The Early Church is the Catholic Church

[samir]

It actually says not to add to the prophecy if this book, which book? the Bible. The Bible is full of prophecies.

Revelation was not part of the Bible so it couldn't have been referring to it. Revelation wasn't added to the canon of scripture until over 300 years after it was written. Even then, each book was on an individual scroll. I don't think there were bibles until the printing press was invented over 1,000 years later. John didn't write the entire Bible so he could have only been referring to Revelation, the book he was writing as the context clearly shows.

What you're doing is subjecting the book of Revelation to Protestant tradition and the bible warns us not to follow human traditions or put them above the bible.

It says "For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. (NKJV)"

 

[keltoi]

There were many. Revelation was probably the most disputed. I recommend studying the history of the bible. It didn't fall from heaven on King James's lap. During the first three centuries there were 20 New Testament books accepted as scripture early on and 14 other books that were considered scripture by some and not by others. In the 4th century, a catholic council determined that 7 of those books should be included and the other 7 they recommend be read but not considered scripture. Others were considered apocrypha and rejected. The 43 books in the Old Testament were undisputed though Luther questioned 7 of them and Protestants ended up rejecting those books because they didn't agree with the new Protestant teachings.

I asked you a simple question please provide some evidence to back up your statement.

I didn't say I didn't trust it. I simply asked on what basis you accept it.

Your post said nothing about me accepting anything, it was all about you accepting it.

If I decide to become a Catholic, I will accept it based on the authority of the Catholic church. Before I can consider Protestantism, I have to know how Protestants determine which books are scripture.

The apocryphal books are contradictory of other sections of the Bible, also other sections of the Bible do not reference the apocryphal books yet they do reference other books. I recommend you do some study and read the Bible and see what I mean.

 

[samir]

I asked you a simple question please provide some evidence to back up your statement.

I bought a book that explains how the canon of scripture was determined. I can't copy and past the sections but I'm sure you can Google it quite easily.

Your post said nothing about me accepting anything, it was all about you accepting it.

Same thing. If I ask why should I accept it it's the same as asking why you accept it.

The apocryphal books are contradictory of other sections of the Bible, also other sections of the Bible do not reference the apocryphal books yet they do reference other books. I recommend you do some study and read the Bible and see what I mean.

There are many bibles with different books. How do you determine which bible to use? Let's start with the book of Revelation that you recommended. Why do you accept that book?

The bible most Protestants used didn't exist prior to Luther so I'd need to see evidence before accepting a bible not used by anyone during the first 1,500 years after Christ.

 

[keltoi]

Revelation was not part of the Bible so it couldn't have been referring to it. Revelation wasn't added to the Bible until over 300 years after it was written. John didn't write the entire Bible so he could have only been referring to Revelation, the book he was writing as the context clearly shows.

The Bible is the inspired Word of God, Revelation was written by John because God inspired him to write what he saw. Do you not believe God's word to be the inspired word of God? Do you not believe God inspired John when he wrote Revelation?

What you're doing is subjecting the book of Revelation to Protestant tradition and the bible warns us not to follow human traditions or put them above the bible.

Roman Catholicism is human tradition based. The idea of praying to Mary is not based on anything in the Bible, so if you want to reject man made traditions think very carefully what "church" started most of them. Now back to your unfounded accusation that I am subjecting the Bible to Protestant tradition, my reply to that is rubbish. My Protestantism is based on my protest of Roman Catholic excesses and not based on Luther, Calvin, Zwingli (sp?), or anyone else. You see the difference between me and .... well ... you, is that I choose to read the Bible for myself. I am a Christian and that I do not need any one else for me to understand the Bible. If you want to be subject to the authority of the RCC then so be it, they believe you do not have any authority to understand what the Bible says and you can only believe what they have made official doctrine.

It says "For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. (NKJV)"

I know what it says. Do you believe the Bible is not a book? Do you believe Revelation is not part of the Bible? Do you believe the Bible is not the inspired word of God?

 

[keltoi]

I bought a book that explains how the canon of scripture was determined. I can't copy and past the sections but I'm sure you can Google it quite easily.

Sorry but you made a comment you should back it up and not expect others to do your work for you.

Same thing. If I ask why should I accept it it's the same as asking why you accept it.

No it's not.

There are many bibles with different books. How do you determine which bible to use? Let's start with the book of Revelation that you recommended. Why do you accept that book?

