Is scripture the highest authority?

[Berean777]

You know very well point 2 is purely speculation arising from human reasoning.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

On point 1 one must define church in harmony with context of situation and context of culture of the assembly of Christ, that is the Church/
Ekklisía of the 1st century. One must define the term the gates of hell will not prevail in context to the recipient's of the message, who are the Ekklesia who delivered the original unaltered faith.

Question is, did the 1st century apostles manage to deliver the complete faith along with the complete message, whilst under overwhelming odds against them?

The answer is yes.

So if Jesus said the gates of hell will not prevail against my church, to whom was he implying to, within the context of situation and context of Ekklesia culture?

I hope that you would say the 1st century church before the events of 70AD.

The message of the gates of hell will not prevail against my Ekklesia, is contextually by the very words of Jesus within the same conversation with his disciples.....

28“Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

Jesus ascended into heaven, that is his kingdom and promised that when this event happened at his ascension in the 1st century, those very disciples who were the recipient's of the saying of the gates of hell shall not prevail against his Ekklesia would not taste death.

Here is the unquestionable context of his 1st century Ekklesia ministering successfully in the last half of Daniel's 70th week without tasting death, meaning they succeed in getting the message out (the gospel) and establishing the faith.

This smacks of eisegesis.

I would say the Church is not "the first century Church" it is the Church "unto the ages of ages".

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

You know very well point 2 is purely speculation arising from human reasoning.

No it's not. Harmonious teachings can be discerned by the fruits of living those teachings, by what the optimal lifestyle would look like. Frankly, Protestantism has given no stress to the ascetic lifestyle, which is a huge problem.

 

[Berean777]

This smacks of eisegesis.

I would say the Church is not "the first century Church" it is the Church "unto the ages of ages".

Read the chapter entirely in context. Jesus first instructs his disciples to not tell anyone them when he says that after he is killed and ascends into his heavenly Kingdom, then some standing around him will not taste death.

It is clear as day light that those who witness these events and who are standing with him are not anyone else in the future for which the message is not intended for.

Your inference of the message to an Ekklesia hundreds of years later or from ages to ages is completely out of context of situation and completely out of context of 1st century Ekklesia culture.

Message of Jesus is to the 1st century apostolic church....that is those who were around him, who saw him, who heard him and who touched him. Message is to the 1st hands eye witnesses.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Read the chapter entirely in context. Jesus first instructs his disciples to not tell anyone them when he says that after he is killed and ascends into his heavenly Kingdom, then some standing around him will not taste death.

It is clear as day light that those who witness these events and who are standing with him are not anyone else in the future for which the message is not intended for.

Your inference of the message to an Ekklesia hundreds of years later or from ages to ages is completely out of context of situation and completely out of context of 1st century Ekklesia culture.

Message of Jesus is to the 1st century apostolic church....that is those who were around him, who saw him, who heard him and who touched him. Message is to the 1st hands eye witnesses.

Only those standing around him are the Church? That conflicts with the Apostles later bringing thousands of others into the Church.

Your inference that the Ekklesia is only for "this hundred years" is not Scriptural, full stop. It is pure eisegesis.

 

[Berean777]

Only those standing around him are the Church? That conflicts with the Apostles later bringing thousands of others into the Church.

Your inference that the Ekklesia is only for "this hundred years" is not Scriptural, full stop. It is pure eisegesis.

The message, like the one on the mount of transfiguration was to them.

As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus instructed them, "Don't tell anyone what you have seen, until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead." (Matthew 17:9)

Now the same instruction was given to his immediate recipient's, his disciples.

20Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah. (Matthew 16:20)

Notice if you put someone else into these instructions, then you collapse the context. Obviously he is not talking to anyone else except.......

some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” (Matthew 16:28)

 

[Berean777]

The gates of hell will not prevail against those Ekklisía standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” (Matthew 16:28)

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

The message, like the one on the mount of transfiguration was to them.

As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus instructed them, "Don't tell anyone what you have seen, until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead." (Matthew 17:9)

Now the same instruction was given to his immediate recipient's, his disciples.

20Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah. (Matthew 16:20)

Notice if you put someone else into these instructions, then you collapse the context. Obviously he is not talking to anyone else except.......

some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” (Matthew 16:28)

Right, but that's because Christ is low-key and not a flamboyant, ostentatious man (being not just perfect God, but also perfect man). Not because he's saying only the Apostles are part of his Church. He tells them explicitly, after the Resurrection, to spread the news, and Pentecost happens a while after that.

 

[Berean777]

It fascinates me why today's Ekklisía boasts and takes the gates of hell will not prevail against my Ekklesia saying, to mean to them. They apply a completely different context of situation and context of 1st century Ekklesia culture to their institution.

All I am saying is, similar inferences are made by cults, like the Bahia faith who claim that .....

