What Church Is Most Biblical?

  • Thread starter Thread starter GerardPaul
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The general consensus? Of whom in what year was this consensus?

And respectfully, you ask for proof, yet give the “general consensus”? I respect and believe a person should ask for proof, but I sincerely think you should apply the same standards to your own information you share and believe. The “general consensus” you speak of was not general until just a few short hundred years ago. That should concern any Christian, for scripture warns of those who will come along.
I am constantly amazed at the things that are out there. I guess that is what happens when there is no Authority, you can just decided with your fellow congregation members and pastor what to pick and chose that fits in your own head how things should have been.
 
I am constantly amazed at the things that are out there. I guess that is what happens when there is no Authority, you can just decided with your fellow congregation members and pastor what to pick and chose that fits in your own head how things should have been.
And all the beautiful works of the Early Church Fathers, and Early Church History are distorted and twisted by those who find inconvenient truths in them.
 
I am constantly amazed at the things that are out there. I guess that is what happens when there is no Authority, you can just decided with your fellow congregation members and pastor what to pick and chose that fits in your own head how things should have been.
I don’t think most honestly do it that way. I think it is more of going to bible studies but not critically looking at who the source is or how accurate that infomation lines up with historical Christianity.

I know I went to plenty of Bible studies. Everything SEEMED to be biblical. But, praise God, when people made certain statements, the Holy spirit just rose in disagreement in me and made me search harder and deeper!

God Bless,
Maria
 
Why would it have mattered whether they were believers, or not? They still had the duty to care for their mother. And if Jesus was discriminating against them for their lack of belief, John would have mentioned that - there would have been a line in there that said, “For the brothers of Jesus were infidels; therefore, He gave her to the disciple whom He loved.”

So what reason did John give for
Christ giving the care of his mother to someone outside of her immediate family? It does not sound like you think much of nephews or stepchildren…interesting.
The source of my beliefs for this is the BIble and the early writings of the ECF’s, who do not support a belief in the perpetual virginity until 200 or so years later.
Rather unfortunate.
 
I don’t think most honestly do it that way. I think it is more of going to bible studies but not critically looking at who the source is or how accurate that infomation lines up with historical Christianity.

I know I went to plenty of Bible studies. Everything SEEMED to be biblical. But, praise God, when people made certain statements, the Holy spirit just rose in disagreement in me and made me search harder and deeper!

God Bless,
Maria
I do agree with you, that it’s not conscious, but that is how it happens, and then the congregation splits. I have seen it in a Lutheran Church, (LCMS vs ELCA), now Anglicans.

I’m sure some of the Evangelical Churches operate that way out of Bible Study as well. I have been part of a non-denominational study, can’t remember the name, and some of the stuff was unbelievable. One woman said she would only marry a Christian, so she made her Catholic boyfriend shout out the window that Jesus Christ was his personal God and Savior and renounce his Catholic faith. I was shocked, here we were sharing, and she was basically telling me I was not a Christian. And then she added, “she was sure SOME Catholics would be saved.” And the group agreed. I stayed in the study for a few more years, believing God put me there for a reason. I finally couldn’t stand all the attacks and self-righeouness and fallacies any more, and started a Bible study in my local church. That was quite rewarding. It got to the point where we would have a monthly guest, like a Theolgian and/or priest, seminarian, etc. to visit and talk about the study we were in.

I just hope I made a connection with somebody somehow, by the Grace of God.
 
So what reason did John give for
Christ giving the care of his mother to someone outside of her immediate family? It does not sound like you think much of nephews or stepchildren…interesting.
What I or Maria, etc. THINKS about nieces and nephews is not relevant. What is relevant is the JEWISH CUSTOM of the day.
The source of my beliefs for this is the BIble and the early writings of the ECF’s, who do not support a belief in the perpetual virginity until 200 or so years later.
Rather unfortunate.
So, it’s back to the question, where did the New Testament come from?
 
