Whats wrong with this statement?

[Ps104_33]

By simple deduction...
The Catholic Church was founded at the end of Christ's
ministry on earth, or about 29-30 A.D..
The first book of the New Testament was not even written
until about 20 years later.
The Catholic Church could not possibly have come from the Bible.
Instead, the Bible came from the Catholic Church.
Consequently, the Catholic Church is the mother of the Bible, and not the daughter.
By the time Revelation, the last book of the Bible, was written around 100 A.D.,
the Catholic Church was already on its fifth Pope, St. Evaristus.

 

[Littledrummerboy]

Psalm,

Precisely the church's point.

Pax Christi,

Stephen

 

[Littledrummerboy]

Psalm,

Precisely the church's point...kind of. While the church did not comprise the books of the Bible, they (along with the preschismatic Eastern Orthodox) did decide which books, through the guidence of prayer and the Holy Spirit, should be cannonized. You are correct though, we do have a problem with sola scriptura...there was a time prior to the compilation of the Bible that a healthy church, with healthy doctrine, was alive and well.

Pax Christi,

Stephen

Pax Christi,

Stephen

 

[Ps104_33]

When you say "they", who are the "they" that you are talking about and how do you know that "they" were correct in their decision as to which books to allow in the canon of Scripture?
Are you not using your private judgement in deciding that "they" made an infallible decision? Wouldnt that make yourself infallible? You will use texts like "Thou art Peter" to prove the Roman Catholic churches infallibility, then use the churches infallibility to prove that you are properly interpreting the said scripture correctly. Its an arguement in a circle.

 

[Littledrummerboy]

Psalm,

Listen to yourself! How do I know the early church infallibly chose the correct cannon?! I was not aware that this was actually a concern in modern Christianity! What mistakes to you perceive that should raise such a question? The "they" to whom I was referring was the Catholic Church. What made the decision such as cannonization infallible was the guidence of the Holy Spirit...I hope you too can with such confidence trust in your God and his intercession in your life. The church used scripture they already had, believed in what it had to say (i.e. trust in the Holy Spirit) and compiled the Bible, with that information in it. I thought this was understood by almost all Christians...perhaps my assumptions should not be so generous?

Pax Christi,

Stephen

 

[billwald]

The Orthodox Catholic Church was started at the end of Christ's ministry. The Roman bishop pulled out of the Orthodox Catholic Church to form the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Originally posted by Ps104_33:
By simple deduction...
The Catholic Church was founded at the end of Christ's
ministry on earth, or about 29-30 A.D..
The first book of the New Testament was not even written
until about 20 years later.
The Catholic Church could not possibly have come from the Bible.
Instead, the Bible came from the Catholic Church.
Consequently, the Catholic Church is the mother of the Bible, and not the daughter.
By the time Revelation, the last book of the Bible, was written around 100 A.D.,
the Catholic Church was already on its fifth Pope, St. Evaristus.

What is wrong with this statement? I guess only the fiction of the last sentence, "By ... around 100 A.D., the Catholic Church (Universal Christian Church - not the Roman Catholic Church) was already on its fifth Pope, St. Evaristus"!
Gerhard

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by billwald:
The Orthodox Catholic Church was started at the end of Christ's ministry. The Roman bishop pulled out of the Orthodox Catholic Church to form the Roman Catholic Church.

I agree, and this basically took place in 1054 AD ("The Great Schism"). (Although it's technically more complicated that that...)

 

[mioque]

billwald
"The Roman bishop pulled out of the Orthodox Catholic Church to form the Roman Catholic Church. "
"
In 1054 that is, ofcourse on the orthodox side stood the emperor of the Roman (Byzantine) Empire and you probably don't like his theology either (not that I blame you for that).

As for what is wrong with the statement, Evaristus certainly wasn't a pope in any sense comparable to the current meaning of the word.

 

[BobRyan]

Catholic Church is no more the "mother of the Bible" than Israel is the "mother of scriptures".

As Pope Paul said - "ALL scripture is given by inspiriation from God"

As Pope Peter said - "NO Scripture is a matter of ones OWN interpretation but HOLY MEN OF OLD moved by the Holy Spirit SPOKE FROM GOD".

Never is scripture called the child of Israel OR the child of the church!!

Neither do we have ANY reference to 1st or 2nd century church leaders calling themselves PONTIFFS or calling themselves POPES.

What we DO have - is Catholic historians and best-selling authors today "admitting" that the early Christian church leaders REFUSED to be called priests!

We hav them "Admitting" that the rold of those 1st century presbyters was "bible teacher" they did not have the job of performing magic sacraments. Sacraments were never the means of changing the status of the soul for the first century church. Nothing magic at all there - initially.

No magic "powers" to stay with the priest EVEN if he is excommunicated by the church - he RETAINS those magic powers (according to the modern RCC when it comes to the magic power of being able to forgive sin and to turn normal bread into God).

In Christ,

Bob

 

[billwald]

I wouldn't have any problem worshipping with an Orthodox Church. Prefer that to the AOG church my daughter goes to. At least I wouldn't need hearing protection.

 

[Littledrummerboy]

Is the lack of faith in God's omniceince (sp) such that it is unbelievable that he could bring himself down into the holy host in the Eucharist that it is dumbed down to "magic"?

Pax Christi,

Stephen

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Littledrummerboy:
Is the lack of faith in God's omniceince (sp) such that it is unbelievable that he could bring himself down into the holy host in the Eucharist that it is dumbed down to "magic"?

