₦airaland Forum

italo: Maybe you did then...or Pastor Chris did.

The same source that gave authority to the epistles gave the Bible its authority....the Holy spirit is that source. He guides the church through those epistles.

italo: I'm not the one clamouring for unwritten doctrines. It is the Holy Spirit that is clamouring for it in 2Thess 2:15. Why are you bent on going against the Holy Spirit? Why dont you do as he days?

...and the same Holy Spirit highlighted some of these traditions. Study 2Thess 3:6-14 (please make sure you study this carefully following the guidance of the Holy Spirit) and if you practice
ones which you claim are unwritten, and they are contrary or contradict these, they must be false.

italo: Go and read the writings of the early Church fathers. The men who succeeded the apostles in the early Church. You will find more than enough evidence.

I'll be glad if you can provide these writings here or by P.M. I'll gladly read them.

italo: The compiled it. Yes or no? Be not ashamed of the truth.

This is not what we are saying as we have concluded on that. What's on ground is 'Did the Catholic Church author the Bible?' Yes or No.
As you said, 'Be not ashamed of the truth'

italo: But you said the true Church is the one that does exactly what Jesus taught. Christembassy say they fall into the category. I presume your Church falls into that category. The man says masturbation is not a sin. Do you agree?

As I have said, don't bore me with Christ Embassy issues. If you want know, I suggest you should ask Him directly.

italo: By the way, which church are you a member of? Or are you one of those hypocrites that criticize other people's faith but cant declare where you belong because it lacks substance?

Well, all you should know is that I worship in a Bible Believing Church. Definitely not Christ Embassy.

italo: You dont follow the bible. You follow your own interpretation of the Bible which is different from many other people's interpretation of the dame bible...and could be wrong since you are fallible and imperfect. Or are you perfect and infallible?

I follow the bible very strictly (with the Holy Spirit guiding me) meaning I'm ever growing and I'm living up to conform to the full nature of the perfect man as Christ is the only perfect man that has ever walked this earth.

italo: You mean since Jesus died, the Holy Spirit is not guiding the Church on the true doctrine yet. He will start work in 2075?

He is but its very tragic that very few Christians choose to follow Him, most follow what the pope says, others follow what their Pastors say, the rest follow their instinct. By the way, is that the date your church gave you?

italo: That is the same thing that your all your protestant brothers say. Yet they preach billions of contradictory doctrines. Is it that the Holy Spirit is teaching you people contradictory doctrines, or is it that he is teaching you the same thing but you people are misunderstanding, or is it that there are billions of Holy Spirits, or are you people just lying against the Holy Spirit?

The Holy Spirit teaches only the truth.
I have stated the reasons for diverse doctrines.

italo: That is my observation. You the Protestants that are averse to Catholicism dont feel there is anything wrong in bearing false witness.

One said we say we dont believe scripture.

That we think all non-Catholics are hell-bound.

Another said there's no mention of Jesus in the Rosary.

These are all cheap lies that can easily be debunked.

Sort these things with the people that told you these.

italo: Even the other protestants never correct the liar. For them it's fine. .as long as its against Catholics.

These should also be directed to them (those that support lies). I support only what is true, my comment suggested that you called some people that said the truth 'liars' which is a lie in itself.

italo: Because I am taught by God's Church which has had the tradition passed down through apostolic succession to the present day priests.

When you study the scripture I gave above, compare the ones you do today and these ones.
If they are not in agreement with this and many more written ones, the false tradition has successfully been passed down to you.

italo: Which tradition do you follow and where do you get it from?

The ones I follow are the ones listed in that scripture.

chukwudi44: Is that what is obtainable in protestant churches? Do you have a universal interpretation of biblical doctrines?

You should know that the name 'Protestant' Church is generally used to refer to any Church that is isn't Catholic, Orthodox or Assyrian. The reason for difference in doctrines is simply: many of them ignore the teaching of Christ and the Apostles in the bible, and some that do not ignore these teaching do not study with the guidance of the Holy Spirit instead, they go with their instincts and make their conclusion.

italo: A senseless question and conclusion.

God the Father is not competing against Jesus the Son. Jesus is not competing against his body, the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is not competing against the written teachings of God-Jesus just as it is not competing against the unwritten teachings of God-Jesus. But just as God authorized his Son to Come to earth, his Son gave authority to the Church to minister and the Catholic Church gave authority to the Bible. It doesnt mean any one is superior to the other.

if this is what you can say, then I am totally disappointed in your response.
You should also know this: the catholic Church never gave the bible authority at any time.
If truly the Catholic church is the body of Christ, it won't practice what the bible is against as the bible gives a guideline to what was practised in the early churches which are unrecorded (the written ones will never contradict the unwritten ones).

By the way, you have been clamouring over the unwritten doctrines and practises to justify the practises of your catholic church like you were present in those days of the apostles when you were actually told or you probably read them somewhere.
Provide me a credible and concrete evidence that what is practised today in your churches is what was practised in the early church.

italo: The Catholic Church compiled the Bible. Or have you changed your mind?

I said they never wrote (formulated) it.

italo: I never said you worship at Christembassy. I brought him in to show how you lot are confused despite the fact that you are using the bible. This thread is about denominations and their contradictory doctrines so how is he out of it. How can you people decide the true doctrine in your confusion?

So, since I am not a member of Christ Embassy, I have no comment on what
happens there hence I'm leaving this out.

italo: I believe they should. Though it is not a must. I believe so because I'm convinced it is God's true doctrine.

Why shouldn't the world adhere to you doctrine if it is God's doctrine?

I said I do not expect the world to adhere to my doctrine afterall
, I don't have any of my own. I follow that which is in the bible (which I expect everybody to follow). The world will have a universal interpretation of the biblical doctrines withe the guidance of the holy Spirit which Jesus said will guide us into ALL TRUTH (not the guidance of the Catholic Church neither is it of the Pope).

italo: You could be misunderstanding the Bible to your destruction as Peter said. Or are you perfect and incapable of misunderstanding the Bible?

I by myself can misunderstand, but with the guidance of the Holy Spirit? Never!

italo: Meaning you believe what mko2005 has been saying.

That Catholics dont believe in scripture they compiled.
That Catholics believe all non-Catholics are hell bound...

Those are not lies abi?

Yet you say you're 'reasoning' with me...lol

I generalised that point because you said 'why do you protestants
find it easy to tell cheap lies' which is not true. Many protestants have made credible points which are true on this thread, yet you still say what I put in quotation marks above.

italo: Do you follow oral tradition like the bible commands Christians to?

If you dont, your doctrine and practice is unscriptural.

Yes, I do, if I know anyone to be true and certain (as I have said, the true and certain ones will agree with the written ones). By the way, I'll like to ask again, how do you know the oral traditions you follow are true?

italo: Excuse me, why do you protestants find it easy to tell blatant lies? Is it not a sin in your doctrine?

Can you please supply evidence of the bold?

Cant you shut up if you have no credible reply?

Must you tell lies?

You say I tell lies?
We'll examine previous comments and conclude who the liar is.
You have implied all these I said in many of your previous statements.
Examine these statements of yours

italo: "When did a book become the basis of Christian faith?"
'At what point in time did a book take over the Church as the guide and who made it so?'

These clearly suggest the 'Catholic Church' has more authority than recorded words of Christ in the Bible

italo: I dont doubt the Bible...because I believe when the Church (the pillar and foundation of truth) says it is Gods word and the apostles wrote those letters. I believe the bible because I believe the Church that compiled and canonized it.

This one clearly says you only believe the bible because the catholic church told you to believe it....meaning if you are told to disbelieve in it tomorrow by the catholic church, you will.

Now we can determine who the liar is.

Now let me put this straight to you...I also need a straight and definite answer
Which is more superior? The words of the head of the Church (Christ) recorded by the apostles in the bible or the words said by the Catholic Church?

italo: There's no need of going round in circles. You've admitted that the Catholic Church compiled the Bible. Go and sleep over that. The same Church that you people say is false, antichrist.

You're saying the antichrist compiled the Holy book.

I can only laugh at the sense in that.

Recorded by the Catholic Church.


Verified by the Catholic Church.

Paul asked Christians to follow oral tradition.

If you dont, your practice is contrary to scripture.

Do you?

You're the one going in circles with the excuse that the Catholic Church compiled the bible. Well, the good news is that THE CATHOLIC CHURCH NEVER WROTE IT....and definitely, they don't have the authority to change or twist it, there's a punishment for that (Read Revelation 22:18-19)

italo: Pastor Chris says masturbation is a sin. I bet you disagree. Yet you both read the Bible. How then can you people decide what is Jesus true doctrine when you people are in total confusion.

By the way, I have not mentioned Pastor Chris so far neither have I said I am a member of Christ embassy (I have not also named any Priest in the catholic churches). I don't know why you are bringing him into this. (This is out totally of our conversation). Besides, all your criticism have made you type the wrong thing (check your post or what I quoted).

italo: Or you believe the whole world should adhere to your own interpretation of scripture? Why yours?

No, I do not. Do you also believe the whole world should should adhere to the scripture interpretation of the catholic church?

italo: "Reason!" What is your aim of reasoning with me?

My aim of reasoning with you?
I wouldn't have even reasoned with you if you had not first replied my post on page 7 of this thread.

italo: You dont know 'x' (the full and exact prayers, teachings and practices of Jesus and the apostles), yet you claim that you know people doing the exact thing.

I never claimed to have known the full ones, I only claim to know the ones in the Bible.

italo: You dont know how Jesus danced...yet you claim to know those who dance exactly like Jesus.

Sorry to say. This is a lie (I never claimed this).

italo: My dear, dont make me say the word. Carry this madness go front abeg. I no wan sin.

You win. You are the true Church. Every church with contrary opinion to you is false, including Christembassy.

Now we can decide who carries the 'madness'.
.and I should say this now, I am not a member of Christ embassy. I have also discovered that when you have no reason or when you do not know what to say, you declare reasonable fellows as liars.

italo: The persecution we face too is to fulfil his prophecy.

John 15:20 "If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also."

Now his prophecy which was recorded in the bible has become a reference for you (I suppose that the reference should be from the Catholic Church since you take it to be superior to the recorded words of the Head of the Church)

italo: And he didn't mention Bible. "My teaching...your teaching!"

Yes, he mentioned his teaching because He couldn't have mentioned the Bible (the bible did not exist then). The same teaching was recorded by the apostles and eventually and compiled into the present day bible (synoptic gospels). (Though there are other unrecorded teaching, these cannot be verified)

italo: Do you mind answering my questions directly?

Do you know all the prayers the apostles
said...and all the practices they had?
If yes, how did you know since all wasn't recorded in
the Bible.
If no, how can you then tell who is saying the exact
prayers and doing the exact things.

No, I do not know all, I only know those that are recorded and available to me this present day which I still strictly follow.

I can tell because I'm 100% sure that the teaching and practises cannot contradict each other (they must agree and if they don't, I go with only the verified ones and ignore the uncertain ones as they can lead me astray)....and if you don't mind, I'll like you to answer these questions you just asked.

italo: 2. How can you verify if any teachings and practices
are true when you, Pastor Chris, Adeboye, Rev King,
Pastor 'Poverty is a sin,' Pastor TB Joshua, Jehovah's
Witnesses etc cannot even decide what is God's
doctrine is?

This is your opinion (about those Pastors), not mine.
Well, as for me, I can rightly follow the ones which are available to me today.

italo: At this point I have to also ask you: what are you trying to achieve from this exchange?

I want us to reason together and that's all.

italo: You want to be declared winner? I declare you winner!

I don't see this as a debate, but if you do, I accept your declaration.

italo: Yet they crucified him.

Scripture was not enough to convince the hard-hearted.

They even accused him of the same things you folks accuse us of.

I'm sure you'll agree with me that His crucifixion was to fulfil the prophecies.

italo: Excuse me, do you know all the prayers the apostles
said...and all the practices they had?
If yes, how did you know since all wasn't recorded in
the Bible.
If no, how can you then tell who is saying the exact
prayers and doing the exact things.
2. How can you verify if any teachings and practices
are true when you, Pastor Chris, Adeboye, Rev King,
Pastor 'Poverty is a sin,' Pastor TB Joshua, Jehovah's
Witnesses etc cannot even decide what is God's
doctrine is?

Now, if we do not have all their practises recorded,
Is it not safer to do the ones we have (prayer, confession and doctrine) that have been recorded and verified instead of dwelling on the recorded ones plus the unrecorded ones which may be uncertain as these uncertain ones may not be what was done when the church started.

Tropical_Dr: And where do find that Church today. And what are the qualities or characteristics by which you will recognise it. Any idea on howto go about your search? Let me help you.
1; Sanctity
2; Unity/ Oneness/ Universality
3; Antiquity
4; Apostolic succession (an Unbroken chain of ordination back to the Apostles)

Above all you mentioned, there's one that more superior.
5. Verifiable teaching and practise (Prayer, Confession and doctrine) exactly with what our Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostles taught and practised.
If it lacks this, I'm sorry, the Church is not true.

The Holy Spirit will guide You in your search. Shalom!

Awesome comment from Jim.

Keep it up.

Final Comments:

From all the contributions every one has made, I can now draw my conclusion and I must really acknowledge and commend the level of maturity everyone has shown on this thread. Despite all opposition and debates, there has been no abusive or derogatory statements and I wanna believe this is the most mature religious thread on Nairaland so far.

Special thanks to Ukuts gp for opening this thread.
Other contributors like:
Mufikings
Enigma
M.K.O2005
and Brothers from the catholic church:
Syncan

Chukwudi44
Tropical_Dr
Not forgetting Italo.
You guys are awesome! One love

P.s: Italo, pls check my second comment on page 12 and reply....maybe by PM.
Thank you all once again.

italo: The teachings and practises of the Church have essentially always been the same...though not entirely. The teachings and practices of the church have nothing contrary to that at the beginning. It is impossible for the Church to have entirely the same teachings because the Holy Spirit continues to guide the Church to teach God's people.

Now my own question.

Why do you insist on teaching me Church and Bible history that you yourself dont know?

Well, I don't plan on teaching you because I believe you know these things....by the way, I know the history of both the church to a very good extent not in its entirety.

You made a point which I really like which reads:
'The teachings and practises of the Church have essentially always been the same...though not entirely.' The fact that you did not say 'The Catholic Church.'

I'll like to draw your attention to something (though I know you may not agree). The church Jesus established wasn't a Catholic Church. It was (generally) the Christian Church where the teaching and practise today is exactly the same as what Christ as his Apostles taught and practised when it started out.

Tropical_Dr: Christ establish a book, but He established a Church. Christ did not leave us any book, but He left us His Church

Before a line in the New Testament was written
1; Christ established the Church
2; Apostles preached and taught the Gospel
3; Peter had converted 3000 Jews
4; The Council of Jerusalem had assembled
5; The Jewish ceremonial laws abrogated

Before the last book of the New Testament was written
1; The Catholic (Universal) Church had celebrated 100 years
2; Eleven Apostles had died.

Christianity existed and thrieved morte than 300 years without the Bible.

In 367 AD Pope Damasus compiled the books which he felt were genuine and divinely inspired (after the Council of Laodecia were permited to produce the first canon of books) and order St. Jerome to translate them to Latin the official language of the Roman Empire. It took St. Jerome 30 yrs finish and he called it the "Latin Vulgate". In 397 AD Pope Sirius name the canon of books the "Bible". Few of the books like the Revelation/ Apocalypse were not accepted by all Early Christian scholars as genuine but infallible decision of Pope Damasus made them acceptable by all.

Thank you for your research.
I learnt from it.

Also noteworthy; when Christ came and he taught, if there are criticisms and need for clearance, he referred or showed the people from the scriptures written hundreds of years by the prophets before he came which is now known as the old testament.

@Italo.

A final question for you which calls for no debate or whatever.

Does the present day Catholic Church teach and practice exactly what Jesus taught and practised when He was on earth (I just need a response)?

italo: I see that you are talking before learning and thinking things over.

That was an error which anyone could have made.
That's the reason for my 'sorry' that began the
post.

italo: The Catholic Church inspired by the Holy Spirit compiled it by the Authority Given the Church by Jesus. How can Jesus and the Holy Spirit make the Church include the books and make Martin Luther remove them. Do you think God is a confusionist like you and Martin Luther.

Do you know that Martin Luther once removed the book of James because it didnt agree with his false doctrine, only to include it later in his version?

Is it God that is authorizing that anarchy?

Yes, I am aware that happened but do you know that the books that were removed still exist in some bible versions so anyone going for a good study will study them too.

italo: The Catholic Church compiled the Bible with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit because it is the pillar and foundation of truth. If not it could not have compiled God's inerrant book.

The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

When it tells us that a writing is true, we believe.

When it tells us that a teaching is true, we believe.

Okay?

Jesus (and all churches that preaches Jesus' messages without alterations and additions) is the foundation and pillar of the truth and not the catholic church as you claim.

italo: So stop talking until you know what you are talking about.

As for whether other would have compiled it, this just goes to expose your ignorance on this matter the more.

Just keep quiet when you're ignorant of something...or ask those who know.

That is not a sin.

And now, these final words shows you have resorted to insulting comments like the ones who are ignorant and perhaps, negligent of clear reasons which I believe you are not one.

Bryan12: tell us how pls

Not so many students are in school anymore so my campus business doesn't yield as much as it does when the school is in session besides, my monthly allowance (from Parents) has reduced too since they believe I won't need much.

italo: How does this make any sense?

I said:

So if you are not really sure who compiled the bible or when, how are you sure the compilers didnt include books that were not inspired and exclude inspired books?

I once again put it to you that the Bible was compiled by the Catholic Church in the 4th century. If the Catholic Church wasn't inspired by the Holy Spirit to do this, the Bible cannot be trusted. If you disagree please answer the above question.

Also, since you are sure that some books were removed, who removed them, when were they removed...and by what authority were they removed?

Sorry, the initial wasn't supposed to be my response because it happened after the compilation.
Martin Luther did and it was in the 16th century by the same authority the catholic church had to compile it.

You are in a better position to answer your initial question because you are a catholic. However, if the Catholic church never bothered to compile these scriptures, others would have done it.

Review my reply @ the top this page, I'll like to hear from you.

italo: Gal 2: 1, 2.

You must have misinterpreted that scripture.
The reason Paul went there wasn't to be guided (or confirm if he was teaching right as you said). He visited them (going to their leaders first) so as to be sure they had not changed what Paul initially preached to them, he wanted to be sure about this because if they had been taught something else, all His efforts would have been in vain.

I suggest you read it in a simpler translation
Check this:
1 Then fourteen years later I went back to Jerusalem again, this time with Barnabas; and Titus came along, too.
2 I went there because God revealed to me that I should go. While I was there I met privately with those considered to be leaders of the church and shared with them the message I had been preaching to the Gentiles. I wanted to make sure that we were in agreement, for fear that all my efforts had been wasted and I was running the race for nothing. (Contemporary English Version CEV)

italo: LOL!!!

So if you are not really sure who or when, how are you sure the compilers didnt include books that were not inspired and exclude inspired books?

I once again put it to you that the Bible was compiled by the Catholic Church in the 4th century. If the Catholic Church wasn't inspired by the Holy Spirit to do this, the Bible cannot be trusted. If you disagree please answer the above question.

I'm sure some books were have been removed. 7 books or thereabout..

italo: Who then made the Bible as it is today and where did God command that any such thing should be made?


Question was:
If even the writer, Paul, had to go to the Church to be sure he wasn't writing error, why should you the believe the letter and doubt the Church that guides the author of the letter?

It seems you're dodging my questions.

I'm not dodging the questions in anyway.
I answered the question about those that made the bible as it is today. (They deemed it right to preserve those scriptures in a single book just as they were preserved in the early days).

By the way, I did not answer the second question that reads 'If even the writer, Paul, had to go to the Church to be sure he wasn't writing error, why should you the believe the letter and doubt the Church that guides the author of the letter?'

Because you did not establish your fact for saying that. I did not learn that. I'll like you to show me where you saw that.

italo: I do. But I do not know if you do, based on all you've been saying.

Who compiled it and when?

The church in Rome (possibly Catholic)
I don't know exactly when it was compiled...probably in the early centuries.

italo: ...compiled by who...and when?

I believe you know the answer to this.

Syncan: Ha oga meeee! So we also need the Holy spirit to understand your conflicting statements abi?

Ok, now,

1.by "the church" you mean earthly gathering, and this can teach falsely.

Not like 2. "the true church" that cannot teach falsely.

Again, 3. any denomination teaching falsely is not the church

all these na you talk am, abeg which one we go take as true.

Comprehend what I say in the context I use then as it can mean any of the above.

The true church (the body of Christ with Christ as the Head) cannot teach falsely. Why: because they teach in line with what Christ taught.

Example: If Cutlass Sharp Sharp ministry (a gathering of 'Christians') teaches what is not in line with what Jesus taught, definitely, it is not part of the body of Christ, hence, not worthy to be called a church.

I believe you understand this.

italo: 1. Who then made the Bible as it is today and where did God command that any such thing should be made?


You should also note that Peter (the one who holds the keys to the kingdom) said many misinterpret Paul's epistles to their own destruction. This shows that a letter or book cannot be an authority in itself. The Church interprets it so that you don't use it to destroy your soul.

2. If even the writer, Paul, had to go to the Church to be sure he wasnt writing error, why should you doubt the believe the letter and doubt the Church that guides the author of the letter?


