Which Came First: The Church or the New Testament?

[William Tell]

So are there churches or is there just "the church?"

There is "the church" meaning the whole body of believers, and then there are local congregations who call themselves churches. It really just means congregation or community as I understand it.

[Dr.3D]

There is "the church" meaning the whole body of believers, and then there are local congregations who call themselves churches. It really just means congregation or community as I understand it.

Thanks Willie.

[TER]

I will not cite their proclamations of death sentences again. I would rather their names not get air time, and you will just ignore the citations anyway, as you have done the last few times.

It is a shame you still resort to lies. Please, if there are any Orthodox Saints who executed Christians who celebrated the Jewish Feasts of the Old Covenant, then list them, otherwise stop with the lies and the false accusations.

By Venerable Bede:

Far be it from me to charge John with foolishness: he literally observed the decrees of the Mosaic law when the Church was still Jewish in many respects, at a time when the apostles were unable to bring a sudden end to that law which God ordained…So John, in accordance with the custom of the law, began the celebration of Easter Day in the evening of the fourteenth day of the first month, regardless of whether it fell on the sabbath or any other day (Bede (Monk). Edited by Judith McClure and Roger Collins. The Ecclesiastical History of the English People. Oxford University Press, NY, 1999).

Please notice and really read what you quoted here because without knowing you proved my point.

First, it says how obedient St. John was when the Church was still Jewish in many respects. No one is doubting this was true. St. John was extremely obedient, if not the most obedient of the Apostles. When the Church was still Jewish in many respects (in other words, before the Church stopped being Jewish in many respects), St. John followed obediently the Lord. You make the claim earlier that the other leaders of the Church said he didn't know any better and that there was a controversy. You have yet to prove that.

The controversy was about the dating of Pascha, which is something decided upon by the Church given the authority by God to do so within the Church.

The transformation of the Church of Christ from a Jewish sect of believers into a worshiping universal Church open to all believers did not happen overnight my friend, and of course there was a natural process through time. Only Christ could make the fig tree barren by a command. This took more time and work for the Church to shed certain of its Old Covenant customs and traditions because of the pride and obstinacy of men. The example par excellence is Church's handling of the commandment of God for physical circumsicion.

Some of the Apostles and leaders thought circumcision was necessary for several years after the Day of Pentecost, and it ultimately reached the limits of controversy that it led to the first great council of the Church, and I HIGHLY DOUBT St. John wasn't on St. Paul's side on this one, or perhaps you think he was? Until it came to the time for the Church to speak in Council, which has always been the method to resolve doctrinal differences and opinions within the Church as seen in the Book of Acts, there did exist various traditions which at times would come to a head on account of the divisions it produced.

It was the will of God through the Holy Spirit working within the Church that certain laws and customs of the Old Covenant were phased out to be supplanted by the law in Christ, and His Church which was neither Jewish nor Greek.

Bede goes on in the quote above:

he literally observed the decrees of the Mosaic law when the Church was still Jewish in many respects, at a time when the apostles were unable to bring a sudden end to that law which God ordained…

This here demonstrates that the apostles were unable to bring to a sudden end the law which God ordained. Not that it wasn't their will or desire to end the old worship which God ordained in the Old Covemant and introduce the new worship, for that is exactly what they eventually did and what was done through those they taught and ordained. Rather, they were unable to bring it to a sudden end because of the difficulties it is for a man to change his habits and rid himself of the baggage he has brought along. The operative word in the sentence by Bede is sudden.

He then says:

So John, in accordance with the custom of the law (That is, according to the custom which existed in those early days- TER) , began the celebration of Easter Day in the evening of the fourteenth day of the first month, regardless of whether it fell on the sabbath or any other day

Notice how the celebration was not of a Jewish Passover or a Seder, but of Easter, that is, the Christian Pascha. Bede is not referring to a major controversy on how to celebrate the Lord's Resurrection, but rather when. What did at one time become a controversy in the early history of the Church was the dating of Pascha, that is, whether it should be solely celebrated on the Lord's Day or which ever day it landed on in the week according to the Jewish cycle. I think this controversy was in the second century, and it led to various Churches celebrating Pascha on different days. This, of course, was less than ideal, and just like the circumcision dilemma in the past, this led to a Council of the leaders of the Christian Church and it was decided on celebrating Pascha on the Lord's Day following the new moon, which had been the practice of the great Churches in Rome and Alexandria, to name two.

No one condemns St. John for celebrating Pascha on a particular day and for having celebrating it according to the custom of his local Church in the time prior to the decision of the Church in Council.