Pax Christi,

Stephen

God is omnipotent, meaning all powerful. He can do anything that is within His nature to do. He does not go against His nature, and He does not go against His Word.

Acts 17:22-25 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.
23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.
24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;

Catholics, I perceive, are in all things too superstitious.
God that made the world and all things therein seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth dwells NOT in wafers made with hands, neither is worshipped by or with those things made with men's hands..
DHK

 

[Littledrummerboy]

DHK,

I think we are equivocating on terms here. To be superstitious is to expect an outcome that is completely illogical in relation to the cause of the event. What I mean is: if my dog barks everytime it lightnings, it would be illogical and superstitious to believe that my dog's barking is what causes the lightning. Likewise, the Greeks built alters to numerous Gods in an ancient "Pascal wager" (the term is anacronistic, but I think we get the point) They were covering their bases by building alters to every "god" of which they had ever heard. Paul was saying "this is unnecessary, you have no need of these alters, give up on your superstition." Catholics, however, believe in the transformation of bread and wine into body and blood not from superstition, but rather from interpretation of holy scripture. It is no more superstitious than prayer.

Pax Christi,

Stephen

 

[DHK]

It is not the teaching of the Bible, and never was. Just like your teaching on baptism both of these doctrines are based on pure supersition and nothing more.
Your belief in baptism is nothing short of the Hindu belief in dipping themselves in the Ganges River, where they think that the waters of that sacred river will make them holy by washing away their sin. Your belief in baptism is exactly the same--superstitious. You believe that the waters of baptism will wash away your sin. That is the exact way that any Catholic will interpret John 3:5. A man is born again through baptism. True?

When Jesus looked into the eyes of His disciples and said:
Matthew 26:26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
Did he actually mean take a hunk of my body and eat it? Was he being so literal that he was being cannibalistic? What was he presenting them with? He gave them bread. In front of them was bread. He offered them bread. He referred to the bread. He commanded them to eat the bread, not his actual body. And then in a metaphor he said this is my body. For my sake I am glad that there are some people that are intellectual enough to recognize a symbol or a metaphor in the bible. Jesus was not cannibalistic. He does not work against His nature. He was the Bread of Life, and using the bread in a symbolic way to represent Him as the Bread of Life, as he had previously done in his own ministry. His disciples had already heard him use this imagery and were familiar with it. For you to take this passage and twist it unto your own destruction (as Peter says--2Pet.3:16), is unfathomable. Christ does not do that which is against his nature, nor against his word. You would have him do so.
DHK

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by Ps104_33:
When you say "they", who are the "they" that you are talking about and how do you know that "they" were correct in their decision as to which books to allow in the canon of Scripture?
Are you not using your private judgement in deciding that "they" made an infallible decision? Wouldnt that make yourself infallible? You will use texts like "Thou art Peter" to prove the Roman Catholic churches infallibility, then use the churches infallibility to prove that you are properly interpreting the said scripture correctly. Its an arguement in a circle.

Are you doubting the correctness of the canon of Scripture? If so, which canon are you doubting - the one with or without the Apocrypha?And on what basis and what authority?

Yours in Christ

Matt

[Edited for spelnig and carp tryping]

 

[Pastor Larry]

The Catholic Church was founded at the end of Christ's ministry on earth, or about 29-30 A.D..

HEre is the first error. The Catholic church as we know it today was not founded at this time. The church founded at Pentecost was orthodox in every way. The RCC has long since departed from that. The RCC of today bears no real connection to the first century church. This often gets overlooked in the historical revisionism.

The Catholic Church could not possibly have come from the Bible. Instead, the Bible came from the Catholic Church.

Here is a second error. The church was founded on the truth contained in the Scriptures. That truth was written down over time and preserved for us. The church council did not determine which books were in the canon; they simply recognized the inspired Scripture.

 

[Littledrummerboy]

DHK,

Once again we are talking about interpretation, which without historical consensus comes down to nothing more than one's claming that the other is reading the Bible wrong. You gave me a verse, and then told me that I was reading it wrong...can't you see you are actually proving my point (for which I thank you)? What you call superstition, I call faith in God's power and promise, and I do not think we will reach consensus on this.

Pastor Larry,

I agree with you! The church did recognize inspired scripture through the power of the Holy Spirit, that is what we call tradition: the aiding of the Holy Spirit in determining ecclesiastical matters. That being said, not all holy doctrine is contained soley within the Bible, it is also contained in the writings of holy men who were too guided by the Holy Spirit. As for your revisionism theory, yes the RCC has evolved over time, just as God's revelation to us has. The RCC maintains that the New Testament Church was not to remain stagnant in her doctrine, but to change as God directed her. This is how we can still claim to be the New Testament Church. It is anachronistic to call any church the New Testament Church, in that the world is a different place with different needs to which God, through the 2nd and 3rd persons of the trinity must address, but in following with the guidence of the Holy Spirit as revealed through history, and the Apostolic succession of priests, I think the RCC and Eastern Orthodox are the closest thing we have going.

Pax Christi,

Stephen

 

[Littledrummerboy]

Matt,

I was shocked when I originally read that, and asked a similar question. I was not aware that this question was actually up for debate.

Pax Christi,

Stephen

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
The church was founded on the truth contained in the Scriptures. That truth was written down over time and preserved for us. The church council did not determine which books were in the canon; they simply recognized the inspired Scripture.

But the church existed before the Scriptures we have today existed in their present form - none of the NT had been written, still less the canon determined. Therefore, the answer to the 'chicked and egg' question here is plain: the church came first

Yours in Christ

Matt