Scriptures Cannot be alone... Scripture is clear

Nick01 · Oct 27, 2014

Nope. This is flagrantly not true. Find me a single historical source that teaches that Rome had singular authority over the catholic/universal church in the early centuries. Far more often you'll find people deferring to the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch, or to the ecumenical councils, than to any singular authority of Rome. Even then, it still doesn't go far enough to prove your main argument.

Ironic, because you haven't actually ventured any primary source that goes to the heart of your claims, vis:

That Rome had primacy in the early centuries.
That the church universally read Matthew 16 in the way Rome reads it today.
That your answers to the above to claims somehow mean the teaching of Rome is true and authoritative beyond the teachings of the Scriptures themselves.

As to the Eucharist, I don't see how it is relevant. Have many Christians historically taught transubstantiation as dogma? Yes, but certainly not all. A great many Christians (and technically, the Orthodox are among this group, I think) are simply happy to assert that the elements in the Eucharist have two natures, heavenly and earthly, and leave it at that. Many church fathers (Augustine, Origen, Tertullian, etc) had views of the Eucharist that are actually much more nuanced than contemporary RCC (and to be fair, I think Protestant) teaching is prepared to accept. I don't think Scripture itself necessitates a transubstantiate understanding of the Eucharist. I'd also argue that many of the discussions around the Eucharist amongst the early church were coloured by doscetist concerns - the Eucharist became the flagship sacraments in arguing against Docetists.

Always? For the record, I'm ok with infant baptism, but it's simply historically inaccurate to say the church has always baptised infants. Tertullian specifically argued against it. Certainly, many took the view that it was better to leave baptism for as long as possible to make sure you washed away as much sin as possible, which only really started to shift from Augustine onwards.

Yes, it does. Though I'm not entirely sure what your point is - bishops in the first century are quite different in role to what bishops are today.

YOUR WORDS:

Click to expand...

I already agreed to defer this argument, and to proceed as if I agree. There's no point posting these scriptures, because I'm not going to argue this point with you. The bigger problem is this - how do those points prove that the RCC has a singular authority to teach, and that this authority extends above and beyond the Scriptures in matters of doctrine.

Nick01 · Oct 27, 2014

Dogknox said:

Again, you're ignoring the thrust of my point. You have guys like Athanasius who posit a different canon to that in Catholic bibles. The council of Rome did not have a fully representative council, because most of the Bishops were all still in the Eastern Empire after the council of Constantinople. Besides, we don't know what was discussed at Rome - the Decretum Gelasianium is only connected to Rome theoretically, there is no hard proof, and indeed the historical consensus (favoured by von Dobschutz et al) is that the Decretum (which contains statements about NNT and OT canon) is actually a sixth century forgery, and not a fourth century record of the Council.

Florence is irrelevant because it concerns only yhe Western church and is 15th century.

Hippo did indeed ratify the RC canon, but this was not the first canon adopted by an ecumenical council. Carthage simply continues what Hippo started.

Again, this is mostly irrelevant, because by now we're into the fourth century.

Nick01

Click to expand...

People did not spend the first four centuries of the life of the church with no teaching. The NT was pretty much locked in well before these councils - they actually spent most of their time deciding which OT apocrypha from the LXX would make it into the Latin translations. And, again, these councils were not RCC canons - in fact, the Council of Carthage happened without any real input from Rome, as evidenced by the fact that the canons at Carthage weren't put in place until they forwarded to Roman for them to look over. Again, you're still well short of the level of proof required to make your point.

I'm curious - do you believe in charging people for indulgences (ie, to have temporal sin relieved)? I'm curious, because you assert the church, not the Scriptures, are the foundation of the faith? If so, then how can what it teach be wrong? Martin Luther, therefore, would have to have been wrong in tackling the RCC on this fact - as well as, for instance, the need to teach the Bible in Latin and not in German - because it simply doesn't matter what Scripture says, by your argument. The church at the time of Luther can't have been wrong on these issues, otherwise it's meaningless to say the RCC is the foundation of the faith.

