What church is the true church?

[Shermana]

I don't doubt that you are very experienced in the study of literature, but that does not necessarily mean you have all knowledge concerning the work of God through the affairs of humans in preserving His Word.

What knowledge do you claim to have exactly that would be pertinent?

 

[gnostic]

As you know, the canon established by the Council of Carthage isn't entirely the same as the canon presently used by the Orthodox. In fact, the Council of Trullo accepted as authoritative numerous councils containing different Biblical canons.

Like I said before, church history bored me.

There were a number of councils, or what's not, which decree what were canon and what weren't, beside Carthage and Trullo, so I am not familiar with them all.

But you brought up the Septuagint, and during the translation of the Hebrew bible into Greek, there were no councils to determine which book were canonical or not, at the time of publication. As I understand it, the translators didn't state what books were Apocrypha.

 

[Shermana]

So you do not believe in God's ability to preserve His Word?

How does that in any way answer my question of why he didn't preserve his word through the Ethiopian canon or the earlier canons of the earlier Church Fathers'?

And why would that imply that He can't as opposed to didn't because He wanted to let people figure things out for themselves?

Let me try asking again, I'll rephrase it to make it easier this time:

"Why is the Greek orthodox canon (Excuse me, the PROTESTANT canon) God's official selection but not the Ethiopian church's? Are you basing it on an appeal to majority"?

Try actually answering what I asked this time, thanks.

On a side note, apparently Martin Luther also thought God didn't officially preserve his canon when he wanted to remove James, Jude, Revelation, and Hebrews, and so did many others. Your counter-argument is not only dodging the question, but a blatantly false syllogism: a) If orthodox Canon is not correct, therefore God CANNOT keep his word together. Ummm no.

 

[gnostic]

As to the OP, if Jesus did exist, then the "true church" didn't last beyond the 1st century CE.

 

[InChrist]

There are many things I don't know. What I don't know, I don't know. And what I don't know, I would ask questions.

For example. I am comfortable at reading scriptures, then I do with customs, rituals and dogma on the inner working of the church that are not found in the scriptures.

But even when reading scriptures, I am far more interested in the stories - the narratives - than I am with reading laws, poems, wisdom, etc.

And as for prophecies and signs, it often based on interpretations. In some cases, especially with the "messianic" prophecies, you would have totally different interpretations than that of the Jews. Jews have different concept of the Garden of Eden story, for example. Another example, is that the Jews view Satan as a servant of God, with specific duties, while you (and most other Christians) view Satan as God's enemy. Jews don't in any rebellion in heaven, because angels don't have free will.

And I surely don't that much about church history. There are too many different sects, too many different doctrines and interpretations. It's too complicated and downright boring.

Christians sometimes don't even agree among themselves. Some view the creation narrative and the Flood story as being historical and literally true, but others don't, because they see these stories in Genesis as allegories, probably they are more aware that it neither historical nor scientifically possible.

The difference between you and I, is that I don't have excess baggage of faith or belief that come with reading and analyzing the scriptures. I'd question everything.

But I think you approach things differently from me. You would probably take everything written at its face value. You are more likely take your scriptures for granted, because you are most likely to believe whatever you read on faith or whatever clergy have taught you, rather than look for evidences to prove it is true.

If I am wrong with your ability, then I'd often sincere apologies for misjudging you.

And there are many things I don’t know. I believe that when it comes to the spiritual reality of the universe everyone is in the same place in our inability to know what is accurate. That is the reason I believe if God didn’t reveal this reality to us we’d know nothing. I just happen to believe the biblical scriptures are God’s Word and without His revelation humans are clueless.



You are correct that there are many interpretations and that Christians don’t even agree among themselves, but I don’t think the short-coming of humans change God's truths in scripture. I prefer to take the most simple and straightforward approach to reading the scriptures. If a passage makes sense in a plain, literal manner then that is what I believe the text is trying to express. Yet, I readily acknowledge there is a lot of symbolism in the scriptures. I have found that the scriptures themselves will give insight and interpret other passages of scripture. Most importantly for me is to prayerfully seek God’s insight as I read because I think God purposely designed them only to be understood by those who desire to communicate with Him. So you are probably correct again I do approach things differently than you. You can call it baggage or faith or whatever you like, although I don’t place faith in clergy and basically had to break from past baggage and be saved by Jesus before the scriptures made any sense. I do seek for truth and evidence. Christ has always been faithful to lead me to such evidence, but I don’t expect you to understand that if you don’t know Him.



No need to apologize. Whether we agree or not, I appreciate your thoughts.

 

[McBell]

So you do not believe in God's ability to preserve His Word?

Just for clarification...
Are you asking if God has the ability to preserve His word, or are you asking if God actually did preserve his word?

 

[InChrist]

The apostolic paton was passed down through the Catholic Church, right? No, they dropped the ball. The Catholic Church was the "inspired" Christians that compiled the canon. If they were inspired then, when did they go bad? When did the one "true" Church lose its status? If the "true" church is the body of believers, then believers in what? There are thousands of fragmented little pieces of Jesus' body that can't agree on the "true" meaning of the New Testament. That's the true state of the Church. Pretty pitiful. It makes Jesus, the Bible, the Church all relative. Whatever you think it is, becomes the truth.

No, believers in Christ passed down the faith. The Catholic church did not compile the canon. Those who are born-again and are the body of Christ agree on the basic fundamental truths of scripture.

Did the Roman Catholic church give us our Bible? | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

 

[InChrist]

Just for clarification...
Are you asking if God has the ability to preserve His word, or are you asking if God actually did preserve his word?

Actually, neither, I asked Shermana if he believes God has or doesn't have the ability to preserve His word.

 

[McBell]

Actually, neither, I asked Shermana if he believes God has or doesn't have the ability to preserve His word.

How is that relevant to what you were replying to?

 

[gnostic]

Actually, neither, I asked Shermana if he believes God has or doesn't have the ability to preserve His word.

Since, I am not a believer, what I would say, probably don't figure much to you, but I would say that nothing were written by God himself, in neither the OT or the NT. Nothing was preserved by God.I think we owed each book (or letter) to man, to write it down and preserve it.

It was also man, who compile the books together, and it was man who decided which book or letter was canonical and which were not.

God may be the inspiration of the writings, he was never the scribe who etched it on clay or stone tablets, or write them on papers or parchment, or whatever they used to write them down.

 

[gnostic]

apocrypha are not from God ....their teachings contradict Gods Word

The early christians did not accept these as legitimate.... they were not written by the apostles but by gnostics

What you would call (NT) Apocrypha - books that are found in the Septuagint - is not gnostic texts.

 

[Pegg]

What you would call (NT) Apocrypha - books that are found in the Septuagint - is not gnostic texts.

the septuagint was translated in the 2bce... whereas many of the Apocryphal writings were written after that time so obviously they were not on the original list of books selected for translation by jewish scholars.
Their later inclusion does not mean they were considered a part of the inspired record which is evidenced by the fact that the Jewish Council of Jamnia (about 90 C.E.) specifically excluded all such writings from the Hebrew canon.

NT apochrypha are books that were written by gnostics such as 'acts of Peter', Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Judas, Acts of Paul etc... the books using the names of Jesus disciples

 

[Shiranui117]

No, believers in Christ passed down the faith. The Catholic church did not compile the canon. Those who are born-again and are the body of Christ agree on the basic fundamental truths of scripture.

Did the Roman Catholic church give us our Bible? | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

Amen on the bolded. And if those who are born-again include people spanning the wide world of Christendom, from Orthodox, to Assyrian, to Catholic, to Protestant, then those basic fundamental truths of Scripture must be REALLY basic!

 

[gnostic]

the septuagint was translated in the 2bce...

You mean 2nd "century" BCE.

whereas many of the Apocryphal writings were written after that time so obviously they were not on the original list of books selected for translation by jewish scholars.

It is only true with regards to the New Testament Apocrypha, not true with OT Apocrypha.

The Book of Tobias (one of the apocryphal literature) is found in a number of fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The Book of Jubilees and the Book of Enoch, both fall under the category of Pseudepigrapha, not in the Apocrypha, and doesn't appear in the Septuagint, and yet both of these works are found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

They are all indication of how old these works were. In the NT epistle of Jude, the author (Jude) recalled event that happen in the book of Enoch, that weren't in the Genesis, suggested how popular these writings were in the 1st century CE.

Their later inclusion does not mean they were considered a part of the inspired record which is evidenced by the fact that the Jewish Council of Jamnia (about 90 C.E.) specifically excluded all such writings from the Hebrew canon.

I thought the council of Jamnia was in 80 CE. 80 CE or 90 CE, it doesn't matter. I am not sure, but wasn't the canonical of Jewish bible by this Council of Jamnia, discredited?

I am not sure. My history on Rabbinical Judaism is very limited (even worse than my knowledge on church history). Perhaps, Levi, Poisonshady313 or Jayhawker Soule, would know more. Hopefully they would input in this thread, even though it is about modern true church, and not about Judaism.

