Why Trust the Bible? (page 4)

PSacramento

I am confused Perry, are you then saying that one shoudl NOT tust the bible, since it is corrupted?

PSacramento

Well, according to the evidence you are showing, between 90 AD and 150 AD, it got corrupted.

BurnTheShips

Just word games. No matter how bad you want it...you can't change history. There is a difference between the "Church" characterized by being born again and personal testimony; and the "Catholic Church" characterized by papal authority and geography.

You make a category error, Perry. By being born of the water and the spirit, which is baptism, we become members of the body of Christ. Paul wrote that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the Christian truth. He did not say Churches.

In early times, there was no concept of an invisible body like what some Protestants teach today. The body was visible. It was all the churches in the world in communion with one another, handing down the teachings of the apostles, whether in writing, or by oral teaching.

The successors to the original Apostles received the authority and responsibility conferred to them by these apostles. Episkopos were consecrated by the laying on of hands. We see this clearly with Timothy and Paul. If you also read early Christian writings, such as the Apostolic Fathers, who were the first generation of leaders after the passing of the Apostles you will see that this is the case. To think otherwise, would be to believe that that entire first generation of successors to the original 12 taught a lie, despite the fact that all of them were taught directly by the apostles themselves, and despite the fact that many of them were martyred for the faith. In short, this thesis has no validity. It is anti-historic.

The only authority in the bible is at the local congregation level administered by a pastor and a deacon.

This is not true, we have general epistles written to many churches, as well as epistles written specifically to far flung churches. We have examples in Scripture where disputes among churches were settled by a general council of all the Apostles and episkopos in the world. This has been the model ever since.

I await your next copy and paste response.

BTS

PSacramento

The authorities in the bible were the civil authorites ( for crimes and such) the local home chruchs and congregations for religious matters and IF things were NOT settled at that level, it seems that one could go right to the "source", either by writting or in person.

superpunk

BTS, I certainly agree that Catholicism has the best claim to being that original branch, and any attempt to make it something else winds up falling short.

But do you see the circular-reasoning inherent in the Catholic claim? Wherein they receive validation of their authority from the book, which they compiled and subsequently ratified?

Something like me writing a book that declares me emperor of New Superpunkia, declaring it the word and will of God and then demanding that everyone recognize my authoritah.

BurnTheShips

Wherein they receive validation of their authority from the book, which they compiled and subsequently ratified?

The Church does not receive validation or authority from the book. The book receives validation or authority from the Church that wrote its parts, compiled them, and preserved them.

Jesus did not write a book. He founded a body of disciples. Some of their writings became part of a book.

BTS

superpunk

Either way it's circular and self-ratifying.

PSacramento

Jesus did not write a book. He founded a body of disciples. Some of their writings became part of a book.

I don't think this has been said enough.

BurnTheShips

I don't think this has been said enough.

This text does not refer to a dead book. "Word," should be capitalized here, in my opinion.

For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Hebrews 4:12

BTS

Why Trust the Bible?

Share this