Biblical Authority

[Zao is life]

Jesus didn't write a book to spread His truths. He founded a Church to do so. The Church founded by Christ, the Catholic Church, preceded the New Testament.

As everyone knows, Jesus Himself didn't write the book - but the apostles whom Jesus appointed to spread His truths wrote gospels and epistles and the Revelation which became the library (Bible) of New Testament books we know today.

It wasn't necessary for "new" Old Testament books to be written because all those in the Jewish Canon plus the Apocrypha not in the Canon had already been written by prophets and scribes.

Those O.T books were as necessary as the New Testament because of all the man-made interpretations and theology that the Catholics sorry the Pharisees added to scripture which were based on some truth, but mixed with much misinterpretation of scripture and purely man-made religious ideas which the Catholics sorry Pharisees claimed the authority to do, and the sole authority to do.

The apostles appointed by Jesus to spread His truth wrote Matthew and John (and according to The Church Mark wrote down what Peter was relating). They also wrote all the epistles, and the Revelation - all of which contain Christ's doctrine.

The books contain the Apostles' doctrine and hence, Christ's doctrine because the 12 apostles were appointed BY HIM, and whatever doctrine is contrary to the doctrine they established and is recorded in the books they wrote, is man's doctrine - the doctrine of the Pharisees sorry The Church, and not God's.

Sorry friend but the apostles whom Jesus appointed to spread His truth were not called "Catholics".

They were Jewish believers in Jesus, and from very early on were called Christians by the Romans (not "Catholic").

The word "catholic" simply means "universal" i.e people of all nations, tribes and tongues are believers in Jesus a.k.a Christians - so Baptists and all Protestants are part of the catholic body of Christ and all Protestant and Reformed churches, together with the one calling itself "The Catholic Church" are under the authority of Christ and ALL His apostles and hence, under the authority of the New Testament scriptures the apostles wrote - no matter how enraged or filled with jealous anger that may make Catholics or Baptists or Anglicans or anyone else who fancies exalting himself.

Any group which states "we are the original and the only true catholic church" is plain and simply making a false claim and in my honest opinion it smacks of a cult - because all cults make that same claim.

The church Jesus founded to spread His truth originally consisted of 12 and they were not "Catholic" and did not label themselves. They simply believed, and the only label that they gave to each church that they established is the name of the city where that local congregation had been established (not "Catholic").

IMO you're just manipulating words to invent or change history but you're living in a dream world when you invent history like you did in your statement.

 

[Augustin56]

How can you say that the Catholic church preceded Moses, who wrote the first five books; the prophets, who wrote the rest of the Old Testament; and the Apostles, who wrote the New Testament?

I believe that every interpretation outside the Bible must be measured by the Bible, including all Christian traditions. Otherwise, we can set traditions up as authoritative, even if they differ from the Bible.

Bruce, the Bible as we know it, Old Testament + New Testament, didn't exist until the late 4th century. The Church founded by Christ wrote the New Testament, but it took years after Christ ascended to heaven. And even then, the New Testament wasn't decided until the late 4th century. Before the New Testament was written, Christ's Church existed. The Apostles didn't sit down and start writing as soon as Jesus rose to heaven. LOL The emphesis on reading and writing really wasn't a thing until 1800 or so years later. Most people, by far, were illiterate. It was only after the Industrial Revolution that mankind began to have any interest in universal literacy. So, most of the work of the Apostles and their successors took place orally.

 

[Augustin56]

As everyone knows, Jesus Himself didn't write the book - but the apostles whom Jesus appointed to spread His truths wrote gospels and epistles and the Revelation which became the library (Bible) of New Testament books we know today.

It wasn't necessary for "new" Old Testament books to be written because all those in the Jewish Canon plus the Apocrypha not in the Canon had already been written by prophets and scribes.

Those O.T books were as necessary as the New Testament because of all the man-made interpretations and theology that the Catholics sorry the Pharisees added to scripture which were based on some truth, but mixed with much misinterpretation of scripture and purely man-made religious ideas which the Catholics sorry Pharisees claimed the authority to do, and the sole authority to do.

The apostles appointed by Jesus to spread His truth wrote Matthew and John (and according to The Church Mark wrote down what Peter was relating). They also wrote all the epistles, and the Revelation - all of which contain Christ's doctrine.

The books contain the Apostles' doctrine and hence, Christ's doctrine because the 12 apostles were appointed BY HIM, and whatever doctrine is contrary to the doctrine they established and is recorded in the books they wrote, is man's doctrine - the doctrine of the Pharisees sorry The Church, and not God's.

Sorry friend but the apostles whom Jesus appointed to spread His truth were not called "Catholics".

They were Jewish believers in Jesus, and from very early on were called Christians by the Romans (not "Catholic").

The word "catholic" simply means "universal" i.e people of all nations, tribes and tongues are believers in Jesus a.k.a Christians - so Baptists and all Protestants are part of the catholic body of Christ and all Protestant and Reformed churches, together with the one calling itself "The Catholic Church" are under the authority of Christ and ALL His apostles and hence, under the authority of the New Testament scriptures the apostles wrote - no matter how enraged or filled with jealous anger that may make Catholics or Baptists or Anglicans or anyone else who fancies exalting himself.

Any group which states "we are the original and the only true catholic church" is plain and simply making a false claim and in my honest opinion it smacks of a cult - because all cults make that same claim.

The church Jesus founded to spread His truth originally consisted of 12 and they were not "Catholic" and did not label themselves. They simply believed, and the only label that they gave to each church that they established is the name of the city where that local congregation had been established (not "Catholic").

IMO you're just manipulating words to invent or change history but you're living in a dream world when you invent history like you did in your statement.

Well, I'm very well versed in history. There was but ONE Church for the first 1000 years of Christianity, the Catholic Church. The Orthodox splintered off in 1054 A.D. during the Great Schism and Protestantism didn't start until the 16th century, and has been continually splintering into literally tens of thousands of man-made, doctrinally contradicting/disagreeing denominations ever since. Why? Because they believe every man, woman, and child has the right to pervert the Scriprures through personal interpretation which Scripture nixes. St. Peter, in 2 Peter 1:20 says, "Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation"

The Catholic Church is the original Church founded by Christ. St. Ignatius of Antioch, the bishop of Antioch ordained by St. Peter, was captured by the Romans. While they were transporting him to be martyred for the faith, he wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans around 107-110 A.D., referring to the "Catholic Church," not in such a manner as if he were coining the term, but in such a manner in which he fully expected the Smyrnaeans to understand what he was talking about. It says in paragraph 8, "Where the bishop is present, there let the congregation gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
See the entire letter here: https://www.orderofstignatius.org/files/Letters/Ignatius_to_Smyrnaeans.pdf

The Apostles didn't sit down and start writing as soon as Jesus rose from the dead. It took years. Jesus' Church wasn't a reading and self-interpreting Church, but a teaching and preaching Church, in the begiinning. It was done orally, which makes sense because the vast majority of mankind was illiterate. It wasn't until the 1800's that mankind began to take some interest in universal literacy, and even that took time. Looking at the Church through the eyes of Jesus and the Apostles, reading and writing wasn't their go-to method of communicating. It was oral.

 

[Zao is life]

Well, I'm very well versed in history.

IMO it's obvious that you are not, based on your very next statement, which you base the rest of your false thesis on:

There was but ONE Church for the first 1000 years of Christianity, the Catholic Church.

Nope. There was the church at Corinth, the church in Ephesus, the church in Galatia, the church in Rome, and before 70 AD there was also the church in Jerusalem,

etc etc. The word "catholic" is what defined them, not what their handle was.

All were part of the catholic (universal) body of Christ, but not one called themselves by that label until the church at Rome started that practice. There was serious disagreement between the Jerusalem church and the others that had been established by Paul regarding the law, and there was also disagreement between the church in Egypt (Alexandria) and Rome regarding other things, and disagreement between the Eastern or Greek churches and Rome (which eventually led to the schism),

etc etc.

But there was only one catholic (universal) body of Christ - and there is still only one catholic body of Christ today - made up of Baptist Christians, Presbyterian Christians, Coptic Christians, Eastern Orthodox as well as Greek Orthodox Christians, and of course, those calling themselves by the label "Catholic" Christians, etc etc.

