Is It The Bible, Or Is It The Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cathdefender
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Here are a few other things to chew over:
  • The Hebrew language doesn’t often distinguish between the spokenness of a word and the word itself. If Peter was said to have stood up admist his brothers- it can be compared to the Hebrew meaning for (q^um) arise and stand. When the word is used in the Old Testament (Isa. 40:8; Jer. 44:28 as examples) it denotes God speaking and his word “standing fast.” It denotes authority, as Peter’s standing up admists his brothers denotes authority.
  • Same thing goes for Matthew 16:18, I unfortunately cannot think of an Old Testament reference to God as the Rock fo the Israelites (Kings is popping in mind though) they are referencing God as more than just the foundation of Israel/the Israelites. He is most importantly the “Protector” of the Israelites, keeping them safe from harm/apostasy. From what I’ve read about Hebrew (if memory serves) foundation doesn’t necessarily relate to rock. Remember, we are dealing with Jewish men here, who would have been raised in Jewish theology. When Simon bar Jonah is called Kephas, it denotes more than just the foundation- it denotes authority. “You are Protector and on this Protector I shall build my church.”
 
thecoach said:
6The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? 11No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

12The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 1

It seems to me Paul and Barnabas has as much influence on the assembly as Peter did, and funny how you didnt include verse 19, where JAMES issues the edict, NOT Peter. You cannot get around that, Peter is shown to be in NO position of authority at Jerusalem. Can noone respond directly to why that is?
Click to expand...
James made NO edict regarding circumcision.St.peter did.verse 12 read Then the whole meeting quieted down and they listened…why did the meeting change subjects?because St.Peter stood up and told them what to do.then the meeting had time to listen to good things happening.verse 19 had nothing to do with what the meeting was held about…verse 19 does not say why the meeting quieted down.
 
ALotLessThumb said:
Here are a few other things to chew over:
  • The Hebrew language doesn’t often distinguish between the spokenness of a word and the word itself. If Peter was said to have stood up admist his brothers- it can be compared to the Hebrew meaning for (q^um) arise and stand. When the word is used in the Old Testament (Isa. 40:8; Jer. 44:28 as examples) it denotes God speaking and his word “standing fast.” It denotes authority, as Peter’s standing up admists his brothers denotes authority.
  • Same thing goes for Matthew 16:18, I unfortunately cannot think of an Old Testament reference to God as the Rock fo the Israelites (Kings is popping in mind though) they are referencing God as more than just the foundation of Israel/the Israelites. He is most importantly the “Protector” of the Israelites, keeping them safe from harm/apostasy. From what I’ve read about Hebrew (if memory serves) foundation doesn’t necessarily relate to rock. Remember, we are dealing with Jewish men here, who would have been raised in Jewish theology. When Simon bar Jonah is called Kephas, it denotes more than just the foundation- it denotes authority. “You are Protector and on this Protector I shall build my church.”
Click to expand...
may i add why did Jesus even change St.Peter’s name in the first place?if there is no attachment to that change.
 
Hisalone said:
Balaam taught the Jewish people to comitt sexual imorality and sacrifice to pagan idols. These are the false doctrines of Balaam which John Hagee easily recognizes in a present day church.
Click to expand...
I was going to make a comment but discretion is the better part of valor

Pastor John Hagee gives sex offender Rabbi Ben Zion Sobel a $100,000 check.

Jewish Survivors of Sexual Violence Speak Out

Originally from New York, Rabbi Ben Zion Sobel (in the mid eighties) ran a yeshiva for troubled kids – Neve Yohoshua (which became Neve Zion) in Israel.

He was pushed out in 1987 after (sexually and otherwise) abusing (many, perhaps most) of his male students. I’ve heard of at least one suicide following this and other yeshiva bochers giving up on Judaism. Many kids disappeared from the radar screen of the Orthodox world
jewishsurvivors.blogspot.com/2006/05/rabbi-ben-zion-sobel-by-luke-ford.html

lukeford.net/profiles/profiles/ben_zion_sobel.htm
 
thecoach said:
Just how was it established by Peter alone? Paul was already doing the same work.