parents to look after. Even in modern times, I am morally responsible for taking care of my parents, but I am not morally responsible for taking care of my aunts and uncles, or even my step father. Their own kids are responsible for them. (I would probably take care of my step-father, anyway, but I’m not morally responsible for him, and if it comes to a choice between him and my natural father, obviously my natural father’s needs come first.)
The point remains that Christ giving the care of his mother to John as opposed to people she lived and traveled with defies conventional norms. But that is what Christ did, is it not? The argument of John caring for his mother cannot be used to say he did not have brothers because Christ already showed he is willing to defy all conventional thinking. In fact, Jewish law did state the husband of a sister, which many Catholics claim the other Mary was, should have her care. You are in your example, reflecting a distinctly modern bias and I believe applying your standards of family, which are irrelevent to the conversation, and a little on the boring side.
Fully 200 years before we had a canon of the Scriptures - if you believe that we have a Bible on the basis of a conclusion that was reached in 405 AD, then the theological developments of 205 AD shouldn’t be an issue. No one prior
to that time thought that Jesus had brothers, other than the same people who thought that Joseph was His father.I do not believe that we have a Bible based upon regional synods at Carthage and Hippo. You have failed time and time again to prove the Bible, outside of 1st Clement and the Didache the only surviving first century Christian literature intact, teaches they were step brother or cousins. You also do not have writings from the first two centuries from a scholarly or credible source saying they were not her children.
 
The point remains that Christ giving the care of his mother to John as opposed to people she lived and traveled with defies conventional norms. But that is what Christ did, is it not?
With plenty of commentary on the various instances of this, from the Gospel writers. Yet, in this instance, the Gospel writer notices nothing at all unusual about these circumstances.
The argument of John caring for his mother cannot be used to say he did not have brothers because Christ already showed he is willing to defy all conventional thinking. In fact, Jewish law did state the husband of a sister, which many Catholics claim the other Mary was, should have her care.
And John Zebedee was her son - so, in fact, he was her nearest living male relative, if his father was not still living. Case closed. 🙂
I do not believe that we have a Bible based upon regional synods at Carthage and Hippo.
I don’t either. I believe it because Pope Innocent I infallibly declared it in 405 AD.
 
The point remains that Christ giving the care of his mother to John as opposed to people she lived and traveled with defies conventional norms.
Where in the Bible does it say it was John?
But that is what Christ did, is it not? The argument of John caring for his mother cannot be used to say he did not have brothers because Christ already showed he is willing to defy all conventional thinking.
Not really, Jesus opposed the Hippocrites, but faithfully followed Judaism, He prayed, He went to Temple.
I do not believe that we have a Bible based upon regional synods at Carthage and Hippo. You have failed time and time again to prove the Bible, outside of 1st Clement and the Didache the only surviving first century Christian literature intact, teaches they were step brother or cousins. You also do not have writings from the first two centuries from a scholarly or credible source saying they were not her children.
No it is you who fail to believe history. Whenever you are presented with a historical fact that disagrees with your view, you reject it. Do you not believe that St. Augustine was a Church Father?

We do not have such documents because they did not exist because there WEREN’T any. Does it have to say, “Jesus did not have 6 brothers who were born of Mary and Joseph.” in order for you to believe that He did not have any?
 
So what reason did John give for
Christ giving the care of his mother to someone outside of her immediate family? It does not sound like you think much of nephews or stepchildren…interesting.
The source of my beliefs for this is the BIble and the early writings of the ECF’s, who do not support a belief in the perpetual virginity until 200 or so years later.
Rather unfortunate.
Yet the Protoevangelium of James was written in 120AD. While found not to be inspired, it clearly was written and the idea did not just surface 200 years or so later, it was already present.

But you reject this as any sort of eveidence also?

Interesting. You reject an idea that can be seen recorded in Christianity in 120AD, written by ECF as early as 200’s or so, but accept one that has appeared on the scene and wasn’t even believed by Luther 1500 years after the fact. Again, why don’t you at least apply the same criteria to the beliefs you already hold to what you seem to require of the Catholic Church? That would at least be consistent.

God Bless,
Maria
 
Where in the Bible does it say it was John?
It doesn’t. It is actually a context thing. Interestingly, at least one scholar I read, cannot remember name, made a compelling arugment that the disciple Jesus loved was indeed James, his brother. But regardless, I don’t see how it proves much either way.
Not really, Jesus opposed the Hippocrites, but faithfully followed Judaism, He prayed, He went to Temple.
Jesus was at constant odds with the Jewish leaders of his day, that is kind of what the entire Book of John talks about. Speaking with a woman at the well/violating customs, healing on the Sabbath etc
No it is you who fail to believe history. Whenever you are presented with a historical fact that disagrees with your view, you reject it. Do you not believe that St. Augustine was a Church Father?
You mean the guy that lived 320 years after Jesus, what does he have to do with the topic at hand?
We do not have such documents because they did not exist because there WEREN’T any. Does it have to say, “Jesus did not have 6 brothers who were born of Mary and Joseph.” in order for you to believe that He did not have any?
No but I need something better than that to counter this obvious and plain family unit:
Mat 13:55-56 Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this [man] all these things?
Unless you have a theological agenda, there is no reason to read it otherwise.
 