It does not matter how long it took for the apostles to write down what they wrote. The fact of the matter is what they wrote is a record of their doctrine and hence, the doctrine of Christ who appointed them to spread his truth and establish orthodox Christian doctrine (orthodox in the sense of not being heretical)

i.e the apostles' doctrine established by the apostles who established the churches, not the doctrine "of the churches" that they established, and not the doctrine of "The Catholic Church" as though there was only one church established in one place.

You are trying to get history to agree with the absurd notion that "the church established the church", because that's the "history" you are claiming.

Sorry but the apostles established the churches (plural), none of which were called by the label "Catholic" but all of which were defined by the word catholic because it means universal i.e all nations, tribes and tongues - and the apostles who established the churches established the doctrine in the churches they established,

and their doctrine is recorded in their writings, which is what we know as the New Testament.

The Orthodox splintered off in 1054 A.D. during the Great Schism and Protestantism didn't start until the 16th century, and has been continually splintering into literally tens of thousands of man-made, doctrinally contradicting/disagreeing denominations ever since. Why? Because they believe every man, woman, and child has the right to pervert the Scriprures through personal interpretation which Scripture nixes. St. Peter, in 2 Peter 1:20 says, "Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation"

The Catholic Church is the original Church founded by Christ. St. Ignatius of Antioch, the bishop of Antioch ordained by St. Peter, was captured by the Romans. While they were transporting him to be martyred for the faith, he wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans around 107-110 A.D., referring to the "Catholic Church," not in such a manner as if he were coining the term, but in such a manner in which he fully expected the Smyrnaeans to understand what he was talking about. It says in paragraph 8, "Where the bishop is present, there let the congregation gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
See the entire letter here: https://www.orderofstignatius.org/files/Letters/Ignatius_to_Smyrnaeans.pdf

The Apostles didn't sit down and start writing as soon as Jesus rose from the dead. It took years. Jesus' Church wasn't a reading and self-interpreting Church, but a teaching and preaching Church, in the begiinning. It was done orally, which makes sense because the vast majority of mankind was illiterate. It wasn't until the 1800's that mankind began to take some interest in universal literacy, and even that took time. Looking at the Church through the eyes of Jesus and the Apostles, reading and writing wasn't their go-to method of communicating. It was oral.

 

[Augustin56]

IMO it's obvious that you are not, based on your very next statement, which you base the rest of your false thesis on:

Nope. There was the church at Corinth, the church in Ephesus, the church in Galatia, the church in Rome, and before 70 AD there was also the church in Jerusalem,

etc etc. The word "catholic" is what defined them, not what their handle was.

All were part of the catholic (universal) body of Christ, but not one called themselves by that label. There was serious disagreement between the Jerusalem church and the others that had been established by Paul regarding the law, and there was also disagreement between the church in Egypt (Alexandria) and Rome regarding other things, and disagreement between the Eastern or Greek churches and Rome (which eventually led to the schism),

etc etc.

But there was only one catholic (universal) body of Christ - and there is still only one catholic body of Christ today - made up of Baptist Christians, Presbyterian Christians, Coptic Christians, Eastern Orthodox as well as Greek Orthodox Christians, and of course, those calling themselves by the label "Catholic" Christians, etc etc.

It does not matter how long it took for the apostles to write down what they wrote. The fact of the matter is what they wrote is a record of their doctrine and hence, the doctrine of Christ who appointed them to spread his truth and establish orthodox Christian doctrine (orthodox in the sense of not being heretical) - the apostles' doctrine established by the apostles who established the churches, not the doctrine of the churches they established, and not the doctrine of "the church" as though there was only one church established in one place.

You are trying to get history to agree with the absurd notion that "the church established the church", because that's the "history" you are claiming.

Sorry but the apostles established the churches (plural), none of which were called by the label "Catholic" but all of which were defined by the word catholic because it means universal i.e all nations, tribes and tongues - and the apostles who established the churches established the doctrine in the churches they established,

and their doctrine is recorded in their writings, which is what we know as the New Testament.

Zao, I'm not impressed. Let me help you out here. The church at Corinth, the church in Ephesus, the church in Galatia, the church in Rome, etc, were all LOCATIONS of churches WITHIN the Catholic Church. They were ALL Catholic. Every one of them. There were no denominations, and certainly no Protestants for 16 centuries. Do a little objective research, if you are able. Don't take my word for it. Even well known Protestant historians agree that the Catholic Church was the only Church at the beginning. For example, J.N.D. Kelly, a well known early Church historian. He's Protestant.

