What came first The Bible or the Church? Did Jesus, say to Peter you are Rock and on this Rock I will Build My Bible.

[ufamtobie]

Did Jesus Say to Peter "You are Rock and on this rock I will build my BIBLE?

If this were true then many Protestants would be correct in saying that there is no need for the Catholic Church’s Guidence, and only the bible as a guide would suffice. Wrong!

However the TRUTH, is, (Matt 16: 18) Jesus Christ said to Peter "You are Rock and on this ROCK I will build my CHURCH.

Jesus Christ, said I will build my CHURCH on ROCK not Bible on Rock.

Therefore it is the CHURCH that Guides Us ALL THROUGH THE POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT… IT IS THE CHURCH LEADER/THE POPE AND HIS SUCCESSORS BY THE POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IN THEM PAST/PRESENT/FUTURE THAT HAS THE “VOICE” THAT CAN BIND OR LOOSE ANYTHING IN HEAVEN OR ON EARTH…AND THERE IS ONLY ONE CHURCH ONE VOICE THAT WE MUST FOLLOW/OBEY!

The Bible itself does not have this Authority to bind or loose anything in heaven or on earth but the Holy Bible does show you who HAS this AUTHORITY and this AUTHORITY was SOLELY given to THE CHURCH! AMEN

So what came first the Bible or Church?

The Facts/Documentaion/History/traditions of the Church tell us all that the NT was compiled centuries later and put into a book called the Holy Bible.

**Imagine, 300 or so years without the Bible what would a Protestant do? **

**What did the people do during those first 300 CHRISTIAN years without a Bible? **

**THESE EARLY CHRISTIANS DID EXACTLY WHAT OUR LORD WANTED THEM TO DO **and that is to Listen/obey The Apostles and their Successors who were the Early Church Fathers whom were the Leaders of the CHURCH who compiled the Holy Bible, who ARE CATHOLICS

These Early Christians who did not have a Bible until the third century **ARE EXAMPLES FOR US TODAY **to Listen/obey the Leader/Pope the successor of Peter, the Catholic Church.

Pleas don’t get me wrong I love My HOLY BIBLE IT IS THE WORD OF GOD BUT GOD STILL CONTINUES HIS WORD THROUGH HIS “CATHOLIC CHURCH” THAT HE HAS FOUNDED ON ROCK FOR OVER 2000 YEARS AND COUNTING UNTIL HE COMES AGAIN. AMEN

Ufamtobie

 

[acw]

I whole heartedly agree.did I mis type my thoughts to lead you to think i was anything other than 100% Catholic? were you speaking ot me or avenger?

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

:coffeeread:

 

[Techno2000]

Did Jesus Say to Peter "You are Rock and on this rock I will build my BIBLE?

If this were true then many Protestants would be correct in saying that there is no need for the Catholic Church’s Guidence, and only the bible as a guide would suffice. Wrong!

However the TRUTH, is, (Matt 16: 18) Jesus Christ said to Peter "You are Rock and on this ROCK I will build my CHURCH.

Jesus Christ, said I will build my CHURCH on ROCK not Bible on Rock.

Therefore it is the CHURCH that Guides Us ALL THROUGH THE POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT… IT IS THE CHURCH LEADER/THE POPE AND HIS SUCCESSORS BY THE POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IN THEM PAST/PRESENT/FUTURE THAT HAS THE “VOICE” THAT CAN BIND OR LOOSE ANYTHING IN HEAVEN OR ON EARTH…AND THERE IS ONLY ONE CHURCH ONE VOICE THAT WE MUST FOLLOW/OBEY!

The Bible itself does not have this Authority to bind or loose anything in heaven or on earth but the Holy Bible does show you who HAS this AUTHORITY and this AUTHORITY was SOLELY given to THE CHURCH! AMEN

So what came first the Bible or Church?

The Facts/Documentaion/History/traditions of the Church tell us all that the NT was compiled centuries later and put into a book called the Holy Bible.

