The Church or the Bible

scriptual catholcism ^ | 1888 | Fr. Arnold Damen, S.J.

[Quester]

Oh, no? Did Paul not say he didn't seek to interfere with a foundation built by someone else? Romans 15:20. Ever wonder who that someone else was IN ROME?

Paul was, simply saying here ... that he preferred not to evangelize in an area where the people already had been evangelized by another of the Apostles.

He didn't wish to get the reputation of someone who tried to cash in on another's work ... and Paul wished to as as instrumental in spreading the gospel into new areas as he could.

1 Corinthians 15:17 So it is right for me to be enthusiastic about all Christ Jesus has done through me in my service to God.

18 I dare not boast of anything else. I have brought the Gentiles to God by my message and by the way I lived before them.

19 I have won them over by the miracles done through me as signs from God – all by the power of God's Spirit. In this way, I have fully presented the Good News of Christ all the way from Jerusalem clear over into Illyricum.

20 My ambition has always been to preach the Good News where the name of Christ has never been heard, rather than where a church has already been started by someone else.

21 I have been following the plan spoken of in the Scriptures, where it says, "Those who have never been told about him will see, and those who have never heard of him will understand."

"The 'church' in the bible does not at all resemble the Catholic Church ..."

Actually it does. Bishops, priests, and deacons. Do you have those? The Mass, the Eucharist and other sacraments. Got those? A Church that teaches authoritatively (even to the angels)...

Where are there priests mentioned in the Biblical New Testament Church (other than the priesthood of all believers) ?

Where is the Mass described ?

Where is marriage taught as a sacrament ... or confirmation ?

Where does the scriptures say that christians will teach angels ?

[xzins]

Christ said...."Go and make disciples..."

How do you know Christ said that?

[whispering out loud]

Grace is unmerited favor with God there is nothing we could do that is worthy of the gift God gave us in the form of his son. "Our righteousness is as filthy rags." Our actions are a result of our salvation, not viseversi. If we could earn our salvation then there would have been no reason for Christ to die. To attempt to earn salvation diminishes his sacrifice, I have no problem following his commandments, but it is not to earn salvation, it is instead in gratitude for said salvation.

[DX10]

"Grace is unmerited favor......"

I never said we earn our salvation. The actions of Eph 2:10 are indeed from a thankful heart. Our love for God is perfected in keeping His word. 1st John 2:5. I just think you have the cart before the horse. (Did Naaman have to do anything to be cured of his leprosy? Did his obedience to God nullify God's grace?) BTW, you still have not answered the questions. Statements should always be backed up with scripture, imo.

[whispering out loud]

I didn't answer your first question because it was an exercise in redundancy. Baptism is not called in the scriptures a work any more than it is called a command because to do so would imply that any one who reads these writings must be too dense to realize that for themselves. Your statement that baptism is an act of obedience, well so were the other works that were referred to in Ephesians 2;8-9. Preaching, and missions were commanded, so doing them is obedience, does that make them any less work? no it doesn't your definition of work has a place in the scientific world, but there are other applications for the word. not everyone who earns a wage does physical labor. Some sit behind a computer all day, while some watch others work all day, does that make their job any less work? No I hold in this application to my original definition.

To answer your second question, the scriptures do not call it a sign either, that was my personal application. Baptism is as you said obedience, we do it because God says to do it. But why are we commanded to do it? When I was baptized it was not only an opportunity to follow in obedience, but also my first opportunity to declare to the world on a public platform that I had accepted Gods grace, and decided to follow his commands. So for me it was a sign to the world, one clear and concise.

As far as putting the cart before the horse, I think not. I would have chosen a different analogy, because I do not desire to put Christ in the place of a horse, but in your analogy he would be the horse, the cart being salvation and inside the cart of salvation me and all the physical acts that come along with salvation. Among those acts are baptism, preaching the gospel, reading his word, prayer, along side of the nonphysical described as the fruits of the spirit. The things I do not to attain favor with God, but because of the favor he has given that I could do nothing to deserve.