You can't just try to invent the wheel by yourself. It doesn't work.

 

[Zao is life]

Zao, I'm not impressed. Let me help you out here. The church at Corinth, the church in Ephesus, the church in Galatia, the church in Rome, etc, were all LOCATIONS of churches WITHIN the Catholic Church. They were ALL Catholic. Every one of them.

I'm not impressed with your defining of the word catholic either. Catholic is what defined them - one universal body of Christ. Catholic was not their label. The Roman church adopted that handle at some point.

The churches did not establish doctrine because the churches did not establish themselves.

Your thesis requires for the doctrine established by the apostles whom Christ appointed to spread His truth in the churches they established which are defined as catholic, to have been established by the churches as though they had established themselves.

There were disagreements which did not result in schisms and what we today know as denominations and the reason why that was the case was because for example the Bishops of the Orthodox church simply did not acknowledge the Roman church's claims and..

as everyone can see ..

nothing has changed - because the disagreements that made "denominations" existed from the 2nd century onward.

Read "A history of Christianity" by Paul Johnson so you can brush up on the historical fact of all the denominational type of doctrinal disagreement that existed from the earliest post-apostolic times.

The word "denominations" is simply another way of saying "do not follow the doctrine of the church that began at Rome and adopted for themselves the handle "Catholic" - the church which now claims only it can be called part of the one catholic body of Christ.

You can't just try to invent the wheel by yourself. It doesn't work.

It's good you realize that because that's what you are doing - but it's been done for over 1,800 years by the church at Rome so there is nothing new under the sun.

 

[Augustin56]

I'm not impressed with your defining of the word catholic either. Catholic is what defined them - one universal body of Christ. Catholic was not their label. The Roman church adopted that handle at some point.

The churches did not establish doctrine because the churches did not establish themselves.

Your thesis requires for the doctrine established by the apostles whom Christ appointed to spread His truth in the churches they established which are defined as catholic, to have been established by the churches as though they had established themselves.

There were disagreements which did not result in schisms and what we today know as denominations and the reason why that was the case was because for example the Bishops of the Orthodox church simply did not acknowledge the Roman church's claims and..

as everyone can see ..

nothing has changed - because the disagreements that made "denominations" existed from the 2nd century onward.

Read "A history of Christianity" by Paul Johnson so you can brush up on the historical fact of all the denominational type of doctrinal disagreement that existed from the earliest post-apostolic times.

The word "denominations" is simply another way of saying "do not follow the doctrine of the church that began at Rome and adopted for themselves the handle "Catholic" and now claim only they can be called part of the one catholic body of Christ.


It's good you realize that because that's what you are doing - but it's been done for over 1,800 years by the church at Rome so there is nothing new under the sun.

Christ established one Church. There were NO OTHER Christian chuches at the beginning.
St. Ignatius of Antioch, the bishop of Antioch ordained by St. Peter, was captured by the Romans. While they were transporting him to be martyred for the faith, he wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans around 107-110 A.D., referring to the "Catholic Church," not in such a manner as if he were coining the term, but in such a manner in which he fully expected the Smyrnaeans to understand what he was talking about.
It says in paragraph 8, "Where the bishop is present, there let the congregation gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
See the entire letter here: https://www.orderofstignatius.org/files/Letters/Ignatius_to_Smyrnaeans.pdf

The disagreements didn't create NEW churches and certainly not denominations. The disagreements were WITHIN the Catholic Church. Heresies sprung up almost from the beginning, but the Church fixed them. No one started a new church over the disagreements. That's more a Protestant thing. (Orthodox splintered, too, but retained Apostolic Succession, and, therefore, all seven Sacraments. Protestants lost Apostolic Succession and, therefore only have two Sacraments.)

I don't have the time or energy to write you a dissertation on all this. I would suggest you find a reputable college that teaches history objectively, but at this point in our country, I don't know where that would be. Marxists have taken over the educational system as well as the media and a major political party. Marxism is from Satan. Students are no longer being taught how to think. They're being indoctrinated into what to think and "how to feel about it." I'm glad I'm retired and on the way out!