What would have condemned St. John is if he continued to celebrate it on another day after the Church in Council made a decision for which day to celebrate it on, the same way the Judaizing Christians were cut off from the Church who persisted in making circumsicion a requirement upon the baptized in Christ after the Church already decided on it. These disobedient heretics argued it was the older commandment of God and immutable. It was not their ignorant or incomplete understanding of what Christ accomplished on the cross which condemned them, but the fact that they considered their indivual opinions and interpretations to be above the decision of the greater Church together in the Holy Spirit.

So you see, when you read the quote from this seventh century Western Saint in the light of history and the mind of the Church, you see how it does not at all take the position that celebrating the Old Jewish Feasts was an immutable law and still applicable commandment of God upon the New Covenant faithful, but rather shows how in the time before the Apostles could bring to an end the Old Law and the old observances which were old wineskins to the Church, the practice of celebrating Pascha was one of the things which varied in local Churches.

Play close attention to Bede's quote, for he specifically states that whatever the day Pascha was celebrated, they did not celebrate the Jewish Passover, but the Christianized Feast of Pascha which he calls Easter, whereby they recited verses from Jonah and chanted prophetic Psalms of David, and sang together Christian hymn, and the catechumens were baptized and they all communed together of the Holy Eucharist. That is the early Christian Pascha celebration in a nutshell, whatever day or calendar the Church decided to celebrate it on.

Later, when it became necessary, this tradition and custom of celebrating it on the same day of the Jewish Passover was also shed in Council just as circumsicion was, to the benefit of the Church and the defense of the apostolic truths that the Church was not made for the Sabbath, but rather the Sabbath (and in fact, every holy day and celebration) was made for the Church, for it is the Church in its ordained episcopy which has been given the authority by the Holy Spirit to forgive sins and shepherd the flock, and direct the laity to greater communion with Christ through their very consent.

Does this happen flawlessly? No, there were bad Bishops with the good Bishops, but the Church survived and flourished in spite of them and through the Church, many grew in Christ and the Lord's Name was glorified.

[TER]

There is "the church" meaning the whole body of believers, and then there are local congregations who call themselves churches. It really just means congregation or community as I understand it.

Yes, "the Church" is the whole body of believers in one faith, one mind, one baptism, and in one Lord, for there are not many bodies, but One Body of Christ, and there are not many minds of Christ but One Mind just as there is One Head of the Church, Who is Christ. So likewise, there is One Church. And this was the teaching St. Paul was giving on account of there being those who were causing division even in those earliest days, for he was exhorting them to remain in one mind and one faith, to listen to their spiritual fathers of which he was one, and to come to unity of faith. Thus, if and when circumsicion became a stumbling block and was not necessary any longer for the believer to grow in Christ, then it was the duty of the leaders of the Church to come together, with the Holy Spirit, in prayer and fasting, and deliberate and decide what was for the good of the Church and the flocks God entrusted to them.

[pcosmar]

The written Word is a snapshot, frozen in time, of the Living Word.

and I will never accept the word of a church over and above the Word of the Living God.

Exactly so..

And He said, "See to it that you are not misled; for many will come in My name, saying, 'I am He,' and, 'The time is near.' Do not go after them.

by Fr. James Bernstein

"But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. "Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ.…
Jesus Christ

DO NOT.

[TER]

1 Corinthians 4:15

15 Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.

[Ronin Truth]

1 Corinthians 4:15

15 Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.

Paulinism.

[pcosmar]

When Jesus Christ states directly and clearly,, "Don't do it."

then Don't do it.

period.

[TER]

When Jesus Christ states directly and clearly,, "Don't do it."

then Don't do it.

period.

Or perhaps you misunderstand what Christ meant?

Christ said to pluck our your eye for looking at someone with lust. Have you plucked out your eye, or perhaps you have never looked at anyone with lust?

[pcosmar]

Or perhaps you misunderstand what Christ meant?

Dude,, your argument is not with me.

Your argument is with Jesus Christ.

[TER]

Dude,, your argument is not with me.

Your argument is with Jesus Christ.

No, the argument is with you and St. Paul and every Church Father and Christian going back 2000 years who called their male parent 'father' in addition to those who called their elders and spiritual guides 'father' as St. Paul was to St. Timothy.

I think it is you who have the misunderstanding of what Christ meant. After all, did not Christ say "honor your father and mother?"

Acts 7:2, Stephen refers to "our father Abraham,"

Romans 9:10 Paul speaks of "our father Isaac."

So, the problem as I see it is that you are misinterpreting what Christ meant.

He was telling us that no leader may set up his own interpretation of the faith and seek followers for his opinion apart from Him and His Church.

[Eagles' Wings]

No, the argument is with you and St. Paul and every Church Father and Christian going back 2000 years who called their male parent 'father' in addition to those who called their elders and spiritual guides 'father' as St. Paul was to St. Timothy.