Read the section you quoted to get the answer, I am not going around in circles repeating myself for you. Christianity is not a game, it is actually quite a serious life long commitment. So as long as you are going to play this game, not reading posts, saying you are asking me when you didn't and then saying asking yourself is the same as asking me, etc etc etc. I'm just going to sit back and not reply. If you want a serious conversation I'm here to take part but I've got better things to do than go round in circles with you while you play games.

 

[samir]

The Bible is the inspired Word of God, Revelation was written by John because God inspired him to write what he saw. Do you not believe God's word to be the inspired word of God? Do you not believe God inspired John when he wrote Revelation?

How do you know God inspired John to write Revelation? Many early Christians didn't consider it inspired. How do I know they weren't right? Since you're Protestant, let's see what Luther, the founder of Protestantism, thought about it. The following is from Luther's Preface to the Revelation of St. John:

About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment. I say what I feel. I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic.

First and foremost, the apostles do not deal with visions, but prophesy in clear and plain words, as do Peter and Paul, and Christ in the gospel. For it befits the apostolic office to speak clearly of Christ and his deeds, without images and visions. Moreover there is no prophet in the Old Testament, to say nothing of the New, who deals so exclusively with visions and images. For myself, I think it approximates the Fourth Book of Esdras; I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.

Moreover he seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly -- indeed, more than any of the other sacred books do, though they are much more important -- and threatens that if anyone takes away anything from it, God will take away from him, etc. Again, they are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. This is just the same as if we did not have the book at all. And there are many far better books available for us to keep.

Many of the fathers also rejected this book a long time ago; although St. Jerome, to be sure, refers to it in exalted terms and says that it is above all praise and that there are as many mysteries in it as words. Still, Jerome cannot prove this at all, and his praise at numerous places is too generous.

Finally, let everyone think of it as his own spirit leads him. My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it. But to teach Christ, this is the thing which an apostle is bound above all else to do; as Christ says in Acts 1, "You shall be my witnesses." Therefore I stick to the books which present Christ to me clearly and purely.

Do you not believe God's word to be the inspired word of God?

That's not the issue. The issue is how to determine which books are the inspired word of God. Martin Luther, the founder of your religion, didn't appear to think it was inspired so why do you think it is inspired?

Roman Catholicism is human tradition based. The idea of praying to Mary is not based on anything in the Bible, so if you want to reject man made traditions think very carefully what "church" started most of them. Now back to your unfounded accusation that I am subjecting the Bible to Protestant tradition, my reply to that is rubbish. My Protestantism is based on my protest of Roman Catholic excesses and not based on Luther, Calvin, Zwingli (sp?), or anyone else. You see the difference between me and .... well ... you, is that I choose to read the Bible for myself. I am a Christian and that I do not need any one else for me to understand the Bible. If you want to be subject to the authority of the RCC then so be it, they believe you do not have any authority to understand what the Bible says and you can only believe what they have made official doctrine.
I know what it says. Do you believe the Bible is not a book? Do you believe Revelation is not part of the Bible? Do you believe the Bible is not the inspired word of God?

How do you know your bible contains the correct books? Luther had a rather low opinion of Revelation and explained his reasoning. I'd like to hear your reasoning on why do you consider it inspired by God. Some early Christians accepted the book of Barnabas as scripture so why shouldn't I include that book in my bible?

 

[amariselle]

There is so much that has gone into the formation of God's word. Over hundreds of years, thousands in the case of the Old Testament, God has used people in bringing it all together. I am just amazed by this and thankful as well.

I am truly convinced that however many hands God's word has passed through and however long it took before it became the Bible we have today, even when it's kept from people and even with all the different versions we have in modern times, God has ALWAYS been present and involved in everything that happens. I don't believe He has turned away and stopped caring for one moment. People may be flawed and apt to make mistakes, but God is perfect and His plans always prevail.

 

[samir]

Sorry but you made a comment you should back it up and not expect others to do your work for you.

I posted what I learned from studying the history of the bible. If you aren't interested, that's okay. I don't need you to do any work for me. If you want to know, you can search for the answer.

Read the section you quoted to get the answer, I am not going around in circles repeating myself for you. Christianity is not a game, it is actually quite a serious life long commitment. So as long as you are going to play this game, not reading posts, saying you are asking me when you didn't and then saying asking yourself is the same as asking me, etc etc etc. I'm just going to sit back and not reply. If you want a serious conversation I'm here to take part but I've got better things to do than go round in circles with you while you play games.

