mat 10:5) These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
Or what the Angel said (Mat 1:21) And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. (Luk 1:32) He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
Acording to the Bible who are God’s people? Israel. Whose nation did David ruled over? Israel. And it was to and for Israel that the Christ came.
estesbob said “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”.
To this I can safely reply, I interpret the Scriptures according to the Scriptures judging one passage or verse in the light of another within the Book, and its contents float or sink according to what is written. I do not require a Pope or a priest to tell me what to believe, what to accept or discard . They are human just as I am, why should I place them as “deciders” (like Bush believes himself to be) of what the Scripture says or doesn’t say. And for you who believe that Scripture is not the last word but that God keeps giving revelation after revelation to the Church, why don’t you also accept that God has also revealed the Quran to Muhammad and The Book of Mormon to Joseph Smith?

 

[jmcrae]

Ani Ibi,
Please forgive me if I miss an entry and don’t reply to it. You must understand my Inbox gets loaded from posts that a lot of you send me and sometimes when I click on the answer link it does not take me to that particular post and by the time I scroll for it there is a whole lot of new posts. The burden of being one against many, well not really “against” but sometimes I feel snowed under. Mat. 28:19 is interesting because it goes against what Jesus had been saying all along ie (Mat 15:24) But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (Mat 15:26) But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.(Mat 10:5) These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
Or what the Angel said (Mat 1:21) And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. (Luk 1:32) He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
Acording to the Bible who are God’s people? Israel. Whose nation did David ruled over? Israel. And it was to and for Israel that the Christ came.
estesbob said “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”.
To this I can safely reply, I interpret the Scriptures according to the Scriptures judging one passage or verse in the light of another within the Book, and its contents float or sink according to what is written. I do not require a Pope or a priest to tell me what to believe, what to accept or discard . They are human just as I am, why should I place them as “deciders” (like Bush believes himself to be) of what the Scripture says or doesn’t say. And for you who believe that Scripture is not the last word but that God keeps giving revelation after revelation to the Church, why don’t you also accept that God has also revealed the Quran to Muhammad and The Book of Mormon to Joseph Smith?

Notice the change of status of Israel between the time before the Crucifixion (when Jesus was explaining that He was sent to Israel), and the time afterwards (when Jesus commanded the Apostles to go out to all the world and baptize the nations using the Trinitarian formula) though.

The Crucifixion itself was Israel’s rejection of Christ. Having been rejected by Israel (now a past event rather than a future event), Christ was now actually going out to the Pagans instead of merely threatening to go to the Pagans, just as He had predicted in several of his parables.

Matthew 28:19 is just as much a part of the bible as every other verse in it. Either the whole thing is inerrant, or none of it is. We can’t pick certain verses that we like, and then reject other verses based on our personal interpretation of the verses that we like. When we find an apparent contradiction, rather than reject a verse of Scripture, what we need to do is re-evaluate our personal interpretation.

 

[estesbob]

Ani Ibi,
To this I can safely reply, I interpret the Scriptures according to the Scriptures judging one passage or verse in the light of another within the Book, and its contents float or sink according to what is written. I do not require a Pope or a priest to tell me what to believe, what to accept or discard . They are human just as I am, why should I place them as “deciders” (like Bush believes himself to be) of what the Scripture says or doesn’t say. And for you who believe that Scripture is not the last word but that God keeps giving revelation after revelation to the Church, why don’t you also accept that God has also revealed the Quran to Muhammad and The Book of Mormon to Joseph Smith?

The fatal flaw to this is if you accept the authority of scripture you can not accept Sola Scriptura. It is not supported by Scripture and was an unheard of doctrine for the first 1,500 years after Church founded his Church

One has only to look at the convoluted , often contradictory statements you have made in this thread to see the dangers inherent in making themselves the sole arbiter of what Scripture says. A perfect example being your dismissal of Mathews clear word in favor of you **personal **interpretation of various passages in ACTS.

What is really ironic is you assertion that you don’t need to be told what to believe by the Church WHEN the moment you use Scripture you are accepting the Authority of the Church-the one who put tether the Scripture you hold so dear.

 

[avflf]

Notice the change of status of Israel between the time before the Crucifixion (when Jesus was explaining that He was sent to Israel), and the time afterwards (when Jesus commanded the Apostles to go out to all the world and baptize the nations using the Trinitarian formula) though.

