Why follow a Church not founded by Christ and in Christ?

[fbl9]

hi HannahLisa vwcrazy stated a decloration of -the-Faith. meaning not the gift of faith but the divine revalation of God.

 

[VWcrazy]

How is the Bible a declaration of faith?

How is the canon of Scripture THE declaration of the Faith?

How could it not be the epitome of The declaration of the Faith working through the Holy Spirit via Sacred Tradition?

 

[fbl9]

hey we are on the same page at least meaning you vwcrazy. do you really like vws

 

[2ndGen]

Going from the figures listed here…

The total amount of Christians is 1 billion 806.25 million.
Of these, 1 billion 290 million are Catholic or Orthodox. (71%)
487.45 million are other Christian denominations. (27%)
28.8 million are Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, or belong to the “New Thought” groups. (2%)

So, not 15%, but Catholics and Orthodox are definitely the majority!

I must confess Hannah…I’ve aways thrown around a slightly exhagerated # percentage-wise.

I was hoping that someone else would do the math for me out of spite to prove me wrong.



But thanks!

:bowdown:

 

[HannahLisa]

I was hoping that someone else would do the math for me out of spite to prove me wrong.

Haha, it wasn’t out of spite. I was curious myself

VWCrazy – perhaps our terms don’t match up. I would define declaration of faith as stating something you believe (e.g. Nicene Creed). The Bible seems much more than that. It is not a “we believe”: it is a record of the history of God’s people, and God’s Word revealed to us. I would say a declaration of faith is much, much less than that.

 

[jblake]

VWcrazy;:

The Bible is a canon of Scriptures which was developed by the Catholic Church.

a) Considering that Marcion was the first person to list books that are canonical for Christians, I’m not sure you can ascribe tis creation to the Catholic Church;

b) Given the fight over whether or not the Peshita contained the full canon, a second question about Catholic creation of it can be raised;

c) The vast difference between the Catholic Canon, and the Ethiopiac Canon of Eighty One (Broader Canon) raises still more doubt on any claims that the Catholics might have had created the Christian Canon;

xan

jonathon

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

a) Considering that Marion was the first person to list books that are canonical for Christians, I’m not sure you can ascribe tis creation to the Catholic Church;

Now I know that you are not suggesting that we follow the lead of a heretic who had stated that the the God of the Jews and the God of Jesus were 2 different gods? Who only hold to one of the four gospels and then only after his edited it.

b) Given the fight over whether or not the Peshita contained the full canon, a second question about Catholic creation of it can be raised;

I am not familiar with this but from what i have been able to ascertain it appears to be a early start to the compiling of the cannon.

c) The vast difference between the Catholic Canon, and the Ethiopiac Canon of Eighty One (Broader Canon) raises still more doubt on any claims that the Catholics might have had created the Christian Canon;

xan

As for the Cannon for th Ethiopian Church It appears that the Bishop of this See chose not to close the Cannon many Orthodox
Bishops chose to do things that the rest to the Church did not do. I guess that why the schism happened.

 

[fbl9]

thanks oneGODone church i would have not been able to reply as completely as you i only knew Marion was a heritic .

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

thanks oneGODone church i would have not been able to reply as completely as you i only knew Marion was a heritic .

Thank you fbl19.

 

[2thousand8]

I find this very troubling, Hannah.

If you really want to have the Bible as the “ultimate authority”, you must be able to show us the exact Scripture which says so; otherwise, you are not being Biblical.

You say the Bible was believed for the next 12-centuries, but you failed to point out that those people did not believe it was the “ultimate authority”.

Do you believe the Bible is the pillar of truth?

I’ve been following this thread and found this interesting. As far as why we have the Bible, I find 2 Timothy 3: 15-17 answers it.

 

[fbl9]

hi 2thousand8 yes that tells why we have all the scripture . not just some it as do the Jews who continue at thier own suffering to reject thier own God.but in way does this verse support bible alone. read the whole column to see what St. Paul discloses. glad to have you here.

 

[VWcrazy]

2 Timothy 3:15-17:

All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

Notice it does not say ONLY Scripture.

Also, when this was written it was not even considered Scripture.

 

[2ndGen]

Haha, it wasn’t out of spite. I was curious myself

VWCrazy – perhaps our terms don’t match up. I would define declaration of faith as stating something you believe (e.g. Nicene Creed). The Bible seems much more than that. It is not a “we believe”: it is a record of the history of God’s people, and God’s Word revealed to us. I would say a declaration of faith is much, much less than that.

Because your faith (and the faith of other non-Catholic Christians here) is strong, you can debate and exchange without worrying about losing it.

Some ask questions not to learn, not even to provoke an honest response, but to incite. When they ask a seemingly impossible question to answer and one of us do, it draws wrath from them.

They remind me of when Satan tried to tempt Jesus while using Scripture. As Jesus responded with undeniable answers, this infuriated Satan and he had to flee.

This is what also happens here. When an Anti-Catholic comes here (probably the strongest Catholic forum around), they are shocked into a reality that they are theologically outgunned and they become enraged and out come the veiled insults under the guise of their “truer” Christianity and sadly, in the name of Christ.