I think it is you who have the misunderstanding of what Christ meant. After all, did not Christ say "honor your father and mother?"

Acts 7:2, Stephen refers to "our father Abraham,"

Romans 9:10 Paul speaks of "our father Isaac."

So, the problem as I see it is that you are misinterpreting what Christ meant.

He was telling us that no leader may set up his own interpretation of the faith and seek followers for his opinion apart from Him and His Church.

As usual, one of us imperfect humans are misunderstanding Scripture. What else is new, TER?

Where is that passage again, where Jesus Christ says we are to call priests, "Father"?

[Eagles' Wings]

It seems churches or congregations were only known by the name where they were located when Jesus was addressing them in the book of Revelation. There was no mention of denomination.

So what happens when one congregation decides it's the one and only Church?

The Reformation happens! Praise God, for prompting Luther to post his concerns on the church door in Wittenberg, Germany.

[Ronin Truth]

It seems churches or congregations were only known by the name where they were located when Jesus was addressing them in the book of Revelation. There was no mention of denomination.

So what happens when one congregation decides it's the one and only Church?

~33,000 denominations and splinters.

[Eagles' Wings]

Did not read the OP because it is too long and single space is hard to read.

Jesus Christ, is the Pillar and Foundation of the Church. The Church, founded upon Christ, delights in the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, with/in the New Testament.
(John 14:25-26)

[Eagles' Wings]

The Holy Spirit called the Church and the whole of Scripture into existence.

[heavenlyboy34]

As usual, one of us imperfect humans are misunderstanding Scripture. What else is new, TER?

Where is that passage again, where Jesus Christ says we are to call priests, "Father"?

If everything in Christian life to you relies on the red letter text, Reformationism is almost entirely wrong.

[heavenlyboy34]

The Reformation happens! Praise God, for prompting Luther to post his concerns on the church door in Wittenberg, Germany.

Why is it better to splinter and weaken Christians than to negotiate reform and unite them? I don't recall much of what Luther got right beyond his criticism of the Bishop of Rome (the Pope).

[Eagles' Wings]

If everything in Christian life to you relies on the red letter text, Reformationism is almost entirely wrong.

Referring to TER's post where he determined that Pete was misinterpreting Jesus' words. Matthew 23 would be the "red letter" text that some use to affirm title of "Father" for their priests. In context, it seems to me that Christ is warning against the temptation to place authority and titles in any other than Himself.

[Eagles' Wings]

Why is it better to splinter and weaken Christians than to negotiate reform and unite them? I don't recall much of what Luther got right beyond his criticism of the Bishop of Rome (the Pope).

HB, history says that there was no room for negotiation from Rome . Even the princes of the region sided with Luther against the Pope, at great peril to their lives.

Luther brought the Scripture, in German, to the people. He taught justification is by faith alone, in Christ alone. He taught that the people did not have to pay for their sins through indulgences (still a teaching, in the Catechism).

Luther told the people to read their bibles and they loved it.

Luther was excommunicated for this.

[heavenlyboy34]

HB, history says that there was no room for negotiation from Rome . Even the princes of the region sided with Luther against the Pope, at great peril to their lives.

Luther brought the Scripture, in German, to the people. He taught justification is by faith alone, in Christ alone. He taught that the people did not have to pay for their sins through indulgences (still a teaching, in the Catechism).

Luther told the people to read their bibles and they loved it.

Luther was excommunicated for this.

Nope. Luther was given more than enough time to justify his position, but failed to do it.

The time limit of 60 days set by the Bull Exsurge Domine, during which Martin Luther was supposed to make an act of obedience to the Pope, expired on the 27th November 1520, after copies of the papal bull had been put on the doors of the Cathedrals of Meissen, Merseburg and Brandenburg, and after the German friar received the original document, he burnt it with contempt. Since Luther decided to proceed along his way (in suo pravo et damnato proposito obstinatum), the Pope had no other choice than to carry out the threat clearly announced in the document of the 15th June 1520.

On January 3, 1521, Pope Leo X issues the papal bull Decet Romanum Pontificem, which excommunicates Martin Luther from the Catholic Church.

Martin Luther, the chief catalyst of Protestantism, was a professor of biblical interpretation at the University of Wittenberg in Germany when he drew up his 95 theses condemning the Catholic Church for its corrupt practice of selling indulgences, or the forgiveness of sins. He followed up the revolutionary work with equally controversial and groundbreaking theological works, and his fiery words set off religious reformers all across Europe.

In January 1521, Pope Leo X excommunicated Luther. Three months later, Luther was called to defend his beliefs before Holy Roman Emperor Charles V at

the Diet of Worms, where he was famously defiant. For his refusal to recant his writings, the emperor declared him an outlaw and a heretic. Luther was protected by powerful German princes, however, and by his death in 1546, the course of Western civilization had been significantly altered.