As for the connection to Peter, I actually think the Scriptures are a better connection than the Church. In the gospels, we have a second hand account of Peter's experience in the first century (given it is highly likely Mark, in particular, relies on his eyewitness testimony), and in his letters, obviously, it is first hand. To me, that is better than the thousands of years of chinese whispers through apostolic succession.

Dogknox · Oct 27, 2014

Nope. This is flagrantly not true. Find me a single historical source that teaches that Rome had singular authority over the catholic/universal church in the early centuries. Far more often you'll find people deferring to the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch, or to the ecumenical councils, than to any singular authority of Rome. Even then, it still doesn't go far enough to prove your main argument.

I reply: The Churches throughout the world were all CATHOLIC! All answered to Rome!

FACT: Until 1054 A.D. there was JUST the Catholic Church headed by popes and BISHOPS!
Question does your church have Bishops with AUTHORITY to teach!!?

Nick01 HISTORY tells you>> YOU ARE WRONG!!!!!!
You are forced to reject the scriptures PLUS documented HISTORY to fight against Jesus and his holy established CHURCH!!

Pope Clement I
"Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us [i.e., that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy" (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]).

Hermas
"Therefore shall you [Hermas] write two little books and send one to Clement [Bishop of Rome] and one to Grapte. Clement shall then send it to the cities abroad, because that is his duty" (The Shepherd 2:4:3 [A.D. 80]).

Ignatius of Antioch
"Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).
"You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force" (ibid., 3:1).

Dionysius of Corinth
"For from the beginning it has been your custom to do good to all the brethren in various ways and to send contributions to all the churches in every city. . . . This custom your blessed Bishop Soter has not only preserved, but is augmenting, by furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints and by urging with consoling words, as a loving father his children, the brethren who are journeying" (Letter to Pope Soter in Eusebius, Church History 4:23:9 [A.D. 170]).

"Today we have observed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your letter [Pope Soter]. Whenever we do read it [in church], we shall be able to profit thereby, as also we do when we read the earlier letter written to us by Clement" (ibid., 4:23:11).

The Martyrs of Lyons
"And when a dissension arose about these said people [the Montanists], the brethren in Gaul once more . . . [sent letters] to the brethren in Asia and Phrygia and, moreover to Eleutherius, who was then [A.D. 175] bishop of the Romans, negotiating for the peace of the churches" (Eusebius, Church History 5:3:4 [A.D. 312])

Irenaeus
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

phil112 · Oct 27, 2014

Dogknox said:

John 12:48 "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day."
Galatians 1:8,9 "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."

The Bereans checked Paul against the word. The catholic doctrine fails that test. Weak op and a lame effort to support a false doctrine. FAIL!

Jackson123 · Oct 27, 2014

Dogknox said:

Again thank you for your reply..

Your words.... I don't understand why you said to believe in scripture must reject this verse: for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words

YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND??!!!
Jackson123 Because the SCRIPTURES tell you.... Jesus tells you; "You MUST eat his FLESH to have eternal life!"

................................>>>>>> You reject the scriptures!<<<<<<<<................................
The scriptures tell you; "To have eternal life you MUST believe Jesus"!

54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.The scriptures tell you; "Jesus will send the Holy Spirit to be with his church FOREVER!"

You reject the words of Jesus.. You DO NOT believe in "Scriptures ALONE"! NO....
No scriptures say "The Holy Spirit will abandon Jesus' Church" "FOREVER WITH" is what they say!
No scriptures say "Jesus will loose his church!" NO scriptures say "The Holy Spirit will lead Jesus' church into error!"
John 14:16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever—

No scriptures say "The Church Jesus established will need to be restored!"
Jackson123 You MUST reject the scriptures... "Jesus' words" for TEACHINGS of Men they teach "Jesus' church fell"!
You MUST reject the scriptures... "Jesus' words" for TEACHINGS of Men, they teach "Jesus' Church needs to be restored"!
You MUST reject the scriptures... "Jesus' words" for TEACHINGS of Men, they teach "Satan took Jesus' church and his church needs to be restored"!