But like bowling pins, they line themselves up and we knock them back down.



People like yourself with truly strong faiths can debate and hear exchange and hear thoughts that counter their own, but not have their own faith shaken because their faith is in the right place…“not” in a theological belief system, nor in man-made doctrines, but in Christ first. Those who place Christ first are graced with being able to discuss different views without Satan’s influence.

Those who place ego and pride and wrath firsts, can’t.

But you and those like you truly have Christ…not just in words, but in actions.

:hug1:

 

[fbl9]

hi 2thousand8 yes that tells why we have all the scripture . not just some it as do the Jews who continue at thier own suffering to reject thier own God.but in way does this verse support bible alone. read the whole column to see what St. Paul discloses. glad to have you here.

note on the word suffering. a soul without Christ is a suffering soul. i know this personally. in no way shape or form was i refering to the Jewish nation’s pysical sufferings or suggesting they deserved it.

 

[VWcrazy]

Hannah,

VWCrazy – perhaps our terms don’t match up. I would define declaration of faith as stating something you believe (e.g. Nicene Creed). The Bible seems much more than that. It is not a “we believe”: it is a record of the history of God’s people, and God’s Word revealed to us. I would say a declaration of faith is much, much less than that.

You are not looking at the big picture.

For the first 400 years, the ancient Church had NO Bible. Zilch. It had Scriptures and some local churches would use some books and other churches would use others. Then the Catholic Church canonized the Bible so the entire Church would know what is Scripture and which books were to be included in worship. Hence, it is THE definitive declaration of the Faith. To say it is much, much less is rather mind-blowing.

To look at Christianity, Hannah, we need to to look beyond the present day. We need to look at “the beginning”, the Old Testament, the times of Jesus, the ancient cultures of the writing of Scriptures, the ancient Church, absolutely everything.

On a personal note, its nice to see you growing in your faith journey.

 

[jblake]

oneGODoneCHURCH;:

Now I know that you are not suggesting that we follow the lead of a heretic

That heretic nearly became pope. It was only after he lost a political struggle that he was declared to be a heretic. Even so, he remained influential in the Catholic church of the time until his death.

If you trace the Marcion’s conversion lineage, the only person who wasn’t declared to be a heretic in it, was Paul. If you follow the other Paulian lineages, you run into the same thing. The entire line, sans Paul, gets termed “heretic”. The odd thing is that every one of those so-called heretics was doing nothing but teaching and practicing what Paul wrote.

I am not familiar with this but from what i have been able to ascertain it appears to be a early start to the compiling of the cannon.

The best evidence against Aramaic Primacy is a codex of Paul’s manuscripts dated to between 60 AD and 100 AD. That codex predates by decades any list of what is canonical. If it was not for that codex, then the fight about what was canonical could be conclusively demonstrated to have been won by the wrong side. As it is, one can legitimately conclude that it was lost for reasons totally unrelated to theology. It represents a de facto rejection of Tradition, because it did not suit the political purposes of the Roman Church of that period in time.

the Cannon for the Ethiopian Church It appears that the Bishop of this See chose not to close the Cannon.

The narrower canon demonstrates the falseness of your claim.

I guess that why the schism happened.

The schism happened because the catholic church was claiming both supreme political authority and supreme spiritual authority.

xan

jonathon

 

[fbl9]

the Ethiopian church is on speaking terms with Rome now. about 1in8 have now come back home.

 

[jedi]

The Orthodox is considered by the Catholic Church (all the Rites!) to be part and parcel of the Universal Church of Christ.

There is NOTHING of note or value in pointing fingers at those clerics and religious who for reasons more of culture and language caused the schism.

I am a Latin Rite (or Roman) Catholic. I embrace the faith and Traditions of all the catholic Churches in communion with Rome and with Constantinople.

Robert

i agree. Catholic and Orthodox have some common ground, no doubt they will unite one day. God bless the western and eastern church…

 

[2ndGen]

That heretic nearly became pope. It was only after he lost a political struggle that he was declared to be a heretic. Even so, he remained influential in the Catholic church of the time until his death.

If you trace the Marcion’s conversion lineage, the only person who wasn’t declared to be a heretic in it, was Paul. If you follow the other Paulian lineages, you run into the same thing. The entire line, sans Paul, gets termed “heretic”. The odd thing is that every one of those so-called heretics was doing nothing but teaching and practicing what Paul wrote.

The best evidence against Aramaic Primacy is a codex of Paul’s manuscripts dated to between 60 AD and 100 AD. That codex predates by decades any list of what is canonical. If it was not for that codex, then the fight about what was canonical could be conclusively demonstrated to have been won by the wrong side. As it is, one can legitimately conclude that it was lost for reasons totally unrelated to theology. It represents a de facto rejection of Tradition, because it did not suit the political purposes of the Roman Church of that period in time.

The narrower canon demonstrates the falseness of your claim.

The schism happened because the catholic church was claiming both supreme political authority and supreme spiritual authority.

xan

jonathon

Is it true that Martin Luther tried to have Zwigli burned at the stake?

 

[2ndGen]

the Ethiopian church is on speaking terms with Rome now. about 1in8 have now come back home.

:clapping: