Church, or Bible?

[Phil25]

They had Jesus.

True

 

[Sundance]

As a Unitarian Christian, I believe that the Bible is a temporal testament of the direct experience of the Holy Spirit; that experience, to which all cultures can testify, signifies the revelation of the Eternal Word. The church is a group of people who gather to bear witness to that Word through worship, prayer, meditation, etc.

 

[Vouthon]

They had Jesus.

Yes and what else? The sacraments/rituals he had asked them to carry on in remembrance of Him (the Eucharist, baptism etc.), his oral teachings yet to be committed to writing, the hierarchy of Apostles he had designated to lead his Church...in other words there were no church buildings or Bible but there was The Church, the Body of Christ composed of those baptised into him :yes:

Jesus didn't write nor dictate a 'New Testament', nor design any church buildings. He did however elect Apostles with authority to pass on, interpret and expand upon his ethics, rituals, mysteries and message. That is the Church in its primordial, fledgling state.

The OP therefore misses the crux of the issue in juxtaposing the "bible" and "church buildings". In truth it is neither in my humble opinion, it is the Church.

 

[Desert Snake]

Yes and what else? The sacraments/rituals he had asked them to carry on in remembrance of Him (the Eucharist, baptism etc.), his oral teachings yet to be committed to writing, the hierarchy of Apostles he had designated to lead his Church...in other words there were no church buildings or Bible but there was The Church, the Body of Christ composed of those baptised into him :yes:

Jesus didn't write nor dictate a 'New Testament', nor design any church buildings. He did however elect Apostles with authority to pass on, interpret and expand upon his ethics, rituals, mysteries and message. That is the Church in its primordial, fledgling state.

The OP therefore misses the crux of the issue in juxtaposing the "bible" and "church buildings". In truth it is neither in my humble opinion, it is the Church.

No it's called creating a topic that isn't so vague that no one could answer it. It's a direct question.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

If you had to choose, church attendance, but no Bible reading at home or otherwise, or Bible, but no church, which would you choose?

Steak.

 

[Vouthon]

No it's called creating a topic that isn't so vague that no one could answer it. It's a direct question.

I wasn't suggesting that this was a bad thread or topic, it is a very good one as evidenced by the level and range of the debate. It is thought-provoking, my only critique is that I wish you had included a third option for "church" not as a building but as a community like the Buddhist sangha or Islamic umma. That is all

 

[Sonofason]

The church is the "body of Christ", all believers are one body. If there is only one person who believes according to The Word of God, the church lives. I will take the Bible over a building every day.

 

[Sonofason]

I am going to repeat myself. Jesus and the Apostles did not have a Church building to go to. I have bible studies at people's homes. You don't need a building to worship God, all you need is people. That is why I chose "Bible".

But Jesus is the Word of God. Why do you need a book containing the Word of God when He is standing in your midst?

The early church did in fact have Bibles. They had the Old Testament. And they had Jesus.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I chose the Bible as I couldn't see 'cake' there.

 

[savagewind]

I chose the Bible as I couldn't see 'cake' there.

LOL. OK. There was a lot of air there in my head for a minute. You mean on the list there is not a cake choice. You would choose cake over church or the bible. Interesting. You might think cake causes no trouble like church and Bible causes trouble but then you don't have diabetes. Do you? I don't but I know lots of people who do.