Compiling of the New Testament

[jriccitelli]

"Why would someone who came into the world 1500 years after Christ suddenly have the correct interpretation of the Bible? (Jon to Apollos, Sat Nov 05)
The 'Bible' has always had the correct interpretation. It is men that are sometimes mistaken. Again the misconception is that the 'Church' was 'Catholic', and that it was the same in the 4th century as it was in the 1st century.

Q. Does it make sense that Christ would found a Church and let them be wrong about major issues of Faith for all that time? (To Apollos, Sat Nov 05)

The Church was founded on His Word, His Word has been true all along. In the beginning the leadership and even its traditions were sincere and true, but ‘over time’ it became institutionalized and ‘eventually’ added the ‘Papacy’ and Pope.
'Catholicism' has added many, many things to what ‘was’ biblical, the addition of a man at the head, and then the office of priests, and then the centralization of the church under the miss application of the word ‘Catholic’ or ‘universal’ the list goes on. (Fri Oct 14)
The ‘Church’ is made of believers, is it not? Believers have always had misconceptions and different degrees of understanding, but it does not take a theologian to be a believer. If someone simply knows ‘Christ Jesus and Him crucified’ he may be a believer. People perish when ‘men’ assume ‘they’ have authority ‘over’ the Scripture and the people. Gods Word is our authority, not the leaders, this is the over stated story, example and foundation of the Old and new testament;

"Now hear this, heads of the house of Jacob And rulers of the house of Israel, Who abhor justice And twist everything that is straight, 10 Who build Zion with bloodshed And Jerusalem with violent injustice.11 Her leaders pronounce judgment for a bribe, Her priests instruct for a price And her prophets divine for money. Yet they lean on the LORD saying, "Is not the LORD in our midst? Calamity will not come upon us." (Micah 3:9)
"The priests did not say, 'Where is the LORD?' And those who handle the law did not know Me; The rulers also transgressed against Me, And the prophets prophesied by Baal And walked after things that did not profit. (Jeremiah 2:8)

God certainly would not have us put our trust in men or human institutions, the Old Testament has established this witness of the mistake of trusting in a hand of flesh. Sadly religious men in robes put Jesus on a cross, even the high priest gave approval to His death. Therefore the priesthood was changed, God Himself became the High Priest by 'offering Himself', no longer would sinful men intercede, for Christ has became our intercessor:
For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; (Hebrews 7:26)

Q. Please tell me who can judge what is a "major doctrine" and what is a "minor doctrine". How are we to judge? (Sat Nov 05)
Jon, you wrote (In your post on Sat. Nov 05) “Does it make sense that Christ would found a Church and let them be wrong about ‘major’ issues of Faith for all that time?”
Are you not saying 'yourself' there is a thing as major issues?

Please don’t feel I am being polemical, or upset, I enjoy a reason, or challenge to search my scriptures daily, and especially on a Sunday morning while waiting for others to get up. This is why I enjoy the forum, anyways, Ciao.

[Jon]

In 1050 when the Orthodox Church split, they stopped recognizing the infallible Pope and changed some beliefs, so when the Orthodox SPLIT by denying the entire Truth, they lost their link to the succession of Bishops in the True Church. Then, the True Church had to revise its name as to be distinct from the heretics. So, the same Church in 397 is the same as what is called the Roman Catholic Church today.

The separate histories of the Eastern and Western branches of the church, and the manner in which Rome had primacy in the earliest centuries in the west is debatable. I have not found clear evidence that Rome ruled the whole church in those early centuries. The doctrine of "the infallible Pope" was not defined until the First Vatican Council of 1870. It is true that early bishops were called "papa" in an affectionate way, but this was not an indicator of primacy.

So in my opinion in my historical reading thus far, the Church of 397 was no closer to being identified with the Roman Catholic Church of today that it is with being identified with the Orthodox Church of today. You say that the Orthodox split off in 1050. The Orthodox say that the Romanists split off in 1050. I say that there was simply a major split in the Catholic Church, and neither branch is justified in saying that it is the "true" Catholic Church any more than the other. However, in my observations of the teachings of both branches, I would say that the Orthodox more closely resembles the Church prior to the split that the Romanist Church.

Paidon,

It's been a long time since your response but I apologize I have been busy with other life happenings. Finally I can respond to your comments.

I say that in 397 both the "Roman Catholic Church" and the "Orthodox Church" were the same Church. In 1050 it seems the Orthodox Church decided to stop believing in the infallibility of the Pope - but you say it was not dogmatically defined until 1870. I'll need to double check my history, but if this wasn't the issue, why the break in 1050? I thought due to issues with the infallibility of the Pop the Orthodox broke from the Roman Catholic Church.

You could argue personally about which one is right, but surely that means that you believe at least one of the two is correct? Or, do you believe they are both in error? Are you Roman Catholic or Orthodox? If neither, what Church have you chosen and how do you justify the choice if that Church has no direct lineage to Christ?

