Was the Church Misguided until the Reformation?

[Jon_S_1]

I’m baffled as to why the people who wrote down the Jesus biographical accounts in the Christian canon would not and did not include *all *of the important words and teachings the church says he said/gave.

If he indeed said these words-- and they were so important that people’s salvation depended on them…why would these four writers choose not to include such essential words in the only four books to be written about him by people who may have known him, or known those who knew him?

It was not a wise move on their part. It has caused much confusion.

.

Remember that it was a different time. Paper was at a premium. Writing was long and tedious and expensive. The Christians didn’t write anything down until 10-20 years after Jesus ascension.

Jesus was in ministry for three years. Everywhere he went he preached. As it says in John 21:25,

25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

These were both miracles and preaching. Jesus founded the church to carry out his mission and we should have no reason to doubt their ability to do so.

Imagine if you followed someone around for three years. You learned and watched him work, and teach.

After that he is gone and you continue the work. Would you not find yourself and your dozens of contemporaries able to continue and teach others.

Now add divine protections and guidance and you have the makings if a church that is a living and breathing testament to Jesus. A church that literally can be the hands and feet of Jesus to the world.

Confusion only came in when men placed their individual wills above and apart from the living organism of the church.

 

[Abu]

DaddyGirl #19
I’m baffled as to why the people who wrote down the Jesus biographical accounts in the Christian canon would not and did not include all of the important words and teachings the church says he said/gave.
It was not a wise move on their part. It has caused much confusion.

Precisely what “important words and teaching” are you conjecturing are missing? Where is the Catholic Church confused?

Jon S #20
The Christians didn’t write anything down until 10-20 years after Jesus ascension.

Claude Tresmontant in The Hebrew Christ makes a strong case for the Hebrew Matthew and Hebrew John shortly after the death and resurrection of the Lord, with Luke between 40-60 A.D. The First Letters of Paul he places between 50-52 A.D. Fr Jacques Carmignac and the Anglican John A.T. Robinson lend support to this.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Precisely what “important words and teaching” are you conjecturing are missing? Where is the Catholic Church confused?
Claude Tresmontant in The Hebrew Christ makes a strong case for the Hebrew Matthew and Hebrew John shortly after the death and resurrection of the Lord, with Luke between 40-60 A.D. The First Letters of Paul he places between 50-52 A.D. Fr Jacques Carmignac and the Anglican John A.T. Robinson lend support to this.

That’s an interesting theory.

Most every scholarship I’ve read have Mark first followed by Matthew and Luke with John a distant last. I think by consensus the earliest gospel, Mark, was written around 50-60AD.

THE document known as Q may have been earlier sling with some of Paul’s letters.

That said, there are a lot of unknowns in this area. Regardless of the when, we know not all was written and none was written while Christ was on earth.

 

[JRKH]

I’m baffled as to why the people who wrote down the Jesus biographical accounts in the Christian canon would not and did not include *all *of the important words and teachings the church says he said/gave.

If he indeed said these words-- and they were so important that people’s salvation depended on them…why would these four writers choose not to include such essential words in the only four books to be written about him by people who may have known him, or known those who knew him?

It was not a wise move on their part. It has caused much confusion.
.

I think it useful to look at another place where John wrote about this. in John 20:30-31
Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.

One might legitimately ask - if this does not indicate that what is written is sufficient. The answer needs to be yes it is - but sufficient to what?

John wished the the one reading and the one hearing to believe - and in believing to act accordingly for we know from Christ that action is a necessary part of true belief.
Such action would require that one join the community of believers (the Ekklesia) that is the Church. Once the believer has done this, he can easily continue his journey under the tutelage of the Apostles and Church elders. Holding true to the traditions that he has received, by word of mouth or letter (2 Thess 2:15)

So - While we can see that what was written was seen as sufficient - we must not lose sight ALL that the bible tells us is part of "belief - - and this includes active participation in, and submission to, the Holy Spirit acting in His Church.

Peace
James

 

[fhansen]

I’m baffled as to why the people who wrote down the Jesus biographical accounts in the Christian canon would not and did not include *all *of the important words and teachings the church says he said/gave.

If he indeed said these words-- and they were so important that people’s salvation depended on them…why would these four writers choose not to include such essential words in the only four books to be written about him by people who may have known him, or known those who knew him?

It was not a wise move on their part. It has caused much confusion.

.

The bible was never intended to be a catechism. From the beginnings of Christianity it’s been the role of the Church, a living authority, to preach the gospel correctly, and she began doing so before one word of the NT was written. The bible is considered to be “materially sufficient” in terms of containing all the information necessary for understanding what is necessary for salvation. But even if everything Jesus said and did was recorded, and even if great pains were taken to make the bible internally consistent and the wording precise (which there wasn’t, the bible being written in various times and places by a variety of writers), it would still be a book, the written word, and subject to differing interpretations. And this is one reason God gave us the Church, because we need an official interpreter, credentialed by Him.

 

[Abu]

Jon S #32
That’s an interesting theory.
Most every scholarship I’ve read have Mark first followed by Matthew and Luke with John a distant last. I think by consensus the earliest gospel, Mark, was written around 50-60AD.
THE document known as Q may have been earlier sling with some of Paul’s letters.