**Imagine, 300 or so years without the Bible what would a Protestant do? **

**What did the people do during those first 300 CHRISTIAN years without a Bible? **

**THESE EARLY CHRISTIANS DID EXACTLY WHAT OUR LORD WANTED THEM TO DO **and that is to Listen/obey The Apostles and their Successors who were the Early Church Fathers whom were the Leaders of the CHURCH who compiled the Holy Bible, who ARE CATHOLICS

These Early Christians who did not have a Bible until the third century **ARE EXAMPLES FOR US TODAY **to Listen/obey the Leader/Pope the successor of Peter, the Catholic Church.

Pleas don’t get me wrong I love My HOLY BIBLE IT IS THE WORD OF GOD BUT GOD STILL CONTINUES HIS WORD THROUGH HIS “CATHOLIC CHURCH” THAT HE HAS FOUNDED ON ROCK FOR OVER 2000 YEARS AND COUNTING UNTIL HE COMES AGAIN. AMEN

Ufamtobie

Peter was never in Rome,Peter was never in Rome,Peter was never in Rome,Peter was never in Rome,Peter was never in Rome,Peter was never in Rome,Peter was never in Rome,Peter was never in Rome,Peter was never in Rome,

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

:juggle:

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

Peter was never in Rome,Peter was never in Rome,Peter was never in Rome,Peter was never in Rome,Peter was never in Rome,Peter was never in Rome,Peter was never in Rome,Peter was never in Rome,Peter was never in Rome,

Oh Techno, I thought you were serious , then I looked at your profile…

 

[acw]

more later i’m off to work:thumbsup:

 

[ufamtobie]

I whole heartedly agree.did I mis type my thoughts to lead you to think i was anything other than 100% Catholic? were you speaking ot me or avenger?

acw,

I am sorry but I don’t know you nor was i speaking to avenger I just posted Truth.

God Bless you

Ufamtobie

 

[Techno2000]

Oh Techno, I thought you were serious , then I looked at your profile…

Just throwing out one of the Protestant arguments against the RCC.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

Just throwing out one of the Protestant arguments against the RCC.

Protestants won’t and can’t answer this question. It has been told to them a gazillion times before…:yawn:

 

[Rightlydivide]

Within 40 years of the death of Christ, all but Revelation were written. The church had the Old Testament as well and the NT is sprinkled with references to it.
The Bible was not compiled into a final form until the mid 4th century but there is no reason to think that it was not available to most. Certainly most of the early Christian writers quote rather liberally from passages starting with Clement at the end of the first century.
First of all we have to define what is mean by church and fortunately God’s inspired Bible does such:

Act 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

From the onset of the Christian church, Christians dealt with error and contrary to a faulty interpretation of Matthew 16:18, they had error

Gal 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

Of course the Apostles and earliest Christians were not Catholics

They did not venerate images. In fact until the late 2nd century, Christians would not even make images. They of course did not venerate them when they did but they were certainly opposed to them being hung in a church as when a bishop ripped an image of a man, probably one of the Apostles off the wall in a church in the mid 4th century.

They did not have a Pope. Control of the church was in the hands of the pillars, or the Apostles and James, the first born of Mary after Jesus

“Control of the church passed to the apostles, together with the Lord’s brother James (Eusebius quoting the first Christian historian”

They did not believe that Mary remained a virgin.

To this effect they testify, [saying,] that before Joseph had come together with Mary, while she therefore remained in virginity, "she was found with child of the Holy Ghost;

And as the protoplast himself Adam, had his substance from untilled and as yet virgin soil (“for God had not yet sent rain, and man had not tilled the ground” Genesis 2:5 ), and was formed by the hand of God, that is, by the Word of God, for “all things were made by Him,” John 1:3 and the Lord took dust from the earth and formed man; so did He who is the Word, recapitulating Adam in Himself, rightly receive a birth, enabling Him to gather up Adam [into Himself], from Mary, who was as yet a virgin (Irenaeus).”

They do not believe she was sinless as the Catholic Encyclopedia states:

the older Fathers are very cautious: some of them even seem to have been in error on this matter.Origen, although he ascribed to Mary high spiritual prerogatives, thought that, at the time of Christ’s passion, the sword of disbelief pierced Mary’s soul; that she was struck by the poniard of doubt; and that for her sins also Christ died (Origen, “In Luc. hom. xvii”). In the same manner St. Basil writes in the fourth century: he sees in the sword, of which Simeon speaks, the doubt which pierced Mary’s soul (Epistle 259). St. Chrysostom accuses her of ambition, and of putting herself forward unduly when she sought to speak to Jesus at Capharnaum (Matthew12:46Chrysostom, Hom. xliv; cf. also “In Matt.”, hom. 4

).”