 

[Brakelite]

Well, the Bible is certainly inspired by God, but it is a tool of His Mystical Body, the Church. The Church wrote and compiled the Bible, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It it the Church which is the authentic interpreter of Scripture. And the Church wrote the New Testament from Holy Tradition, i.e. Oral Tradition (teachings) that Christ gave the Apostles. See 2 Thes 2;15, where St. Paul puts Oral Tradition on an equal footing with written Tradition (Scripture).

In other words, you believe the church has ultimate authority over and above the inspired word of God. Which explains completely why your church believed it had the power to change even God's own written commandments.

 

[Zao is life]

Christ established one Church. There were NO OTHER Christian chuches at the beginning.

How many Christian congregations were there that were established by the apostles in many cities around the Roman Empire?

Catholic

Were they all defined as one catholic (universal) body of Christ?

The answer is, Yes. They were.

Is the word catholic a definition or a title?

It's a definition.

Did the Jerusalem congregation agree with all the others, and with Paul? Later on, did the church at Alexandria in Egypt agree with all doctrine taught by the church at Rome?

The answer is, No.

Did the Greek churches and Eastern churches who today call themselves by the title "Orthodox" agree in all aspects of doctrine with the church at Rome?

The answer is, no. There were disagreements which eventually led to the schism you spoke of.

Orthodox

Does the word "orthodox" not define doctrine?

The answer is Yes, it does.

Did the church that calls itself Orthodox turn the definition into a title that it calls itself by?

The answer is Yes, and the church that calls itself by the title "Catholic" did the same - they took the definition of the body of Christ/the church and its congregations (plural) as a catholic body of Christ and turned it into a title they gave themselves.

Does the Greek Church use the definition "orthodox" to claim their theology is always orthodox wherever there is disagreement between their theology and apostolic succession claims, and that of the church that began at Rome, thinking they can do so because they took a definition (orthodox) and turned it into a title for themselves?

The answer is, Yes, they do. And the church that turned the definition of catholic into a title they adopted for themselves does the same.

Does the definition "orthodox" apply to all the theology and doctrines taught by any Christian organized body of congregations just because the organized body claims its doctrines and theology are all orthodox?

The answer is, No. Not even if they give themselves the title "Orthodox".

Likewise for the definition "catholic" - except that no one can take away the definition from any congregation in Christ. Only Christ can take away that definition - figuratively speaking removing their lamp-stand.

Were the various congregations in the various cities of the Roman Empire not all still part of the catholic body of Christ after the schism you spoke of?

The answer is, of course they were all still part of the one catholic (universal) body of Christ.

The same goes for after the Protestant and Reformation movements led to a schism between The Vatican's church and those who broke away from the Vatican - all of them (Greek Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, Messianic Jewish, Baptist, Anglican etc etc) - all are still part of the one catholic body of Christ.

"There is one body and one Spirit, even as you are called in one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in you all." (Ephesians 4:4-6).

It is not the church that asserts that all its doctrine is orthodox (by adopting the title Orthodox for itself) that is "in all" who believe in Christ - it is the Holy Spirit who is in all.

It is likewise not the church that calls itself by the title Catholic that is "in all" who are part of the one catholic body of Christ - it is the Holy Spirit who is in all.

Likewise it is not the Baptist or Anglican or any other one of the thousands of names and titles that is in all of those who are part of the one catholic body of Christ - it is the Holy Spirit.

It is not the one catholic body of Christ comprised of many churches "of whom are all things, by whom are all things, and which is above all and through all and in us all" - it is God the Father and the Holy Spirit. It is Christ Himself.

You and me and everyone else besides can argue about history all we like. It does not change the fact that all who are in Christ are part of the one body of Christ that is defined as catholic (universal) and not one of them can claim that all its doctrine and theology is orthodox just because they assert it is - not even the one who gave itself the title "Orthodox" (because the word is a definition referring to doctrine and theology), and not one of them can claim that they are the only catholic body - not even the one which gave itself the title "Catholic" (because the word is a definition referring to the universal nature of the body of Christ).