Jackson123 THE WORDS OF JESUS 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

The scriptures tell you... "Jesus is ALWAYS with his Church, to the end of time"! You say "MAN MUST RESTORE Jesus' Church!" You reject the scriptures, Jesus words!

You MUST reject the scriptures... "Jesus' words" for the TEACHINGS of Men, they teach; "Jesus flesh is NOT real food"!
Jackson123 You MUST reject the scriptures... "Jesus' words" for the TEACHINGS of Men, they teach; "Jesus' flesh is symbolic food, it is NOT real food"!

52 Then the Jews AND Jackson123 began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

The Early Church fathers "Ate the flesh of Jesus in the form of bread" They believe the words of Jesus they are all CATHOLICS!

You MUST reject the scriptures... "Jesus' words" for TEACHINGS of Men, they teach "The Holy Spirit lead Jesus' Church into error"! THINK: They MUST teach the Church fell into error otherwise they have no need to RESTORE Jesus' Holy Church!!!

John 14:16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever—

Jackson123 You believe the TEACHING of Men! (Church failed) (Jesus is NOT always with his church) (Holy Spirit is NOT FOREVER with the Church) (Jesus' flesh is NOT real food) etc
FACT: You reject the words of Jesus as LIES!

If you accepted the words of Jesus as truth you would have to be CATHOLIC!!

Brother,

Jesus never teach us to be cannibal. It is disgusted. Do you kill Jesus and eat his meat?Jesus talking about symbol brother. It mean you eat/follow his teaching. And his teaching is who ever have a faith in Him will be save.

Nick01 · Oct 28, 2014

Dogknox said:

Being catholic is not the same thing as being Roman. There is a difference.

As for answering to Rome, this is not true. Rome was an authoritative centre, yes. But did the other churches answer to Rome? Not any more than Rome answered to the other centres. Again, you ignored the problems of the synods of Carthage and Hippo, councils that produced important canons that were only later sent to Rome for their approval.

Again, these were not exclusively Roman. catholic =/= Roman. And yes, I have bishops. I don't see how, in and of itself, that proves anything.

Pope Clement I

Click to expand...

This doesn't prove anything. Church leaders who were not Roman would often write to others outside their own local context. The Letter to the Romans is one example - it seems fairly clear from the letter that Paul is writing to a community of believers in existence before his contact with them, and yet he exercises authority over them as an apostle (cf Romans 16, amongst plenty of other places in the letter). Thus, your quote from Clement of Rome does not in itself prove anything

As above. The fact that he sent letters abroad means nothing, as plenty of early church figures sent letters abroad. If, as is likely, Herma was a Roman Christian (if we go by Paul in Romans 16), then it makes perfect sense without having to even go near conjecturing a first century papacy.

Ignatius of Antioch

Click to expand...

This is a rather interesting translation you have picked up on. Your translation seems to imply that the church that hold's the presidency (seemingly universal) is in the country of the Romans. However, the Greek (ἥτις καὶ προκάθηται ἐν τόπῳ χωρίου ῾Ρωμαίων) does not necessarily intimate that. Instead, it more likely reads (and this is how Lightfoot renders it, for example) that the presidency (such as it is) is exercised by this church in the region of the Romans. It does not necessarily indicate that this primacy was held elsewhere, and even if it does, it is not clear from Ignatius whether this is meant to be a doctrinal authority, or simply being foremost in charity/love (Paul describes the Corinthians in similar ways, when he talks about them being 'first' in various things). Again, this doesn't reach the benchmark.

Dionysius of Corinth

Click to expand...

As did the Corinthians, and the Macedonians. I don't see what you think this proves.

As did Paul, as did various church leaders from across Christendom. You don't think people were not widely reading the works of Papias, or Origen, for instance? I could use this same argument to argue for the primacy of any number of churches in the early centuries.

[The Martyrs of Lyons
"And when a dissension arose about these said people [the Montanists], the brethren in Gaul once more . . . [sent letters] to the brethren in Asia and Phrygia and, moreover to Eleutherius, who was then [A.D. 175] bishop of the Romans, negotiating for the peace of the churches" (Eusebius, Church History 5:3:4 [A.D. 312]) [/quote]

You notice how letters were sent here to more places than just Rome? We'll also ignore the fact that Rome would, obviously, have a greater episcopal oversight of Gaul, France being then under the jurisdiction of the Western Roman Empire.

Irenaeus

Click to expand...

Do you notice what Irenaeus is doing here, though? He is using as an examplar Rome, because it would take too long to discuss the succession of all the churches. That is what he says. So already, he is making the point that the other churches had DIFFERENT LINES OF SUCCESSION. He certainly holds the second century church of Rome up as a good exemplar, but the whole reason he is discussing it actually argues AGAINST considering it as the one authority of the universal church.

Also, the last line of the translation you have provided seems dubious. I couldn't find a Greek text, but I found a Latin one here, which at that last line actually says something much closer to "it is necessary that every church should agree with this church (i.e Rome) on account of its eminence (connected to the ministries of Paul and Peter), inasmuch as the faithful everywhere have preserved the apostolic traditions." Nothing about the apostolic tradition being preserved specifically and only through Rome (which would make the next two pars Irenaeus writes complete nonsense) This seems very different to what you posted, and it seems that basically Irenaeus is arguing that the church in Rome is a good church, and every church should be agreed in unity with it in so far as all are agreed on the traditions of the apostles.

It's very interesting to me that Irenaeus then goes on, after paragraph 3, to then discuss in paragraph 4 the person of Polycarp of Smyrna, who was also a student of the apostles, and provided the apostolic succession in the Asiatic churches. In other words, Irenaeus' basic argument is "The heretics are wrong, because in all places, there has been an accurate succession from the apostles. There are two key examples - Rome (the West) and Asia (the East). These have both independently ensured apostolic succession, and are true witnesses to the gospel." Worth noting he also mentions Ephesus briefly as an aside.

To argue that Ignatius is somehow arguing specifically for the primacy of Rome here is to ignore most of what he writes. It seems to require a kind of logical gymnastics to make him say that when he talks about the pre-eminance of Rome, he means it is in charge of the other churches. It is an exemplar, yes, as is Smyrna. The pre-eminence argument, though, has to be read in the context of why Ignatius is writing this in the first place - he is arguing in favour of the orthodox churches on the basis of their apostolic tradition. This being the case, the point is less whether Rome is pre-eminent in favour of other churches, but rather that it is pre-eminent in favour of the heretical teachings (cf Against Heresies 3:4:3, where the above discussion of the churches in Rome and Smyrna is contrasted with the teachings of Valentinus and Marcion - these teachings originated with their namesakes, whereas the teachings of Rome and Smyrna originated with the apostles).

I'm still not convinced. I think what I would need to see would be multiple church fathers putting Roman pre-eminance, specifically in terms of Petrine succession. Otherwise, any position Rome could have, like Alexandria or Constantinople, could be a function of its social status and financial resources, rather than for any theological reason.

Dogknox · Oct 28, 2014

I reply: You have to reject the obveious!!! HISTORY!

Nisko1 FACT IS: The Church Jesus established was named "CATHOLIC"!
It was Protestants that gave Jesus' church the title "ROMAN"! Until then the Church was always called "The Catholic Church"!

Their thinking was; If the Catholic Church is named ROMAN, it would imply there was other Catholic Churches!
The Title stuck!!! So what!!?

Nisko1 Until Martin Luther and his "De-FORMING" there was no teaching of "Scriptures ALONE saves" there was NO teaching of "Faith ALONE saves"! These two teaching are from MEN!!
These TEACHINGS cannot be found in the scriptures!
Men rejected the ONE HOLY Church Jesus established, so all they had leaft was the scriptures!

Nisko1 Men taught; "We do not need no stinking church all we need is faith & scriptures ALONE!"

Scriptures teach: "Church is guided by God FOREVER!" Nisko1 "Jesus is ALWAYS with his Church FOREVER!"

Scriptures teach: "The Flesh and Blood of Jesus saves"!! They (the De-Formers) have No church so no sacraments, they (you) reject the church because of what you have been taught by MEN!!!!!!

