Which Came First...Bible or the Church
- Thread starter Voxxkowalski
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Forgive my simplistic understanding, but over the last 40 years of my Christian life I have always been taught that the "church" started in Acts 2 when the Holy Spirit indwelt believers. The rest of Acts, as I understand it, describes the "Word of God" (the preaching that Jesus of Nazareth is God's one and only human born Son, that he died on the cross in our place, and that three days later God raised Him from the dead, and that He alone is the only way to have eternal life with God) moving from Jerusalem into the rest of the world.
It is also my understanding that Acts, along with many of the Epistles, give understanding into the nature of local churches at the time.
So, it appears to me that the "Word of God", not the Bible, came and made His dwelling among us, and that through His death burial and resurrection we can have eternal life with God. Where a group of like minded believers gather together for worship, fellowship, encouragement, and support, etc., there the church is. This started a few weeks after Jesus' death burial and resurrection, and continues to this day.
A few years after the beginning of the church of Christ, the four Gospels were written, along with the rest of the books of what we now consider the New Testament. These were copied and passed around the various local churches in the near east, and finally compiled by the third century. This is what we now consider the "New Testament" of the Bible.
As I understand it, Paul and Peter traveled to Rome and established local churches in that area, and one of the local churches Peter helped start grew and, after a few hundred years, turned into what we now recognize as the "Roman Catholic" church.
It is also my understanding that "catholic" means universal. It comes from the Greek word katholikos - which means "universal".
This means there is a distinction between "catholic" which means "universal" and "Roman Catholic" which is an organization that specifically claims its origins to be in Rome of the first few centuries AD.
So, in answer to the OP's original question, the "church" (as defined in Acts) came first. (But this is in no way the "Roman Catholic" church.) Over the next generation, the writings which we now consider to be parts of the New Testament were written. Over the next two to three centuries, the writings were compiled and defined as "The New Testament". (How they were compiled or under what authority they were selected is beyond the nature of this post.)
Also, over the course of the first few centuries AD, the local church in Rome grew and grew and eventually proclaimed itself to be the mother church of all churches. I am not saying whether they were justified in doing this or not. But, that is still their claim.
At least, this is my current understanding. I am open to correction and clarification as appropriate.
It is also my understanding that Acts, along with many of the Epistles, give understanding into the nature of local churches at the time.
So, it appears to me that the "Word of God", not the Bible, came and made His dwelling among us, and that through His death burial and resurrection we can have eternal life with God. Where a group of like minded believers gather together for worship, fellowship, encouragement, and support, etc., there the church is. This started a few weeks after Jesus' death burial and resurrection, and continues to this day.
A few years after the beginning of the church of Christ, the four Gospels were written, along with the rest of the books of what we now consider the New Testament. These were copied and passed around the various local churches in the near east, and finally compiled by the third century. This is what we now consider the "New Testament" of the Bible.
As I understand it, Paul and Peter traveled to Rome and established local churches in that area, and one of the local churches Peter helped start grew and, after a few hundred years, turned into what we now recognize as the "Roman Catholic" church.
It is also my understanding that "catholic" means universal. It comes from the Greek word katholikos - which means "universal".
This means there is a distinction between "catholic" which means "universal" and "Roman Catholic" which is an organization that specifically claims its origins to be in Rome of the first few centuries AD.
So, in answer to the OP's original question, the "church" (as defined in Acts) came first. (But this is in no way the "Roman Catholic" church.) Over the next generation, the writings which we now consider to be parts of the New Testament were written. Over the next two to three centuries, the writings were compiled and defined as "The New Testament". (How they were compiled or under what authority they were selected is beyond the nature of this post.)
Also, over the course of the first few centuries AD, the local church in Rome grew and grew and eventually proclaimed itself to be the mother church of all churches. I am not saying whether they were justified in doing this or not. But, that is still their claim.
At least, this is my current understanding. I am open to correction and clarification as appropriate.
Thousands doing the same thing at the same time all over the world with thousands of different requests?
She'd have to be omniscient to know them all, sort them all out, and omnipotent to be able to answer them all.
How many of your fellow christians have that ability?
Why not do what christians do, pray to our Father in heaven, in the name His Son our Saviour?
Jesus said this, and it shows the reality of eternal life, as well as Jesus' authority.
The veil, the curtain, was torn in two...from top to bottom, signifying that it was God who did the tearing... the way into the Holy of Holies is now open to all who believe in Jesus, and we have access to the throne of grace by way of Him. Hallelujah!
Even IF Jesus' Mom, and other believers in heaven could answer our prayers, (they can't), why try to go to them when we can go to God, just as the bible and Jesus directs us to do?
She'd have to be omniscient to know them all, sort them all out, and omnipotent to be able to answer them all.
How many of your fellow christians have that ability?
Why not do what christians do, pray to our Father in heaven, in the name His Son our Saviour?
Jesus said this, and it shows the reality of eternal life, as well as Jesus' authority.
The veil, the curtain, was torn in two...from top to bottom, signifying that it was God who did the tearing... the way into the Holy of Holies is now open to all who believe in Jesus, and we have access to the throne of grace by way of Him. Hallelujah!
Even IF Jesus' Mom, and other believers in heaven could answer our prayers, (they can't), why try to go to them when we can go to God, just as the bible and Jesus directs us to do?