I reread your answer and it said nothing about why you believe Revelation is scripture. Not sure why you are bearing false witness by accusing me of playing games. I agree religion is serious. That's why I'd like to see evidence for your claims.

 

[samir]

There is so much that has gone into the formation of God's word. Over hundreds of years, thousands in the case of the Old Testament, God has used people in bringing it all together. I am just amazed by this and thankful as well.

I am truly convinced that however many hands God's word has passed through and however long it took before it became the Bible we have today, even when it's kept from people and even with all the different versions we have in modern times, God has ALWAYS been present and involved in everything that happens. I don't believe He has turned away and stopped caring for one moment. People may be flawed and apt to make mistakes, but God is perfect and His plans always prevail.

That's great but how do you know which bible to follow? Do you just blindly follow the one your pastor told you is correct? The Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons could say the same thing about God's word and their bibles.

 

[amariselle]

That's great but how do you know which bible to follow? Do you just blindly follow the one your pastor told you is correct? The Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons could say the same thing about God's word and their bibles.

Actually, my pastor hasn't told me to do anything, I can think for myself as well. The most a pastor should do, as a leader is lovingly offer guidence, direction and encouragement. If he is giving orders like a dictator that MUST be followed, (such as telling congregants what Bible translation to read) well I would worry that such a church was becoming a cult.

The church I attend references several translations, as I do myself. I try to always do my best to understand what I'm reading. That being said, I know I'm not perfect, and I know that human understanding and human wisdom alone is not enough.

You do make a lot of assumptions about me just from one post. I wonder why you feel the need to jump to conclusions that I blindly follow anything. How do you know I'm not trying to use my mind and also pray for discernment? You have no idea who I am.

 

[keltoi]

Actually, my pastor hasn't told me to do anything, I can think for myself as well.

This is the real point. The RCC does not believe its members have the authority to do this with regards to the Bible.

 

[rakovsky]

<<The source of the Christian faith is Christ that is why it is called Christianity not Catholicanity.>>

"Christ's body is the Church in Biblical teaching, and Traditional Christians equate their community with said Church."

Define "Traditional Christians" for me please.

By that, I meant Christians who emphasize Tradition as a key tool for understanding religion.
In this case, Christians who follow the Bible as understood by Tradition would say that the Christian community or else their visible Church is Christ's body , based on Paul's statements to his audience that they were Christ's body in his epistles.

 

[keltoi]

How do you know God inspired John to write Revelation? Many early Christians didn't consider it inspired. How do I know they weren't right? Since you're Protestant, let's see what Luther, the founder of Protestantism, thought about it. The following is from Luther's Preface to the Revelation of St. John:

You need to learn history before you make such bold pronouncements that Luther is the founder of Protestantism. It is very clear to me that you have already taken the RCC line and I can respect that becuse God gave tyo the freedom of choce to do so. Just be aware the RCC doesn't allow that. You are not free to question them like you are us here, you are not free to read and consider the Bible yourself, you are not free to follow Christ alone because you must follow Mary and the Pope as well. So before you keep asking questions that you already know the answer to because I have already told you think about those things.

That's not the issue. The issue is how to determine which books are the inspired word of God. Martin Luther, the founder of your religion, didn't appear to think it was inspired so why do you think it is inspired?

It is the issue, it is the entire issue. What you believe for yourself is the issue. No one else can believe for you. Also Martin Luther is not the founder of any religion let alone mine. Christ is the founder of Christianity and he is my Lord and Saviour.

How do you know your bible contains the correct books? Luther had a rather low opinion of Revelation and explained his reasoning. I'd like to hear your reasoning on why do you consider it inspired by God. Some early Christians accepted the book of Barnabas as scripture so why shouldn't I include that book in my bible?

Again read my reply to you before about why I believe the "extra" books that the RCC and other non-Protestant groups have. Don't ignore what I have already said and keep asking the same questions over and over because my answer will not change.

 

[amariselle]

This is the real point. The RCC does not believe its members have the authority to do this with regards to the Bible.

Yes, I am aware of this. My mother was raised Catholic, and her parents were Catholic.

Why is it that the Roman Catholic Church does not want its members to decide for themselves in regard to reading the Bible?

 

[rakovsky]

"I can think for myself as well."

This is the real point. The RCC does not believe its members have the authority to do this with regards to the Bible.

Hmmmm... Can the Bible speak to the individual for himself purely as an individual? In some sense that must be true, for the believer to have his own faith as an individual. Everyone normally has an ability to think for himself and must use this ability.

