Only mentioned once.

[prisonchaplain]

Prison Chaplain,

What would you say about the Johannine Comma? . . . How about the writings in the Dead Sea Scrolls? . . . Or how about the Apocrypha, which the Catholics accept, but the Protestants reject? Is that not an intentional omission of writings?

Of course, we could also look at the book of Enoch, which is quoted or referenced 39 times in the New Testament (see Jude for a prime example), but was not included. Why not? Jesus and his apostles obviously thought it was inspired.

What you have done is list a few of the controversies that do surround the biblical writings. And yes, there are a few. None of them detract from the status of the Bible we have as the inspired Word of God, profitable for teaching and correction. I could offer you my educated guess on these issues, but your greater question seems to be how Protestants and Catholics can claim that the Bible is God's whole written word, when there are controversies such as you have listed. My answer is that the Trinity is supported biblically irregardless of the apparent addition you mention (and it seems likely it was commentary that was embedded). Likewise the general truths found in the latter part of Mark 16 are found elsewhere. The Catholic addition of the Apocrapha was not warranted imho, and the Book of Enoch, while not canonical itself, did contain truths that made there way into other canonical books (I happen to be studying Jude right now, btw).

As a brief response to your comment on Dr. T's post: What Jesus and the early Christians taught were absolutely grounded in Old Testament Scripture. The Jews were to become a City on a Hill, bringing the worship of the one God to all. It was not the current Scripture that Jesus found deficient, but rather the traditions of the Pharisees and Sadduccees. Even the Old Testament prophets often condemned the current religious leadership for loss of focus (Your sacrifices are a stench in God's nostrils, etc.). Jesus did counter common theological thought, but not Scripture.

Edited July 7, 2009 by prisonchaplain

[Dr T]

Should we then reject the New Testament, as a huge breakaway from traditional Judaism? The concept of a Messiah in the Old Testament appears very late - most scholars believe it really shows up after the Diaspora. Even resurrection was not mentioned more than once in the OT (Job, I think), so that the Sadduccees did not believe in it.

The concept of Jesus being the literal Son of Man/God, had Jews trying to stone him. Why?

No, because they saw it as making himself even with God.

Because when the concept of Messiah came about, the people understood it to mean a great deliverer from physical slavery (Rome, Greece, etc). They already had the temple sacrifices to atone for their sins, after all. And God gave the law of Moses as an "eternal covenant." How does it suddenly become fulfilled or ended by Jesus, if it is eternal?

Many of them did take it like that but it was not in that respect but a saving of the soul and the conquering of death! Also because the law produces works of the flesh which are not able to be kept fully by us, and Jesus, being the expected (yet to come back then) was that fulfillment and they no longer need to do that work in the temple for their sins (Thank GOD).

Suddenly, we have a problem with the New Testament as giving new teachings and ideas that do not show up in the Old Testament. What a conundrum!

No, they were the fulfillment of what was talked about back in the OT.

[rameumptom]

What you have done is list a few of the controversies that do surround the biblical writings. And yes, there are a few. None of them detract from the status of the Bible we have as the inspired Word of God, profitable for teaching and correction. I could offer you my educated guess on these issues, but your greater question seems to be how Protestants and Catholics can claim that the Bible is God's whole written word, when there are controversies such as you have listed. My answer is that the Trinity is supported biblically irregardless of the apparent addition you mention (and it seems likely it was commentary that was embedded). Likewise the general truths found in the latter part of Mark 16 are found elsewhere. The Catholic addition of the Apocrapha was not warranted imho, and the Book of Enoch, while not canonical itself, did contain truths that made there way into other canonical books (I happen to be studying Jude right now, btw).

As a brief response to your comment on Dr. T's post: What Jesus and the early Christians taught were absolutely grounded in Old Testament Scripture. The Jews were to become a City on a Hill, bringing the worship of the one God to all. It was not the current Scripture that Jesus found deficient, but rather the traditions of the Pharisees and Sadduccees. Even the Old Testament prophets often condemned the current religious leadership for loss of focus (Your sacrifices are a stench in God's nostrils, etc.). Jesus did counter common theological thought, but not Scripture.

First off, my dear friend, "irregardless" is poor grammar.

Now that I've shown myself superior to everyone on the list, I can now discuss things from a point of superiority of knowledge, of which I know nothing about.