"James was killed - Christ chose Peter - All The Apostles had apostolic authority "

Im confused…Christ chose Peter AFTER James was killed? And if Peter was chosen for the role you think he was, why was he NOT head of the community at Jerusalem? You have still yet to answer that. You state all apostles had apostolic authority almost as if one is not supreme over the other.
Click to expand...
What is this you keep saying about Peter being head of the community in Jerusalem?? Like I said in my first post, you are presenting a circular argument for yourself, an argument that has no beginning and no end.
Holy Scripture tells us that the Roman emporer Claudius (41-54) ordered all Jews to leave Rome (Acts 18:2). Peter was a Jew, but the church was an underground church in hiding at the time.
/ Well that charge to leave Rome, even implies that Peter could have been in Rome doesn’t it?
Eusebius wrote in “The Chronicle” (Ad An Dom 42), that Peter, after establishing the church in Antioch, went to Rome where he remained bishop of Rome for 25 years. We know that from other early writings that Peter was crucified upside down in Rome in 67 A.D. That date, minus 25 years would put him in Rome in the year 42, during the reign of Claudius.
Again, this charge can be dismissed for the same reasons given already, that the church was forced to practice the faith in an undrerground situation in order to avoid persecution. The Romans had a policy of hunting down and persecuting all of the Apostles.
 
dosdog said:
You refuse the authority - done nothing but belittle the church
Click to expand...
dosdog, sometimes no matter what you say, even when non-Catholic Christians know it makes sense, they refuse to no avail to listen or even understand where you are coming from. To reject the church is to reject Jesus Christ.
 
thecoach said:
and more cutting and pasting. Can you not speak from your own understanding?
Click to expand...
Why is it coach that you refuse to acknowledge what this person is even saying? He is literally trying to show you proof of historical evidence, yet you refuse to acknowledge it? How can one just shoot off at the mouth vs. knowledge from ledgible sources?
 
Cathdefender said:
dosdog, sometimes no matter what you say, even when non-Catholic Christians know it makes sense, they refuse to no avail to listen or even understand where you are coming from. To reject the church is to reject Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
I’m am just giving reasons why The Church does what it does.
I never converted anybody - not going to step those toes - they ignore it- accept it - reject it -
up to them

DD
 
dosdog said:
I’m am just giving reasons why The Church does what it does.
I never converted anybody - not going to step those toes - they ignore it- accept it - reject it -
up to them

DD
Click to expand...
Some are truth-seekers, some are false teachers. i think you were dealing with a false teacher.🤷
 
dosdog said:
I’m am just giving reasons why The Church does what it does.
I never converted anybody - not going to step those toes - they ignore it- accept it - reject it -
up to them

DD
Click to expand...
But no matter what you say to some, the elect few, will not listen because it is “Catholic”. Only pray for them.
 
Cathdefender said:
It appears to be a question of either/or, which means one or the other for non-Catholic Christians.
Non-Catholic Christians have chosen the bible, since they rejected the church which Jesus Christ founded.

Did Jesus Christ found the bible or the church?
Click to expand...
The Bible is the sword of the Spirit. How can you “fight the good fight of the faith” without a sword?
 
Jesuspaiditall said:
The Bible is the sword of the Spirit. How can you “fight the good fight of the faith” without a sword?
Click to expand...
Because I have quoted several Scripture lines and early church fathers that prove the church is what will save you.

