debosky:
Apologies for the oversight. My view is that scriptural interpretation is wholly reliant on the Holy Spirit who teaches all things. In terms of specifics, interpretation needs to be contextual and not contradictory of other scripture. I believe the scriptures are consistent and, if properly interpreted should not result in confusion.

we now have over 40000 churches who claim to follow d above and still contradict each other plenty and heavyly

If I recall correctly, this is your view:

I disagree with this wholeheartedly because this places the Catholic Church in a position of authority not given to it by Jesus as recorded in Scripture. Jesus is the head of the church, and the Holy Spirit teaches all things, not the Catholic Church.

sorry my dear, it places d catholic in d very position d bible place d church, a self teaching organism.

Now, I appreciate where your view point may originate from - you believe the Catholic Church holds a 'direct' connection to the early church through its 'apostolic succession' and its role in 'compiling' the bible. That's would be all well and good if rightful interpretation was based simply on being 'connected' to the early church. But it isn't.

After all, in the early church (more precisely early church groups)there were teachings that had to be challenged by Paul and others - my point is that no church group is immune from wrong teaching simply by historical precedent or connection.

and my point will be that the very fact that those false teachings dat arose were challenged and condemned is in itself a proof that the church still remains dat pillar and bulwark d bible says it is.

Those who call themselves 'Catholics' and 'Protestants' may disagree on many things, but tend to agree that the bible is the inspired word of God. It contains the teachings of Jesus and the apostles of the early church, and is 'unchanging'- it is not being modified or added to. Therefore, it should not be subject to the 'authority' of one church grouping.

I understand that Catholics may disagree with this, claiming that the bible itself was 'written' by the Catholic Church and hence cannot be placed above 'Church teachings', but this is inaccurate in my view. The Catholic church clearly didn't 'write' the OT, neither did it 'write' the books of the NT - what transpired in essence was a common recognition among church groups (led by the Holy Spirit) about which books were indeed inspired, followed by 'formal' approval by councils and nothing more.

Of course there are dangers to individual interpretations, which is why we should not forsake fellowship of the brethren and continue to sharpen iron with iron. Above all, we should rely on the Holy Spirit for interpretation - allowing him to teach us and bring us into greater knowledge of the Father and the Son.

your solution is d cause of our present problem. Every pastor is now d final abiter of d word, each claiming d holyspirit and each contradicting the other.

Zikkyy:

I agree with this.

Allowing the church do the interpretation have its advantages though. It allows for order in the system and nobody comes to NL fighting over issues that have to do with interpretation of the scriptures. But we also have to consider the possibility of the church feeding us with false teachings.

false teachings can only happen when we deviate from right teaching.
When false teaching started in d early church what happened? The council of Jerusalem.
The church remained d bulwark of truth.

italo:
John 16:13: "But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth.
John 14:26: "But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."
"Who was Jesus talking to in those verses? Everybody or his apostles - the leaders of his (Catholic) Church?

Everybody!

Hebrews 8:11 No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.

1 John 2:27 But you have received the Holy Spirit, and he lives within you, so you don't need anyone to teach you what is true. For the Spirit teaches you everything you need to know, and what he teaches is true--it is not a lie. So just as he has taught you, remain in fellowship with Christ.

Jesus sends the Holy Spirit to his Church to teach it all things so that the Church can teach the people of God.

No - the church IS the people of God. They are one and the same!!

It is not merely a "direct connection." The Catholic Church is the "early Church." The Church only began to be called "Catholic" around the year 100 to distinguish it from the many heretical groups that were springing up. The Church that wrote the New Testament and taught the people of old in biblical times is the same (Catholic) Church that compiled the Bible and declared what was and what wasnt Scriptural in the fourth century (long long after the apostles had died). That same Church continue's to teach the people of God today.

They simply formalised what was already in common use in church groupings - they didn't ‘write’ the New Testament - were Matthew, Mark, Luke and Paul's letters ‘written’ in the 4th Century?

If you believe their 1st and 4th century teachings and declarations to be God's teachings and declarations, why do you doubt them in the 21st century?

Because human beings can go astray - that you got something right yesterday doesn’t mean you will always get it right. Why should I accept the practice of indulgences for example which was never taught by Jesus? Why should I accept the practice that the ‘same Church’ eventually ‘modified’ when it saw its error? We hold on to that which is true and discard the rest.

Please show me a "teaching" that was challenged by anybody within the Church. I am unaware of such.

Gladly

2 Thessalonians 2:2 not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come.

Colossians 2:18 Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you. Such a person also goes into great detail about what they have seen; they are puffed up with idle notions by their unspiritual mind.

Where do you think the above teachings were being made?

Syncan:
Exactly the point! If Peter and Paul had been allowed to continue with their divergent views on circumcision, Imagine the chaos it would have caused...No one can accuse Peter or Paul of not being led by the holy Spirit, or is there? But they had to seek clarification from the council, and when the council decides, then..."it has pleased us and the Holy Spirit..."see (Acts 15). What could be more certain than the decision of the church.

It was much easier then, cos the council members were what you would call the 'founding fathers' It's not that easy anymore. Just imagine if you have a council with homos as majority addressing the issue of gay marriage

Please note i do not have the RCC in mind when making the comment above, just an illustration.

Zikkyy:
You said it yourself,there were already heretics in the time of the apostles. What happens if & when heretics led the church at some point in time? or what happens if some of their teachings somehow found their way into the church at some point in time? The church is made up of humans and so can make mistakes.

You are the one with a problem here, not me. I believe heretics never led the Catholic Church at any time and their teachings can never find their way into Catholic doctrine. You believe these could have happened because the Church is made up of humans that can err. My submission to you is that, given your opinion, the Church could have been teaching heresy on any particular doctrine and could have even filled "the bible" with heretical books. How can you then be a Christian, when the book you claim to learn christianity from could be full of heresy...for all you know.

Zikkyy: I told you before, when assessing the teachings of the apostles, i don't consider infallibility. it's either you accept their teachings or reject everything. There's no basis for considering some of their teachings as likely truth and some as possibly false.

How do you know that what you are accepting unconditionally are the teachings of the apostles. They could be heresies included in the bible by the heretical people that could have led the Church (which you said above) when the Bible was compiled and canonized. Example: how do you know that Mark wrote "Mark?" How do you know the book was not sneaked into scripture by possible heretical leaders of the Church at some point?

Zikkyy: The church today relies on the foundation laid by the apostles and will to a large extent be measured by what was laid down by the apostles. If the church today teaches doctrines that totally contradict that of the apostles, are you going to accept it (because the church is infallible)? if you will not accept such teachings, then the church today is not infallible, and if you do accept then the apostles were not infallible.

The Catholic Church today cannot teach, and has never taught something that contradicts what it taught through the apostles in the 1st century. It is YOUR PRIVATE INTERPRETATION of what the Catholic Church taught through the apostles writings and YOUR PRIVATE INTERPRETATION of what The Catholic Church teaches today that can cause you confusion. It is like asking "if the holy taught me one thing yesterday and teaches me an opposite thing today, would I accept it? The answer is that the Holy Spirit cannot do that...so also the Catholic Church, empowered by the Holy Spirit to teach men, cannot do that.

Zikkyy: Can one accept Christ and reject the bible? The other option for me would have been to reject the canon & Christ. If i chose to accept Christ then i have to accept the scriptures that were made available. It's one package.

...made available by who? Why do you protestants always dodge that part?

So you accept Christ and the Bible, but you reject the Church that compiled and gave you the Bible and its interpretation. That is hypocrisy. Besides how do you the description of Christ you accept is the true one? How do you know it is not an imaginary "christ" described by heretical leaders of the church in the heretical books they included in the bible?

Zikkyy: I said its too late for the question. Now we have churches not under the authority/control of the RCC and they have no intention of placing themselves under the authority of the RCC or accepting any of its teachings.

They are not Churches. Jesus founded only one Church. All those shops were founded by men.

Zikkyy: True. The question is, who is correct.

I say THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. What do you say?

Syncan:
The problem lies when we start looking at "the church" as separate from us, as a group of people with hidden agenda.

Very true.

Syncan:
The major church teachings are ratified by councils, and these are a congregation of church leaders from all over the world where the church exists. Believe me, contrary views are heard, research and deliberations made in prayers and a final decision taken at the end. This is a rather more trust worthy means than relying on ones own interpretation.

What are you going to ratify, when the major decision maker is said to be infallible? the council more likely to be rubber stamp. That's my issue here. If the council considers the views/feedback from the congregation before taking a decision, your approach will be most ideal even if it will not solve the problem 100%.

Zikkyy:

You said it yourself,there were already heretics in the time of the apostles. What happens if & when heretics led the church at some point in time? or what happens if some of their teachings somehow found their way into the church at some point in time? The church is made up of humans and so can make mistakes.

what happen when some preachers started preaching circumcision, d council of jerusalem happened, what happened when arius d presbyter rejected d Godhood of christ a caused division in the church, d council of nicea.... The list goes on. At d end d heresy is decleared for what it is and d true teaching continues.

I told you before, when assessing the teachings of the apostles, i don't consider infallibility. it's either you accept their teachings or reject everything. There's no basis for considering some of their teachings as likely truth and some as possibly false.

the bolded is what italo also rejects. The apostolic teaching must be infalliable or we are all in trouble.

The church today relies on the foundation laid by the apostles and will to a large extent be measured by what was laid down by the apostles. If the church today teaches doctrines that totally contradict that of the apostles, are you going to accept it (because the church is infallible)? if you will not accept such teachings, then the church today is not infallible, and if you do accept then the apostles were not infallible.

d apostles are not a separate entity on their own, they are part of d church, d church continues to teach thoughout the ages d very same the apostle taught that is why paul says "the church is d pillar and bulwark of truth"

Can one accept Christ and reject the bible? The other option for me would have been to reject the canon & Christ. If i chose to accept Christ then i have to accept the scriptures that were made available. It's one package.

can one reject d church dat wrote and compiled d bible and at d same time accept d bible? No they are on package.

I said its too late for the question. Now we have churches not under the authority/control of the RCC and they have no intention of placing themselves under the authority of the RCC or accepting any of its teachings.
True. The question is, who is correct.

yeah who is correct among 40000 contradicting xtian communities.

italo:
Firstly, I dont know what you mean by "church grouping."

Then let me explain - a church grouping is a group of Christians who belong to Jesus’ ONE Church who fellowship in a particular location - See the Revelations for the messages to specific church groupings - the church at Thyatira, the church that meets in your home (Romans 16:5, Philemon 1:2)

My Lord, Jesus Christ founded only ONE Church that teaches ONE Faith. Secondly, the Catholic Church compiled the Bible because it has the authority to do so. That is why we Catholics believe that it is the inspired word of God. You protestants also believe the Bible is God's word because the Catholic Church declared it so...BUT YOU WONT LIKE TO ADMIT IT. The Bible gets its validity from the authority of God's Church which compiled it.

The bible’s validity comes from this simple verse, not any ‘church authority’:

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.

That a Council ‘formalised’/’endorsed’ the scripture ALREADY in use by church groupings at the time does not mean it the council ‘declared it’ as God’s word. People were using Paul’s teachings, Luke, Matthew and James’ writings long before any Council did anything.

How do you know that there was a common recognition among "church groups" led by the Holy Spirit? Dont you know that there were hot debates about several books? The Catholic Church wrote the new teastament and canonized the Bible with its Councils. You deliberately refused to mention that it was Catholic Church councils that canonized the Bible. Where were your imaginary "church groupings" then?

That there were debates (which occurred even in Paul’s time) doesn’t mean that a common recognition was not reached. Paul wrote his letters - the Catholic Church did not write them. John wrote his letters - the Catholic Church did not write them.

It’s like saying because I burned a CD with Wizkid’s songs, Banky W’s songs, 2Face’s songs and PSquare’s songs combined, I now claim to have written those songs. Ridiculous idea.

What you are practicing is what the millions of people and "churches" teaching contradictory doctrines are practicing. You protestants have been doing it for 500years and every year, the confusion, division and heresy only gets worse. I never taught I'd see a "gay church" but ALAS! Cant you see that it is the devil that has sown this pride in your hearts that make you think every man can teach himself?