I looked to see how much the OT is cited in the NT 
"The fourth edition of the United Bible Societies' Greek Testament (1993) lists 343 Old Testament quotations in the New Testament, as well as no fewer than 2,309 allusions and verbal parallels. The books most used are Psalms (79 quotations, 333 allusions), and Isaiah (66 quotations, 348 allusions). In the Book of Revelation, there are no formal quotations at all, but no fewer than 620 allusions." Furthermore, "the OT is quoted or alluded to in every NT writing except Philemon and 2 and 3 John." New Testament use of the Old Testament | Theopedia
PS~ OP is banned
"The fourth edition of the United Bible Societies' Greek Testament (1993) lists 343 Old Testament quotations in the New Testament, as well as no fewer than 2,309 allusions and verbal parallels. The books most used are Psalms (79 quotations, 333 allusions), and Isaiah (66 quotations, 348 allusions). In the Book of Revelation, there are no formal quotations at all, but no fewer than 620 allusions." Furthermore, "the OT is quoted or alluded to in every NT writing except Philemon and 2 and 3 John." New Testament use of the Old Testament | Theopedia
PS~ OP is banned
Wincam, Am I understanding you correctly to say that since the Bible doesn't say Mary died, that she did not die?
If it were necessary for our salvation to believe one way or the other, the Bible would have made that clear. But, since the Bible doesn't say, it is only religious dogma to claim that she did not die.
With few exceptions, the Bible doesn't tell us much of anything about the deaths of most everyone in the New Testament, from Pilot, to Cornelius, to most of the apostles. Do you make the same claim for them that you make for Mary?
And what about Mary's husband, Joseph? Where does the Bible say he died? Why not claim for him what is claimed for his wife?
If it were necessary for our salvation to believe one way or the other, the Bible would have made that clear. But, since the Bible doesn't say, it is only religious dogma to claim that she did not die.
With few exceptions, the Bible doesn't tell us much of anything about the deaths of most everyone in the New Testament, from Pilot, to Cornelius, to most of the apostles. Do you make the same claim for them that you make for Mary?
And what about Mary's husband, Joseph? Where does the Bible say he died? Why not claim for him what is claimed for his wife?
Which came first? The Bible (including NT) or the church?
It depends what angle/meaning you take?
(1) In the beginning was the Word - John 1:1 - You could argue that this means the Bible (Word) was first. But that is not (at least primarily) what John 1:1 is teaching.
(2) You could argue that the Bible was in the mind of God since the beginning of time. You could also argue that the church was in the mind of God since the beginning of time.
(3) It is clear the Old Testament was given and written before the church.
(4) It is clear from history that the church in the book of Acts was begun before the New Testament was written.
So if you take number 4, what does this say/prove about the Catholic Church?
It depends what angle/meaning you take?
(1) In the beginning was the Word - John 1:1 - You could argue that this means the Bible (Word) was first. But that is not (at least primarily) what John 1:1 is teaching.
(2) You could argue that the Bible was in the mind of God since the beginning of time. You could also argue that the church was in the mind of God since the beginning of time.
(3) It is clear the Old Testament was given and written before the church.
(4) It is clear from history that the church in the book of Acts was begun before the New Testament was written.
So if you take number 4, what does this say/prove about the Catholic Church?
"all this squabbling and nonsense by Christians that do not really seem to know and understand their Christianity"
What did you mean by not "understand their Christianity"? Do you mean those who disagree with you don't know Bible teachings, church dogma, early church history, or something else?
I outlined my understanding above and made no accusations about you. Can you give any references to show where I am mistaken? (For which I will be grateful.)
Can you provide any legitimate historical references, other than church dogmatism, to support your position?
Insinuating that people don't "understand their Christianity" because they disagree with you does nothing to help them come to a better understanding of it.
If you are correct, the most productive response would be to respectfully explain how they might be mistaken. But even if they are wrong, and you are right, you still need to treat them respectfully and hope to help them out of their error. BECAUSE THAT IS HOW GOD DEALS WITH EACH ONE OF US.
(I base this on my having been "wrong" much of my life and God patiently helping me grow out of it.)
What did you mean by not "understand their Christianity"? Do you mean those who disagree with you don't know Bible teachings, church dogma, early church history, or something else?
I outlined my understanding above and made no accusations about you. Can you give any references to show where I am mistaken? (For which I will be grateful.)
Can you provide any legitimate historical references, other than church dogmatism, to support your position?
Insinuating that people don't "understand their Christianity" because they disagree with you does nothing to help them come to a better understanding of it.
If you are correct, the most productive response would be to respectfully explain how they might be mistaken. But even if they are wrong, and you are right, you still need to treat them respectfully and hope to help them out of their error. BECAUSE THAT IS HOW GOD DEALS WITH EACH ONE OF US.
(I base this on my having been "wrong" much of my life and God patiently helping me grow out of it.)
I'm reposting this because it's correct, well though out and shows the love that Jesus would have wanted from us.
I wonder why we cannot concentrate on what we have in common with the RCC instead of fighting about what's wrong with it. Let them take care of their own problems. What has it to do with us?? People attending the RCC are also in search and many are born again believers. Do we think we have a monopoly on God?
And, as you say, EarnestQ, Catholic just means universal. We are all catholic in a sense. Plus, there was no other church around back then - it HAD to be the catholic, or universal church!
I also do not agree with some Catholic doctrine, but I love catholic people who love the Lord.
Some here would be surprised at how much.
Thanks for the great post.
Blessings
Fran
I wonder why we cannot concentrate on what we have in common with the RCC instead of fighting about what's wrong with it. Let them take care of their own problems. What has it to do with us?? People attending the RCC are also in search and many are born again believers. Do we think we have a monopoly on God?
And, as you say, EarnestQ, Catholic just means universal. We are all catholic in a sense. Plus, there was no other church around back then - it HAD to be the catholic, or universal church!
I also do not agree with some Catholic doctrine, but I love catholic people who love the Lord.
Some here would be surprised at how much.
Thanks for the great post.
Blessings
Fran