FACTS REMAIN: Martin Luther ate the Flesh of Jesus! The Church Jesus established Eats the Flesh of Jesus!!
The Church Jesus established The Catholic Church had a hierarchy: Bishops Priests Decons! Martin Luther was a PRIEST! The Orthodox Church has Bishops Priests and Decons!
Until 1054 A.D. there was just ONE CHURCH >>>> The Holy Catholic Church!!!

Nisko1 You can ignor history and continue in your IGNORANCE: History cannot be changed!

The BISHOP Ignatius of Antioch Ate "EUCHARIST"!
He said...
"Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

Nisko1 "Just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church"

Dogknox · Oct 28, 2014

phil112 said:

FACT: The teaching of "Scriptures ALONE save" is not found in the scriptures!

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

phil112 The TEACHING "Scriptures ALONE" first appeared with "Martin Luther" the first "De-Former"! You have placed the salvation of your soul in the teachings of men!
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed

Dogknox · Oct 28, 2014

Jackson123 said:

OKAY point to the scriptures that say "SYMBOL"!
The word "REMEMBERANCE" means "Call to mind" not Symbol!

Jackson123 Put your salvation in the scriptures not in the teachings of MEN!
SYMBOLIC COMMUNION: Communacation or UNION (take your pick) with SYMBOLS is a TEACHING of men of the "De-Formation"! Until the "De-Forming" there was no teaching of Symbolic Communion! FACT IS: It is a man made TRADITION!!

Beinging in Communacation with a SYMBOL is called IDOLATRY!
Being in UNION with a symbol is a SIN!!!!

Ignatius of Antioch is a CATHOLIC BISHOP he ate the Flesh of Jesus "Eucharist"!!!
"Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

Jackson123 Run from Protestantism!!

john832 · Oct 28, 2014

Dogknox said:

Well that is enough to disqualify anything else you post...

Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

The only scriptures available at the time Christ said this was the Old Testament scriptures. How many does it take to disprove your statement? Just one will do for now...

Psa 16:10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

Bride · Oct 28, 2014

john832 said:

Yeah, there's nothing of value posted by this OP that I have seen. Only huge block colored fonts with a zillion exclamation marks and no substance except the common denominational gung ho "my religion is best" drivel expected from representatives of man made denominations. Can we do something else today, like worship Jesus instead of arguing with an idol worshipper? There is always that point where the dust is shaken off, and we are well past that point with this topic pusher in my opinion.

Jackson123 · Oct 28, 2014

Dogknox said:

This symbol is to rememberance. To make it remember.

Didn't the scripture said Jesus take a bread. He broke it

Can you show me the scripture said Jesus broke his own body and cut it in to 12 pieces.

It is a bread brother not real meat.

The bread symbol of His body, that was broken

Mean he die on the cross.

Did the bible said that apostle eat real meat?

[h=3]agan Competing Practice of Round Cakes of Leavened Bread[/h]In the pagan religion of Rome, in the Sol Invictus aka Baal religion imported from Syria in the 200s (taken from Phoenicia), a transubstantian ritual was performed on Sun-day with a round cake and wine which the faithful were told had become the flesh and blood of their god. This was particularly important on Easter Sun-day i.e., the celebration of the goddess Eostre / Ishtar / Ashtoreth day, the 'Mother of God' aka Baal

JesusIsAll · Oct 28, 2014

Bride said:

It is so silly. The bottom line argument that the faith of Jesus Christ and His apostles, as laid out in the New Testament, that holy scripture is not sufficient, is a dumb argument, not worth having. And Catholics can go around and around, expounding their endless human arguments and invented, Catechism errors, with scripture butchery thrown in, to no end. It's only a rabbit hole, to try and discuss many Bible truths with them they, in fact, reject, for the errant traditions of corrupt men, who've added error to and abused the faith of Jesus Christ.