Seriously, I believe the Bible to be inspired. For traditional Christians, it isn't a problem to see the Johannine Comma in the Bible. My point was, that there have been intentional additions and deletions. What of the deleted things that we are not aware of? As for the Trinity as proclaimed in the creeds, I can offer several scholars' opinions that it is NOT mentioned in the Bible. However, I do agree in the Trinity, if it is described as a social Trinity, which IS shown in the New Testament.

The point of Enoch is that it is evidence of holy writings that did not make it into the final canon completely. Would you feel okay about missing books from the Old Testament, simply because Matthew or John mentioned a passage or two from them? Where would we be without Isaiah, if it was tossed, except for the quotes in the New Testament? I think we would be missing major doctrine.

As for Christ fulfilling the law of Moses, I agree he did. The point is, the Jews did not see how he could do so, when Moses himself proclaimed the Mosaic Law to be an eternal covenant. Suddenly, we have competing covenants. And yes, Jesus DID teach new doctrine. He taught resurrection, continuing revelation, forgiveness of enemies, that he was the Son of God, etc. Any of these was considered blasphemous by major Jewish sects of the day, for which they crucified him.

Through his apostles, more doctrine was changed. The gospel was taken to the Gentiles, even though Christ had charged them with only going to the Jews/House of Israel. Prior to Peter's vision and Paul's ministry, Christianity was just another Messianic Jewish sect. But Paul changed it drastically. Gentiles did not have to be circumcised into the new Jewish sect, even though it was mandated by Moses for any converts to Israel. Gentile Christians ate pork and ignored the health code. They were allowed (but discouraged) from eating at the temples of other gods. They did not have to marry other Jews or Jewish converts. Any and all of these were considered anathema under the Mosaic law for any direct descendant of Jacob, or any converts.

IOW, Jesus and his apostles RADICALLY changed things from the Mosaic law. And that's exactly what God wanted them to do as prophets. Otherwise, why add the New Testament, if it was just more of the same Old Testament. (Note, testament can also be read as "covenant" - meaning we are talking about the old Mosaic Law covenant and the New Christ covenant). Christ fulfilled the Mosaic Law, which was supposed to be an everlasting covenant. If we view things as many traditional Christians do, we would have serious problems with that issue, which is why many traditional Christians no longer use the Old Testament - it is dead to them.

[rameumptom]

No, because they saw it as making himself even with God.

You are right, he did. But in doing so, he also made himself greater than Israel's two great heroes: Abraham and Moses. Jesus told them, "Before Abraham was I am" and they commenced to try to stone him. He was setting himself up to replace them. This was a big issue, because Moses was the lawgiver who performed great miracles, and to whom God gave the commandments and the Law. It was to be an "everlasting covenant" according to the OT. Suddenly, some start up from Nazareth was challenging that idea.

Many of them did take it like that but it was not in that respect but a saving of the soul and the conquering of death! Also because the law produces works of the flesh which are not able to be kept fully by us, and Jesus, being the expected (yet to come back then) was that fulfillment and they no longer need to do that work in the temple for their sins (Thank GOD).

Even Jesus' apostles, who were with him for 3 years and were taught about the resurrection were astonished when he really did resurrect. Why? Because the Messiah's main focus for most Jews was to rescue them physically. Once again, many Jews did not believe in resurrection, as it was a rather recent concept, as was the idea of a Messiah. For them, God had already established his form of salvation in the temple.

No, they were the fulfillment of what was talked about back in the OT.

But as I just wrote above, it was more than a fulfillment. How was taking the gospel to the Gentiles and adopting them into the house of Israel a "fulfillment"? How was not requiring circumcision of Gentile converts a fulfillment? They weren't fulfillments. Rather, they were part of a new commandment, a new covenant, which Jesus gave.

[prisonchaplain]

First off, my dear friend, "irregardless" is poor grammar.

Now that I've shown myself superior to everyone on the list, I can now discuss things from a point of superiority of knowledge, of which I know nothing about.

Okay, wow...my thoughtless, imprecise composition might firmly cement Ramumptom in the error of his ways. Now that hurts!

Seriously, I believe the Bible to be inspired. For traditional Christians, it isn't a problem to see the Johannine Comma in the Bible. My point was, that there have been intentional additions and deletions. What of the deleted things that we are not aware of? As for the Trinity as proclaimed in the creeds, I can offer several scholars' opinions that it is NOT mentioned in the Bible. However, I do agree in the Trinity, if it is described as a social Trinity, which IS shown in the New Testament.

The point of Enoch is that it is evidence of holy writings that did not make it into the final canon completely. Would you feel okay about missing books from the Old Testament, simply because Matthew or John mentioned a passage or two from them? Where would we be without Isaiah, if it was tossed, except for the quotes in the New Testament? I think we would be missing major doctrine.

Our basic difference is that I am confidant that God directed the canonization process, and that we have what we are supposed to have. There may be a very few (statistically insignificant) phrases that appear to contain commentary imbedding, but these are discovered, and I've yet to see where any significantly altar doctrine.

As for Christ fulfilling the law of Moses, I agree he did. The point is, the Jews did not see how he could do so, when Moses himself proclaimed the Mosaic Law to be an eternal covenant. Suddenly, we have competing covenants. And yes, Jesus DID teach new doctrine. He taught resurrection, continuing revelation, forgiveness of enemies, that he was the Son of God, etc. Any of these was considered blasphemous by major Jewish sects of the day, for which they crucified him.

Jesus was crucified because he challenged the religious establishment, and made politicians nervouse. Resurrection was not new--the Pharisees preached it. Continuing revelation was not new, nor do I see that Jesus "taught it." It was later that disciples that began composing what would become the New Testament. Forgiveness of enemies was a new teaching very much married to his presentation of what the Messiah is. So, in essence, what was new was that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, the Son of God. The controversy was not really about doctrine, but about who Jesus was, and what He came to do.

Through his apostles, more doctrine was changed. The gospel was taken to the Gentiles, even though Christ had charged them with only going to the Jews/House of Israel. Prior to Peter's vision and Paul's ministry, Christianity was just another Messianic Jewish sect. But Paul changed it drastically. Gentiles did not have to be circumcised into the new Jewish sect, even though it was mandated by Moses for any converts to Israel. Gentile Christians ate pork and ignored the health code. They were allowed (but discouraged) from eating at the temples of other gods. They did not have to marry other Jews or Jewish converts. Any and all of these were considered anathema under the Mosaic law for any direct descendant of Jacob, or any converts.

IOW, Jesus and his apostles RADICALLY changed things from the Mosaic law. And that's exactly what God wanted them to do as prophets. Otherwise, why add the New Testament, if it was just more of the same Old Testament. (Note, testament can also be read as "covenant" - meaning we are talking about the old Mosaic Law covenant and the New Christ covenant). Christ fulfilled the Mosaic Law, which was supposed to be an everlasting covenant. If we view things as many traditional Christians do, we would have serious problems with that issue, which is why many traditional Christians no longer use the Old Testament - it is dead to them.

Yes, any Jew will tell you that Christians are radically different from Jews. But, such was predicted. It was supposed to happen. Old Testament Scripture points to faith in one God becoming global. A few Jews have seen this and made the conversion. Look at the progression:

1. Adam & Eve: God relates to faithful followers individually.

2. Noah: God relates to individual and family.

3. Abraham: God relates tribally.

4. David: God relates nationally.

5. Jesus and his Disciples: God relates globally--see especially Acts 1:8

I suppose the one way we could say Joseph Smith continued the expansion was with the doctrine of Baptism for the Dead, and teachings about Premortal existence and three kingdoms of heaven. But it could also be argued that by insisting on one religious organization to serve as a gatekeepr for the Restoration, there was also something of a constriction.

[Justice]

My suggestion is that anything God would add to biblical revelation would mesh smoothly with it. IMHO, the New Testament completes the Old--it does not have new truths, nor fill in gaping holes--what Jesus brought and taught was prophesied in the Old and fulfilled in the New.

Yet, interestingly most of the people who claimed to believe in the Old Testament, and were waiting on a Messiah, did not believe Jesus was the one.

The problem with meshing smoothly with Biblical teaching is it's all dependant on how one interprets the words. Just like those who did not believe Jesus was the Messiah spoken of in the Old.

Those who saw Jesus as the Christ more fully understood the Old Testament. The Jews disagreed.

Naturally, and using the previous as an example, those who see the Book of Mormon as the word of God more fully understand the Christ of the Old and New Testaments.

Ancient Christians were able to show Jews how to better interpret Old Testament passages, and show where there were mistakes made, or would have had they listened. Jews think Christians are changing scripture, or at the very least that we don't understand the Old Testament.

History is repeating itself.

[Justice]

But it could also be argued that by insisting on one religious organization to serve as a gatekeepr for the Restoration, there was also something of a constriction.

I'm a little confused by this. Did not Christ organize a Church?

Why would anyone want to belong to any other church than the one Jesus organized?

Show me where Christ taught that it didn't matter what Church we belonged to. Don't get this confused with any of the buildings or cities in which His Church met. Because it certainly didn't matter where you attended Christ's Church, but it certainly mattered what church they were baptized into.

[prisonchaplain]

Yet, interestingly most of the people who claimed to believe in the Old Testament, and were waiting on a Messiah, did not believe Jesus was the one.

The problem with meshing smoothly with Biblical teaching is it's all dependant on how one interprets the words. Just like those who did not believe Jesus was the Messiah spoken of in the Old.

Those who saw Jesus as the Christ more fully understood the Old Testament. The Jews disagreed.

Naturally, and using the previous as an example, those who see the Book of Mormon as the word of God more fully understand the Christ of the Old and New Testaments.

Ancient Christians were able to show Jews how to better interpret Old Testament passages, and show where there were mistakes made, or would have had they listened. Jews think Christians are changing scripture, or at the very least that we don't understand the Old Testament.

History is repeating itself.

Except that what happened with the BoM is that it is said to have been written roughly during the biblical period, but then "lost" for several centuries, only to be revealed in the early 19th century. Further, some of the LDS distinctive doctrines have very little foundation in the Bible. Thus, Joseph Smith said that precious truths were lost. I see the parallels you are making, but hope you can also see the difficulties we have accepting them as such.

Another distinction is that while Orthodox Jews today, and the Pharisees and Sadduccees of Jesus' day, do not accept Jesus as the Son of God and Messiah, he based his discourse on the already revealed Scripture. And even today, while we say the New Testament fulfills the Old, we insist that they must come together. We do not say that modern revelation trumps the more ancient. If I've understood LDS posters here, the Church does indeed say that modern revelation supercedes any previous messages. The 1978 allowance of blacks into the priesthood is a prime example.

[prisonchaplain]

I'm a little confused by this. Did not Christ organize a Church?

Why would anyone want to belong to any other church than the one Jesus organized?

Show me where Christ taught that it didn't matter what Church we belonged to. Don't get this confused with any of the buildings or cities in which His Church met. Because it certainly didn't matter where you attended Christ's Church, but it certainly mattered what church they were baptized into.

Jesus commissioned his followers to make disciples, baptize them, and teach them his ways. There was no name given, and despite Catholic claims, the organizational pattern I see in the New Testaments seems rather fluid. Peter was clearly a leader, and yet Paul was the main missionary, and certainly the premier theologian. Baptisms were carried out, with no reporting to a central organization. Thus the disciples asked in Acts 10 if the group had been baptized in the Holy Spirit. They responded that they didn't know there was a Holy spirit, and had been baptized according the John the Baptist's manner.

So, yes, Jesus raised up what would become a great church. It's just not the single institution, with one "brand name" that some envision. But, we do serve one Lord, have one baptism, and we lift up one name.

[Justice]

Another distinction is that while Orthodox Jews today, and the Pharisees and Sadduccees of Jesus' day, do not accept Jesus as the Son of God and Messiah, he based his discourse on the already revealed Scripture. And even today, while we say the New Testament fulfills the Old, we insist that they must come together. We do not say that modern revelation trumps the more ancient. If I've understood LDS posters here, the Church does indeed say that modern revelation supercedes any previous messages. The 1978 allowance of blacks into the priesthood is a prime example.

PC, you missed my point entirely. Do Jews say the New and Old Testaments come together? No. Why? Because they don't interpret the Old Testament the same way Christians do. For that much, there is a very real comparison that can be made. Jews see Christians changing the Old Testament to fit their view, and even adding scripture that disagrees with, or in the Jews minds, and in your words, trumps the Old Testament. For Christ to be the Messiah, in their eyes, it would have to be different.

[Justice]

Jesus commissioned his followers to make disciples, baptize them, and teach them his ways. There was no name given, and despite Catholic claims, the organizational pattern I see in the New Testaments seems rather fluid. Peter was clearly a leader, and yet Paul was the main missionary, and certainly the premier theologian. Baptisms were carried out, with no reporting to a central organization. Thus the disciples asked in Acts 10 if the group had been baptized in the Holy Spirit. They responded that they didn't know there was a Holy spirit, and had been baptized according the John the Baptist's manner.

So, yes, Jesus raised up what would become a great church. It's just not the single institution, with one "brand name" that some envision. But, we do serve one Lord, have one baptism, and we lift up one name.

This is where viewing the Bible as the complete, definitive word of God leads some astray.

Just because it is not mentioned in the Bible does not mean it's not true. There are many things that are not mentioned in the Bible that even you believe. Just because they did not state their church had a name, it was the Church of Jesus Christ, because they were baptized in His name. If anyone was not baptized by those authorities and attend their congregations, they were not members of Christ's church.

It is a different situation today, I admit. Instead of having Christ here personally organizing His Church and leading people away from the false teachings and traditions of their forefathers, to what was viewed as a new religion (but wasn't), today we had to be led away from an apostate Christian church and reorganized into His Church with His teachings.

Those teachings are the same as they were when Christ was here, and the same as they were when He taught the people in ancient America. It can all be substantiated in the Bible if you choose to interpret the words a certain way. The only reason you and others say the teachings disagree is because of:

1. Interpretation of what's there.

2. The claim that the Bible is a perfect book (which claim it never makes).

Part of the bad interpretation stems from the belief it's all there. Once a person realizes many things are missing that would help make things more clear, they can open their mind to new revelation.

[Justice]

It's just not the single institution, with one "brand name" that some envision.

I've admitted that the Bible does not name His church.

Now you have to admit that the Bible does not say what you've stated. This is your interpretation.

Here is the discussion Jesus had with His Apostles in ancient America right before He left them:

3 Nephi 27:

1 And it came to pass that as the disciples of Jesus were journeying and were preaching the things which they had both heard and seen, and were baptizing in the name of Jesus, it came to pass that the disciples were gathered together and were united in mighty prayer and fasting.

2 And Jesus again showed himself unto them, for they were praying unto the Father in his name; and Jesus came and stood in the midst of them, and said unto them: What will ye that I shall give unto you?

3 And they said unto him: Lord, we will that thou wouldst tell us the name whereby we shall call this church; for there are disputations among the people concerning this matter.

4 And the Lord said unto them: Verily, verily, I say unto you, why is it that the people should murmur and dispute because of this thing?

5 Have they not read the scriptures, which say ye must take upon you the name of Christ, which is my name? For by this name shall ye be called at the last day;

6 And whoso taketh upon him my name, and endureth to the end, the same shall be saved at the last day.

7 Therefore, whatsoever ye shall do, ye shall do it in my name; therefore ye shall call the church in my name; and ye shall call upon the Father in my name that he will bless the church for my sake.

8 And how be it amy church save it be called in my name? For if a church be called in Moses’ name then it be Moses’ church; or if it be called in the name of a man then it be the church of a man; but if it be called in my name then it is my church, if it so be that they are built upon my gospel.

The discussion is longer, but that much makes the point.

I have evidence here that it did have a name, and that it mattered what that name was.

Show me where the Bible says it doesn't matter what the name is.

[prisonchaplain]

PC, you missed my point entirely. Do Jews say the New and Old Testaments come together? No. Why? Because they don't interpret the Old Testament the same way Christians do. For that much, there is a very real comparison that can be made. Jews see Christians changing the Old Testament to fit their view, and even adding scripture that disagrees with, or in the Jews minds, and in your words, trumps the Old Testament. For Christ to be the Messiah, in their eyes, it would have to be different.

As I said, I do see the reasoning for your claim to parallels. Then again, it was not the Jews who rejected Jesus. Throughout the first three years or so (Jesus' entire ministry), the church was almost exclusively Jewish. It was two sects--the Pharisees and Sadduccees who rejected him.

[Traveler]

Traveler, I've said this before: All Scripture and no Spirit leads to pharisaism, all Spirit and no Scripture leads to dangerous heresy. Even the Bible itself is a spiritually inspired book that must be spiritually discerned. So, you'll get no arguments from me.