I do not dispute that people have sought their own teaching - the scripture predicted this would happen. However, it is not the devil that sowed anything. And again I repeat:

Joel 2: 28-29 28 “And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions. 29 Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days.

This is not pride - this is the Word of God! Or did the Catholic Church write Joel as well?

Who do you think is responsible for this division? Jesus or satan?

The enemy and human nature is responsible for divisions, which is why we must continually rely on the Holy Spirit for guidance, and not the Church - we look to the head of the Church who is Jesus, and he has given us the Holy Spirit.

Ubenedictus:
false teachings can only happen when we deviate from right teaching.
When false teaching started in d early church what happened? The council of Jerusalem.
The church remained d bulwark of truth.

The problem is that you believe the false teachers cannot infiltrate the council and take charge.

debosky:
Because human beings can go astray - that you got something right yesterday doesn’t mean you will always get it right. Why should I accept the practice of indulgences for example which was never taught by Jesus? Why should I accept the practice that the ‘same Church’ eventually ‘modified’ when it saw its error? We hold on to that which is true and discard the rest.

My point exactly! this is what i have been trying to tell my brother, italo.

debosky:

Everybody!
Hebrews 8:11 No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.

1 John 2:27 But you have received the Holy Spirit, and he lives within you, so you don't need anyone to teach you what is true. For the Spirit teaches you everything you need to know, and what he teaches is true--it is not a lie. So just as he has taught you, remain in fellowship with Christ.

bottomline: everybody know the lord and yet they can agree about the lord.

No - the church IS the people of God. They are one and the same!!
They simply formalised what was already in common use in church groupings - they didn't ‘write’ the New Testament - were Matthew, Mark, Luke and Paul's letters ‘written’ in the 4th Century?

do you have an idea how many books were in common use? D letter of pope clement to corith was in common use, so was d didache, d acts of paul, d gospel of peter, gospel to d egyptian, d list goes on.

Because human beings can go astray - that you got something right yesterday doesn’t mean you will always get it right. Why should I accept the practice of indulgences for example which was never taught by Jesus? Why should I accept the practice that the ‘same Church’ eventually ‘modified’ when it saw its error? We hold on to that which is true and discard the rest.

interestingly christ actually said hell wont prevail against his church, so how can d church go astray. Indulgence would be found in d writtens of many early xtians including those wu canonised d bible. Indulgence rise out of the teaching that d death of christ has merit before d father. Whether u believe dat d death of christ is meritious or not is ur palava.

Gladly
2 Thessalonians 2:2 not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come.
Colossians 2:18 Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you. Such a person also goes into great detail about what they have seen; they are puffed up with idle notions by their unspiritual mind.
Where do you think the above teachings were being made?

did the whole church ever teach d above? That is d question?

Ubenedictus: lemme break it down.
An open bible placed on a table or pulpit lacks d ability to interprete it self. The ethopian said to philip "how am i to understand if no one preaches to me". Paul says "faith cometh by hearing". The word needs a preacher or it is just words!!!
. . . . .

And after Philip left that Ethiopean eunuch, who was teaching the eunuch? Who was preaching to him? Who taught him about "speaking in tongues"? Who taught him about "transubstantiation"? Who taught him about "papal infallibility"? Who taught him about "the canon of Scripture"?

Ubenedictus: Indulgence would be found in d writtens of many early xtians including those wu canonised d bible. Indulgence rise out of the teaching that d death of christ has merit before d father. Whether u believe dat d death of christ is meritious or not is ur palava.

Since the church 'wrote' the New Testament as you claim, why didn't you 'write' indulgences into the New Testament? Could it be that Paul, John, James, and other writers of the NT did not practice such?

Ubenedictus:
did the whole church ever teach d above? That is d question?

That is not the question - the question was whether there were teachings in the church that were challenged. Clearly such teaching existed and was challenged.

Zikkyy:

Very true.