The Crucifixion itself was Israel’s rejection of Christ. Having been rejected by Israel (now a past event rather than a future event), Christ was now actually going out to the Pagans instead of merely threatening to go to the Pagans, just as He had predicted in several of his parables.

Matthew 28:19 is just as much a part of the bible as every other verse in it. Either the whole thing is inerrant, or none of it is. We can’t pick certain verses that we like, and then reject other verses based on our personal interpretation of the verses that we like. When we find an apparent contradiction, rather than reject a verse of Scripture, what we need to do is re-evaluate our personal interpretation.

Someone asked me in a post 'Does God change?" I leave that for you to answer .

 

[avflf]

The fatal flaw to this is if you accept the authority of scripture you can not accept Sola Scriptura. It is not supported by Scripture and was an unheard of doctrine for the first 1,500 years after Church founded his Church

One has only to look at the convoluted , often contradictory statements you have made in this thread to see the dangers inherent in making themselves the sole arbiter of what Scripture says. A perfect example being your dismissal of Mathews clear word in favor of you **personal **interpretation of various passages in ACTS.

What is really ironic is you assertion that you don’t need to be told what to believe by the Church WHEN the moment you use Scripture you are accepting the Authority of the Church-the one who put tether the Scripture you hold so dear.

Matthew’s clear word? It couldn’t have been very clear if the disciples of Christ did not use it when baptising

 

[estesbob]

Someone asked me in a post 'Does God change?" I leave that for you to answer .

Still another one of you posts that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic on hand.

But in answer to your questipn you must beleive he does since he evidently changed his mind between mathew and acts.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

avflf, I know you may be busy, but if you want to argue please do us us a favour and set up your arguments clearly and, if possible, in one post (this includes supporting your arguments and explaining us why we should ignore Mt.)

avflf:

He used to be known as El Shaddai - God Almighty. But he revealed his proper name to Moses - YHWH. which people pronounce Yhaweh or Jehovah.

Well, most people pronounce it this way but the problem is that no one really knows how to pronounce it. So, in the end we **don’t **really know His name and Jehovah is most likely a name **we **gave God. So, I’ll just call Him Father.

 

[avflf]

I have a question for you: Did Jesus write the Bible or build a Church?

No. But the NT and the Church were founded on the life and sayings of the Christ, or at least on what the writers believed were the sayings of Jesus.

As to the Gospels here’s something of interest from the Introduction to the Moffatt Translation of the Bible:

“Jesus wrote nothing, and for a time his immediate disciples felt no impulse to write any account of him. A new age and order was expected at any moment; Jesus was to inaugurate this soon and suddenly. Why write a biography of one who was to reappear from heaven ere long? They were living in the brief interval between his earthly life and his return to complete the work of God, which would end the present order…… The first three gospels form a group by themselves. They are not independent narratives about Jesus; one has been re-edited by the other two. The first to be composed was evidently not regarded as sacrosanct and final, for, while the two later gospel-writers adhere upon the whole of its outline, they take great liberties with its matter, both in arrangement and in style, toning down, for example, the frank realism which sometimes characterizes Mark, or even altering expressions to suit a slightly different estimate of some incident or saying. Neither of the two later gospels was written to be read alongside of Mark, as is our modern fashion. They were written to supersede it, or at any rate to be read in quarters where it was unknown…. But as Mark’s gospel did not prevent Matthew’s from appearing, neither did even Matthew’s meet the full requirements of the church. Attempts at composing gospels seem to have been numerous, and we have a third important effort which was made later by a well educated Christian physician, a friend of Paul who was called Luke…. Even Luke’s gospel, however, was not the climax. Another followed shortly afterwards, written at Ephesus about the end of the first century. In outline it diverges sharply from the order of the life of Jesus, hitherto accepted…”

 

[avflf]

Still another one of you posts that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic on hand.

But in answer to your questipn you must beleive he does since he evidently changed his mind between mathew and acts.

Not only that but He repents a lot also.

 

[avflf]

avflf,

Well, most people pronounce it this way but the problem is that no one really knows how to pronounce it. So, in the end we **don’t **really know His name and Jehovah is most likely a name **we **gave God. So, I’ll just call Him Father.

Seeing that God the Holy Spirit sired Jesus I would call God the Father “Uncle”