Confused about origins of the NT

[Guest shiloh357]

Sola Scriptura is a man made invention, a tradition passed on down from the 16th century.

That doesn't necessarily mean it is wrong.

Jesus left us with His Church not a Holy Bible [albeit, which is the Holy inerrant Word of God, His Church came first then later that same Church compiled the completed Holy Bible for all Christians]

The Bible tell us that His One True Apostolic Church is the pillar/foundation of truth. [ 1 Tim. 3: 15 ]

Hebrews 13: 17 that we are to "obey " those leaders of His One Holy Universal Apostolic Church.

Church as final authority -Matt 18: 17-18

Christians need both the Church and the Holy Bible for the complete "fullness " of the Christian Faith.

The RCC is not an institution Christ would have anything to do with. The RCC has a murderous, bloodthirsty history of killing anyone who dared to challenge it. The RCC has more in common with Satan that Jesus. I don't need the RCC and I don't want the RCC.

Heb. 13:17 is not talking about obeying the RCC.

[Fez]

Sola Scriptura is a man made invention, a tradition passed on down from the 16th century.

And indulgences are not a man made invention?

[OneLight]

Sola Scriptura is a man made invention, a tradition passed on down from the 16th century.

And indulgences are not a man made invention?

No Fez there not. The name is man-made but so isn't Trinity and Bible,anyways,- I'll let the Church explain-

"An indulgence is obtained through the Church who, by virtue of the power of binding and loosing granted her by Christ Jesus, intervenes in favor of individual Christians and opens for them the treasury of the merits of Christ and the saints to obtain from the Father of mercies the remission of the temporal punishment due for their sins." The Church does this not just to aid Christians, "but also to spur them to works of devotion, penance, and charity" (CCC 1478).

The Roman Catholic Church, through their indulgence doctrine, has placed a price on Christ's forgiveness for their profit alone. Christ Himself said:

Matthew 6:14-15

“For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses."

Matthew 9:2

Then behold, they brought to Him a paralytic lying on a bed. When Jesus saw their faith, He said to the paralytic, “Son, be of good cheer; your sins are forgiven you.”

Matthew 12:31

“Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men."

There are many more where we are told to just forgive as we are forgiven, not charge for forgiveness. Not once in scripture are we told to collect anything.

Please read my PM sent to you.

[Floatingaxe]

Sola Scriptura is a man made invention, a tradition passed on down from the 16th century.

And indulgences are not a man made invention?

Yes, they absolutely are.

[Hawkins]

The order of writing was Matthew, Luke, and then Mark, but that the order of publication was Matthew, Mark, and then Luke. Mark, a follower of Peter, for whom he acted something like a secretary, wrote in essence the Gospel according to Peter. Luke, who was neither an apostle nor the secretary to one, likely would have withheld publication of his Gospel until it could be approved by Peter or other apostles. He wrote before Mark did, and Mark took information from him and from Matthew, but Mark’s Gospel came out first, Luke having to wait for an imprimatur, so to speak.

That actually doesn't matter as long as God is in full control of how the canonical Bible shall be crafted. If on the hand God let loose that control, even Peter can be mistaken. The point is, the church can be corrupted, the Bible can be twisted by humans. Discernment is required all the times to identify this twist and corruption while preserving the original Word of God.

Edited April 12, 2012 by Hawkins

[Hawkins]

The order of writing was Matthew, Luke, and then Mark, but that the order of publication was Matthew, Mark, and then Luke. Mark, a follower of Peter, for whom he acted something like a secretary, wrote in essence the Gospel according to Peter. Luke, who was neither an apostle nor the secretary to one, likely would have withheld publication of his Gospel until it could be approved by Peter or other apostles. He wrote before Mark did, and Mark took information from him and from Matthew, but Mark’s Gospel came out first, Luke having to wait for an imprimatur, so to speak.

That actually doesn't matter as long as God is in full control of how the canonical Bible shall be crafted. If on the hand God let loose that control, even Peter can be mistaken. The point is, the church can be corrupted, the Bible can be twisted by humans. Discernment is required all the times to identify this twist and corruption while preserving the original Word of God.

Please explain how Christ's Apostolic [ because apostles were nucleus of Christ's Church] Church could possibly become corrupted when Jesus promised 'even the gates of hell shall never prevail against my church " Matt 16: 18 and in Daniel 2:44 "The God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed "

If you notice Jesus said "my church"singular usage, not "churches" as we find today starting from the 16th century.

If you believe in your description of "church" who then amonst the early brethren had the authority to determine which books belonged in the NT Canon and to make this decision binding on all Christians ? If nobody has this authority , then can you remove or add books to the canon on your own authority?