[RobbyS]

Begginmg the qutestion about the content of the Bible. Without a groups of people tyo publish it, the Bible as we know it, would noit exist. Perhaps the books attributed to Moses were dictated directly by God, but there is no evidence that the same is true of the New Testament. The Four Gospels are obviously the work of separate authors. Luke, the only evangelist to make a claim to authorship, presents a different story from that of Matthew and Mark, and these three one quite different from that of John. We do not know when, where or for what particular reason, that any of these books were written, and certain not when they came into common use.

[jo kus]

Have you ever asked Jesus to save you???

All the time.

Regards

[DX10]

" didn't answer your first question because......."

Well, we will just have to disagree on this one. I was baptized unto the remission of sins according to scripture. (Acts 2:38,22:16, etc. Amer. Std.) As you say, you were baptized as a sign to others according to....? I assume that you believe that your sins were remitted when you....? And, you know that I didn't liken Christ to a horse. That suggestion is beneath you. You put the remission of sins before baptism. And, that is the analogy. Regards.

[Kolokotronis]

" How do you know Christ said that?"

"...this I know, 'cause the Bible tells me so!" :)

[xzins]

for the bible tells me so...

I knew you'd answer that honestly. At that point, I'd simply revert to my position that the church is subject to the word of Christ and the Apostles rather than vice versa.

Incidentally, when is that next big festival serving doner kebap (or the Greek version, which name I forget) :>)

[Quester]

The Four Gospels are obviously the work of separate authors. Luke, the only evangelist to make a claim to authorship, presents a different story from that of Matthew and Mark, and these three one quite different from that of John.

The story that the gospels tell ... are not different.

They all tell the same story.

The presentations are different ... because the presenters are different.

[RobbyS]

They tell the story quite differently. I am inclined to think that John, whose gospel was last published, came closest to telling the whole tale. Funny thing, I wasn't convinced until I saw the movie "The Gospel of John." To me it made clear why the "Establishment," The Romans, Herod and the priests came together against him. It would have several visits to Jerusalem to have stirred up that much opposition. Plus he seemed to have friends (family?) in the area. Plus the hint that asa Pious Jews the "Barjosephs" made pilgrimages to Jerusalem. Plus the aprocryphal tale of "James" which made Mary a native of the area. Plus the fact that the Mother Church, with his borther James at the head, was in Jerusalem. ANYWAY, that's MY perspective, of minimal authority.

Speaking of: Who decided to select these four "gospels?"

[Salvation]

For the ongoing dialogue about the Church and the Bible:

We’re on a Mission From God!

by Marcellino D'Ambrosio, Ph.D.

Other Articles by Marcellino D'Ambrosio, Ph.D.

We’re on a Mission From God!

02/06/06

The Bible is not just for churches and synagogues. Portions of it are read as literature, even in secular university classrooms. Invariably, when you look at the syllabus of such courses, you find Job.

It’s not hard to see why. Job poignantly expresses what all human beings experience at one time or another — the feeling that life is a burden, that our daily routine is drudgery, that our suffering is meaningless, that there’s not much hope for our future (Jb 7:1-7).

Things are tough all over — in Job’s day, in ours, in Peter’s. It’s all about trying to earn a living and raise a family with taxes, government, disease, and unexpected tragedies yapping at our heels. The Gospel (Mk 1:29-39) shows us such a world that is suddenly turned upside down by someone who breaks all the rules. Demons that normally inspire terror, themselves run away in fear. Fevers flee. Incurable illnesses yield. Instead of talk about the burden of the law with its innumerable regulations, Good News is announced that gives people hope again. The Good News is that God is on the move, that He, not the emperor or the Prince of Darkness, is King, and He is not slavemaster but Father.

The Someone responsible for all this commotion happens to look like one of them, and indeed is one of them, but does things that only God can do. As He speaks, they begin to feel as if the world may have meaning, that life may actually be worth living. They want to be with Him, to hear His electric words and see His astonishing deeds. So they won’t leave Him alone. Crowds gather outside the door of the humble place where He is staying.