What are you going to ratify, when the major decision maker is said to be infallible? the council more likely to be rubber stamp. That's my issue here. If the council considers the views/feedback from the congregation before taking a decision, your approach will be most ideal even if it will not solve the problem 100%.

while d councils do so, d approach will still be problematic unless d council resolve only to teach what d church of christ always taught. If d feedback method alone is used then all d churches in america will teach dat gay sexual activities are moral.

italo:
You are the one with a problem here, not me. I believe heretics never led the Catholic Church at any time and their teachings can never find their way into Catholic doctrine.

well....you said it.

it just your belief, we don't know if your belief will hold.

italo:
You believe these could have happened because the Church is made up of humans that can err. My submission to you is that, given your opinion, the Church could have been teaching heresy on any particular doctrine and could have even filled "the bible" with heretical books. How can you then be a Christian, when the book you claim to learn christianity from could be full of heresy...for all you know.

You have to understand that the content of the books is not the issue here. The church teaches from the book and probably adds its own and try to justify it with the book. That's my issue. In the course of doing this the church can get it wrong.

Zikkyy:

The problem is that you believe the false teachers cannot infiltrate the council and take charge.

And bros, quite often people misrepresent and overstate what happened at the Council of Jerusalem. That Council addressed a very small number of specific things,

So what then happened to all the many many many different things that Christians still worried about (and that divide Christians today) ---- who says that those Christians of that era did not still do some things differently. Remember that the New Testament had not been written at the time.

debosky:

This question is redundant but I'll answer it yet again. The Spirit does not bring confusion - the confusion is based on incomplete understanding, selective reading or a number of other deficiencies.

So who is it that is qualified to teach the true doctrine of Christ, out of the millions? Adeboye, Pastor Chris, Goshen360, you, or someone else?

debosky: The Holy Spirit moved through the early Church to compile the bible.

How do you know this? I find no mention of this in the Bible, can you show me where it says that "The Holy Spirit moved through the early Church to compile the bible?"

Also when did the Holy Spirit move the "early church" to compile the bible? When did the Holy Spirit tell you that the book of "Mark" is scripture but the "Acts of Peter" is not?

debosky: No I don’t - there should always be a common starting point - for Christians that is Jesus’ death that gives us salvation. That doesn’t require any interpretation.

It does! Salvation and the means of salvation mean many different things to many Christians. We still cant agree on how we are saved through Jesus death. How do we come to know what God teaches about this?

My answer: listen to the Catholic Church. Your answer: YOUR PRIVATE INTERPRETATION OF BIBLE VERSES. Right?

debosky: This is possible, but what’s your point?

As I said earlier simply saying ‘the Holy Spirit’ taught me isn’t proof that the Holy Spirit indeed taught you.

Exactly, that's why I say it is not the Holy Spirit that is teaching all you protestants your millions of contradictory doctrines. You are teaching yourselves based on private interpretation and possibly a misunderstanding of the Holy Spirit.

And your doctrines are FALSE DOCTRINES.

italo:
How do you know that what you are accepting unconditionally are the teachings of the apostles. They could be heresies included in the bible by the heretical people that could have led the Church (which you said above) when the Bible was compiled and canonized. Example: how do you know that Mark wrote "Mark?" How do you know the book was not sneaked into scripture by possible heretical leaders of the Church at some point?

The books aligns very well with my belief (though it instrumental to my taking such decision). what am saying is that if the books are false, then there is no Christ. but if the heretics were preaching Christ in process, all good.

debosky:
Then let me explain - a church grouping is a group of Christians who belong to Jesus’ ONE Church who fellowship in a particular location - See the Revelations for the messages to specific church groupings - the church at Thyatira, the church that meets in your home (Romans 16:5, Philemon 1:2)
The bible’s validity comes from this simple verse, not any ‘church authority’:
2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.

this is untrue, d scripture dat verse talks about is d old testament. Before d canonisation of d bible books like 2nd pt, 2nd and 3rd john, jude and revelation were rejected by many christian, d church in council decided in their favour.

That a Council ‘formalised’/’endorsed’ the scripture ALREADY in use by church groupings at the time does not mean it the council ‘declared it’ as God’s word. People were using Paul’s teachings, Luke, Matthew and James’ writings long before any Council did anything.

i repeat do u have an idea of how many books were in use? They were so many. Do d research.

That there were debates (which occurred even in Paul’s time) doesn’t mean that a common recognition was not reached. Paul wrote his letters - the Catholic Church did not write them. John wrote his letters - the Catholic Church did not write them.

paul and john were member of d church and wrote to d very same church.

It’s like saying because I burned a CD with Wizkid’s songs, Banky W’s songs, 2Face’s songs and PSquare’s songs combined, I now claim to have written those songs. Ridiculous idea.

your analogy falls on its face.

I do not dispute that people have sought their own teaching - the scripture predicted this would happen. However, it is not the devil that sowed anything. And again I repeat:
Joel 2: 28-29 28 “And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions. 29 Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days.
This is not pride - this is the Word of God! Or did the Catholic Church write Joel as well?

are u saying all d contradicting doctine flying around is d work of God?? Wow!!!

The enemy and human nature is responsible for divisions, which is why we must continually rely on the Holy Spirit for guidance, and not the Church - we look to the head of the Church who is Jesus, and he has given us the Holy Spirit.

not d church?? Really? But my bible says d church is d pillar and bulward of truth, should i follow u or d bible?. Your attempt to separate christ from d church is a disaster.

Zikkyy:

My point exactly! this is what i have been trying to tell my brother, italo.

not when d holyspirit is alive, will he be sleeping when d whole church is teaching error!
Again dat implys dat d bible u hold may be filled with error, a council compiled it.

Zikkyy: i don't quite agree one should swallow everything dished out by the church elders.

Zikkyy: But we also have to consider the possibility of the church feeding us with false teachings.

Zikkyy:
If you want my honest view, then i say it's a possibility. My very little understanding of church history gives the impression that what was included in scriptures was arrived at based on simple majority (or influenced majority ), so do we have the complete scriptures? i don't know. Maybe there were some other letters by apostle Paul not in wide circulation or were destroyed (poorly handled) prior to the time the church compiled the bible.



What's my own if Mark was not written by Mark? It's also possible that the "Acts of Peter" was scriptural. The thing is i don't have info to substantiate these possibilities. i no dey there, so I have taken a decision to accept what was presented.

The bolded is big evidence that you dont even know where you stand.

Zikkyy:

The problem is that you believe the false teachers cannot infiltrate the council and take charge.

Yes o, because i believe Christ's word is true..."and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it".

debosky:
Since the church 'wrote' the New Testament as you claim, why didn't you 'write' indulgences into the New Testament? Could it be that Paul, John, James, and other writers of the NT did not practice such?

this is like asking why did d church not write "bible" in d new tes, or why did d church not write trinity in d new tes. The principle if there, if u are look for d letter the u are lost.

That is not the question - the question was whether there were teachings in the church that were challenged. Clearly such teaching existed and was challenged.

unfortunately dat question has no relevance to d topic. You claim d whole church can teach error. I'll like to see the proof.

Zikkyy:

It was much easier then, cos the council members were what you would call the 'founding fathers' It's not that easy anymore. Just imagine if you have a council with homos as majority addressing the issue of gay marriage

Please note i do not have the RCC in mind when making the comment above, just an illustration.

That's where we profess belief and yet we have no faith. The apostles were with Jesus, heard him preach that he will rise after the third day, yet they had no faith that it will happen that way. The same scenario is repeating, Why will i look at the "Church" as being solely under human influence?

Enigma:

And after Philip left that Ethiopean eunuch, who was teaching the eunuch? Who was preaching to him? Who taught him about "speaking in tongues"? Who taught him about "transubstantiation"? Who taught him about "papal infallibility"? Who taught him about "the canon of Scripture"?

sorry my dear, d meeting of philip wasn't d end of teaching for d eunuch. Who says he didnt meet other apostles or disciple of d apostles? What happen latter isnt recorded, all we know from d passage is dat he went home fulfilled

^^^ lol lol lol

Now you are reading into and adding to Scripture? lol

Ubenedictus: sorry my dear, d meeting of philip wasn't d end of teaching for d eunuch. Who says he didnt meet other apostles or disciple of d apostles? What happen latter isnt recorded, all we know from d passage is dat he went home fulfilled

OK

Was that eunuch taught specific "doctrines" like "papal infallibility", "transubstantiation", "universal jurisdiction"?

italo:
So who is it that is qualified to teach the true doctrine of Christ, out of the millions? Adeboye, Pastor Chris, Goshen360, you, or someone else?

You tell me - is it someone who simply believes because he is a member of the Catholic Church that makes him qualified?

How do you know this? I find no mention of this in the Bible, can you show me where it says that "The Holy Spirit moved through the early Church to compile the bible?"

I know this through historical accounts.

Also when did the Holy Spirit move the "early church" to compile the bible? When did the Holy Spirit tell you that the book of "Mark" is scripture but the "Acts of Peter" is not?

Oh now we've moved from compiling from 'writing'? The scripture were identifiable by many in the early church based on the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I don't get what point you're making here - is the date your issue?

It does! Salvation and the means of salvation mean many different things to many Christians. We still cant agree on how we are saved through Jesus death. How do we come to know what God teaches about this?

Don't move away from the central point - Salvation is by Jesus' death. How is a different matter. Or are you claiming that there are Christians that believe Salvation is not by Jesus death?

My answer: listen to the Catholic Church. Your answer: YOUR PRIVATE INTERPRETATION OF BIBLE VERSES. Right?

Exactly, that's why I say it is not the Holy Spirit that is teaching all you protestants your millions of contradictory doctrines. You are teaching yourselves based on private interpretation and possibly a misunderstanding of the Holy Spirit.

I agree that there are dangers in private interpretation and misunderstanding - but get this: Your 'catholic' church is as susceptible to misunderstanding as any 'protestant'.

And your doctrines are FALSE DOCTRINES.

What are 'my doctrines' that you refer to? My 'doctrine' is that Jesus death is the route to salvation: Is that a false doctrine?

debosky: . . . . . The scripture were identifiable by many in the early church based on the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Dayua!

Christians in different parts of the world agreed quite early on on most of the books of the New Testament that constitute the "canons" used by different Christian groups today. There were question marks over just a small number of books and the Holy Spirit has not left us alone --- even when some Christians add/leave out some books out of their own "canon".

Christians again in different parts of the world again also came up with the idea of different levels of "reliability" or "use" of different books. Thus for example, those on which there was unanimity carried first importance or rank, some on which there were disputes could still be useful for reading etc and there were others that were rejected. Again, with those that were totally rejected, there is often considerable agreement among different Christian groups. The Holy Spirit must clearly be at work.

And talking about the roles of councils, we need a clearer understanding. Not all different church groups held councils to determine their "canon"; many simply developed by practice i.e. what books have Christians traditionally used. Some of the more significant councils establishing a canon were those held by African Churches and African Christians especially in the 4th century. Interestingly the Roman Catholic Church did not finalise its own canon at a council until as late as the 16th century --- following Luther's action and the 'Protestant Reformation'.

Enigma:

OK

Was that eunuch taught specific "doctrines" like "papal infallibility", "transubstantiation", "universal jurisdiction"?

He never argued with Philip,he believed in his teacher. More so Why do you call them "specific doctrines"? Their being observed litters all through scripture and later... "historical accounts" as put by you.

Syncan:


He never argued with Philip,he believed in his teacher. More so Why do you call them "specific doctrines"? Their being observed litters all through scripture and later... "historical accounts" as put by you.

Philip taught and explained the gospel to him - and he believed that.

Philip did not teach him about "papal infallibility", "transubstantiation", "universal jurisdiction".

Those things are indeed specific doctrines. Two of them are clearly not in the Bible at all and are simply nonsensical human constructs. The third is not really in the Bible but with some modification can get some support in the Bible.



EDIT Meanwhile what "historical accounts" as put by "me" are you talking about?

italo: It does! Salvation and the means of salvation mean many different things to many Christians. We still cant agree on how we are saved through Jesus death. How do we come to know what God teaches about this?.

I think the bolded is where the root of division lies - a question of non-essentials. If we are all agreed that we are saved because Jesus died, why is it important what the hidden workings of His Death were? Such questions only throw up theories according to classes of temperaments. And this could be good because it helps us individually appreciate the greatness of His Death, but when we start fighting over whose intellectual representation of it is best, we all begin to lose the awe of Jesus's amazing sacrifice.

That's why the Scriptures warn about knowledge and its tendency to lead us into pride. It's quite obvious, no? that all the squabble about interpretations arises out of this feeling that your own knowledge is the correct one.