From 1907 to 1933 the Pontifical Biblical Commission emphatically ruled:

1. ‘Matthew wrote his Gospel before the other Gospels
2. Scholars are not free to advocate the two-source theory whereby Matthew and Luke are dependant on Mark and the “Sayings of the Lord” (“Q”).’
   The New Biblical Theorists, Msgr George A Kelly, Servant Books, 1983, p 34].

Thus there is no basis whatsoever for Catholics to flirt with the “Q” fantasy.

 

[steve_b]

I’m baffled as to why the people who wrote down the Jesus biographical accounts in the Christian canon would not and did not include *all *of the important words and teachings the church says he said/gave.

If he indeed said these words-- and they were so important that people’s salvation depended on them…why would these four writers choose not to include such essential words in the only four books to be written about him by people who may have known him, or known those who knew him?

It was not a wise move on their part. It has caused much confusion.

.

Jesus chose to do it this way. John 16:12-15

 

[Markie_Boy]

“Confusion only came in when men placed their individual wills above and apart from the living organism of the church.”

The above is a good statement. Is it not possible thru the dark ages the Catholic church did a little of this as well, compounding issues?

 

[JonNC]

“Confusion only came in when men placed their individual wills above and apart from the living organism of the church.”

The above is a good statement. Is it not possible thru the dark ages the Catholic church did a little of this as well, compounding issues?

Only if the leadership and laity of the Catholic Church was populated with human beings.

Jon

 

[adf417]

“Confusion only came in when men placed their individual wills above and apart from the living organism of the church.”

The above is a good statement. Is it not possible thru the dark ages the Catholic church did a little of this as well, compounding issues?

The Catholic Church no. Sadly there were some people within the Catholic Church that did as you project but not the church herself. And sadly we continue to see this today within the church with abortion, contraception, homosexuality, But the church herself still teaches sound doctrine.

Peace!!!

 

[JRKH]

“Confusion only came in when men placed their individual wills above and apart from the living organism of the church.”

The above is a good statement. Is it not possible thru the dark ages the Catholic church did a little of this as well, compounding issues?

The Catholic Church no. Sadly there were some people within the Catholic Church that did as you project but not the church herself. And sadly we continue to see this today within the church with abortion, contraception, homosexuality, But the church herself still teaches sound doctrine.

Peace!!!

adf makes a good and very important distinction. There may well have been confusion in the Church - - but did the Church (officially and as a whole) ever teach error? The answer is no.

Peace
James

 

[steve_b]

“Confusion only came in when men placed their individual wills above and apart from the living organism of the church.”

The above is a good statement.

I agree
M:

Is it not possible thru the dark ages the Catholic church did a little of this as well, compounding issues?

Sure. For 2000 years there have been some men in the Church trying to dismantle and destroy the Catholic Church. As hard as some tried, they didn’t succeed … And when they show up, they are guranteed never to succeed…

 

[rfournier103]

I have never heard this assertion before.

There is NO WAY Jesus left behind an imperfect Church. Imperfect people? Yes. Imperfect Church? No.

Jesus HIMSELF selected two of the most imperfect men (Peter and Judas) as 1/6th of the first Christians!

As another poster stated… the Church WAS in need of some housekeeping, but that is not to say that the Dogmas and Teachings were in error. Hardly.

 

[CatholicServant]

Hey everybody, I’ve just got a quick question for you and I would really appreciate your responses.

So I was having a discussion with my dad today about certain church-related issues and the topic of authority came up. I mentioned that not everything Jesus did or said was recorded in scripture (JOHN 21:25). Things that Jesus said/did that is not recorded in scripture does not mean that they are irrelevant; what Jesus said is still true and was taught by the early apostles and church fathers even though it is not explicitly stated in scripture. (basically I was going against the idea of Sola Scriptura, or the idea that Scripture alone is adequate).

So if Sola Scriptura is false, there must be something besides the Bible…which is tradition. I said that these teachings of Jesus, passed down by tradition, are equally as important as what is stated in scripture. I said that these traditions and beliefs that the early apostles and early church fathers taught are still in place in the Catholic church today, and most doctrines have remained unchanged over the centuries. I also mentioned that councils (as seen in Acts 15, for example) were led by men who must have been guided divinely by the Holy Spirit to come do a decision. I explained this is how councils have worked over the centuries, that men are guided by the Holy Spirit to make church-related decisions.

BUT- here’s the problem:
Would the Holy Spirit misguide people, or fail to lead people to the truth? My dad (being a Protestant) thinks that the church has been “in error” from after Christ died to the Protestant Reformation. He says as his “defense” of this idea is that the Israelite’s “wandered on their own” for hundreds of years before God would step in again and help them out of their sin. But If Jesus established the church and everything, why would the Holy Spirit -not necessarily misguide, but step away or fail to intervene-in the church until the protestant reformation? Would not God want his church going in the right direction from the beginning?

My dad believes that only during/after the Reformation did the Holy Spirit ‘intervene’ and bring his people to the truth. But if this were true, it would be very questionable if Christians for the first 1500 years even made it to heaven! His idea does not makes sense to me, and I am unable to provide examples or evidence that the early church must have been what God wanted, considering it has always existed and continues to exist today.

Please help to provide me with some evidence and some help, I greatly appreciate your responses. Thank you very much.

Your religion status says Protestant, but you sound very Catholic