Jon

[jriccitelli]

Direct lineage to Christ?! I didn’t know Jesus had children?
I'm a Baptist, and we can trace our roots right back to John the Baptist.

[darinhouston]

I thought due to issues with the infallibility of the Pop the Orthodox broke from the Roman Catholic Church.

I believe the Orthodox split based on the debate over the filioque clause of the Nicene Creed. (another division within the church based on this doctrinal debate)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque

Question: "What is the filioque clause / filioque controversy?"

Answer: The filioque clause was, and still is, a controversy in the church in relation to the Holy Spirit. The question is, “from whom did the Holy Spirit proceed, the Father, or the Father and the Son?” The word filioque means “and son” in Latin. It is referred to as the “filioque clause” because the phrase “and son” was added to the Nicene Creed, indicating that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father “and Son.” There was so much contention over this issue that it eventually led to the split between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches in A. D. 1054. The two churches are still not in agreement on the filioque clause.

[Paidion]

Overtly, the split concerned the filioque clause, but that the only the "straw that broke the camel's back." Actually, there were many issues prior to that in which the Western and Eastern Church were in disagreement. One issue was the difference in the understanding of the atonement. The Western Church believed in the penal substitution view — that Jesus had to "pay the price" of everyone's sin by dying on the cross, and that his death was a sacrifice to appease the wrath of an angry God. The Protestants of the 16th century, though protesting so many of the Roman Catholics' practices (such as "indulgences") which were a departure from the historic Church, retained the Romanist understanding of the atonement. The Orthodox understanding paralleled the historic "Christus Victor" view, that the atonement was Christ's victory over Satan and evil. They also emphasize Christ's death as a means of delivering people from sin. I fully concur, especially recognizing that Christ's death was a means of delivering people from actual sin. The apostle Paul as well as the apostle Peter both taught that in their epistles.

I am not a member of either Church, nor of a Protestant Church. I meet with other Christians in a local assembly of Christians who gather in the name of Christ alone, as was done in the early church. These assemblies express the one catholic (universal) church which Christ founded. You cannot "join" Christ's church. Rather the Lord Himself adds you to it. (Acts 2:47).

[verbatim]

Paidion wrote:

Overtly, the split concerned the filioque clause, but that the only the "straw that broke the camel's back." Actually, there were many issues prior to that in which the Western and Eastern Church were in disagreement. One issue was the difference in the understanding of the atonement. The Western Church believed in the penal substitution view — that Jesus had to "pay the price" of everyone's sin by dying on the cross, and that his death was a sacrifice to appease the wrath of an angry God. The Protestants of the 16th century, though protesting so many of the Roman Catholics' practices (such as "indulgences") which were a departure from the historic Church, retained the Romanist understanding of the atonement. The Orthodox understanding paralleled the historic "Christus Victor" view, that the atonement was Christ's victory over Satan and evil. They also emphasize Christ's death as a means of delivering people from sin. I fully concur, especially recognizing that Christ's death was a means of delivering people from actual sin. The apostle Paul as well as the apostle Peter both taught that in their epistles.

Well stated, but I distinguish that it is not death of Jesus but hidden within the death of Jesus which therefore is the shedding of his unblemished and unspotted blood which spoke of better things which do the atonement for sins of those who were called. (Heb 12:24)
I also think that Jesus death is not the atonement for man’s sin but by giving or laying his life and death is a process how to express his “agape’ or love to the world which cannot be express by lips.

John 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
Joh 10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
Joh 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

[Jon]

I am not a member of either Church, nor of a Protestant Church. I meet with other Christians in a local assembly of Christians who gather in the name of Christ alone, as was done in the early church. These assemblies express the one catholic (universal) church which Christ founded. You cannot "join" Christ's church. Rather the Lord Himself adds you to it. (Acts 2:47).

Paidon,

How do you know how Christians gathered in the early Church? What Bible references or other references are you using to base your assemblies on?

Who has the power to baptize in your local assembly of Christians?

Why do you choose to believe the Bible is the inspired word of God and accept the list of books that is in it? If you do accept the list of books, formally verified by the Catholic Church in 397, why do you choose to not be part of either Church (Roman Catholic or Orthodox) that was involved in its preservation over the centuries? Do you believe that these Churches have lost their way? If so how do you interpret the passage "the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it"?

You are certainly more well read than I, and have had much more time to study Church history than I, but I find it astonishing that after all that you do not choose the true Church that Christ founded or at least a variant that can trace back to that time. How did you get to where you are today? Do you think there is any chance that you might wake up one day and reconsider your viewpoint?

Jon

[Homer]

Jon wrote:

Who has the power to baptize in your local assembly of Christians?

Any Christian who is able can immerse a person into Christ. God does the actual work; He is the one who adds to the church. The person doing the immersing is about as important as a piece of furniture. The act is between the subject and God. See 1 Peter 3:21 where the act is described as a "pledge" or "answer", etc. directed to God, depending on the translation.