Bride · Oct 28, 2014

So today, as most days, I worship Jesus! He has saved me from my sins because He told me so

He has filled me with His Holy Spirit and is one with me, overcoming temptations and sins and causes me to walk upright and perfect before Him, and I praise Him so! Prior to that, His ministers told me where I could find His Words, and so now after all these years in a personal love affair with Jesus and the Words He has so lovingly shared with me, my Bible is dog-eared and full of fingerprints because I just love the socks off of him! He has revealed Himself to me out of His Word, Coming to me and filling me with His Holy Spirit forever! Now I tell other's about this wonderful news, filled with the same Joyful Spirit as Paul and Peter and John and James and the writers of Holy Writ, we are all one body, big happy family in Christ Jesus our Lord! No controversy, nothing lacking! Praise Jesus! We who are of this same Spirit, are all one in Christ, and in Him, there is no division or arguing or any of this denominational bs.
And to this, there is no "ifs, ands, or buts" to get red in the face about

phil112 · Oct 28, 2014

Dogknox said:

Look, you poor pitiful person. Christ said the word He speaks is what will judge you. That is new testament and new testament alone. No pope or bishop or any other religious leader has ever had Christ speak to him and him alone. Never. That is the word Paul was taught for three years by Christ in Arabia for the express purpose of you and I knowing what Christ would have us do.
Anyone that believes otherwise rejects the bible, rejects the written word Christ will judge you by, and is either willingly blinded or an idiot.

Atwood · Oct 28, 2014

Is U Have Something Beside Bible, Bring It Out & Prove It

When debating with papist or E-orthods, it should not be necessary to debate whether or not the 66 books are God's Word -- that is common ground. Actually it is self-evident that the Bible is God's Word -- read it & affirm it for yourself, or deny at your own peril.

But now the question comes, is their something else which is also God's Word. The answer is obviously yes. There must be Tetrabytes of tetrabytes, googlebytes of googlebytes of the Word of God, as the Trinity is eternal. Who know what conversations have taken place in eternity between the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit -- all being God's Word. Then there were prophets who spoke orally, but it was not written down. In Heaven I suppose that the Lord Jesus has said many things to saints in Heaven. But we earthlings have no access to any of that.

So the real question is,
is there any document on earth readily available to men in general which is God's Word; something besides the Bible? I don't know of any such document. I do know that since the last NT book was written, nothing has been successfully added (not even one page) to the Bible.

So if you have something else, bring it forth & prove that it is God's Word. Astound myself & the world; persuade the publishers to add the material to the Bible.

Until then, shall we say ONLY THE BIBLE?

Dogknox · Oct 28, 2014

Jackson123 said:

I reply: with the Early Church fathers...
Ignatius of Antioch is a CHRISTIAN.
He said..
"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

Justin Martyr is a CHRISTIAN!
He said..
"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

Jackson123 Augustine the CHRISTIAN answers your question!!
"Christ was carried in his own hands when, referring to his own body, he said, ‘This is my body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that body in his hands" (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405]).

Jackson123 Do you see it... "At the Last Supper Jesus carried himself!"

THINK: The God of the Christian is almighty, he can do ALL THINGS, he can take any form he wants to take... "The form of Fire, Smoke, Dove, even a MAN, My God can even take the form of bread!"

Jackson123 My god can LOOK, TASTE, SMELL and FEEL as ordinary bread! BUT for anyone without faith in Jesus, it is just ordinary bread! To the CHRISTIANS those people who believe in Jesus, it is his flesh simply because; Jesus tells us it is his flesh! The Early CHRISTIANS believe the words of Jesus: KNOWING God cannot lie or mislead people!

Jackson123 Your god clearly is not almighty, your god cannot take any form he desires!

LOOK... Jews do NOT believe Jesus is God, they believe Jesus is just a MAN!
John 6:52
Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

QUESTION: Is Jesus just a man or the ALMIGHTY God?!

The bible says the Apostles Ate the flesh of God!

Jackson123 Look in John 6.. These Jews (below) do NOT believe they can eat the flesh of Jesus.. so they leave Jesus!

56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
Many Disciples Desert Jesus
60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”

BUT... Jackson123 Look these Jews believe the words of Jesus. (below)

67 “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.
68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”

Jackson123 These Jews (Apostles) are the first CHRISTIANS.. All but Judas believe Jesus' words, Judas does not leave them in his UNBELIEF he stays among the Christians, eating the flesh of Jesus, when he (like you) really rejects Jesus' teaching! Look what Jesus said about Judas.. (the very next verse)

70 Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!”71 (He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.)