St. Ignatius of Antioch, the bishop of Antioch ordained by St. Peter, was captured by the Romans. While they were transporting him to be martyred for the faith, he wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans around 107-110 A.D., referring to the "Catholic Church," not in such a manner as if he were coining the term, but in such a manner in which he fully expected the Smyrnaeans to understand what he was talking about.
It says in paragraph 8, "Where the bishop is present, there let the congregation gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
See the entire letter here: https://www.orderofstignatius.org/files/Letters/Ignatius_to_Smyrnaeans.pdf

The disagreements didn't create NEW churches and certainly not denominations. The disagreements were WITHIN the Catholic Church. Heresies sprung up almost from the beginning, but the Church fixed them. No one started a new church over the disagreements. That's more a Protestant thing. (Orthodox splintered, too, but retained Apostolic Succession, and, therefore, all seven Sacraments. Protestants lost Apostolic Succession and, therefore only have two Sacraments.)

I don't have the time or energy to write you a dissertation on all this. I would suggest you find a reputable college that teaches history objectively, but at this point in our country, I don't know where that would be. Marxists have taken over the educational system as well as the media and a major political party. Marxism is from Satan. Students are no longer being taught how to think. They're being indoctrinated into what to think and "how to feel about it." I'm glad I'm retired and on the way out!

 

[Bruce-Leiter]

As everyone knows, Jesus Himself didn't write the book - but the apostles whom Jesus appointed to spread His truths wrote gospels and epistles and the Revelation which became the library (Bible) of New Testament books we know today.

It wasn't necessary for "new" Old Testament books to be written because all those in the Jewish Canon plus the Apocrypha not in the Canon had already been written by prophets and scribes.

Those O.T books were as necessary as the New Testament because of all the man-made interpretations and theology that the Catholics sorry the Pharisees added to scripture which were based on some truth, but mixed with much misinterpretation of scripture and purely man-made religious ideas which the Catholics sorry Pharisees claimed the authority to do, and the sole authority to do.

The apostles appointed by Jesus to spread His truth wrote Matthew and John (and according to The Church Mark wrote down what Peter was relating). They also wrote all the epistles, and the Revelation - all of which contain Christ's doctrine.

The books contain the Apostles' doctrine and hence, Christ's doctrine because the 12 apostles were appointed BY HIM, and whatever doctrine is contrary to the doctrine they established and is recorded in the books they wrote, is man's doctrine - the doctrine of the Pharisees sorry The Church, and not God's.

Sorry friend but the apostles whom Jesus appointed to spread His truth were not called "Catholics".

They were Jewish believers in Jesus, and from very early on were called Christians by the Romans (not "Catholic").

The word "catholic" simply means "universal" i.e people of all nations, tribes and tongues are believers in Jesus a.k.a Christians - so Baptists and all Protestants are part of the catholic body of Christ and all Protestant and Reformed churches, together with the one calling itself "The Catholic Church" are under the authority of Christ and ALL His apostles and hence, under the authority of the New Testament scriptures the apostles wrote - no matter how enraged or filled with jealous anger that may make Catholics or Baptists or Anglicans or anyone else who fancies exalting himself.

Any group which states "we are the original and the only true catholic church" is plain and simply making a false claim and in my honest opinion it smacks of a cult - because all cults make that same claim.

The church Jesus founded to spread His truth originally consisted of 12 and they were not "Catholic" and did not label themselves. They simply believed, and the only label that they gave to each church that they established is the name of the city where that local congregation had been established (not "Catholic").

IMO you're just manipulating words to invent or change history but you're living in a dream world when you invent history like you did in your statement.

I agree with you mostly. However, Jesus did "write" the whole Bible by being the Agent through whom the Father inspired all of it by the Spirit's power as the ONE Inspirer of it. He also guided the assembling of it according to the criteria he gave believers, who, nevertheless, are all fallible people, whom God used to give us his Word, which is the only basis for our faith.

 

[Augustin56]

In other words, you believe the church has ultimate authority over and above the inspired word of God. Which explains completely why your church believed it had the power to change even God's own written commandments.

Strictly speaking, the Word of God is not a book. It is Jesus Christ. The Gospel of John begins with, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John is speaking of Jesus Christ here, not a book. The book was compiled by the Catholic Church, in case you didn't know. The Old Testament preceded the Church and the Church preceded and wrote the New Testament. It did so under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the authority of Jesus Christ.