Yet the Protoevangelium of James was written in 120AD. While found not to be inspired, it clearly was written and the idea did not just surface 200 years or so later, it was already present.

120 CE? Care to prove that. The protoevangelium never directly states she remained a virgin, you know that.
Interesting. You reject an idea that can be seen recorded in Christianity in 120AD, written by ECF as early as 200’s or so, but accept one that has appeared on the scene and wasn’t even believed by Luther 1500 years after the fact. Again, why don’t you at least apply the same criteria to the beliefs you already hold to what you seem to require of the Catholic Church? That would at least be consistent.
 
You mean the guy that lived 320 years after Jesus, what does he have to do with the topic at hand?
You mean that guy who invented the science of Theology, and pretty much defined Western Christian civilization as we know it? 😉
No but I need something better than that to counter this obvious and plain family unit:
Mat 13:55-56 Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this [man] all these things?
Unless you have a theological agenda, there is no reason to read it otherwise.

This verse proves nothing except that the neighbors thought Jesus was the son of Joseph, and that they assumed he had brothers and sisters.
 
You mean that guy who invented the science of Theology, and pretty much defined Western Christian civilization as we know it? 😉

Not interested, read him in school of course though.
This verse proves nothing except that the neighbors thought Jesus was the son of Joseph, and that they assumed he had brothers and sisters.
 
Well, the crowd around him that grew up with him would know better about his family than someone living 2000 years later.
So, how did they get His parentage wrong, then? (Or do you believe that Joseph fathered Jesus?)
 
So, how did they get His parentage wrong, then? (Or do you believe that Joseph fathered Jesus?)
There does not appear to be any evidence that Mary discussed this with people outside of her immediate circle prior to his ministry and during his ministry. I see nothing in scripture to indicate otherwise. If I am wrong you will point it out.
And even if she had, chances are, they did not believe her. Based upon the context, Jesus did not impress the hometown folks.
You also know this part about Joseph is omitted in Mark.
 
The Deutrocanonical have no errors. If you wish to point out those errors,** feel free to open a thread**. If you are too lazy, I’ll make up for you.
Is it really necessary to use insults? I thought we talked about this.
 
((more development of Scriptural Canon))

For you, BrianH.

The Biblical canon is the set of books Christians regard as divinely inspired and thus constituting the Christian Bible. Though the Early Church used the Old Testament according to the canon of the Septuagint (LXX), the apostles did not otherwise leave a defined set of new scriptures; instead the New Testament developed over time.

The writings attributed to the apostles circulated amongst the earliest Christian communities. The Pauline epistles were circulating in collected form by the end of the first century AD. Justin Martyr, in the early second century, mentions the “memoirs of the apostles,” which Christians called “gospels” and which were regarded as on par with the Old Testament.[3] A four gospel canon (the Tetramorph) was in place by the time of Irenaeus, c. 160, who refers to it directly.[4] By the early 200’s, Origen may have been using the same 27 books as in the modern New Testament, though there were still disputes over the canonicity of Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, and Revelation (see also Antilegomena).[5] Likewise by 200 the Muratorian fragment shows that there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to what is now the New Testament, which included the four gospels and argued against objections to them.[6] Thus, while there was a good measure of debate in the Early Church over the New Testament canon, the major writings were accepted by almost all Christians by the middle of the second century.[7]

In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books as what would become the New Testament canon,[8] and he used the word “canonized” (kanonizomena) in regards to them.[9] The African Synod of Hippo, in 393, approved the New Testament, as it stands today, together with the Septuagint books, a decision that was repeated by Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. These councils were under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed.[10] Pope Damasus I’s Council of Rome in 382, if the Decretum Gelasianum is correctly associated with it, issued a biblical canon identical to that mentioned above,[11] or if not the list is at least a sixth century compilation.[12] Likewise, Damasus’s commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West.[13] In 405, Pope Innocent I sent a list of the sacred books to a Gallic bishop, Exsuperius of Toulouse. When these bishops and councils spoke on the matter, however, they were not defining something new, but instead “were ratifying what had already become the mind of the Church.”[14] Thus, from the fourth century, there existed unanimity in the West concerning the New Testament canon (as it is today),[15] and by the fifth century the East, with a few exceptions, had come to accept the Book of Revelation and thus had come into harmony on the matter of the canon
The Holy Scriptures contain 66 books, no more and no less. The apocrypha contains very useful information regarding the Jews and such but was not inteded to be canonized. Tese books contain countless errors. I can point them out for you if you so like. I am NOT too lazy to do that for you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top