One Church, One Authoirty
Ferdinand
Member
What I am proposing to discuss here are the basic principles as laid out by Jesus Christ Himself. Roborat does not want to discuss this with me, so I am opening up a thread so that kandelabra, Betlogins, Menorrah and Zape may discuss this with me, but any Born again and evangelicals are welcome to post.
We are just GOING BACK to the BASIC PRINCIPLES LAID BY JESUS HIMSELF that I think almost every Christian denominations churches grossly disregarded which led Christians to misinterpret the Scriptures. By going back to the basics we can then test if Christian sects arguments hold water. We all know that there are thousands of Christian sects floating around, right? And we all know that most of these sects teach that they have the right interpretations of the bible. So in light of that
1. How do we know whose got the right interpretation?
2. How do we find out who is telling the truth?
3. Truth is not relative, right? When it comes to God, truth is absolute, so how do we find the truth?
4. Where do we go finding the truth?
Answering those questions require that we go back to the basics. We can't just keep throwing accusations and allegations, since they are unproductive, so instead of being unproductive, let us agree to be productive and go back to the basics.
Principle #1.
Jesus is the truth.
Principle #2
Jesus mission is to save mankind. He left His authoritative body to continue this mission till the end of time. He built his one Church with the same authority he received from the Father.
Principle #3
This one Church is the MYSTICAL BODY of the Truth (Jesus Christ) that teaches all truth to continue the mission of the Lord. Truth is in contradiction with error.
Principle # 4
This truth is for all to receive. It is universal.
Principle #5
This one, holy, authoritative Church is protected by the Holy Spirit to teach ALL the truth.
Do you agree? If not please explain. If you agree, then tell us who is that Church and give us the reasons why that Church. Any INCs and evangelicals or BAs are welcome to answer. Put your faith and beliefs on the line. Equis, tokay kung manggugulo lang kayo, better not posts here, but hey, I can't really stop you if your nature dictates you to do that.
We are just GOING BACK to the BASIC PRINCIPLES LAID BY JESUS HIMSELF that I think almost every Christian denominations churches grossly disregarded which led Christians to misinterpret the Scriptures. By going back to the basics we can then test if Christian sects arguments hold water. We all know that there are thousands of Christian sects floating around, right? And we all know that most of these sects teach that they have the right interpretations of the bible. So in light of that
1. How do we know whose got the right interpretation?
2. How do we find out who is telling the truth?
3. Truth is not relative, right? When it comes to God, truth is absolute, so how do we find the truth?
4. Where do we go finding the truth?
Answering those questions require that we go back to the basics. We can't just keep throwing accusations and allegations, since they are unproductive, so instead of being unproductive, let us agree to be productive and go back to the basics.
Principle #1.
Jesus is the truth.
Principle #2
Jesus mission is to save mankind. He left His authoritative body to continue this mission till the end of time. He built his one Church with the same authority he received from the Father.
Principle #3
This one Church is the MYSTICAL BODY of the Truth (Jesus Christ) that teaches all truth to continue the mission of the Lord. Truth is in contradiction with error.
Principle # 4
This truth is for all to receive. It is universal.
Principle #5
This one, holy, authoritative Church is protected by the Holy Spirit to teach ALL the truth.
Do you agree? If not please explain. If you agree, then tell us who is that Church and give us the reasons why that Church. Any INCs and evangelicals or BAs are welcome to answer. Put your faith and beliefs on the line. Equis, tokay kung manggugulo lang kayo, better not posts here, but hey, I can't really stop you if your nature dictates you to do that.
0
Comments
-
Eto nakasulat sa link mo
"The uniqueness of the Holy Scriptures or the Bible above those used by other religions is that it is inspired by God"
Who decided which books are inspired? Why was it not explain?
Yan na muna diyan pa lang magkaka-alaman na eh0 -
Eto nakasulat sa link mo
"The uniqueness of the Holy Scriptures or the Bible above those used by other religions is that it is inspired by God"
Who decided which books are inspired? Why was it not explain?
Yan na muna diyan pa lang magkaka-alaman na eh
Nakakatuwan naman...