This is also supported by Ambrose of Milan

. For the Lord Jesus alone of those who are born of woman is holy, inasmuch as He experienced not the contact of earthly corruption, by reason of the novelty of His immaculate birth; nay, He repelled it by His heavenly majesty."

John Chrystom talks of Jesus rebuking Mary

. And therefore He answered thus in this place, and again elsewhere, “Who is My mother, and who are My brethren?” (Matthew 12:48), because they did not yet think rightly of Him; and she, because she had born Him, claimed, according to the custom of other mothers, to direct Him in all things, when she ought to have reverenced and worshipped Him. This then was the reason why He answered as He did on that occasion…And since it was probable that if these words had been addressed to her by her Son, she would not readily have chosen even then to be convinced, but would in all cases have claimed the superiority as being His mother, therefore He replied as He did to them who spake to Him; otherwise He could not have led up her thoughts from His present lowliness to His future exaltation, had she expected that she should always be honored by Him as by a son, and not that He should come as her Master….
And so this was a reason why He rebuked her on that occasion, saying, “Woman, what have I to do with thee?” instructing her for the future not to do the like; because, though He was careful to honor His mother, yet He cared much more for the salvation of her soul, and for the doing good to the many, for which He took upon Him the flesh

 

[Rightlydivide]

Of course the Assumption is not believed by the Apostles either as the Catholic Encyclopedia describes the history

“

Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady’s death, nothing certain is known. The earliest known literary reference to the Assumption is found in the Greek work De Obitu S. Dominae. Catholic faith, however, has always derived our knowledge of the mystery from Apostolic Tradition. Epiphanius (d. 403) acknowledged that he knew nothing definite about it (Haer., lxxix, 11). The dates assigned for it vary between three and fifteen years after Christ’s Ascension. Two cities claim to be the place of her departure: Jerusalem and Ephesus. Common consent favours Jerusalem, where her tomb is shown; but some argue in favour of Ephesus. The first six centuries did not know of the tomb of Mary at Jerusalem. The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite. If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others.”

We could go on and on. Victor of Rome being rebuked for overstepping his boundaries trying to excommunicate people outside of Rome…
Catholic? Only if you take out most of your most cherished beliefs…

 

[Gene_Church]

Peter was never in Rome,Peter was never in Rome,Peter was never in Rome,Peter was never in Rome,Peter was never in Rome,Peter was never in Rome,Peter was never in Rome,Peter was never in Rome,Peter was never in Rome,

Respectfully, you are wrong, you are wrong, you are wrong, you are wrong, you are wrong, you are wrong, you are wrong, you are wrong, and you are wrong.

 

[Gene_Church]

Oh Techno, I thought you were serious , then I looked at your profile…

Thanks for clarifying, I feel much better. Sorry, Techno.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Further quotes that show that the early Christians did not believe like current Catholics:

Polycrates tell Victor bishop of Rome that he does not have to do what he is saying. Of course we find out that the excommunication was summarily ignored because Victor had no power outside of Rome…

“And I also, Polycrates, the least of you all, do according to the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have closely followed. For seven of my relatives were bishops; and I am the eighth. And my relatives always observed the day when the people put away the leaven.
I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said ‘We ought to obey God rather than man.’

Contradictory list of early Popes (because the so called succession was made up anyway by Irenaues)

“Linus, Cletus, Clemens (Hegesippus, ap. Epiphanium, Canon of Mass).
Linus, Anencletus, Clemens (Irenaeus, Africanus ap. Eusebium).
Linus, Anacletus, Clemens (Jerome).
Linus, Cletus, Anacletus, Clemens (Poem against Marcion),
Linus, Clemens, Cletus, Anacletus [Hippolytus (?), “Liberian Catal.”- “Liber. Pont.”].
Linus, Clemens, Anacletus (Optatus, Augustine).

This is from Catholic Encyclopedia as well.

“

 

[Gene_Church]

Within 40 years of the death of Christ, all but Revelation were written. The church had the Old Testament as well and the NT is sprinkled with references to it.
The Bible was not compiled into a final form until the mid 4th century but there is no reason to think that it was not available to most. Certainly most of the early Christian writers quote rather liberally from passages starting with Clement at the end of the first century.
First of all we have to define what is mean by church and fortunately God’s inspired Bible does such:

I respectfully disagree. Within 40 years of the death of Christ, all Revelation was NOT written. A classic example would be the Book of the Apocalypse, or Revelation. It is true that the New Testament is sprinkled with references to the OT, but that merely proves that NT authors were familar with the OT. While I agree about the 4th century interpretation, I disagree that the Bible was available to most. Several reasons for this. The Temple was destroyed within 40 years of Christ. Clement, and others quoting from Scripture, were Church Fathers.

From the onset of the Christian church, Christians dealt with error and contrary to a faulty interpretation of Matthew 16:18, they had error

You claim to have the right to interpret Scripture. I disagree. The early Church Fathers dealt with error and a faulty interpretation of Matthew 16:18. Who do you have in mind?

Of course the Apostles and earliest Christians were not Catholics

Of course, you are wrong.

They did not venerate images. In fact until the late 2nd century, Christians would not even make images. They of course did not venerate them when they did but they were certainly opposed to them being hung in a church as when a bishop ripped an image of a man, probably one of the Apostles off the wall in a church in the mid 4th century.

Your claims about images are false. The catacombs would fail to bear out your claim. If you claim that they did not have statues, as they did not have formal Churches in the 1st century, I would agree. Your claim proves nothing. Protestantism, of which you are a part, comes not from the early Church Fathers, or the Apostles, but from more modern interpretations of Scripture, compiled and decided upon, by Catholics. Sorry.

They did not have a Pope. Control of the church was in the hands of the pillars, or the Apostles and James, the first born of Mary after Jesus.

The pillars were not the Apostles, but the Church. See 1 Tim 3:15, where the Church is described as the pillar and foundation of the truth. This was not the Bible, not even individual Apostles, but the Church.

They did not believe that Mary remained a virgin.

Your quote of Iraneus is clearly wrong. First of all, the quote shows a belief in the Virgin birth. There is no evidence of the early Church not believing in a Virgin birth. In fact, classical Protestantism believed in it as well. And Protestant founders, such as Martin Luther, believed in the perpetual Virginity of Mary.

They do not believe she was sinless as the Catholic Encyclopedia states:

.You are wrong when you say “They.” The Catholic Encyclopedia states that there were those “in error.” As evidenced, here, this occurs even today. The Church did not take this position, and has not.

This is also supported by Ambrose of Milan

Your interpretation of this quotation is clearly wrong. Ambrose references his belief in his writings, not his doubts. It appears you have collected this interpretation from a Protestant apologetic tract.

John Chrystom [sic] talks of Jesus rebuking Mary

Chrysostom was one of the better known teachers in Classical Rhetoric. This is an example of it. While rhetoric has a bad connotation in today’s society, it was an important part of education from the 19th century, and earlier. This was taken, once again, from Protestant apologetics.

Catholic is Christian. Fundamentalist, is something less. And the Bible, is Catholic.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

Within 40 years of the death of Christ, all but Revelation were written. The church had the Old Testament as well and the NT is sprinkled with references to it.
The Bible was not compiled into a final form until the mid 4th century but there is no reason to think that it was not available to most. Certainly most of the early Christian writers quote rather liberally from passages starting with Clement at the end of the first century.

This is all true, but I think you’re omitting at least two facts: 1) that there were lots of other books which seemed to be candidates for the canon, and 2) that there were at least a few books (2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, James, and Revelation) whose canonicity was under fire.

So even if the Bible existed, disassembled, prior to the 4th century, which we’ll agree upon, there is a glaring question remaining: who has the right to determine what the Bible is? Which books are in, and which are out? The Catholic Church says itself, guided by the Holy Spirit. I’m curious as to how you would respond. If it’s the individual, it seems that apologetics would become impossible: “Sorry, that verse *would *disprove my views, but I no longer view that as canonical.” And the like.