Jackson123 The CHURCH has always eaten the flesh of Jesus in the form of bread!
The CHURCH has always drank the blood of Jesus in the form of wine! LOOK below..

1 Corinthians 11

24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.

Jackson123 Judas CONDEMNED himself at the Last Supper!!
Judas rejected the teaching of Jesus in John 6 but stayed with the believers (like you) he was HYPOCRITE Christian!! Saying I believe the words of Jesus but in truth reject the words of Jesus!
Judas SINNED against Jesus by rejecting the words of Jesus as symbolic words!

Dogknox · Oct 28, 2014

Bride said:

Bride Jesus established only ONE CHURCH the same church as the Apostolic Fathers. HISTORY PROVES It can only be "The Holy Catholic Church". Jesus gave ONLY Peter the KEYS: Keys are symbols of AUTHORITY!!
Bride All other churches are formed by men!
Men MUST teach "Jesus failed"! They teach Jesus' church fell to Satan and they MUST restore Jesus' body back to him! OTHERWISE...

Otherwise they would all be Catholics! They would have no excuse for starting their many thousands and thousands of churches!
THINK: All of these man made churches claim to teach the bible ALONE yet not two of these many thousands of man made churches believe the very same things!
Bride Proving the idea of "Scriptures ALONE" are all man needs is a LIE!!!!!!

You are NOT in the Church Jesus established?! Then you are NOT in Jesus!!
It is just this simple!

Bride · Oct 28, 2014

Dogknox said:

Bride Jesus established only ONE CHURCH the same church as the Apostolic Fathers. HISTORY PROVES It can only be "The Holy Catholic Church". Jesus gave ONLY Peter the KEYS: Keys are symbols of AUTHORITY!!
Bride All other churches are formed by men!
Men MUST teach "Jesus failed"! They teach Jesus' church fell to Satan and they MUST restore Jesus' body back to him! OTHERWISE...

Otherwise they would all be Catholics! They would have no excuse for starting their many thousands and thousands of churches!
THINK: All of these man made churches claim to teach the bible ALONE yet not two of these many thousands of man made churches believe the very same things!
Bride Proving the idea of "Scriptures ALONE" are all man needs is a LIE!!!!!!

You are NOT in the Church Jesus established?! Then you are NOT in Jesus!!
It is just this simple!

hAHaaAA you don't scare me big bad woliff! The gates of hell can not prevail against me as Jesus is my Lord God! Depart from me begone false accuser of me!

Dogknox · Oct 28, 2014

phil112 said:

Hello phil112... You are so right!!!

The words of Jesus save!! Anyone rejecting the words of Jesus is rejecting Jesus!
Words of Jesus: "I am with you ALWAYS to the end of time"!

QUESTION: "Did Jesus' Church fail"!? Did Jesus leave his body!? Did Satan somehow overpower Jesus and did Satan TAKE Jesus' body from Jesus!?
phil112 What do you believe of scriptures?! "I am with you ALWAYS to the end of time"

Jesus said: "I will sent you the Holy Spirit to be with you FOREVER"!

QUESTION: Did Jesus lie? Did the Holy Spirit leave Jesus' body? Did the Holy Spirit guide Jesus' Body into error?!
QUESTION: Do you believe the words of Jesus or men who teach; "Jesus' Church failed and we need to restore his body back for him!"

phil112 You said: No pope or bishop or any other religious leader has ever had Christ speak to him and him alone.

Peter was the first pope Jesus spoke to him! And Paul was a BISHOP!
Timothy is a BISHOP he COMMANDS men! Paul is writing to Timothy about how to be a good BISHOP! (below)
1 Timothy 4:11
Command and teach these things.

Timothy's TEACHING saves other men!!! (Below)
1 Timothy 4:16
Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.

Answer the QUESTIONS!!

Scriptures Cannot be alone... Scripture is clear

Senior Member

Senior Member

Banned

phil112

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Senior Member

Banned

Senior Member

JesusIsAll

Guest

Banned

phil112

Guest

Senior Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned