The Origin of the Bible

[Stouts989]

right on ,the doctrine of SS is not taugh anywhere in the Bible. Christ Tell Us to submit to the Authority on the Church.

Where does he says that?

 

[Bill_Pick]

Bill you couldnt talk when you were Jimmy.

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, Do you speak english,it you do please talk to me in english, and I have been talking all my life,is Jimmy one of your ex boy friend

 

[Hisalone]

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, Do you speak english,it you do please talk to me in english, and I have been talking all my life,is Jimmy one of your ex boy friend

Bill insulting other members is against your user agreement.

 

[Hisalone]

Wrong. The congrgation strted by Christ had a priesthood. St. Peter had a primacy above the others. The theology of the Apostles and first century Christians was Catholic in nature, and in the early second century was well-known as “Catholic”, as evidenced by St. Ignatius of Antioc’s letter to the Church in Smyrna. If you read the early Church Fathers, you will see that their theology was very Catholic. If you have any historical evidence to the contrary, I would be interested in seeing it. But for you to say that the CHurch started by CHrist was not what would become the Catholic CHurch on your say-so, without any evidence whatsoever, well lets just say that I am dininclined to grant your claims any credence.

Christs congregation all believers were in the priesthood!!!
Peter nor any of the early bishops held their position as if they were part of the Imperial Roman Court. They took seriously the admonition that the greatest amoung them served those they were responsible for.
Peter never porfessed to be infallible nor was this heretical doctrine held those Christ taught. The early church was seperated, set apart and sanctified of pagan traditions and influences and did not embrace them.

 

[CWBetts]

Christs congregation all believers were in the priesthood!!!
Peter nor any of the early bishops held their position as if they were part of the Imperial Roman Court. They took seriously the admonition that the greatest amoung them served those they were responsible for.
Peter never porfessed to be infallible nor was this heretical doctrine held those Christ taught. The early church was seperated, set apart and sanctified of pagan traditions and influences and did not embrace them.

There is the limited priesthood of all believers, but if there was no ordained priesthood, then what special authority diid Paul have as an Apostle? If there was no ordained priesthood, then why are requirements given for Bishps and deacons? If there was no ordained Priesthood, then what was the point of the entire 22nd chapter of the Gosspel of John. Of Peter had no Primacy, then what did Jesus mean when He gave Peter the Keys of the Kingdom? What was that whole binding and loosing thing about? Why is Peter always listed first among the Apostles? WHy is he mentioned more than all the other Apostles combined? Why was Peter always included when Jesus gathered just some of his Apostles? THe ROman Catholic Church is not simply Imperial Rome with “Church Dressing” I do not know where you get your delusions.

 

[Stouts989]

If God is the final authority, isn’t it possible to have that authority be executed through living peoples? While God gave authority to the people who literally wrote the Bible when they were inspired by the Holy Spirit, why can’t the Holy Spirit give a definite guide to a Church so that the same writings can always be interpreted best? In the end, it is true that God is the FINAL authority; this authority He chose to exercise through men He chose.

The Bible clearly says that the writers of scripture were inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit as I have noted in my OP.

Where in scripture does is say that the Church has the promise of the Holy Spirit to alway interpret scripture infallibly?

 

[TheQuestioner]

hmmm, although you are right in saying that Trent shut the door on any debate (I am mature enough to admit that) that is not to say that Councils of Carthage and Hippo were not authoritative. The regional councils are superseded by ecumenical councils, but they still hold some authority. In fact since the Canon of those councils were approved by Rome it would follow that those councils held authority until Trent. If Trent presented a different list than the ones of Carthage and Hippo we all would have to default to Trent. This just didn’t happen to be the case. Also the problem with Luther was that he questioned not only the OT but the NT, so either way you receive your NT from the Church because we put a stamp on that canon. Also the list of OT canonical books made up in Carthage was actually sent to and approved by the Roman Partriarch (the Pope) so either way it was IMO basically set and stated that although more books could have been added to the OT Canon, none of them could be taken away. That list at least was approved.

By the way there was no debate what so ever about the OT Canon at Trent. It was quickly (and extremely quickly for a council) settled at Trent and then they moved on to the next topic. There was little or no question about the Canon. newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

 

[CWBetts]

The Bible clearly says that the writers of scripture were inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit as I have noted in my OP.

Where in scripture does is say that the Church has the promise of the Holy Spirit to alway interpret scripture infallibly?

How about when Jesus gives the power of bibding and loosing to St. Peter and gives him the Keys to the Kingdom. If the Catholic inerpretation is wrong, then wht is your infallible inerpretation? That really is what you think isnt it? You’re interpretation is correct, and therefore you think your own interpretation is correct, and therfore infallible. The thing about Protestantism is it all boils down to not willing to submit to the Church

 

[Stouts989]

I am growing more concerned Stouts. I am beginning to think that your belief in Sola Scriptura is not Biblical

God bless

I’m concerned that you haven’t acknowledged that the Bible is the written Word of God…or even the fact that the final authority rests with God.

We don’t have a verse in scripture that tells us that the Holy Spirit is the 3rd person of the Trinity, but yet we believe it.

We don’t have a verse in scripture that says Jesus is of two natures fully God and fully man.

But we believe these doctrines are true and come from scripture due to a combination of scripture verses.

The same goes with the belief that the written Words of God has authority over all other spoken and written revelation. It is our guide and given to us as our ruler which to judgement all other claims of truth.

Lets look at Matthew 4 when Jesus is tempted by Satan. With Jesus responses he could have done a few different things to answer Satan…but guess what He did…He appealed to the written Word of God! “It is written…”

Let look at 2 Thessalonians 2:15 (one you know well). “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.”

But we find in Matthew 15 that we should not transgress the commmandments of God for the sake of tradition. The commandments of God has authority over tradition.

In 1 Corinthians 4:6 Paul writes; "Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.

Again the written Word have greater authority over tradition.

2 Timothy 3:16. “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness”.

Where in scripture is the same claim made about tradition? Where in scripture does it says that tradition is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, etc…

The RCC believes that tradition is equal to the written Word of God. This beliefs comes from 2 Thessalonians 2:15. The church is appealing to scripture to give authority to this doctrine and all tradition and doctrines of subjected to that scripture.

 

[Stouts989]

How about when Jesus gives the power of bibding and loosing to St. Peter and gives him the Keys to the Kingdom. If the Catholic inerpretation is wrong, then wht is your infallible inerpretation? That really is what you think isnt it? You’re interpretation is correct, and therefore you think your own interpretation is correct, and therfore infallible. The thing about Protestantism is it all boils down to not willing to submit to the Church

I never said what I believe or how i’m understanding scripture is infallible…anyone who would make that claim I’d consider a fool. No man has the Bible perfectly interpreted or figured out.

I don’t read anywhere in scripture that the church has the power to interpret scripture infallibly, and history itself will show the teachings of the church are far from infallible.

Please answer my question…

There is only one church…and that is all true believes in Christ. This one and only true church is interdenominational.

 

[geekborj]

The Bible clearly says that the writers of scripture were inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit as I have noted in my OP.

You are right that the Scriptures are clear about the Holy Spirit’s inspiration. The same is proclaimed by the Church. “Because God himself is the author of Sacred Scripture. For this reason it is said to be inspired and to teach without error those truths which are necessary for our salvation. The Holy Spirit inspired the human authors who wrote what he wanted to teach us. (Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church)”

Where in scripture does is say that the Church has the promise of the Holy Spirit to alway interpret scripture infallibly?

Lk. 10:16 – “you” are the apostles, the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:19-20), what they teach is what the Church teaches, what the Church teaches is what Christ teaches; 1 Tim. 3:15 – the “pillar and foundation of truth” should interpret scriptures infallibly; John 14: 16-18 – “…I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always.” Jesus’ promise of infallibility is implicit in the word, ‘always.’; John 14: 25 – “…the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name – he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” Again, Jesus’ promise of infallibility is clear in his use of the collectives, “everything” and “all.” He does not equivocate; John 16: 13 – “…when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth.” (quoted from Catholic Doctrine in Scriptures)

While everyone has freedom to interpret the Scriptures by themselves alone, there are passages that we need to confer with the Church (or a form of authority) for an authoritative interpretation, the one interpretation that has been held since Christ revealed it to the Twelve and again since Pentecost. Indeed, 2 Peter 3:16.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The Origin of the Bible
Did Jesus Christ ever write a bible
Did Jesus Christ ever command anyone to write a book?

Is the Bible which you use, the mother of the Church, or the daughter?

A bit of both, actually. The People of God comes from, & is the result of, the Books (& the parts that preceded the Books). It’s not the kind of question that allows a glib answer; theology doesn’t, so there is no reason to imagine that questions about the Books, their origins, growth, & history & theology will do so.​

Does the Bible contain a list of inspired books to be included in it?
If not, Who decided which books should be included as inspired?

It’s not the kind of question that allows a glib answer… ​

 

[geekborj]

Where does [Jesus] says [we should submit to the Church]?

Mt. 18:15-18 says in the end that “If [one] refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.”

 

[geekborj]

The Origin of the Bible
Did Jesus Christ ever write a bible
Did Jesus Christ ever command anyone to write a book?

Is the Bible which you use, the mother of the Church, or the daughter?
Does the Bible contain a list of inspired books to be included in it?
If not, Who decided which books should be included as inspired?