However, in another sense, this is not true. The Bible was a book produced by a religious community. The individual does not have an authority to teach that the Bible says something opposite of what its own authors and community understood. This is why Peter says "no scripture is of a private interpretation". The Biblical authors and the community that produced it thought Jesus was fully human and fully God. So a random person does not have authority to teach that the Bible says Jesus was only God and not a man. Such an interpretation is not how the Bible was understood by its writers or community and a random person does not have any particular authority to teach this mistake.

In the EO , Anglican, and Methodist view, there is a teaching of prima scriptura, where Scripture is greater than tradition but they are both important. Presbyterians also teach the confessions of their church. But some modern protestants teach that they can just pronounce whatever they feel that the spirit tells them, without regard to tradition. This last position has led to a shattering of sects and leaders among them, each teaching their own individual authority.

 

[keltoi]

I posted what I learned from studying the history of the bible. If you aren't interested, that's okay. I don't need you to do any work for me. If you want to know, you can search for the answer.

You told me to look it up for myself. Not happening, if it important enough to you to trust it you should share it.

I reread your answer and it said nothing about why you believe Revelation is scripture.[/]quote]Re read it again

Not sure why you are bearing false witness by accusing me of playing games.

Aren't you? HOw many times do I have to tell you I have answered your question before ytou stop asking the same questions again and again. My answers are straight forward and to the point. I haven't said I want to ....... and then said because I said I I meant you to.

I agree religion is serious.

Then treat the discussion seriously.

That's why I'd like to see evidence for your claims.

What claims?

 

[keltoi]

By that, I meant Christians who emphasize Tradition as a key tool for understanding religion.
In this case, Christians who follow the Bible as understood by Tradition would say that the Christian community or else their visible Church is Christ's body , based on Paul's statements to his audience that they were Christ's body in his epistles.

What about traditions that are not based on Biblical evidence yet are used to add to the churches authority?

 

[keltoi]

Yes, I am aware of this. My mother was raised Catholic, and her parents were Catholic.

Why is it that the Roman Catholic Church does not want its members to decide for themselves in regard to reading the Bible?

How is your knowledge of European history after the fall of Rome?

 

[amariselle]

How is your knowledge of European history after the fall of Rome?

I probably do need to do some more study in this area, it's true.

 

[keltoi]

Hmmmm... Can the Bible speak to the individual for himself purely as an individual? In some sense that must be true, for the believer to have his own faith as an individual. Everyone normally has an ability to think for himself and must use this ability.

A hypothetical for you, a person finds a book and reads it, then reads it again just so they were sure they didn't miss any pages. They know of the church but they do not and have never attended a church. Over time they believe that the words in the book are true and they follow the Lords prayer and also ask Christ to come into their life and they accept him a Lord and Saviour. Do you think this could happen or do you think it can't?

However, in another sense, this is not true. The Bible was a book produced by a religious community. The individual does not have an authority to teach that the Bible says something opposite of what its own authors and community understood. This is why Peter says "no scripture is of a private interpretation". The Biblical authors and the community that produced it thought Jesus was fully human and fully God. So a random person does not have authority to teach that the Bible says Jesus was only God and not a man. Such an interpretation is not how the Bible was understood by its writers or community and a random person does not have any particular authority to teach this mistake.

The individual can infact do what they want but if they do teach against what the Bible says they will be judged accordingly. With regards to teaching against what the Bible says are you unable to think of anything the RCC has taught that is not Biblical?

In the EO , Anglican, and Methodist view, there is a teaching of prima scriptura, where Scripture is greater than tradition but they are both important. Presbyterians also teach the confessions of their church. But some modern protestants teach that they can just pronounce whatever they feel that the spirit tells them, without regard to tradition. This last position has led to a shattering of sects and leaders among them, each teaching their own individual authority.

I know quite well what the CofE, Methodist, and Pressies teach. My father was a Pressy minister, I have attended a few different churches over the years and I believe that tradition isn't the hook for the "older" Protestant churches that many think it is. The Bible was, and is, the foundation of Protestantism. While I do not agree with everything each denomination believes I firmly believe, and I believe this because of the Bible not tradition, that they are closer to the mark than the old "catholics" are. Having said that I do not believe that "catholics" are not Christian but I do believe they need to start thinking a bit more for themselves rather than relying on interpretations that change over time and take years to become official doctrine.