What is the one true Church?

[Jim B]

In order for Protestants to exercise the principles of sola Scriptura they first have to accept the antecedent premise of what books constitute Scripture — in particular, the New Testament books. This is not as simple as it may seem at first, accustomed as we are to accepting without question the New Testament as we have it today.

Although indeed there was, roughly speaking, a broad consensus in the early Church as to what books were scriptural, there still existed enough divergence of opinion to reasonably cast doubt on the Protestant concepts of the Bible’s self-authenticating nature, and the self-interpreting maxim of perspicuity.

The following overview of the history of acceptance of biblical books (and also non-biblical ones as Scripture) will help the reader to avoid over-generalizing or over-simplifying the complicated historical process by which we obtained our present Bible.

A Visual Diagram of the History of the New Testament Canon​

(not a accepted by Grailhunter even though the sources for the diagram are all Protestant, he escapes facts with word games)

View attachment 33416

This is false reasoning. Sola Scriptura means that the content of the Bible is the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice. The Bible has a consistent message throughout, regardless of which "books" are in the canon.

It is amusing that you post the graphic describing cognitive dissonance.

 

[Jim B]

You put a lot of work in that....sorry.
I do not mind debating.....LOL....I love debating....until I have to repeat myself.
Like I have said, I do not have any stress in my ministry.
I do not care if you believe me....I give you the truth and from there it is between you and God.

But still on the topic of sola scriptura, it is a flawed way to approach the deeper understandings of Christianity. Christianity learned so much after the close of the biblical era.
Besides it is misnomer, the Protesants do not hold to sola scriptura, there are things they believe that are important to them and are correct, but they are not in the scriptures and there are things in the scriptures that they nor anyone else follow. I should say very few follow.

Now here is another truth for you. When you are battling with false beliefs, besides the non-biblical words and phrases that they con Christianity with. Then they play social aspect of it....Well everybody else believes it! Well that only means the deception has been highly effective......Its doctrine! You are not a Christian if you do not believe in doctrine! LOL And that is exactly how I react....I laugh.

The insistence of believing in doctrine is paramount to both the Catholic Church and the Protestant denominations.
In motion the term doctrine means...This is what we want you to believe.....knowing what I know I laugh at it.

The term doctrine is so imporant that just about every Bible uses that term.....but it is nowhere in the scriptures. You will read it in the Bible.....but you will not find it in any biblical text. The Greek word used means teachings....referring to the teaching of Christ or the Apostles....not the interpretaion and redefining of those in history.

After the biblical era doctrine usually refers to the non-biblical teaching of man....somebody.....and some of it is honest speculation or interpretation that someone wanted to set in stone.....so they come up with catchy terms and phrases and lock it into "doctrine" as to persuade people to believe it. Someone wanted people to believe in the perpetual virginity of Miriam....so they come up with the non-biblical term Virgin Mary....she was not a virgin after she conceived or delivered Yeshua and Mary is not her name.. Someone driving the whole sex and women are dirty, nasty, and sinful thing came up with the doctrine of Original Sin....Contagous sin through sex...Don't touch a woman, you will make sin...you will make a sinful baby! If it dies it goes to hell! Horse manure! The Trinity, the one God formula ...LOL....definitely a religious political doctrine designed to shutdown all the things they could not agree on. I have about a hundred scriptures that prove the one God formula wrong. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Docrtrines are man formulated beliefs that is why the words or phrases are not actually in the scriptures.....I guess God did not do a good enough job? Well He did do a good enough job and He did not use those words and phrases....because those words and phrases twist and confuse the words and meanings in the scriptures.

You wrote "The term doctrine is so imporant [sic] that just about every Bible uses that term.....but it is nowhere in the scriptures".

Matthew 15:8-9, "‘This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me,
and they worship me in vain,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’”

Mark 7:7, "They worship me in vain, teaching as doctrine the commandments of men"

And this is "off the wall": Someone wanted people to believe in the perpetual virginity of Miriam....so they come up with the non-biblical term Virgin Mary....she was not a virgin after she conceived or delivered Yeshua and Mary is not her name.. Someone driving the whole sex and women are dirty, nasty, and sinful thing came up with the doctrine of Original Sin....Contagous [sic] sin through sex...Don't touch a woman, you will make sin...you will make a sinful baby! If it dies it goes to hell!

Do you really expect anyone to take you seriously???

BTW, you should use use a spell-check.

