Jesus isn't Catholic

[chilehed]

The Catholic Church amended and expelled parts of the Apocrypha (Deuterocanonical books) shortly after Luther raised the issue, however.

Source?

 

[Albion]

This is not a mere matter of opinion or interpretation, my friend. Look it up and see for yourself.

 

[Jonathan Mathews]

Jesus isn't a Catholic.
Neither is Paul.

Also, think of every denomination you can think of, then add in 2500 more you dont know about.

Jesus and Paul are none of those........also.
Jesus and Paul do not belong to a man made denomination.
But you do, or have.

Its interesting that we are told to "not forsake the assembling of ourselves together"< but we are not told to join a denomination.
There is the concept of a Local Church, revealed in the NT, but its never given a BRAND NAME.
All that came later, as men moved in, took over, and created DENOMINATIONS.
Also...
IF you are born again, you've already joined the "one true Church", which is the literal, spiritual, body of Christ........that is not made with hands., but is made with The Blood of God as Jesus dying on a Cross.

So, is "organized religion", (denominations), the local church, good for you?
It can be great for you, and your family, but, the sticking point, is, that NT doctrine, as "sound doctrine" is always sound, of itself..... but the way it is taught in "church", is often man made reinvention.
= Carnal bible twisting mania.

The only thing the Devil loves more then 5000 denominations that dont agree with each other's theology, (he had a hand in this).....are 380 "New versions" of the BIBLE, that have changed verses, removed "sound" doctrine, and often try to leave God out, whenever possible.
Satan loves this.
LOVES it.

So, how do you know if your church is a mess, and is not walking in the Light, as Jesus is the Light?

It all comes down to how they teach Salvation.
It all comes down to each denomination's personal explanation of GRACE.
Understand Saint, that if they get this wrong, then everything else is wrong, also.
And if you belong to a church that has substituted works for Grace, then you are wrong also., and they did it to you.

So, how do you check all this, to find out if you are in a poisonous religious cult, or if you are in a place where God reigns and the Holy Spirit is active? ???

First, you have to understand that Jesus is Grace. JESUS is Eternal Life. Jesus is Salvation.... Jesus is the author and finishers of YOUR FAITH. Hebrews 12:2. And because Jesus is "Christ in you, the hope of Glory", and you are "IN Christ"", and have become the very "righteousness of Christ", if you are born again.... If you know all this, and believe all this, and TRUST all this and not in yourself to keep yourself saved..
You will also have to come to the truth of the revelation that God began your salvation and HE will finish it.
Philippians 1:6
= You have to come to a place in your theological mastery where you understand GRACE is a free gift, that Salvation is a free gift, and you no longer worry about losing your salvation, or still believe you have to keep yourself saved. (Legalism) (Galatians 1:8)
Saint, you have to come to the revelation, that, if i ask you, "what are you trusting in, to get you to heaven""".... your only and final answer, is "JESUS."
And until you are there, completely certain..... until you have the revelation of "Grace without works"..... Then you will always answer...."well, I trust in Jesus, BUT".........but....but......but.....but".... = Fail.
So, until you come to understand and truly believe that Jesus and Jesus alone saved you and will get you into heaven, then you are lost in the deceitful maze of "who is right"...>"who is lying"...."how do i know", and worst deceit of all..... "you can lose your salvation".

God help you to believe, His Truth, according to His Grace.....alone.




dw

Can you be Catholic if you refuse to call any man on earth "Father"/"Daddy"/"Pappa"? Matthew 23:9 Because Jesus never would...never did.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

Jesus is Holy..

 

[DeepWater]

Have you heard of the Belgic, Westminster, Augsburg or 1689 Confessions of Faith. What I quoted of yours, was that your 'confession'?
Of course Protestants confess their sins...to our High Priest.

1 Timothy 2:5 (KJV) For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
1 John 1:9 (KJV) If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Read the last post i posted.

 

[DeepWater]

Actually, the Blood of Christ has already cleansed our Sin.....all of it.....>Tomorrow's included.
"Where SIN abounds...Grace moreso Abounds".... = means....when you sin, after you are saved, the Blood Atonement has already paid for that one ALSO......It means that when you sin a year from now, on a Monday morning, just before you come here to argue about OSAS, and you sin....THE CROSS has already taken care of that one also.
Get it inside your head, that something that happened 2000 years ago on a CROSS, is still your Salvation 20 yrs from NOW !