As to who can baptize see Peter's accounts in Acts (both of them) of his visit to the house of Cornelius. Peter ordered them to be immersed. And who did the immersing? Luke described those who accompanied Peter merely as "some disciples".

Does your church immerse anyone? That is what Jesus commanded. That's the problem with your Pope; they claim the authority to change what Christ commanded. Consider what Jesus said about a similar case:

Mark 7:5-9
New International Version (NIV)

5. So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?”

6 He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:

“‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
7 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules.’

8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”

9 And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!

[Paidion]

You have asked many questions, Jon, and I understand that, because of the paradigm which you hold as a Roman Catholic. In the interests of time, and keeping this post relatively short, I will respond to just some of your questions for now, and even these, I have not answered as thoroughly as I would like to:

How do you know how Christians gathered in the early Church?

I know how Christians gathered in the early church from reading the book of Acts, the letters of Paul, and the second century writers.

What Bible references or other references are you using to base your assemblies on?

As for references, I have already quoted Acts 2:47 to show that it is the Lord who adds people to the church, and not the people themselves, who do not have the authority to "join" the Church just because they want to. And now let's consider what Paul wrote in I Corinthians 14:26-22 (This is a quote from the English Standard Version):

What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged, and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.

The practice of the Corinthian church was basically the same as in other churches. Individual disciples were free to minister to each other as the Spirit of God inspired them. One person might give a lesson, another suggest a hymn, or even sing one, another share the revelation which he received from God, another speak by the Spirit in an unknown language, and yet another "interpret" or translate the language by the power of God. Unfortunately, the Corinthian church went too far in this practice. EACH ONE had a lesson, a hymn, a revelation, etc. Each one thought he had to do everything. So Paul attempted to correct these aberrations, by showing that each one should minister as God has inspired him, rather than stepping beyond that by trying to exercise gifts beyond what was given to him. So he showed that there had to be an order in the assembly. If anyone should speak in a "tongue", there should not be more than two or three, and not all at the same time, but in turn, and if no one "interpreted" what they were saying, they should not speak in tongues at all in the church. Paul encouraged them to prophesy one by one in order to encourage and teach others, but not all at the same time. He indicated that if everyone is doing these things at the same time, it is confusion, and God didn't inspire that, for He is a God of peace and of order.

Jon, does your church operate in the Spirit in this way? Can any member stand up and give a lesson? Can anyone suggest a hymn or sing one as the Lord leads? Can anyone share a revelation from God (Does anyone ever receive one?) Does anyone ever speak in an unknown tongue?

I have attended Roman Catholic services a few times. Everyone sits in neat little rows facing the front as if they were an audience, and the Priest does virtually everything, though there might be an appointed reader to read a scriptural passage. Everything has been planned in advance; I saw no evidence of room being given for the Spirit of God to move in the people, and to express Himself through the people.

Who has the power to baptize in your local assembly of Christians?

As Homer said, any true Christian has the authority to baptize. Even in the Roman Catholic Church a "lay person" can baptize in an emergency situation where a priest is not available.

I find it astonishing that after all that [study in Church history] you do not choose the true Church that Christ founded or at least a variant that can trace back to that time.

Does the fact that the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, and the "variants" which can trace their list of bishops back to the apostles, show that any one of them is the "true Church that Christ founded"? The early Church gradually changed both in its theology and its practice throughout the centuries. In my opinion, it had already gone too far off the original after the second century (though it was far closer to the original even in the fourth century than it was in subsequent centuries).

Suppose, Jon, that you had founded a club 30 years ago which became known as "Jon Cares", whose purpose was to help hungry or starving children. You appointed Rock Riley as president of the club, and the club expanded rapidly, and a second chapter was soon needed. Rock appointed a president, in the second chapter, and the club expanded rapidly, with many chapters arising throughout the country. Suppose you do not follow their activities much, but you decide to visit one of the local chapters next month. So you inquire about the location of the chapter, and you go where you are directed, and find a club that meets regularly, holds formal meetings, as well as provides fund-raising suppers, and holds golfing events. They are zealous to enroll new members, and they sometimes do acts of charity such as cleaning the streets of a neighbourhood, or helping with boys' hockey. You inquire whether the club provides for hungry or starving children.

The answer they give you is, "No. But we do many good deeds." Then you ask, "This IS a Jon Cares Club, isn't it?"

"Oh, it certainly is, Sir! In every one of our chapters, the presidents can be traced back to Rock Riley, that first president which the great leader Jon himself appointed."

If the Jon Cares Club has so changed in its purpose and its practices, is it really the club which you founded 30 years ago? Would you not identify more closely with the little club on the corner that provides for hungry and starving children, even though its president cannot trace his appointment back to Rock Riley?

[Perry]

Jon Cares and Rock Riley... that's awesome!