 

[Grailhunter]

Jesus was a Jew as were all the apostles (including Paul), all the first members of the church -- the gentiles came in later -- and all the authors of the Bible (with the sole exception of Luke). The early Jews were thus fully justified in recognizing these Bible "books" as Scripture, for the Jewish apostles not only set them in their hands as part of the Bible they used to evangelize the world, but also referred to them in the New Testament itself, citing the things they record as examples to be emulated..."

Did some homework there did ya?
All that work and you kept all the disconnected modern perceptions regarding anctient events. If I did not know better I would say this is a Catholic methodology to make all things ancient.....modern. "And the Jew parked his Mercedes and went in and wrote the Septuagint using Microsoft Word after referencing the Old Testament Canon of Books."

OK! Words and phrases that did not exist in ancient times! There is no Mercedes, or term Sepuagint, or MicroSoft Word or OId Testament or Canon or Books in 1st century Christian history. If no one cares about accuracy then you can do stuff like this, but if some one is taking you seriously they are learning misinformation.

When you are talking about history you have to do it from the perspective of the time period first....then explain some of the evolution of terms in to the more modern eras.

Replace canon with the phrase favored texts, do not use the term canon or the word book.

Know this for sure....
1. At no time in history did everyone agree on the list of texts in the Old or New Testament. There were popular and favored texts but no religious organization has the right or authority to set the list of texts in stone for the world.

2. Religious freedom.....any and all denominations have the right to document what texts it recognizes as legitimate. Even in modern times it can be different. So there is no World Christian Canon of Books....we can call them books now LOL But this can come down to individual choices and each individual has the authority to make that choice. For example an individual might like the texts called the Shepherd of Hermas or the Book of Enoch. In other words there is nothing left to argue about.....your choice....your right.

As far as learning about the selection of books for the Hebrew Bible....that can be debatable and learning something about the history of the Septuagint can help a little.....but a lot of what we know about the Septuagint comes from people writing about the Septuagint and they do not always agree. Why? The Septuagint was done by order of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (the Greek Pharaoh or King of Egypt} for the Great Library of Alexandria...He was collecting and preserving writtings for this library....this was not a Jewish initiative and not a lot of religious motivation.

Ptolemy (the son of one of Alexander the Great's general) was mostly interested in the Torah. The full translation to the Hebrew Bible took over a hundred years to complete by different people along the way and the connection to "70" or miracles is near to irrelevant.

As far as Purgatory, there is no documentation on that.....not to support all the details of Catholic beliefs and imagery involved with it.....Loosely defines Sheol and the beliefs of the levels of Sheol. Purgatory exists as a old money scheme like sins paid for by Indulgences.

 

[Grailhunter]

BTW, you should use use a spell-check.

No I need to stop watching westerns and typing. Just got out of the hospital with eye problems sorry.
And I am use to people not liking the truth....I don't care....that is why I have no stress in my ministry. That is between them and God not me.
So what part of the truth are you taking exception with?

 

[Jack]

No I need to stop watching westerns and typing. Just got out of the hospital with eye problems sorry.
And I am use to people not liking the truth....I don't care....that is why I have no stress in my ministry. That is between them and God not me.
So what part of the truth are you taking exception with?

I like old westerns!

 

[Marymog]

By "weren't in agreement" I mean various differences and in how to practiced the Way.....Christianity.

1. The Council was called to come to an agreement. If they were already in agreement there would have been no need for a meeting.
2. The Jewish-Christians which was the 12 apostles and Jewish converts, practiced a Jewish form of Christianity that still centered on the Temple and parts of the Mosaic Law. (Now there is more to the story with Peter, where as he basically switched camps.)
3. Jewish-Christians worshiped at the temple and offered sacrifices.
4. Jewish-Christians continued to observe the Saturday Jewish Sabbath.
5. Jewish-Christians worshiped at the Temple where as Gentile-Christians formed congregations in homes.
6. The Jewish-Christians required circumcision.
7. The Jewish-Christians observed Jewish customs like polygamy and where the fathers picked their daughter's husbands and received money for delivering a virgin daughter. The Catholic Church put an end to this around the turn of the millennium.
8. The Jewish-Christians would not associate with Gentile-Christians because they were not circumcised. The background on this is the disagreement between Peter and Paul. Which means of course that the Jewish-Christians and Gentile-Christians would not worship together. Which is the big physical distinction between the two beliefs.
9. The Jewish-Christians focused on Yahweh where as the Gentile-Christians focused on Yeshua. The Jewish-Christians referred to Yahweh as God and Yeshua as Lord. For example...James 1:1 James a bond-servant of God....and....of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Thank you. I better understand what you are saying.

Mary