 

[GodsGrace]

Bruce, the Bible as we know it, Old Testament + New Testament, didn't exist until the late 4th century. The Church founded by Christ wrote the New Testament, but it took years after Christ ascended to heaven. And even then, the New Testament wasn't decided until the late 4th century. Before the New Testament was written, Christ's Church existed. The Apostles didn't sit down and start writing as soon as Jesus rose to heaven. LOL The emphesis on reading and writing really wasn't a thing until 1800 or so years later. Most people, by far, were illiterate. It was only after the Industrial Revolution that mankind began to have any interest in universal literacy. So, most of the work of the Apostles and their successors took place orally.

A, I'm sorry I wasn't following your convo with @Zao is life

What do you mean that the OT didn't exist till the 4th century?

 

[Augustin56]

A, I'm sorry I wasn't following your convo with @Zao is life

What do you mean that the OT didn't exist till the 4th century?

The OT did exist in the 4th century, but the Bible (OT + NT) didn't exist under one cover until the late 4th century. The NT also didn't exist under one cover until the late 4th century and was not formally considered Scripture until then. Some books (Gospels) were unofficially considered Scripture before then, and some were in doubt including some that few had ever heard of.

 

[GodsGrace]

Matthew, Mark and Luke all record the Olivet Discourse. Maybe it wasnt in Matthew at all but in Luke when we compare it to Matthew. Matthew 24, and Luke 21. Luke 21 it almost word for word what Matthew 24 says but not all of it. Luke's rendition includes something that Matthew 24 doesnt say. So let's comapre them. In Matthew 24 it says,

Matthew 24:7-8
7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.

8 All these are the beginning of sorrows..../KJV

So we pick it up at the same place in Luke!

Luke 21:10-12
10 Then said he unto them, Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom:

11 And great earthquakes shall be in divers places, and famines, and pestilences; and fearful sights and great signs shall there be from heaven.

12 But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name's sake..../KJV

But you see you verse 12? Jesus jump backwards and backtracks, but before all that He tells them!..you see? He basically changed the subject to go to another of the questions that they asked. Jesus didnt answer those questions they asked Him chronologically.

Read through Luke 21 and 22.
Jesus is speaking about the destruction of Jerusalem and, at the same time,
the end of the world.
Right. In verse 12 of chapter 21, He says BUT BEFORE ALL THESE THINGS...
Also verse 24 speaks of the time of the Gentiles being fulfilled - which is still not yet.

Also verse 9 states that THESE THINGS MUST TAKE PLACE FIRST, BUT THE END DOES NOT FOLLOW IMMEDIATELY.

Now, I must admit that eschatology does not interest me too much,
but I'm always happy to learn something.

 

[GodsGrace]

The OT did exist in the 4th century, but the Bible (OT + NT) didn't exist under one cover until the late 4th century. The NT also didn't exist under one cover until the late 4th century and was not formally considered Scripture until then. Some books (Gospels) were unofficially considered Scripture before then, and some were in doubt including some that few had ever heard of.

Right. Didn't catch that.
Thanks.

 

[GodsGrace]

The way I read it:
Verses 1&2- the historical setting.
Verse 3 is the three questions.
Verses 4-6 General chracterisitcs of the church age.
Verses 7&8 The sign of the end of the age.
Verses 9-28 are about the Great Tribulation. (9-14 the first half/15-28 senond half)
V 29& 30 The sign of the 2nd coming of Jesus.
V 31 The regathering of Israel.
V 32-35 The parable of the Fig tree.

Up until this, Matthew has been chronological. Where he deviates is verse 32 and Jesus begins adding things because He has been talking about the end of the age and what will happen but now He is talking about Israel so that we know we are the final generation then goes on to talk about the rapture.

Verses 36-42 ia talkig about the Rapture.

And so this is where Matthew deviates from chronoogical order. It is over in Luke 21 that you get to hear....But before that...at this point. Mathhew doesnt say it. Luke is probably a more accurate account of Jesus message that day because it lets you see where Jesus started adding stuff and was backtracking saying but this will be first...

And the reason that we know that the Rapture is pre trib, is that the Rapture is imminent. t could happen at any moment. No one one knows when and no prophetic event must precede it from happening....!

Matthew 24:44
44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh..../KJV
So it has to be pre trib because when the 7 year treaty is signed we can count the days until Jesus comes! No so with the rapture.

