No one, there are no original bibles, the first existent one written some 350 after JCs death.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Protestantism, Catholicism, Orthodoxism, Anglicanism
- Thread starter Starlight
- Start date
No one, there are no original bibles, the first existent one written some 350 after JCs death.
The Church predates the Bible as a canon. The Bible is only the Bible because the Church decided that certain writings were divinely inspired. You've got things the wrong way around. Catholic/Orthodox Christianity claims that Christ founded a Church, not a scripture with which to later base a religious philosophy.
What question?
Again, as a pluralist, I don’t buy into the concept of One True Religion™. But we’re not even talking about different religions here. We’re talking about different denominations of the same religion.
The denomination itself may lack antiquity, but its core beliefs do not.
Based on “on this rock, I shall build my church,” which denomination of Christianity did Christ found? I’m not looking for your opinion. I’m looking for a citation from Scripture.
What i am saying is there is no written evidence for your claim.
There is actually no evidence that JC existed as described in the various bibles.
You can of course have faith, faith is comforting but is not fact
The fact is that there are churches with lineages of succession which go back as far as late antiquity. Christianity was at first an oral tradition taught by bishops who claimed to have been taught by the Apostles or their direct successors. (And yes, these early bishops wrote stuff down). These churches are a historical reality and they still exist to this very day. (Even if things have developed and changed over two millennia). That doesn't mean Christianity is actually true, but its core historical claim is not a mere myth. There's a reason no relevant scholar (without an axe to grind) denies the existence of Jesus as a real historical person. The crucifixion is a historical certainty. As are the men who were taught by the Apostles or their successors. (Again, we have their names and writings).
The pre-schism Catholic Church. Which includes the Orthodox. (Oriental and Eastern).
Last edited:
Buildings change little, people more often
No evidence of what they taught.
Yes, the rejected gnostic verses come to mind.
Bingo
Or without knowing some genuine documented history.
Ah ha, the heart of the matter. Rome had several methods of execution, crucifixion reserved for terrorist and traitors to Rome. That historical fact certainly made me think.
I'm afraid I'm going to need a bit more than that. The phrase 'Catholic Church' wasn't even used until St Ignatius of Antioch used the expression in 107 CE, 64 years after Jesus' crucifixion. The Church, in my understanding, wasn't formally recognized until nearly 400 years later. Until that time, it was simply and unorganized religion referred to as 'Christianity.'
@ChristineM
Snarky one-liners that don't address what is being said are not worth my time. I'm not even claiming Christianity is true. But I have little patience for an ahistorical, anti-Christian agenda that not only rejects Christianity (which is fine) but also seeks to deny it any and all historical legitimacy. A boneheaded unwillingness to admit that there is a kernel of historical truth at the core of the Christian religion is simply anti-Christian animus masquerading as truth seeking.
Snarky one-liners that don't address what is being said are not worth my time. I'm not even claiming Christianity is true. But I have little patience for an ahistorical, anti-Christian agenda that not only rejects Christianity (which is fine) but also seeks to deny it any and all historical legitimacy. A boneheaded unwillingness to admit that there is a kernel of historical truth at the core of the Christian religion is simply anti-Christian animus masquerading as truth seeking.
What are you talking about. Every one liner i provided is accurate. They are one liners because that is all that is needed
If you consider any of them to be snarky pleasr show how.
Your patience is not my problem, you are welcome to your beliefs.
My historical perspective is accurate as study of Roman law and documented history will show you.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Lordy. So many misrepresentations and misunderstandings in so few words!
Please show me what I misrepresented or misunderstood.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
OK.
You said:
"We’re talking about different denominations of the same religion." And then on and on.
And:
"I’m looking for a citation from Scripture."
I'm well aware of what I said. Please tell us how these are misinterpretations or misrepresentations.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Tell you? OK. That's not what you originally asked for but I'll tell you. First of all, the RCC and the eastern orthodoc churches do not consider itself to be denominations, and secondly, which scriptures? I mean, the canon has changed over the centuries, and secondly, the RCC doesn't rely on only Scripture.
If you are going to accuse another of misrepresentation or misinterpretations, and they ask what was misrepresented or misinterpreted, repeating their words isn't useful. An explanation how and/or why is.
The map is not the territory.
The current canon is fine.
What does the RCC rely on aside from Scripture?
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Holy Tradition. I mean, after all, Jesus Himself said many, many things that are not recorded in the bible, but does that make these things less worthy?
Also, I gave you exactly what you asked for. I am not interested in arguing with you.
Where are these many, many things recorded?
Then you probably shouldn't have engaged me to begin with. Don't make accusation if you're not willing to support them.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
They're not recorded as far as I can tell. But please answer the question, don't throw another question out there. But I agree, I probably shouldn't have argued, oh wait, debated with you, to begin with.
I can't speak to the worthiness of what Jesus said if there is not evidence it was said. Please show me what was said and where it is written.