In order to identify this, you need to understand first what's meant by In Christ. Church refers to bhe body of Christ He established in three days which covers the Christians who are in Christ. Even when the end comes, His body still covers those who endure, and only those who endure shall be saved.

Physical churches including the Roman Catholic Church can go corrupted, and it did that's why by God's will Martin Luther led the reformation. When corrupted, they are no longer considered In Christ, or else you will be saying that they are corrupted in Christ.

Mark 14:58

“We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with human hands and in three days will build another, not made with hands.’”

Edited April 13, 2012 by Hawkins

[Floatingaxe]

The order of writing was Matthew, Luke, and then Mark, but that the order of publication was Matthew, Mark, and then Luke. Mark, a follower of Peter, for whom he acted something like a secretary, wrote in essence the Gospel according to Peter. Luke, who was neither an apostle nor the secretary to one, likely would have withheld publication of his Gospel until it could be approved by Peter or other apostles. He wrote before Mark did, and Mark took information from him and from Matthew, but Mark’s Gospel came out first, Luke having to wait for an imprimatur, so to speak.

That actually doesn't matter as long as God is in full control of how the canonical Bible shall be crafted. If on the hand God let loose that control, even Peter can be mistaken. The point is, the church can be corrupted, the Bible can be twisted by humans. Discernment is required all the times to identify this twist and corruption while preserving the original Word of God.

Please explain how Christ's Apostolic [ because apostles were nucleus of Christ's Church] Church could possibly become corrupted when Jesus promised 'even the gates of hell shall never prevail against my church " Matt 16: 18 and in Daniel 2:44 "The God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed "

If you notice Jesus said "my church"singular usage, not "churches" as we find today starting from the 16th century.

If you believe in your description of "church" who then amonst the early brethren had the authority to determine which books belonged in the NT Canon and to make this decision binding on all Christians ? If nobody has this authority , then can you remove or add books to the canon on your own authority?

In order to identify this, you need to understand first what's meant by In Christ. Church refers to bhe body of Christ He established in three days which covers the Christians who are in Christ. Even when the end comes, His body still covers those who endure, and only those who endure shall be saved.

Physical churches including the Roman Catholic Church can go corrupted, and it did that's why by God's will Martin Luther led the reformation. When corrupted, they are no longer considered In Christ, or else you will be saying that they are corrupted in Christ.

Mark 14:58

“We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with human hands and in three days will build another, not made with hands.’”

Hawkins,Jesus did not say to Peter, "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my churches." He said, "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build 'my church '" (Matt. 16:18)—this much all Christians can agree about this passage. Our Savior also called his Church a sheepfold, asserting that "there shall be one flock, one shepherd" (John 10:16). The Catholic Church is now and forever the visible body of Christ, the visible sign of God’s kingdom on earth. St. John Chrystostom wonderfully reminded the Christians of his era that the Church shall always be seen: "It is an easier thing for the sun to be quenched than for the Church to be made invisible."

Jesus said that on the rock solid evidence of Peter's uttered revelation, He will build His Church---the people of God, and NOT the Catholic institution, which is a bona fide delusion.

[Floatingaxe]

Floatingaxe, pleas go back and read Matt.16:15-19-

Scriptural confirmation of Peter’s primacy begins with John 1:42, wherein Christ first meets him and says, "You are Simon, the son of John; you shall be called Cephas." That is, Christ, who spoke to him in Aramaic, called Peter "Cephas" (or "Kepha"), which means "stone" or "rock." Christ had a special distinction in mind for Peter: Why else would he have given him a name never used at that time? [ take note Floatingaxe that the only time someone's name has been changed,in the Bible, it was for something very special from God ] While the other apostles enjoy significant charisms (charismata), none are singled out as Peter repeatedly is:

Who else, besides Peter, was told by Jesus to feed his Sheep three times ?

Peter receives the first converts into the Church (Acts 2:41).

Peter imposes the first ecclesiastical punishment (Acts 5:1).

Peter performs the first miracle (Acts 3:1).

Peter makes the first official ecclesiastical visit (Acts 9:32).

Peter rendered the first dogmatic decision in the Church (Acts 15:7). It was Peter who, among the gathered apostles and presbyters, rendered the final decision regarding whether circumcision is necessary for salvation.

Peter is not the rock on which Jesus is building His Church. No, it is the revelation that only Peter came up with when Jesus was talking with His disciples. He honoured it with a name change.