What happens next is instructive. Knowing His need for communion with His Heavenly Father, He rises early the next morning to seek solitude and a few moments in prayer. But they need Him. So they send the Apostles to track Him down. When they find Him, He is not annoyed. He does not protest that it is His day off, tell them to come back tomorrow or sometime next week. He has come to bring Good News, to bring light to those in darkness, healing to the suffering. Many are desperate, so His mission is urgent. He gets up, but doesn’t return to Capernaum. Instead, He moves on to other towns. Those who wish to enjoy the excitement of His company must join Him in His mission.

St. Paul has the same sense of urgency as his master (I Cor 9:16-19). He is aware of being entrusted with an awesome responsibility. It is not an option for him to share the Gospel. What he has received as a gift, the most precious gift imaginable, he must give as a gift. And he must give it not only to those he likes, or those with whom he has some natural bond. He must not do it only when it suits him, when it is convenient. No, he must exert himself. He must seek common ground with all — Jew, Greek, weak, strong, educated, uneducated — so as to express the Gospel to them in a way that they can understand. And this mission led him to cover more ground than even his master — not just Judea and Galilee, but what’s now Turkey, Greece, and Italy.

Not all are called to be traveling preachers like our Lord and St. Paul. But the Church teaches unequivocally that membership in the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic church is not just about being saved and enjoying God’s company. There is a suffering world out there that desperately needs the saving truth and healing touch of Christ. Notice that immediately upon being healed, Peter’s mother-in-law began working. Baptism is completed by confirmation, an anointing to serve. You can’t be fully a member of the apostolic Church without participating in the apostolic mission.


Dr. D'Ambrosio studied under Avery Cardinal Dulles for his Ph.D. in historical theology and taught for many years at the University of Dallas. He now directs www.crossroadsinitiative.com, which offers Catholic resources for RCIA, adult faith formation, and teens, with a special emphasis on the Year of the Eucharist, the Theology of the Body, the early Church Fathers, and the sacrament of confirmation.

(This article originally appeared in Our Sunday Visitor and is used by permission of the author.)

[brwnsuga]

That's why we should only put our faith in G-d, not the church with is run by fallible men. We should let the Holy Spirit guide us in our faith. The Holy Spirit is a teacher, comforter and guide.

[whispering out loud]

As my regards to you, and please do not take me to imply that you were likening Christ to a horse. It was just the way the analogy fell with my method of reasoning, once again you have my respect and regards.

[Uri’el-2012]

XS> Y'shua did not preach anything else other than the Tanach.

jk>That is true partially, but Jesus certainly expounded on their meanings as taught by the then religious authorities.

For example: Ye have heard that it was said to the ancients,
Thou shalt not commit murder, and whosoever shall commit murder
shall be guilty of the judgment; but I say unto you, That whosoever
is angry with his brother out of control shall be in danger of the judgment (Mat 5:21-22).

And of course, when Jesus talks about suffering in the face of persecution
and turning the other cheek, I don't find that in the OT. Perhaps you might help me there, I don't find it.

XS> He condemned the traditions of man and always pointed to the Holy Word of G-d

No He didn't. We have previously discussed this.
Jesus only condemns traditions that move men AWAY from God.
Thus, Jesus tells His Apostles to OBEY THOSE WHO SIT IN THE CHAIR OF MOSES.
..Where is that in Scriptures???
In addition, Jesus, at the end of Matthew's Gospel, says NOTHING about the written Word of God
(nor do the other Gospels) when He commissions His Apostles to teach and preach ALL that He had taught them.
Nothing about securing a printing press and distributing pamplets(sic) of the "Gospel" for private interpretation...

Regards

68 posted on 02/05/2006 1:50:02 PM MST by jo kus

Y'shua, who is the Word of G-d, taught from what we know as the Holy Word of G-d (the Tanach).
He initiated the New Covenant as prophesied in Jeremiah 31:31.

Jeremiah 31:31 "The time is coming," declares YHvH, "when I will make
a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.

Jeremiah 31:32 It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to
[Hebrew; Septuagint and Syriac covenant, and I turned away
from] them," [Or was their master] declares YHvH.

