A few questions for Protestants

[Fidelibus]

That is what's often called "the Undivided Church."

Who called it the "the Undivided Church?" from the first century up to the late forth century when the bible was compiled? Could you please provide some historic documentation or writings in this timeline to back up what you stated? You would surely agree it could not have been any of the many divided Protestant/non-denominational churches or sects that come into existence in the past five hundred years or later, would you?


Have a Blessed day!

 

[timothyu]

The Bible as we know it is nothing but a compilation of stories that the people in the first century lived and were a part of, were aware of as written in their individual forms. They knew the stories but more importantly they lived the Gospel of the Kingdom before it got derailed by those wishing to build their own kingdom in earth disguised within the name Christianity. Think of the Bible as one of those old K-tel record compilations of various hits. The Bible itself is unimportant. Its what's in it that counts.
Therein lies the truth of God, not in the doctrines of man which are created to simply say do not question this or us. The power of this world and those who seek a part of it for themselves, live that way and expect the masses to follow. Foolishly, most do. They ignore the Kingdom, the true power which lies outside the world of man but is within those of allegiance to it.

 

[renniks]

You are aware that the O.T. books were written well before Jesus’ Incarnation, and all of the N. T. books were written by roughly the end of the first century A.D. Right? And that the Bible as a whole was not officially compiled until the late fourth century? Pretty sure the Apostles were long gone by then.

Um yeah, that's why they were using the Septuagint.

 

[renniks]

Sacred writings? You must mean the writings of the O.T. alone, for history shows us the Bible did not exist until after the late fourth century.

Not entirely accurate. They had portions of what we call the new testament. Just because it wasn't the official canon yet doesn't mean they didn't hear the written words of the apostles.

 

[renniks]

So renniks, let me ask you, if Christians were intended by our Lord to rely only upon the Bible for truth, then from the start Bibles would have to have been available to the average believer, don’t you agree? If so, when do you believe the Bible was available to the average believer?

Yes, in some form. And I never said we rely only on the Bible. But the knowledge they had about God came from the O.T. at the writings of the apostles and the leading of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Albion]

Who called it the "the Undivided Church?"... You would surely agree it could not have been any of the many divided Protestant/non-denominational churches or sects that come into existence in the past five hundred years or later, would you?

That's right, but it's called the era of the Undivided Church because the other major divisions of the Church hadn't "come into existence" at that time, either--The Roman Catholic Church as opposed to the Orthodox Eastern churches , the Orthodox churches separated from the Roman Catholic Church since AD 1054, etc.

 

[Buzzard3]

More important who wrote the compilations. It doesn't matter who hijacked the original faith later on.

There were many "Christian" manuscripts doing the rounds that were claimed to be the inspired word of God. Someone with God-given authority had to sort them out and determine which ones were authentic and which were not. Who had that authority, exactly? Do you have any idea?

 

[Buzzard3]

By the ruling gentile church government of the time in association with the ruling gentile secular government of the time. Those of the Kingdom never needed the collection which became the foundation of the institution/kingdom. They already had the Gospel of the Kingdom not of this world..

What?

 

[Albion]

There were many "Christian" manuscripts doing the rounds that were claimed to be the inspired word of God. Someone with God-given authority had to sort them out and determine which ones were authentic and which were not. Who had that authority, exactly? Do you have any idea?

The principle you are referring to held that the whole church was the responsible party you're asking about. At the time, the various denominations that have been identified and discussed on this thread--Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, etc.--had yet to be separated from the rest of Christianity.

 

[Buzzard3]

The synagogues of Judah and The Way.

ALL the early Church Fathers belonged to the Catholic Church.

 

[Buzzard3]

Well, hundreds of millions of them for sure, but how many exactly I couldn't say offhand

Really? Which creed do all Protestants share and recite every Sunday?

 

[timothyu]

Who had that authority, exactly? Do you have any idea?

As I said a collection of men with differing motives, some to keep the words of Jesus pure, some seeking literature that would fit in with the new kingdom they were building. A likely reason why epistles of Paul on church building made it in while any writings he may have most likely made on the Gospel of the Kingdom (being his primary mission) which he too taught and which would contradict religious empire building, might have been left out.

 

[timothyu]

ALL the early Church Fathers belonged to the Catholic Church.

Church Father's chosen by going backwards to find likely candidates no doubt, but the Apostles and earliest church were not connected to gentile empire building. They were of the Kingdom of God.

 

[timothyu]

What?

Exactly. Scripture teaches it but not any church that want to be it's own kingdom so it may not have been taught as a foundation.

 

[Fidelibus]

The Bible as we know it is nothing but a compilation of stories that the people in the first century lived and were a part of, were aware of as written in their individual forms.

So, the question remains, who do you believe compiled these stories? When were these stories compiled? Of all the many stories and writings, who or what had the authority and inspiration of the Holy Spirit to decide what writings should be in the Bible we have today, and those that did not? I know the answer to these questions but very curious if you do.

The Bible itself is unimportant. Its what's in it that counts.Therein lies the truth of God, not in the doctrines of man which are created to simply say do not question this or us.

But who's truth? Among all the many different Protestant and non-denominational churches and sects, there are just as many different beliefs and interpretations of the truth, all while claiming to be guided by the Holy Spirit to this truth. So, who among these Protestant and non-denominational churches and sects has the truth, and who does not? And how did they come to this authority to claim this truth?

Off to Mass,

Have a Blessed Day!

 

[Albion]

So, who among these Protestant and non-denominational churches and sects has the truth....

That would be any denomination which accepts the decision of the whole church as it was in antiquity before the church broke into the denominations we have today, yours included.

In fact, if any Christian denomination were to say that its own prophets or sacred writings supersede or rival the Bible, both Catholics and Protestants would label it a cult for that reason.

 

[timothyu]

So, the question remains, who do you believe compiled these stories? W

What is in the stories is far more important than some latecomers who collected the whole set. Better to focus on the Kingdom than any man made institution.

But who's truth?

God's truth (which runs contrary to mankind's idea of truth). It is the rock the church was built upon.
I'll quote scripture rather than rely on man's doctrines which say believe us and don't question our motives

James 1:27 Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

Luke 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

Romans 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

 

[Fidelibus]

Um yeah, that's why they were using the Septuagint.

Ok, so we agree, the Bible as a whole, the Bible we have today was not officially compiled until the late fourth century, right? Meaning, the first century Christians did not have the Bible that we have today, right?

Have a Blessed Day!

 

[Fidelibus]

Not entirely accurate.

No?

They had portions of what we call the new testament.

What portions? Could you give some examples?

Just because it wasn't the official canon yet doesn't mean they didn't hear the written words of the apostles.

Okay, since the official Canon of the Bible was not ratified until the late forth century, would you agree some of the "written words of the apostles" you speak of, that they heard could have been some of the written words that were excluded from the official Canon of the Bible that was agreed upon in the late forth century, right? If you do not agree, how do you know?

Have a Blessed Day!

 

[Fidelibus]

Yes, in some form.

That Being?

And I never said we rely only on the Bible.

So, you are not a sola scripturist, that being a believer in the bible alone is sufficient as a sole rule of faith? Interesting, if you do not rely on the bible alone, what other authority do you rely on?

But the knowledge they had about God came from the O.T. at the writings of the apostles and the leading of the Holy Spirit.

But that's not what I asked. What I did ask was..., when do you believe the Bible was available to the average believer?

Have a Blessed Day