What does the bible say about itself?
  1. The bible clearly says that it is inspired by God, 2 Timothy 3:16.
    This can only refer to the Old Testament, since there was no New Testament at the time that St. Paul wrote 2 Timothy.
    Scores of spurious gospels were written by Gnostics and others and were later declared by the church to be not inspired.
    The NT canon was not finalized until hundreds of years later in the 4th century and by the church.
  2. The bible clearly says it is usefulfor teaching, 2Timothy 3:16. Useful means just that, and it does not mean all encompassing or bible only.
  3. The bible clearly says that **everything is not within it, **John 20:30, John 21:25.
  4. The bible clearly says that there are many things to say to you but you cannot hear them now, John 16:12.
    That implies future teaching, and again that everything is not in the bible.
  5. The bible clearly says you are being fed with milk (as with a baby) because you cannot eat meat as yet, 1Cor 3:2, Hebrews 5:12-13.
    Again we see implied future teaching which comes over time.
  6. The bible clearly says when the Spirit of Truth has come, He will teach you all the truth, and the THINGS THAT ARE TO COME He will declare to you, John 16:13.
    In this verse there can be no doubt that everything **is not in the bible,**and that things that are to come will be revealed over time by the Spirit of Truth through His church.
 
Thinking like a child,its the church thats already exist before creation.As creation completed the bible thus came into being.
Whats simply mean to me is that "jesus the promise one"already exists.As he was with us the bible came into being in a more understanable and clear content.
jesus has now gone in facts he’s not, that is where your question arose "is it the bible or the church?
Because that you denied jesus as the living words of god from the beginning ,means that it is harder to believe the church that he was formed,and becos you never accept the words he has spoken
makes you blindfold with your B.I.B.L.E

God bless
 
BWENEATA_IOAKIM said:
Thinking like a child,its the church thats already exist before creation.As creation completed the bible thus came into being.
Whats simply mean to me is that "jesus the promise one"already exists.As he was with us the bible came into being in a more understanable and clear content.
jesus has now gone in facts he’s not, that is where your question arose "is it the bible or the church?
Because that you denied jesus as the living words of god from the beginning ,means that it is harder to believe the church that he was formed,and becos you never accept the words he has spoken
makes you blindfold with your B.I.B.L.E

God bless
Click to expand...
:clapping:
 
BWENEATA_IOAKIM said:
Thinking like a child,its the church thats already exist before creation.As creation completed the bible thus came into being.
Whats simply mean to me is that "jesus the promise one"already exists.As he was with us the bible came into being in a more understanable and clear content.
jesus has now gone in facts he’s not, that is where your question arose "is it the bible or the church?
Because that you denied jesus as the living words of god from the beginning ,means that it is harder to believe the church that he was formed,and becos you never accept the words he has spoken
makes you blindfold with your B.I.B.L.E

God bless
Click to expand...
How can this be when I quote ALL SCRIPTURE FROM THE BIBLE?
 
JRKH said:
Born and raised Catholic. Left the Church for many years. REturned last year. Therefore I did not CON-vert, I RE-verted.

Peace
James
Click to expand...
How about awakened? You had an awakening? Anyway, glad you are back, but don’t know why you would applaud someone who goes only by the bible and nothing more.
 
Cathdefender said:
How about awakened? You had an awakening? Anyway, glad you are back, but don’t know why you would applaud someone who goes only by the bible and nothing more.
Click to expand...
I believe that you are misreading the post which says:
Originally Posted by BWENEATA IOAKIM
Thinking like a child,its the church thats already exist before creation.As creation completed the bible thus came into being.
Click to expand...
Putting as simple as a child, the Church existed with God before creation. The Bible came about after creation.
Whats simply mean to me is that "jesus the promise one"already exists.As he was with us the bible came into being in a more understanable and clear content.
Click to expand...
What this simply means to me is that “Jesus, the promised one”, already exists (before creation). While he was with us the Bible (his teachings) came into being in a more understandable and clear way.
jesus has now gone in facts he’s not, that is where your question arose "is it the bible or the church?
Click to expand...
Jesus, the Word has not really gone away, but some think he has, thus the question about the Bible or the Church.
Because that you denied jesus as the living words of god from the beginning ,means that it is harder to believe the church that he was formed,and becos you never accept the words he has spoken
makes you blindfold with your B.I.B.L.E
Click to expand...
Beause you have denied Jesus as the Living Word present with God from the Beginning, it means it is harder for you to believe the Church that Jesus founded and because you don’t accept the words he has spoken, you are blinded by your Bible.

This is how I read what the poster was trying to say. maybe I was wrong.🤷

Peace
James

God bless
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top