If a Legalist could actually comprehend that you can't out-sin the BLOOD of CHRIST, that this blood, has actively and permanently SOLVED your "sin" issue, then what a happy Christian they would be, as then they could actually Trust Christ, totally., and not just partly, and then they have to work the rest of their way into heaven.
This is why Jesus died for you. Its what He's doing on the Cross. He is Paying for (cleansing) our sin, from us, by dying FOR IT ALL.
Amazing how many people who claim to be Christians can't even begin to comprehend SALVATION.
Legalists don't understand that the CROSS is a completed work (Blood Atonement), so, they reach into the bible with eyes closed, and never care to learn or realize that not every verse is aimed at a born again believer.

For those of you who have not been taught anything about your NT, or your bible in general..... Scriptures in the NT, and OT< are sometimes literal, sometimes symbolic, and sometimes allegorical....in meaning.
For example, "all who call on the name of Jesus, shall be SAVED"...is literal.
But, "take this cup, as its the blood of the New Covenant"...... this can't be LITERAL, as Jesus's blood is still in HIS BODY, when He's drinking the cup.
Hello ??? Is everybody paying attention?
Sleep later.
Learn now.

See, a legalist does not understand that "where there is no law, there is no transgress". "Christ has ABOLISHED THE LAW"..... is in the NT, folks. Ephesians 2:15
A legalist, reads Romans 4:8, where they are told that God does not hold them accountable, for sin...(impute)....... and they just yawn and run back to Hebrews, a book-letter not written to the CHURCH, but to UNSAVED JEWS...... and then they get lost in it.

And why LEGALIST, does God not hold you accountable, in Eternity, for your sin that you do tomorrow and next week?
A.) Because God already held Jesus accountable on the CROSS for them ALL.
Understand?
See it?
Try looking.

A Legalist will take a verse out of Matthew, given before Jesus was on the Cross, that is not NT doctrine for the Blood Bought Redeemed Church, and use this verse out of context, to prove to themselves they can "lose it".
A Legalist thinks they are in Christ, then fall out of Christ when they sin, and if they confess = do penance or whatever other deeds they can come up with, they get back INTO Christ.
However, Christ has contradicted you, as He said "I will never leave you or forsake you"...so, "Christ in you, the hope of Glory", is a fact, that you need to start believing.

A Legalist actually believes they are saved untill they sin, then confess, and are saved again, as if Salvation is a type of Yo-Yo, of sinning confessing, sinning confessing, sinning confessing.....up down, up down., crazy.
And all of this is not only misunderstanding the Blood Atonement, its also not giving FULL Credit DUE to the finished work of Jesus on the Cross.... and that is the REAL issue, for the Legalist.

 

[crossnote]

Read the last post i posted.

If you are referring to post 106, I seldom bring up the Gospel of the Kingdom and see it different from the Gospel spelled out in 1Cor 15:1-4.
Or?.? I'm not sure of your point.

 

[chilehed]

This is not a mere matter of opinion or interpretation, my friend. Look it up and see for yourself.

The internet is a big place. You can't point me in the right direction?

 

[Just_a_Christian]

Did Paul have authority? Did Peter have authority? Did James have authority? You say Jesus has all authority, so it looks like you are saying Paul and Peter and James had zero authority. But the Bible says something different.

Is that an attempt at being blithe? Maybe it's only an attempt to turn my statements into something other than they were. Either way makes no difference to me. The apostles had a job to complete and they performed their jobs valiantly, I might add. Here we have their job description:
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Mark 16:15
It, however, is no great secret or hidden thing that the apostles had "some" authority. This authority was very much related to their job description; their authority existed for the purpose of edification.
For though I should boast somewhat more of our authority, which the Lord hath given us for edification, and not for your destruction, I should not be ashamed:
2 Corinthians 10:8
This authority was NOT to create their own path, do things their way or do anything whatsoever contrary to God. So, when speaking of authority, God has given all to His Son.

You dodged answering what the name on the door of the place you attend says. Clever that. You know exactly what I believe.

I dodged nothing. I am a member of Christ's church. When I submitted myself to being baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost for the remission of my sins, God added me to the body of Christ. God also put my name in the book of life and through baptism I put on Christ. But as to me knowing what you think. I do not. Why don't you simply tell me??

I, and all your other readers, have no idea what peculiar things you might believe, whether it is sound doctrine or unsound doctrine. All we really know about you is that you are 100% opposed to the Catholic Church, and that only because you said so. Are you Trinitarian or no? We don't know. But we can suspect you are not because you are 100% opposed to the Catholic Church and the Catholic Church is Trinitarian. I could go on and on, but the point is it is unclear whether the brand you attend has sound or unsound doctrine. Your say-so is unconvincing. I hope you do, but there is no real evidence yet that you have presented that you do. You have attacked the Catholic Church but said little about your brand other than your opposition to everything Catholic.

No evidence? I very seldom post anything without posting chapter and verse. I try to never post anything that is MY belief but on the rare occasion that I may, I also try to point that out. My faith is based on God's word and it alone. I follow no doctrine of man, I give no credit to man made creeds. I have not attacked the catholic church; nor have I attacked anyone person. What I have done and will continue to do, is point out teachings that are in contradiction to God's word. So again, seldom if ever, do I post without chapter and verse. That being the case, is it really me or the scripture you find unconvincing?

So you belong to some brand that has on it's door 'Church of God'? Or 'Church of Christ'? Anybody can hang up such a sign. It does not make the leaders of such a place Christian that they claim to be 'of God' or 'of Christ'. The 'Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints' claim to be 'The Church' AND 'of Jesus Christ' for all the good it does them.

God's word is my law book.

You claim that the 'brand' you belong to actually is to Christ. You have not established that such is the case. And again I remind you that you haven't mentioned the name of the brand so that others might have the basis to ask you questions about whether your brand belongs to Christ or only pretends to belong to Christ. Your say-so might convince you, but it isn't so convincing for every one else.

I have posted the contents of my faith and the origin of such many times. In all truthfulness, it does not and should not, alter anything based on what I think or believe.
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Acts 17:11
If someone shows scripture that is in conflict with anything one believes, the prudent thing would be to investigate. The sincere, humble, God fearing person will do just that. In fact, my mother was raised a Baptist and she honestly thought my dad was reading from a different Bible. Many denominations do not want the members reading scripture.......obviously why.

I doubt that. I suspect God's word is in deed a springboard for your beliefs, which are the traditions of one man, either yourself or some founder of your brand, whether it be a founder 500 years ago or last year.

The founder of the church is Christ, He founded it on the day of Pentecost.
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Hebrews 11:6
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Ephesians 2:8
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Romans 10:10
I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
Luke 13:3
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 2:38
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
1 John 1:7
Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.
Revelation 2:10
Dismiss any and all scripture I that I bring to your attention, that's fine but I hope not!
Either way it does not change the reality of the situation, which is this:
You could be right and me wrong.
I could be correct and you wrong
But we can NOT BOTH be correct.
In Him

 

[chevyontheriver]

Is that an attempt at being blithe? Maybe it's only an attempt to turn my statements into something other than they were. Either way makes no difference to me. The apostles had a job to complete and they performed their jobs valiantly, I might add. Here we have their job description:
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Mark 16:15
It, however, is no great secret or hidden thing that the apostles had "some" authority. This authority was very much related to their job description; their authority existed for the purpose of edification.
For though I should boast somewhat more of our authority, which the Lord hath given us for edification, and not for your destruction, I should not be ashamed:
2 Corinthians 10:8
This authority was NOT to create their own path, do things their way or do anything whatsoever contrary to God. So, when speaking of authority, God has given all to His Son.

You did say that any man having authority took authority away from God. Now, having seen the result of that statement was that the apostles had no authority, you wisely recalibrated. My bishop has that same authority, based on his job description and his being appointed by other people with the authority from God to appoint him.

I dodged nothing. I am a member of Christ's church. When I submitted myself to being baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost for the remission of my sins, God added me to the body of Christ. God also put my name in the book of life and through baptism I put on Christ. But as to me knowing what you think. I do not. Why don't you simply tell me??

You dodged again. Must be something you really don't want to reveal. Are you a member of the 'Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints' or the 'Worldwide Church of God' founded by Herbert W. Armstrong or it's splinters or the 'Church of Christ' founded by Alexander Campbell or it's offshoots? What if someone impressed with what you have written here, not me mind you, but if they wanted to attend the same church you attend? Maybe not in your city, but closer to their home. How would they know where to look? You aren't making it easy for them.

As for me I believe the Nicene Creed, the Apostle's Creed, the Athanasian Creed. I believe what's in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. And the Councils of the Church. And the Bible that the Church has canonized. It's no mystery what I believe.

No evidence? I very seldom post anything without posting chapter and verse. I try to never post anything that is MY belief but on the rare occasion that I may, I also try to point that out. My faith is based on God's word and it alone. I follow no doctrine of man, I give no credit to man made creeds. I have not attacked the catholic church; nor have I attacked anyone person. What I have done and will continue to do, is point out teachings that are in contradiction to God's word. So again, seldom if ever, do I post without chapter and verse. That being the case, is it really me or the scripture you find unconvincing?

I find what you write to be unconvincing. Scripture I find convincing, which is why I am Catholic. But when you say you have not attacked the Catholic Church, and I read what you have written in other posts in this thread, I see an incongruity. Scripture I accept. Your doctrine, in the little bits you have revealed, I cannot. But mostly you have hidden what you believe so who knows. You won't even reveal the big secret of which group you belong to. I wonder if it meets in your living room and has unsound beliefs. You're not telling. I don't know. Me? I'm an open book.

God's word is my law book.

Pardon me for thinking it is your springboard.

I have posted the contents of my faith and the origin of such many times. In all truthfulness, it does not and should not, alter anything based on what I think or believe.
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Acts 17:11
If someone shows scripture that is in conflict with anything one believes, the prudent thing would be to investigate. The sincere, humble, God fearing person will do just that. In fact, my mother was raised a Baptist and she honestly thought my dad was reading from a different Bible. Many denominations do not want the members reading scripture.......obviously why.

I am constantly urged to read Scripture more and more by the Catholic Church. They even provide indulgences for Bible reading. Oh, sorry to offend. I know you don't like indulgences.

The founder of the church is Christ, He founded it on the day of Pentecost.

Yup. That's the founder of the Church. Not Luther or Henry or Joe Smith or Herbert W. Armstrong or any of the rest of those men (don't forget Mary Baker Eddy and Ellen Gould White) who started up their own traditions.

But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Hebrews 11:6
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Ephesians 2:8
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Romans 10:10
I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
Luke 13:3
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 2:38
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
1 John 1:7
Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.
Revelation 2:10
Dismiss any and all scripture I that I bring to your attention, that's fine but I hope not!
Either way it does not change the reality of the situation, which is this:
You could be right and me wrong.
I could be correct and you wrong
But we can NOT BOTH be correct.
In Him

I'm not dismissing any Scripture. But you seem to be keen to tell me I'm wrong. All the while covering up even the name of your group which would be an indicator of whether your claimed 'sound doctrine' is actually sound or unsound. But hey, if you need to keep that a secret, that's fine with me. I'll just conclude that you're hiding something and leave you alone. But at least have the courtesy of not attacking what I believe when you won't put details of your belief on the table.

 

[Just_a_Christian]

You did say that any man having authority took authority away from God. Now, having seen the result of that statement was that the apostles had no authority, you wisely recalibrated. My bishop has that same authority, based on his job description and his being appointed by other people with the authority from God to appoint him.

The apostles are all dead. No where in God's word did He give or implement anything resembling apostolic succession(s). That is doctrine of man.

I'm not dismissing any Scripture. But you seem to be keen to tell me I'm wrong. All the while covering up even the name of your group which would be an indicator of whether your claimed 'sound doctrine' is actually sound or unsound. But hey, if you need to keep that a secret, that's fine with me. I'll just conclude that you're hiding something and leave you alone. But at least have the courtesy of not attacking what I believe when you won't put details of your belief on the table.

How is advocating God's word and it alone covering something up? Bible is on the Table, nothing else.
What was the name of the church Christ died to establish?

 

[chevyontheriver]

The apostles are all dead. No where in God's word did He give or implement anything resembling apostolic succession(s). That is doctrine of man.

Now where in Scripture does it say that apostolic succession is a 'doctrine of man'? That IS a serious question. If you cannot find such a statement in Scripture then it looks like you have gone beyond Scripture to create your own 'doctrine of man'. Hint: Acts 1 is not where you want to go. Nor the calling and appointing of Paul in Acts 13: 1-4. Also avoid 1Tim, where Paul appoints Timothy an apostolic nuncio. And avoid 2 Tim 2:2. Happy hunting. Be a real Berean and supercede your tradition.

How is advocating God's word and it alone covering something up? Bible is on the Table, nothing else.

How is refusing to tell what group you belong to NOT hiding something? I get it that you might not want to come out and name the group you belong to. The church where you put your Bible on the coffee table in your living room or whatever. It's OK. You can keep your secret. But you know everything about what I believe because I am a plain vanilla Catholic. You hide what you believe under a cloak of obscurity when you claim to follow the Bible alone because you actually follow an interpretation of the Bible, follow a tradition of interpretation you absolutely refuse to name.

What was the name of the church Christ died to establish?

Jesus Christ died for the whole Church, ecclesia kata holos te of Acts 9:31, the Catholic Church.

 

[chilehed]

This is not a mere matter of opinion or interpretation, my friend. Look it up and see for yourself.

The internet is a big place. You can't point me in the right direction?

Since you can't supply a reference, I have to conclude that your assertion is fabricated.

 

[chilehed]

I noticed you

So then you would say that you would be fully dressed if you showed up to a wedding wearing nothing but dress shoes?

The vast majority of what you post isn't from scripture, it's just bare assertion. Pick one of the instances where you say "The Bible says X, which means Y", and show where the Bible says so.

So... you can't do it?

 

[Just_a_Christian]

Now where in Scripture does it say that apostolic succession is a 'doctrine of man'? That IS a serious question. If you cannot find such a statement in Scripture then it looks like you have gone beyond Scripture to create your own 'doctrine of man'. Hint: Acts 1 is not where you want to go. Nor the calling and appointing of Paul in Acts 13: 1-4. Also avoid 1Tim, where Paul appoints Timothy an apostolic nuncio. And avoid 2 Tim 2:2. Happy hunting. Be a real Berean and supercede your tradition.

No where in scripture does it say that "apostolic succession" is a doctrine of man.
Not only does it not verbally say it, it also does not say many things. It also does forbid man from marrying another man. It also does not forbid slavery. The argument of "the word does not say something" is weak at best. The punishment for such can be severe. Nadab and Abihu assumed it would be okay with God to offer strange fire before the Lord. God consumed them with fire. God had not told them to do it, or not to.
Then Aaron’s sons, Nadab and Abihu, each took his fire pan and put fire in it, set incense on it, and presented strange fire before the Lord, which he had not commanded them to do.So fire went out from the presence of the Lord and consumed them so that they died before the Lord.
Leviticus 10:1-2
The Bereans did search the scriptures daily to see if those things were so. The Bible is my guide and just because God does not single out "apostolic succession" as man/false doctrine does in no way mean it is not.

How is refusing to tell what group you belong to NOT hiding something? I get it that you might not want to come out and name the group you belong to. The church where you put your Bible on the coffee table in your living room or whatever. It's OK. You can keep your secret. But you know everything about what I believe because I am a plain vanilla Catholic. You hide what you believe under a cloak of obscurity when you claim to follow the Bible alone because you actually follow an interpretation of the Bible, follow a tradition of interpretation you absolutely refuse to name.

I have not covered anything up, I have made it 100% clear that I belong to the church that Christ established. It is His church. I follow no teaching of man. I do not use any writing of man nor do I subscribe to any man's philosophy. Why you think what I believe is a secret is beyond me. No one would know what I believe if they never opened/studied God's word. Anyone who desires to know what I believe only has to open the Bible. No creeds, no catechism, no pope or priest to check in with. If Paul was correct in 2nd Thessalonians, and I'm 100% sure he was, the church fell away. When it did, it became something different or other than it was designed to be; by definition, a derivative or denomination. Having manmade offices and councils, man appointed intermediaries between God and men. Creating and nullifying doctrine when the circumstance or situation seems suitable. Setting themselves up in God's place proclaiming the power to forgive sins. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck; it most likely is a duck.

Jesus Christ died for the whole Church, ecclesia kata holos te of Acts 9:31, the Catholic Church.

Yep, in verse 31 you see churches, plural. Now that means one of two things. The plurality means all churches, including the denominational world, or there were multiple, distinct churches of Christ. All being completely autonomous, having no council, Pope or priest in between them and God.
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
1 Timothy 2:5
In Him

 

[timothyu]

I have made it 100% clear that I belong to the church that Christ established. It is His church. I follow no teaching of man. I do not use any writing of man nor do I subscribe to any man's philosophy.

Lots of sheep, fewer shepherds.

 

[chevyontheriver]

No where in scripture does it say that "apostolic succession" is a doctrine of man.

Thank you for admitting that you have added to the Bible concerning your opinion about apostolic succession.

Not only does it not verbally say it, it also does not say many things.

Thank you for admitting that the Bible isn't quite complete in everything Christians need to know.

It also does forbid man from marrying another man. It also does not forbid slavery. The argument of "the word does not say something" is weak at best.

Which is why the teaching authority of the Church is so important. How do you know whether to allow or forbid slavery from the Bible alone? Me? I have no problem with going with the teaching authority of the Catholic Church concerning slavery. You have the Bible alone. So how WOULD you know about slavery? I think you add to Scripture. But you still say 'Scripture alone'. Contradictory.

The Bereans did search the scriptures daily to see if those things were so.

That's a good thing.

The Bible is my guide and just because God does not single out "apostolic succession" as man/false doctrine does in no way mean it is not.

To say that is to add to Scripture. You have a non-Biblical basis to reject apostolic succession, and you just admitted it.

I have not covered anything up, I have made it 100% clear that I belong to the church that Christ established.

Christ established the Catholic Church. You have been rather emphatic about rejecting the Catholic Church. And rather persistent in not identifying the name of your group. You say you are not covering it up. I don't know what else to call it. Are you Adventist, Baptist, Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, Episcopalian, Foursquare, ... or what?

If Paul was correct in 2nd Thessalonians, and I'm 100% sure he was, the church fell away.

If this were true, then how can you claim to belong to the Church that Jesus founded, that is if it really fell away? I don't get it. You belong to something else. So let everybody know what it is, when it was founded, by whom it was founded, where it's headquarters are. Not hard.

Yep, in verse 31 you see churches, plural.

I see singular, the singular Church in several locations. The RSV has 'the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria'. Many other versions have the singular as well.

Now that means one of two things.

Bad premises make bad conclusions. And/or bad translations result in errors in doctrine.

The plurality means all churches, including the denominational world, or there were multiple, distinct churches of Christ. All being completely autonomous, having no council, Pope or priest in between them and God.

Nope. it means there is ONE Church that has different locations, with bishops in those locations united in belief. There is no autonomy as if there can be contradictory creeds. There is, in the Church Christ founded, on faith and one baptism, and it's been the same for 20 centuries. The faith has not 'fallen away'. Not yet.

 

[timothyu]

Thank you for admitting that the Bible isn't quite complete in everything Christians need to know.

Then why theology which is nothing more than religious philosophy putting a human form on God?

 

[chevyontheriver]

Then why theology which is nothing more than religious philosophy putting a human form on God?

Theology is literally and etymologically the study of God. It is not necessarily putting a human form on God. When well done it can be the application of reason to revelation. As opposed to using a lack of thought to what one proclaims as true.

And theology is always best done on one's knees. That seems seldom to be the case.

 

[timothyu]

When well done it can be the application of reason to revelation.

That leads to dispute and the resulting denominations. People start putting on their jerseys, having tailgate parties and yelling we're number one. All of which shows none are. That is what the world of man always did before Jesus' time (and since). If the Bible is complete then why theology?