 

[Shermana]

There is no evidence whatsoever for a council of Jamnia, and we know that the early part of Talmud refers to Sirach as scripture. Apparently the change in canon among the Rabbis didn't come until much later. It sure would be great to see some actual evidence for this imaginary Council of Jamnia.

We also see that Jude refers to Enoch as prophetic. (Which many "Early Church Fathers" considered canonical).

We also know that Josephus went by 1 Esdras.

 

[Shermana]

The early christians did not accept these as legitimate.... they were not written by the apostles but by gnostics

1. Clement most assuredly accepted the Acts and Apocalypse of Peter. He was not "Gnostic". So did many others apparently. And many other works. Some works that held currency among Orthodox groups like Shepherd of Hermas are not "Gnostic" in any shape or form.

2. James was called "Jacob the Gnostic" in the Talmud. It's most clear that the earliest "Gnostics" were actually Jewish Christians and the term didn't come to apply to groups like the Sethians and Ophites (from what we know about them) until much later.

3. Many of the texts like Gospel of Philip, while used by some sects like the Valentinians, do not show much exclusively "Gnostic" concepts but just esoteric Jewish Christian ideas. The Pistis Sophia, my favorite "Gnostic" work, contains blatantly Jewish ideas. We don't even know if these later "Gnostic" groups really believed what the "proto-orthodox Heresy hunters" wrote about them.

4. Once again, James was called "Jacob the Gnostic" by the Talmud. That's right, the leader of the Jerusalem sect, the leader of the original Jewish Christians, was called "The Gnostic".

 

[ChristineES]

None of the 12 Apostles, Paul, or the 70 disciples put together the books that would be included in the NT. I am not 100% sure, but I believe that was put together about 300 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus. So maybe how we intepret the the Gospels, Paul's letters, letters that are credited to Paul but not actually written by Paul. The letters of Peter, John, John the Elder, James, whoever wrote Hebrews, Jude, John Mark (Some say that is Peter's son), etc. are not what makes a Christian a true Christian or what makes a true Church member. I think we need to go back to worrying about our own sins and let others worry about theirs. Our job has only been to spread the name of Jesus- not judge who is or who isn't a true follower of Jesus. (Sorry, just a bit frustrated here).

 

[Desert Snake]

Our job has only been to spread the name of Jesus- not judge who is or who isn't a true follower of Jesus. (Sorry, just a bit frustrated here).

Really? If you're saying that most of Christianity is following a false religion, a false canon, then what exactly are you implying?.., if not that (most) Christians aren't even following the correct teachings.


"Christianity" by and large follows the NT, what exactly are you following?

 

[Shermana]

Yeah, apparently you're supposed to spread more than just the name, you're supposed to spread the doctrine and teachings. What does "spread the name" mean anyway? Is it involved with a Minimalist Theology of simply preaching that Jesus is Lord? What good does that do? That's an entirely Theological assertion, one can say that you're SUPPOSED to be teaching what you consider the "True message" or what it actually means to spread his name.

The letters of Peter, John, John the Elder, James, whoever wrote Hebrews, Jude, John Mark (Some say that is Peter's son), etc. are not what makes a Christian a true Christian or what makes a true Church member

Umm, 1 John is ALL about who is a True Christian and who is not. Same thing for Jude to a degree. James as well, who says that "Faith without works is dead" can be described as saying that a false Christian is one who doesn't have works befitting one.

 

[ChristineES]

<<groan>>

Let me try and explain my position again.

Really? If you're saying that most of Christianity is following a false religion, a false canon, then what exactly are you implying?.., if not that (most) Christians aren't even following the correct teachings.

I DIDN"T say that ALL OF CHRISTIANITY is following a false doctrine, quite the opposite.

Yeah, apparently you're supposed to spread more than just the name, you're supposed to spread the doctrine and teachings. What does "spread the name" mean anyway? Is it involved with a Minimalist Theology of simply preaching that Jesus is Lord? What good does that do? That's an entirely Theological assertion, one can say that you're SUPPOSED to be teaching what you consider the "True message" or what it actually means to spread his name.

Honeslty, spreading the name of Jesus is also spreading what Jesus taught, as well. I implied that although I didn't say it. Why would you think I meant otherwise???

My whole point of my post was to say that we can follow the Bible, call ourselves followers of Jesus read the gopsels and epistles, and Revelation, etc and still not be able to look at another person and say "that person is not a true Christian". Because only the person himself or herself along with God knows for sure.