The Bible speaks of Baha’u'llah, however, the only
reference to Baha’u'llah in the Bible is an indirect one when Jesus and
the apostles warned of the coming of false prophets and false Christs
(Matt. 7:15-16; 2 Cor. 11:13-15). The messianic verses from the Bible
cited by Baha’is as referring to Baha’u'llah, can not truly support
their claim because, among other things, Baha’u'llah was of Iranian
descent, where the Messiah was to be Jewish (Matthew 1; Genesis 12:1-3;
II Samuel 7:12-13). Also, the New Testament repeatedly cites the
fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecies in the person of Jesus Christ
(Matthew 1:1; 3:14; 8:17; Luke 1:31; Revelation 5:5).

The second coming of Christ also can not refer to Baha’u'llah.
Scripture indicates that the very same Jesus who ascended into heaven
will one day personally return (Acts 1:9-11). The Bible also
prophesies several dramatic and highly visible signs that will
accompany the Second Coming (Matthew 24:29). None of these signs were
present when Baha’u'llah arrived on the scene. He also didn’t show up
in the right place.

The Spirit of truth in John 16:12-13 also can’t be referring to
Baha’u'llah. John 14-16 clearly identifies the Spirit of Truth as
being the Holy Spirit (John 14:16-17, 26). Jesus said that His promise
of the Holy Spirit would be fulfilled “in a few days” (Acts 1:5), not
in the 1800s when Baha’u'llah was born. That fulfillment came on the
Day of Pentecost in Acts 2. The function of the Holy Spirit is to make
known Jesus’ teachings, not to replace them with the interpretations of
another prophet. Jesus also said that the Holy Spirit would be with us
forever (John 14:16). Baha’u'llah died in 1892 at the age of 75, far
short of forever.

Ephesians 1:18-21 “I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be
enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called
you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, and his
incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is like the
working of his mighty strength, which he exerted in Christ when he
raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the
heavenly realms, far above all rule and authority, power and dominion,
and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also
in the one to come.”

So please explain to me, how much credibility should I give the Bahai faith on par with today's religious institutions who collapse context by using bible versus out of context to credit themselves and their institutional doctrine derived solely from hearsayers some hundreds of years after the 1st century apostles.

To me personally any message claiming pre-eminence as a continuance of the 1st hand eye witness account is dubious to say the least. I can no more accept the Bahai's claim than to accept today's religious institutions claims.

You see I have to reject church doctrine solely based on my reasoning. In the same way I don't endorse the Bahai faith, I will not endorse modern day Ekklesia tradition arising from 100 AD to today's evolved religious institution.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

It fascinates me why today's Ekklisía boasts and takes the gates of hell will not prevail against my Ekklesia saying, to mean to them. They apply a completely different context of situation and context of 1st century Ekklesia culture to their institution.

All I am saying is, similar inferences are made by cults, like the Bahia faith who claim that .....

The Bible speaks of Baha’u'llah, however, the only
reference to Baha’u'llah in the Bible is an indirect one when Jesus and
the apostles warned of the coming of false prophets and false Christs
(Matt. 7:15-16; 2 Cor. 11:13-15). The messianic verses from the Bible
cited by Baha’is as referring to Baha’u'llah, can not truly support
their claim because, among other things, Baha’u'llah was of Iranian
descent, where the Messiah was to be Jewish (Matthew 1; Genesis 12:1-3;
II Samuel 7:12-13). Also, the New Testament repeatedly cites the
fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecies in the person of Jesus Christ
(Matthew 1:1; 3:14; 8:17; Luke 1:31; Revelation 5:5).

The second coming of Christ also can not refer to Baha’u'llah.
Scripture indicates that the very same Jesus who ascended into heaven
will one day personally return (Acts 1:9-11). The Bible also
prophesies several dramatic and highly visible signs that will
accompany the Second Coming (Matthew 24:29). None of these signs were
present when Baha’u'llah arrived on the scene. He also didn’t show up
in the right place.

The Spirit of truth in John 16:12-13 also can’t be referring to
Baha’u'llah. John 14-16 clearly identifies the Spirit of Truth as
being the Holy Spirit (John 14:16-17, 26). Jesus said that His promise
of the Holy Spirit would be fulfilled “in a few days” (Acts 1:5), not
in the 1800s when Baha’u'llah was born. That fulfillment came on the
Day of Pentecost in Acts 2. The function of the Holy Spirit is to make
known Jesus’ teachings, not to replace them with the interpretations of
another prophet. Jesus also said that the Holy Spirit would be with us
forever (John 14:16). Baha’u'llah died in 1892 at the age of 75, far
short of forever.

Ephesians 1:18-21 “I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be
enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called
you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, and his
incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is like the
working of his mighty strength, which he exerted in Christ when he
raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the
heavenly realms, far above all rule and authority, power and dominion,
and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also
in the one to come.”

So please explain to me, how much credibility should I give the Bahai faith on par with today's religious institutions who collapse context by using bible versus out of context to credit themselves and their institutional doctrine derived solely from hearsayers some hundreds of years after the 1st century apostles.

To me personally any message claiming pre-eminence as a continuance of the 1st hand eye witness account is dubious to say the least. I can no more accept the Bahai's claim than to accept today's religious institutions claims.

You see I have to reject church doctrine solely based on my reasoning. In the same way I don't endorse the Bahai faith, I will not endorse modern day Ekklesia tradition arising from 100 AD to today's evolved religious institution.

C'mon, dude. The Bahai faith is not even three hundred years old. Orthodoxy has been in continuous existence since ancient times.

 

[Berean777]

C'mon, dude. The Bahai faith is not even three hundred years old. Orthodoxy has been in continuous existence since ancient times.

I want it to be the beauty that it was before they started being philosophical and legalistic.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

I want it to be the beauty that it was before they started being philosophical and legalistic.

What's legalistic about Orthodoxy?

Philosophy, in Orthodox, means its literal definition "love of wisdom". And the Wisdom here is the one spoken of in Proverbs 8:22-31.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Here's the problem. You repeatedly make claims that scripture is not exhaustive, and say traditions are needed, but then you can't say what traditions are needed. So I guess your church is good for providing "truths" that are not necessary for salvation. And, all the Protestants should be looked down on because they only want the necessary truths.

"Doctrine" for us means "what Christ taught". We never tried to sift his teachings according to which are the bare minimum for salvation, since mindset is, to us, also a doctrine, and that is not his mindset.

Well I'd agree with that, but the idea that the Apostles' extant epistles (which were written to respond to specific things in specific sees) are an exhaustive record of their teachings, is not probable, nor is it affirmed by Scripture.

Maybe the additional/other words spoken by the apostles are not necessary for salvation/our faith. Just because there are other words out there, does not mean they are necessary or important. I am sure God knows a lot that we will never know.

But, you continue to promote the need for outside traditions, but can't say specifically what they are. As such, you argue for power for your church and not for truths.

Since you don't defend what traditions are necessary, I will consider them unnecessary.
Since you continue to say they are necessary, I will consider you saying it, the only support for it.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Maybe the additional/other words spoken by the apostles are not necessary for salvation/our faith. Just because there are other words out there, does not mean they are necessary or important. I am sure God knows a lot that we will never know.

But, you continue to promote the need for outside traditions, but can't say specifically what they are. As such, you argue for power for your church and not for truths.

Since you don't defend what traditions are necessary, I will consider them unnecessary.
Since you continue to say they are necessary, I will consider you saying it, the only support for it.

It's not a question of what the Apostles spoke in general, but their teachings which came from Christ. These must be passed on. Striving for a minimalist approach regarding Christ's teachings, is in itself directly counter to Christ's teachings. We are not taught to strive for the minimal, we are taught to strive for the maximum.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

It's not a question of what the Apostles spoke in general, but their teachings which came from Christ. These must be passed on. Striving for a minimalist approach regarding Christ's teachings, is in itself directly counter to Christ's teachings. We are not taught to strive for the minimal, we are taught to strive for the maximum.

We are also taught to not add to God's word.

 

[Berean777]

We are also taught to not add to God's word.

Especially when we are not 1st century apostolic witnesses. Any thing we add is purely speculative and hearsay.

Oral tradition that diverges from the first witness is hearsay doctrine. Why don't we call it gnosis resulting from hearsayers who claim to be in the know.

 

[Wolf_Says]

We are also taught to not add to God's word.

Then why did the protestants both add and remove books and chapters from the Bible?

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

We are also taught to not add to God's word.

Nor to take away from God's teachings.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Can you list a single tradition/doctrine necessary for salvation that is not in scripture? If you can't do that than, complete it is.

We are also taught to not add to God's word.

Then why did the protestants both add and remove books and chapters from the Bible?

Nor to take away from God's teachings.

Good point, if you could list a teaching of Christ that was taken away or missing in the current Protestant Bible.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Good point, if you could list a teaching of Christ that was taken away or missing in the current Protestant Bible.

I didn't say Protestants take away from what's in the Bible, just that they take away what's not there (Protestants use the truncated Pharisaic Old Testament, but . The Bible is a witness to the skeleton of Holy Tradition. But the Bible is not meant to be ripped out of the rest of Holy Tradition. Holy Tradition is not just a set of injunctions, Holy Tradition is, well, a Tradition, it's a mindset, a way of learning and looking at things and a way of life. The Bible contains basic injunctions, but it doesn't flesh out entirely how to cultivate what they're the framework for. Christ certainly taught, for instance, methods of cultivating contrition, he didn't just say, "Be contrite." Christ certainly taught methods for cultivating humility, he didn't just say, "Be humble." Christ certainly taught methods for subduing lust, he didn't just say, "Don't lust." Christ certainly taught the art of praying, he didn't just say, "Pray."