Jeremiah 31:33 "This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
after that time,” declares YHvH. "I will put my law in
their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God,
and they will be my people.

Thus He moved obedience from a ridged adherence
of the word of the Law to the spirit of the Law
The word of the Law had been surrounded
by tradition which clouded the Holy Word of G-d
Y'shua returned back to the fundamental of

Leviticus 19:17 "'Do not hate your brother in your heart. Rebuke your
neighbor frankly so that you will not share in his guilt.

Leviticus 19:18 "'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your
people, but love your neighbour as yourself. I am YHvH.

XS> He condemned the traditions of man and always pointed to the Holy Word of G-d

js>No He didn't. We have previously discussed this.
Jesus only condemns traditions that move men AWAY from God.

OK!

What kind of tradition of man would defy the Holy Word of G-d
which clearly identifies the day of the week
to keep Holy and instead claim to have the authority
to move it to a celebration of a Pagan sun god.

What kind of tradition of man would condemn the celebration
of a appointed time i.e.( Pesach; Passover)
which was celebrated by Y'shua with His Apostles and
again create another Pagan festival for Ishtar from Babylon?

These seem to be two examples of
the tradition of man moving men AWAY from G-d!

And more specifically AWAY from the Holy Word of G-d.

Which were and are condemned by Y'shua.

What does the "Chair of Moses" mean?

Tradition at that time was whoever sat in the Chair of Moses
was to read the Tanach as it was written.

jk>In addition, Jesus, at the end of Matthew's Gospel, says NOTHING about the written Word of God

Because there was already the written Holy Word of G-d!

The Tanach is the Holy Word of G-d.

b'shem Y'shua

[Quester]

They tell the story quite differently. I am inclined to think that John, whose gospel was last published, came closest to telling the whole tale. Funny thing, I wasn't convinced until I saw the movie "The Gospel of John."

Of course ... it is true that none of the gospels tell the whole story.

Yet, in spite of this, ... they do tell the same story.

FWIW, even John doesn't tell the 'whole story'.

For example, ... John doesn't tell the story of the Nativity, ... whereas Matthew and Luke do.

Mark ... the shortest gospel, ... does not include a lot of the teachings of Christ found in Matthew and Luke.

In John, you don't have anything like Matthew's the Sermon on the Mount, ... whereas ... John does seem to focus more ... on Jesus' personal interactions (i.e. vignettes) ... with the persons He ministered with and to ... and of His battles with the Jewish religious authorities.

So ... it is only as we bring the four testimonies of Jesus' life and ministry together ... that we get anything close to the whole story.

But ... these (4) testimonies can be brought together to reveal that story ... exactly because they tell (perhaps different facets of) ... the same story.

Speaking of: Who decided to select these four "gospels?"

Actually, the Holy Spirit.

He moved the leadership of the church of that day ... to make the selections that they did.

P.S. I recently saw the movie ... "The Gospel of John also ... (though there is still some of the second half that I haven't seen)."

I believe that it was one of the best protrayals of the ministry of Christ that I have seen.

[RobbyS]

Whom did the Holy Spirit inspire to make the selection? many peopole are unwilling to use the word "Church" but until the 4th Century authoritative listings of the "canon. were rare.

[Quester]

Whom did the Holy Spirit inspire to make the selection? many peopole are unwilling to use the word "Church" but until the 4th Century authoritative listings of the "canon. were rare.

I quote my last response ...

He moved the leadership of the church of that day ... to make the selections that they did.

[Sloth]

This is intended merely to present the Catholic side. It is not intended as an attack on the Faith of any Freeper or lurker.

OK, then do not interpret my response as an attack:

I believe that there is only one true church that God recognizes as his own (Ephesians 4:4-6). I believe that this one true church was established on the day of Pentecost after Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection (Acts 2). I believe that salvation from sin is found in becoming a member of this church, whose characteristics are described in the New Testament. And I do not believe that the organization known as the Catholic Church is the same body that the apostles belonged to in the first century A.D.