Peter was a great guy, for sure, and blessed with much spiritual insight and leadership, just like all the other apostles, but he was no pope, and not worthy of you building him up the way your religion does. He had feet of clay like everyone else, and needed a lot of correction in his life.

[Floatingaxe]

There are problems with the Roman Catholic position. First of all, when we look at the Greek of Matthew 16:18 we see something that is not obvious in the English. "...you are Peter (πέτρος, petros) and upon this rock (πέτρα, petra) I will build My church..." In Greek nouns have gender. It is similar to the English words actor and actress. The first is masculine and the second is feminine. Likewise, the Greek word "petros" is masculine; "petra" is feminine. Peter, the man, is appropriately referred to as Petros. But Jesus said that the rock he would build his church on was not the masculine "petros" but the feminine "petra." Let me illustrate by using the words "actor" and "actress:" "You are the actor and with this actress I will make my movie." Do see that the gender influences how a sentence is understood? Jesus was not saying that the church will be built upon Peter, but upon something else. What, then, does petra, the feminine noun, refer to?

The feminine "petra" occurs four times in the Greek New Testament:

Matt. 16:18, "And I also say to you that you are Peter (petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it."

Matt. 27:60, "and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock (petra); and he rolled a large stone against the entrance of the tomb and went away."

1 Cor. 10:4, "and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (petras) which followed them; and the rock (petra) was Christ."

1 Pet. 2:8, speaking of Jesus says that he is "A stone of stumbling and a rock (petra) of offense"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed."

We can clearly see that in the three other uses of the Greek word petra (nominative singular; "petras" in 1 Cor. 10:4 is genitive singular) we find it referred to as a large immovable mass of rock in which a tomb is carved out (Matt. 27:60) and in reference to Christ (1 Cor. 10:4; 1 Pet. 2:8). Note that Peter himself in the last verse referred to petra as being Jesus! If Peter uses the word as a reference to Jesus, then shouldn't we?

Jesus is the rock on which the church is built

The truth is that the only foundation is Jesus. The only rock of truth is Jesus Christ and that we, as his redeemed, need to keep our eyes on him. We are to look to no one else as the foundation, the source, or the hope on which the church is built. The Church is built upon Jesus, not Peter.

"For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ," (1 Cor. 3:11).

Is Peter the rock on which the Church is built?

[OneLight]

Sola Scriptura is a man made invention, a tradition passed on down from the 16th century.

And indulgences are not a man made invention?

No Fez there not. The name is man-made but so isn't Trinity and Bible,anyways,- I'll let the Church explain-

"An indulgence is obtained through the Church who, by virtue of the power of binding and loosing granted her by Christ Jesus, intervenes in favor of individual Christians and opens for them the treasury of the merits of Christ and the saints to obtain from the Father of mercies the remission of the temporal punishment due for their sins." The Church does this not just to aid Christians, "but also to spur them to works of devotion, penance, and charity" (CCC 1478).

The Roman Catholic Church, through their indulgence doctrine, has placed a price on Christ's forgiveness for their profit alone. Christ Himself said:

Matthew 6:14-15

“For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses."

Matthew 9:2

Then behold, they brought to Him a paralytic lying on a bed. When Jesus saw their faith, He said to the paralytic, “Son, be of good cheer; your sins are forgiven you.”

Matthew 12:31

“Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men."

There are many more where we are told to just forgive as we are forgiven, not charge for forgiveness. Not once in scripture are we told to collect anything.

Please read my PM sent to you.

OneLight, I have read your PM sent to me via E-Mail. I will only answer from this time on ,only with Bible verses and passages. In your Forum subjects under "Apologetics" it states immediately following the word Apologetic the words "Defending the Faith ,''so I acted as that interloper so you people would be able to try and defend your religious beliefs. I didn't realize that you were only defending the Faith from each other. I apologize for my misunderstanding. From now on I will only answer with Biblical verses/passages. Would that be permissible ?

I have been away for a few days. Sorry for the delay in answering.

What is meant in the ToS is that this is a nondenominational site where all Christian denominations are allowed to be represented. To come here and preach that those who do not follow what you see as the "one true church" goes against the ToS. You have every right in the world to believe what you wish. Yet, telling others that they are not abiding in Him if they do not go to the RCC is not acceptable. His true Body are all believers in Him. His true church are all who have accepted Christ as their Lord and Savior and abide in Him. This is scriptural and is the grounds on which a solid discussion can be made.

You are more then welcome to defend your beliefs as long as there is no personal attacks against a person. Debate the subject according to scripture and leave out the condemnation if people do not agree. This goes for both sides, not just you.