MA, I think I was reading Luke in my post before this but mentioned Matthew.

No matter, it's practically identical.

I agree with you that there are different topics here and certainly I'm not an expert at this,
but I see that there are two different conversations going on with Jesus and they don't seem to be perfectly
separated...
One is the destruction of Jerusalem
One is the end times.

Yes. Verse 36 and on is speaking to the end times when the world will end.

As to the rapture, I hesitate to get into this conversation, but I see only ONE coming of Jesus -- at the end of the world.
The persons being taken are those persons that are being persecuted by, for instance, the Romans. The taken are the UNFORTUNATE ones because they will be persecuted.

But this gets the end mixed up with the destruction of Jerusalem.

I just don't read about Jesus coming back twice:
once to get saved persons out --- which would be the rapture,
and another time to end the world.

Verses 36-39 is speaking about life going on as always, but the end was coming.
So this is speaking about the END....not the rapture...
??

 

[Bruce-Leiter]

Bruce, the Bible as we know it, Old Testament + New Testament, didn't exist until the late 4th century. The Church founded by Christ wrote the New Testament, but it took years after Christ ascended to heaven. And even then, the New Testament wasn't decided until the late 4th century. Before the New Testament was written, Christ's Church existed. The Apostles didn't sit down and start writing as soon as Jesus rose to heaven. LOL The emphesis on reading and writing really wasn't a thing until 1800 or so years later. Most people, by far, were illiterate. It was only after the Industrial Revolution that mankind began to have any interest in universal literacy. So, most of the work of the Apostles and their successors took place orally.

So, what's your point? No matter how it came about, it still is the authoritative Word of God, as 2 Timothy 3:16 and 17 as well as 2 Peter 1 attest to.

 

[JohnDB]

Strictly speaking, the Word of God is not a book. It is Jesus Christ. The Gospel of John begins with, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John is speaking of Jesus Christ here, not a book. The book was compiled by the Catholic Church, in case you didn't know. The Old Testament preceded the Church and the Church preceded and wrote the New Testament. It did so under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the authority of Jesus Christ.

John 1:14. The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among men.

Jesus is the very embodiment or manifestation of God's word.

Sorry but I'm not going to differ on this and claim that man or the church has authority over scriptures.

 

[Athanasius377]

The church has zero authority over the Word of God.
OK
So is OSAS a correct teaching or not?

The first statement is true. That is called sola Scriptura meaning there is no higher authority than the God breathed scripture. That is not to say that the church doesn’t have authority, as it certainly does. That is not to say that tradition is not an authority as the Lutheran reformer Martin Chemnitz in his work, “Examination of the Council of Trent” observed. Chemnitz observes there are seven types of tradition that can be followed yet only six can be done so without without violating the commands of Scripture. Read vol 1 of the examination to hear what Chemnitz explains on the matter. Yet Jesus followed tradition by observing Hanukah and going to Synagogue. However Jesus also ripped the Pharisees for traditions that contradicted the Scriptures like the corban rule and the washing of the hands. Chemnitz picks up on this and condemns said traditions. And, I would add, condemns Rome as modern Pharisees for the same. I have to agree.

 

[Augustin56]

John 1:14. The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among men.

Jesus is the very embodiment or manifestation of God's word.

Sorry but I'm not going to differ on this and claim that man or the church has authority over scriptures.

John, I suspect you don't fully understand authority. Athority is given, not taken. Jesus gave His authority to the Apostles who gave that authority to their successors, the bishops, who have done likewise for 2000 years now.

Just to pick one example, let's look at John 20:21. Jesus is appearing to the Apostles in the upper room. He says to them, "...As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” Well, how did the Father send Jesus? With ALL heavenly authority! Jesus is delegating His heavenly authority to the Apostles! Let's read a little further, in John 20:22-23. And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.” Only two times in all Scripture, did God "breathe" on man. Once when He created Adam (Genesis) and once here. Period. Then, Jesus tells the Apostles that THEY have His heavenly authority to forgive sins! This is where the Sacrament of Confession comes from.

But there are other examples in Scripture where Jesus delegates His heavenly authority to the first heirarchy of His Church, the Apostles. It is not by the power of the individuals with the authority. It is not something they take, like Protestants who create their own denomination. This is God-given authority.