From history.com

[TER]

As usual, one of us imperfect humans are misunderstanding Scripture. What else is new, TER?

Hi Lousie! Not much is new, as misunderstandings of Scripture are a dime a dozen in this relativistic, individualistic, and materialistic post-Christian world, but thank God we can find the pillar of truth in the Church, (also known by the Apostle as the Body of Christ), so that our vanity and pride does not lead us to false interpretation. I try to to keep my conclusions to a minimum knowing how imperfect I am and choose the wisdom of those greater then me for guidance.

Where is that passage again, where Jesus Christ says we are to call priests, "Father"?

That is an excellent question! I am happy you are joining into the debate!

First answer me this: Where in the Bible did Christ tell His Apostles to abandon circumcision?

[TER]

Did not read the OP because it is too long and single space is hard to read.

That is a shame. I think you would find it quite informative. (I formatted the OP for easier reading)

Jesus Christ, is the Pillar and Foundation of the Church. The Church, founded upon Christ, delights in the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, with/in the New Testament.
(John 14:25-26)

Amen!

[Eagles' Wings]

Nope. Luther was given more than enough time to justify his position, but failed to do it.

The time limit of 60 days set by the Bull Exsurge Domine, during which Martin Luther was supposed to make an act of obedience to the Pope, expired on the 27th November 1520, after copies of the papal bull had been put on the doors of the Cathedrals of Meissen, Merseburg and Brandenburg, and after the German friar received the original document, he burnt it with contempt. Since Luther decided to proceed along his way (in suo pravo et damnato proposito obstinatum), the Pope had no other choice than to carry out the threat clearly announced in the document of the 15th June 1520.

On January 3, 1521, Pope Leo X issues the papal bull Decet Romanum Pontificem, which excommunicates Martin Luther from the Catholic Church.

Martin Luther, the chief catalyst of Protestantism, was a professor of biblical interpretation at the University of Wittenberg in Germany when he drew up his 95 theses condemning the Catholic Church for its corrupt practice of selling indulgences, or the forgiveness of sins. He followed up the revolutionary work with equally controversial and groundbreaking theological works, and his fiery words set off religious reformers all across Europe.

In January 1521, Pope Leo X excommunicated Luther. Three months later, Luther was called to defend his beliefs before Holy Roman Emperor Charles V at

the Diet of Worms, where he was famously defiant. For his refusal to recant his writings, the emperor declared him an outlaw and a heretic. Luther was protected by powerful German princes, however, and by his death in 1546, the course of Western civilization had been significantly altered.

From history.com

HB, the simple fact is that Luther would not recant. He stood by Scripture and conviction, given by God. By the time of the Diet of Worms, his writings were extensive and the common man was reading them. The papacy wanted him stopped, the money from indulgences had dropped dramatically. The Pope's desire to build St. Peter's on the backs of the poor, was in jeopardy.

It is so simple. God brought the man Luther, to accomplish a great work, and that is what happened.

The powerful German princes were convinced that Luther was bringing them the truth.

[Eagles' Wings]

Hi Lousie! Not much is new, as misunderstandings of Scripture are a dime a dozen in this relativistic, individualistic, and materialistic post-Christian world, but thank God we can find the pillar of truth in the Church, (also known by the Apostle as the Body of Christ), so that our vanity and pride does not lead us to false interpretation. I try to to keep my conclusions to a minimum knowing how imperfect I am and choose the wisdom of those greater then me for guidance.



That is an excellent question! I am happy you are joining into the debate!

First answer me this: Where in the Bible did Christ tell His Apostles to abandon circumcision?

Never mind my friend. I shall not get in a circular conversation with you. Our time is too short for that, eh? There are many past threads dealing with circumcision. Our confidence is in the Lord, and that He will lead us into truth. Hold closely to Him, TER, and you will know that great promise of Romans 8:28.

[Eagles' Wings]

Amen!

Amen to your Amen. Praise God from whom all blessings flow.

[Terry1]

The Greek word /ekklesia/ used there is more likely to be rendered 'congregation' than it is 'church,' if the Greek were pointing to "The Church" (as in my post #20) they are more likely to have used /kyriakos/.

I usually, in polite conversation, refer to One Church, with a Catholic congregation, an Orthodox Congregation, a Baptist Congregation, etc.

Excellent! This is the closest thing to what I believe is correct that I've seen in a long time. Absolutely Gunny--the Holy Spirit dwells in those no matter what denomination they are as He sees fit. Only God knows the heart of individuals.

[Ronin Truth]

Matthew 23:9King James Version (KJV)

⁹ And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

Seems pretty clear. Did I miss some nuance?