3. The Bible is part of the teaching of the Church that was put down in writing. The Church existed before it and would still exist if it never made a Bible.

1&3. The same set of scrolls that were available to Jesus and the apostles (that they always referred to) is what is available to us now in a single book called the Bible (Old testament).
I disagree with the point you raised that the Bible is the teaching of the Church (maybe if you had said the New testament, I would have agreed). The church came into existence long after the old testament existed.

2. Now, Jesus appointed Peter to guide the church and not otherwise. So if Peter wrote an epistle, it is also to guide the church.

Syncan: Haba oga, you said the church and Jesus is same, now you say the church (Jesus) can teach falsely, "if it has refused to go in line with the teaching of christ". So according to you, simply put, Jesus can teach falsely if he refuses to go in line with the teaching of Jesus.

Nothing we no go hear for this place!

When I say 'the Church' can teach falsely, You should understand that I mean 'earthly gatherings.' Jesus has what he has laid down for us to follow (cos He's the head), now the body (the true Church) is the one that follow His teaching exactly as He has laid them down which definitely won't teach false things...furthermore, any denomination that teaches what's not in line with Christs' lessons is not his body therefore, not a Church.

Syncan: Hahaha ok, so the book of enoch is the word of God or not? if jude quoted from it, why is it not in your bible?

Yes, it is.
Simple, Its not there cos you don't need it (or not available when it was compiled). Love what you have and value it...its complete enough for you to learn from.

italo: I dont doubt the Bible...because I believe when the Church (the pillar and foundation of truth) says it is Gods word and the apostles wrote those letters. I believe the bible because I believe the Church that compiled and canonized it.

Jesus wasnt recorded to ever tell anyone to write any book.

He just picked 12men and built his Church on them with Peter as head.

When did a book become the basis of Christian faith?

The book is not the basis, its the guide to Christian living and where we can learn from.

The basis for the Christian faith is simply:
Believing in Jesus as the Son of God, born of a virgin (Mary), Crucified (Died to save us), and Resurrected

italo: So if the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, can it then teach false doctrine?


I disagree. If the Bible were the guide for the earthly Church, Stephen, Titus, Paul, Luke would have mentioned the Bible.

On the contrary, all these men never had a Bible.

Instead, Paul tells us where to go to be guided in the truth.- The Church.

And that is exactly what he did in Acts 15, when there was a doctrinal issue.

He went to the Church for guidance...not the Bible.

If the Holy Spirit, Paul...and even the Bible itself says 'go to the church for the truth,' why are you adamant that it must be the bible, not the church?

Answer: Yes it can. (If it has refused to go in line with the teaching of Christ).

Another thing you should note is that the bible never existed then (as it is today) so, they could not have had one. They only had scriptures and scrolls written by the prophets which Jesus and the Apostles always referred to in their teaching (because they were inspired of God).

You should also note that the Epistles of the Apostle Paul were written to the Churches in different locations to guide them. Why: because they had issues that needed to be attended to which they couldn't tackle....so they needed the Epistles.



By the way, I'll like you to answer this:
What is the relevance of the bible to the church?

It has lowered my income.

italo: Why?

What else will serve as a guide for my Christian life if I doubt the bible? Its totally awful if I doubt the Bible.
By the way, do You doubt it (the Bible)?

italo: My answer: The Church.

Do you disagree?

*note that we both agree that the foundation and pillar of truth is not the Bible*

What do you think your Bible says about this?

Correlation between both answers (in my own opinion though): The Church is part of Christ (the body of Christ). My conclusion: They are one.

Now, the bible is the guide for the (earthly) Church.
Why?
Reason: That's where the teaching of Christ can be found.
Do you disagree?

italo: @adsonstone,

How then can you know you are being fed by Peter?

The letters that are attributed to Peter and his apostles could have been written by anybody else.

How are you sure of the source of the letters?

I don't doubt the Bible.

italo: @adsonstone,

What's the pillar and foundation of truth?

My answer: Jesus is. (His teaching)
I'll appreciate it if you also answer this question.

Syncan: Jude quoted the book of enoch in his epistle, pls what portion of your bible is the book of enoch he quoted?

Hello, that portion quoted by Jude is what you need for your Christian walk. Going to research for the whole Book of Enoch will be awful. However, I'm quite sure you'll get more wrong things than right ones in your research (if you do).