Kung hindi kay Constantine walang kopya ng Bible ang RCC. Tapos itatanong who decided?0 -
As much as possible I don't like reading links, I prefer the answer of the members. Do you agree with the basic principles in post #1?0 -
The church have copies of scriptures but its not the modern bible... who has possesion of this scriptures? Constantine? Of course not... the church has possesion of them.Aw you're too slow.
If RCC wasn't given a copy of the Bible, how could they decide which books are in the Bible?
what the church also have are letters from church fathers mentioning which gospels and epistles they used... out of the many gospels and epistles existing out there, we have the letters from the church fathers telling us which ones were inspired for they were the scriptures they themselves used.. constantine only commisioned to have this books be compiled into what we now know as the bible. Without the traditions and the church fathers... you could be using a different gospel right.. probably the gospel of thomas or the infancy gospel
0 -
The church have copies of scriptures but its not the modern bible... who has possesion of this scriptures? Constantine? Of course not... the church has possesion of them.
what the church also have are letters from church fathers mentioning which gospels and epistles they used... out of the many gospels and epistles existing out there, we have the letters from the church fathers telling us which ones were inspired for they were the scriptures they themselves used.. constantine only commisioned to have this books be compiled into what we now know as the bible. Without the traditions and the church fathers... you could be using a different gospel right.. probably the gospel of thomas or the infancy gospel
you're dreaming again TLG.
I told you RCC was only given a copy/copies and NOT RCC have copies or original. If RCC had those you mentioned, why would Constantine not tell the bishop of Rome provide the copies to others but wrote Eusebius instead?
Capish?0 -
Delving into history, it was indeed all of Christianity but never any of these religions, monasticism, and denominationalism. All of these just sprouted from 70 AD up to this circa of the 21st century.v v v v v
Church History:Relevant for Modern Christianity
Church History, on the surface, seems irrelevant to 21st century Christianity. However, Christianity, unlike any other religion, is deeply rooted in history. Central to the Christian faith is the fact that God came to earth as a man -- Jesus Christ. He lived, loved and taught among humanity about 2000 years ago. The historical reality of His sacrifice, burial and resurrection is the cornerstone of the Christian faith. The Bible is not a fairy tale, but a divinely inspired historical record of God's plan of redemption for a hurting world. To study church history is to see the hand of God at work amidst the strife, transgression and glory of man's ways.
# 30-70 AD) The Time of Jesus and the Apostles The death and resurrection of Christ.
# The Christian faith is birthed and the gospel of grace is preached.
Christianity: Simple Truth
Christianity rises to the top when you earnestly investigate the other theories, philosophies, movements and religions of the world. Yes, as hard as it is to hear in our pluralistic world community, Christianity is different than all the others.^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Thus, could be gleaned that these early believers were Christians without any coined man-made labels.
Universality was still out of the way then and differentiators were just later man-made tags. They were just obscure Christians then and up to now, could be felt by anyone with true humility abounding in his/her deep inner spirit.
Didn't find any opposing wisdom between these apostles when upon the true and absolute recognition of GOD and HIS doctrines. And, most worthy is that they were just lowly christians without any grandeurs of these man-made structural edifices. Best to adhere with these foundations and early beginnings of these first christians.
Act 11:22 Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch.
Act 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
Act 15:22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
Act 15:23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:
Act 15:30 So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle:
And most of all are these:
Mat 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Jhn 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.Existing religions, sects or denominations indeed preached their so-called apostolic way but there were uncertainties unconsciously declared by their leader and founders upon their followers.
Must be only Christianity of the first apostles and in reality without any added rituals and money collecting schemes loosely incorporating justifications loosely based from the Bible.0 -
you're dreaming again TLG.
I told you RCC was only given a copy/copies and NOT RCC have copies or original.
Then inform us who had those copies of the scriptures..
Was Eusebius not a bishop of the church?If RCC had those you mentioned, why would Constantine not tell the bishop of Rome provide the copies to others but wrote Eusebius instead?
If he was part of the church, then who had those copies? Of course the church! Capish!
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_%281913%29/Canon_of_the_New_Testament
The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council.