Indeed, while many discuss about the Bible, still many ignore the very essence of why the Bible was there. What was the original idea why the Bible came about? Why did the Church even have to decide which books are to be included or not? When exactly was the number of books decided by the Church Councils?

Christ gave authority to people. People write letters and books, it is to the people whom the authority of these written works are drawn from; and that those writers’ authority are drawn from the Spirit of Christ that Jesus himself promised to be with the Church until the “consummation of the world.”

Just like the Constitution. It’s authority is not from itself, but from those who wrote it – the Founders and the People.

 

[geekborj]

There is only one church…and that is all true believes in Christ. This one and only true church is interdenominational.

How can this “one church” be truly ONE if a small difference in one denomination splits it into two or more denomination? I guess what you mean here is that the True Church transcends differences in culture and human traditions – exactly what the Universal Church is, the Catholic Church. The “sign of unity” in the Catholic Church is the Bishop of Rome, the one sitting on the Seat (Cathedra) of Kepha who was assigned to feed and tend the Flock of Christ while Christ is “away.”

 

[Hisalone]

There is the limited priesthood of all believers, but if there was no ordained priesthood, then what special authority diid Paul have as an Apostle? If there was no ordained priesthood, then why are requirements given for Bishps and deacons? If there was no ordained Priesthood, then what was the point of the entire 22nd chapter of the Gosspel of John. Of Peter had no Primacy, then what did Jesus mean when He gave Peter the Keys of the Kingdom? What was that whole binding and loosing thing about? Why is Peter always listed first among the Apostles? WHy is he mentioned more than all the other Apostles combined? Why was Peter always included when Jesus gathered just some of his Apostles? THe ROman Catholic Church is not simply Imperial Rome with “Church Dressing” I do not know where you get your delusions.

There is no limited priesthood. The office of priest is the same in the NT as it was in the OT. A priest is to reconcile or to bring God to the people and to bring the people to God. All believers have been given this office.
There are different offices other than priesthood.
Deacons, Presbyters or Elders, Bishop or Overseer.
All of which are not to be married to more than one wife.
No where in the bible does is there an office of Pope. Peter appears on many occasions to be the lead apostle. Yet Jesus says the greatest is the one who serves, Jesus instructed the apostles not to lord over their sheep as the gentiles do. What did the popes in the middles ages do? Lord over the sheep in a vulgar and vicious manner.
No where in scripture does it say any one individual would be infallible nor does it say that His people or His church would not err it only says that Satan would not prevail against His people.

 

[Hisalone]

Mt. 18:15-18 says in the end that “If [one] refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.”

You cite scripture as your authority yet you do not submit your tradition to the authority of scripture.

 

[Hisalone]

How can this “one church” be truly ONE if a small difference in one denomination splits it into two or more denomination? I guess what you mean here is that the True Church transcends differences in culture and human traditions – exactly what the Universal Church is, the Catholic Church. The “sign of unity” in the Catholic Church is the Bishop of Rome, the one sitting on the Seat (Cathedra) of Kepha who was assigned to feed and tend the Flock of Christ while Christ is “away.”

In Christ we are one. We cannot be one with those that insist that all submit to man made traditions and doctrines.

 

[Stouts989]

Lk. 10:16 – “you” are the apostles, the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:19-20), what they teach is what the Church teaches, what the Church teaches is what Christ teaches; 1 Tim. 3:15 – the “pillar and foundation of truth” should interpret scriptures infallibly; John 14: 16-18 – “…I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always.” Jesus’ promise of infallibility is implicit in the word, ‘always.’; John 14: 25 – “…the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name – he will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” Again, Jesus’ promise of infallibility is clear in his use of the collectives, “everything” and “all.” He does not equivocate; John 16: 13 – “…when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth.” (quoted from Catholic Doctrine in Scriptures)

Thanks for you reply.

How would we know if what the 6th generation of disciples were teaching was what the disciples of Jesus were teaching if the Apostles never wrote anything down? And when later Church fathers teach about doctrine not recorded about by early fathers going back to the Apostles, how do we know this new doctrine is from God?

Though John 16:13 is interesting with “He will guide you into all the truth.” He will guide us into all the truth, but when is this completed, when all the truth is known?

I have the same Holy Spirit working in me that was working through Peter during his time here on earth (referring to Acts 10:47). Is this promise of infallibility given by the HS only to a few, or all Christians? How do we know?

The promise that you’re referring to in John 14:25 and John 16:13 wouldn’t this promise be given to all believers in Christ? All who in which the Holy Spirit is bringing through the process of Sanctification?

 

[Stouts989]

How can this “one church” be truly ONE if a small difference in one denomination splits it into two or more denomination?

Due to the depravity of man. Also because scripture isn’t as black and white as some like to claim it to be.