First of all we have to define what is mean by church and fortunately God’s inspired Bible does such:
Quote:
Act 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

If I may, let’s put that back in context. Acts 2:42-47 says:

They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

So the early Church devoted itself to the Apostles’ teachings (this would have largely been the oral word of God, which we call Tradition, and not the written Bible… obviously, since by definition, this is before the book of Acts was written); they devoted themselves to the fellowship, so it wasn’t just an individual and their relationship with Christ, but also their relationship with Christ’s Church; they celebrated the Eucharist; and they prayed. That sounds incredibly Catholic. But while I view that as a good model of what Church looks like, I don’t think that either you or I take that as a serious definition. The passage describes them giving everything that they have to the Church. If that’s what it takes to be a Church (everyone give 100% of their stuff), no church qualifies.

 

[Rightlydivide]

=Belloc Fan;4490440]This is all true, but I think you’re omitting at least two facts: 1) that there were lots of other books which seemed to be candidates for the canon, and 2) that there were at least a few books (2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, James, and Revelation) whose canonicity was under fire.

Yes. They were under fire but we really do not know how much. Only two or three patristic quotes attest to what you just said. Regardless, that does not detract what I said.

So even if the Bible existed, disassembled, prior to the 4th century, which we’ll agree upon, there is a glaring question remaining: who has the right to determine what the Bible is?

Only God. Man did not determine squat.

Which books are in, and which are out? The Catholic Church says itself, guided by the Holy Spirit.

If you think that the church of the first three hundred years looks like your church, we would have to deal with my quotes. In some ways yes, in some ways, no way.

I’m curious as to how you would respond. If it’s the individual, it seems that apologetics would become impossible: “Sorry, that verse *would *disprove my views, but I no longer view that as canonical.” And the like.

God put together his canon. When Paul said that all scripture was inspired…God’s OT, no earthly authority did that. It was God.

If I may, let’s put that back in context. Acts 2:42-47 says:

So the early Church devoted itself to the Apostles’ teachings (this would have largely been the oral word of God, which we call Tradition, and not the written Bible… obviously, since by definition, this is before the book of Acts was written); they devoted themselves to the fellowship, so it wasn’t just an individual and their relationship with Christ, but also their relationship with Christ’s Church; they celebrated the Eucharist; and they prayed. That sounds incredibly Catholic. But while I view that as a good model of what Church looks like, I don’t think that either you or I take that as a serious definition. The passage describes them giving everything that they have to the Church. If that’s what it takes to be a Church (everyone give 100% of their stuff), no church qualifies.

They did not celebrate the Eucharist. They broke bread. We do that. No details included. So no, they did not celebrate the Eucharist and the details from the Didache and Justyn Martyr are skeleton enough in nature that you cannot claim them as being just like your Eucharist at all.

 

[Gene_Church]

Of course the Assumption is not believed by the Apostles either as the Catholic Encyclopedia describes the history

“

We could go on and on. Victor of Rome being rebuked for overstepping his boundaries trying to excommunicate people outside of Rome…
Catholic? Only if you take out most of your most cherished beliefs…

Sad, and false. The Catholic Encyclopedia only establishes that there were Church Fathers who did not know the date, not that it did not happen. Both the Catholic and Orthodox faiths believe in the Assumption, or the Dormition, of Mary, in that she was without sin. The early Protestant fathers also believed in this doctrine. It has only been with more Protestant teachers that this has been challenged.

Protestantism claims inerrancy in the Bible. We agree. But the inerrancy comes from a Bible compiled by the Catholic Church, not 1500 years after Christ.

 

[CWBetts]

Yes. They were under fire but we really do not know how much. Only two or three patristic quotes attest to what you just said. Regardless, that does not detract what I said.

Only God. Man did not determine squat.

If you think that the church of the first three hundred years looks like your church, we would have to deal with my quotes. In some ways yes, in some ways, no way.

God put together his canon. When Paul said that all scripture was inspired…God’s OT, no earthly authority did that. It was God.

If I may, let’s put that back in context. Acts 2:42-47 says:

They did not celebrate the Eucharist. They broke bread. We do that. No details included. So no, they did not celebrate the Eucharist and the details from the Didache and Justyn Martyr are skeleton enough in nature that you cannot claim them as being just like your Eucharist at all.

The Eucharist was establish by Jesus in John Chapter 6. If you take the Holy Scriptures, with Tradition, no other conclusion can be made.