This view that Apostolicity was the test of the inspiration during the building up of the New Testament Canon, is favoured by the many instances where the early Fathers base the authority of a book on its Apostolic origin, and by the truth that the definitive placing of the contested books on the New Testament catalogue coincided with their general acceptance as of Apostolic authorship.
----
like I said, without the church fathers, you could be reading an entirely different gospel right now.0 -
Then inform us who had those copies of the scriptures..
LOL. It is NOT RCC for sure. You keep bragging about your religion and you're not even sure of what you're saying.Was Eusebius not a bishop of the church?
You just bared your ignorance here.If he was part of the church, then who had those copies? Of course the church! Capish!
Hahahahahaha......you should go back to school.http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_%281913%29/Canon_of_the_New_Testament
The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council.
This view that Apostolicity was the test of the inspiration during the building up of the New Testament Canon, is favoured by the many instances where the early Fathers base the authority of a book on its Apostolic origin, and by the truth that the definitive placing of the contested books on the New Testament catalogue coincided with their general acceptance as of Apostolic authorship.
----
like I said, without the church fathers, you could be reading an entirely different gospel right now.
Yah...you even own Santa Claus and the reindeers...
Your religion is like China claiming everything using a pen. 0 -
LOL. It is NOT RCC for sure. You keep bragging about your religion and you're not even sure of what you're saying.
You keep saying it's not the catholic, but you won't tell us which religion has possession of the scriptures.....your reply are mere rhetorics.
Another rhetoric, how can you prove otherwise eh wala ka namang sinusulat.You just bared your ignorance here.Yah...you even own Santa Claus and the reindeers...
Your religion is like China claiming everything using a pen.
Again, another empty talk...0 -
You keep saying it's not the catholic, but you won't tell us which religion has possession of the scriptures.....your reply are mere rhetorics.
Another rhetoric, how can you prove otherwise eh wala ka namang sinusulat.
Again, another empty talk...
Blah blah blah.... you did not understand my post about Constantine and Eusebius obviously. I can't fix stupid.0 -
Blah blah blah.... you did not understand my post about Constantine and Eusebius obviously. I can't fix stupid.
You mean this? VVVI told you RCC was only given a copy/copies and NOT RCC have copies or original. If RCC had those you mentioned, why would Constantine not tell the bishop of Rome provide the copies to others but wrote Eusebius instead?
Wow very informative indeed! I learned a lot!
Who were they by the way??????0 -
Its pretty clear you are just in denial... I did my homework, eusebius was a bishop of the church.. I asked you to post your refutal but you chose to post rhetorics instead of informative argument.Do your homework. I told you I can't fix stupid.
Am pretty sure your next reply to me will be again empty... you just resort to ad hominems in your posts.... geez....0 -
Its pretty clear you are just in denial... I did my homework, eusebius was a bishop of the church.. I asked you to post your refutal but you chose to post rhetorics instead of informative argument.
Am pretty sure your next reply to me will be again empty... you just resort to ad hominems in your posts.... geez....
You're getting more stupid each time you post. Eusebius was not a bishop of Rome but he provided a copy of the Bible to the bishop of Rome. Do you understand what that means?
The bishop of Rome never had any authority over other bishops which you claim you have. It was Constantine who requested Eusebius to give a copy to the bishop of Rome and others...how many times do I have to tell you that?
If the bishop of Rome has the Bible, why would Constantine not ask the bishop of Rome to make copies? I can't fix stupid.0
Welcome to PinoyExchange!
Forums
- 4.5K All Categories
- 27K PEx Sports
- 56.7K PEx Local Entertainment
- 30.4K PEx International Entertainment
- 41.7K PEx Lifestyle
- 26.8K PEx Hobbies
- 64.1K PEx News and Tech
- PEx Business and Careers
- 44.5K PEx Family and Society
- 25.3K PEx Relationships
- 13.1K PEx Chat
- 29.5K PEx Campus
- 32.3K PEx Classifieds
- 703 PEx Community
In this Discussion
- Ferdinand 35 posts
- TLG 24 posts
- Equis 19 posts
- KidlatNgayon 19 posts
- Jagon 11 posts
- Neil1984 7 posts
- RavlaM 3 posts
- esnuera 2 posts
- tiburcioSais 2 posts
- sophion 1 post