Can you give me an example where someone is spiritually influenced into heresy? I believe it is possible that Satan can have spiritual influences but even he quoted scripture to his own end. I am not sure if this or something similar is what you had in mind.

If this is where you are going - I think I disagree with your understanding of spiritual. I do not believe that being seduced by an unclean spirit is prevented by scripture. I believe two things are necessary. One being in the heart of man to prepare (which scripture can be an element of preparation but there is much more). The other being the gift of the Holy Ghost. I believe that it is a bilateral covenant solution – not a unilateral solution.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

.........

So, yes, Jesus raised up what would become a great church. It's just not the single institution, with one "brand name" that some envision. But, we do serve one Lord, have one baptism, and we lift up one name.

Jesus did not call it a church but a "kingdom". Those that understand the ancient law of a "kingdom" know well that the citizens are not divided especially those that are sent in the name of the Suzerain or King. Paying tax to anyone that said they collected such offerings in the name of the king without proof was an act of sedition and treason. Which, interesting enough is what Jesus was accused of in his trial.

Jesus did teach a method to ascertain who really was a disciple and someone sent by him and it was not that they taught would agree with scripture.

The Traveler

[Justice]

As I said, I do see the reasoning for your claim to parallels. Then again, it was not the Jews who rejected Jesus. Throughout the first three years or so (Jesus' entire ministry), the church was almost exclusively Jewish. It was two sects--the Pharisees and Sadduccees who rejected him.

Both of which were Jewish.

There were other sects that rejected Him as well. All people, even those that believed in a coming Messiah, rejected Him if they did not get baptized and follow Him. There were not many ways to follow Him... just one. It doesn't matter if they claimed to believe in Him or not. The true followers of Christ attended His sermons or those of His appointed servants. They didn't recognize people as members of His church (or Kingdom as Traveler points out) that attended other meetings, even if they claimed to believe in a Messiah. They were just different.

It really baffles me how Christians can think it doesn't matter where you attend church and it doesn't matter what doctrine you teach as long as you believe in Christ. Churches that teach different doctrine cannot be one body of Christ. For example, the Catholic Church, Baptist Church, and LDS Church cannot all be the Church of Christ just because they all teach and believe in Christ. Either one is right and the others are wrong, or all are wrong. They can't all be right if they teach different things.

It's like saying McDonalds, 7-11, and Krispy Kreme are the same. Yes, they all make and sell food, but they are not the same. Many people seem to think just because they sell food they are the same. I'm hungry so I'll just pull in anywhere and get some food. But, if you want a hot, fresh Krispy Kreme donut, you can't go somewhere else to get it. You may be able to get donuts at the other places, but they are not the same.

Why don't those 3 companies just merge and all have the same name? It would be impossible to tell what's inside, or what you can buy, by the name on the outside. The name suggests what's on the inside. You pull into McKrispy-9 and you don't have any idea if you're getting burgers, slurpees, or donuts.

I had a little fun with my example, but the princile I'm trying to get across is there.

[rameumptom]

Jesus commissioned his followers to make disciples, baptize them, and teach them his ways. There was no name given, and despite Catholic claims, the organizational pattern I see in the New Testaments seems rather fluid. Peter was clearly a leader, and yet Paul was the main missionary, and certainly the premier theologian. Baptisms were carried out, with no reporting to a central organization. Thus the disciples asked in Acts 10 if the group had been baptized in the Holy Spirit. They responded that they didn't know there was a Holy spirit, and had been baptized according the John the Baptist's manner.

So, yes, Jesus raised up what would become a great church. It's just not the single institution, with one "brand name" that some envision. But, we do serve one Lord, have one baptism, and we lift up one name.

I would dispute this. Paul was the lead missionary to the Gentiles. Of his letters, most Biblical scholars agree that over half of them were not written by Paul (see Bart Ehrman's "Jesus, Interrupted"). The problem lies in the books that found their way into the Bible. Paul seems to be the "premier theologian" only because he had a large audience, but also because his letters were the ones chosen to be included. I would imagine that the other apostles wrote just as many letters, but they were lost or not included for one reason or another.

You mentioned the constrictions of the LDS Church. May I remind you that God normally places such constrictions? He blesses the earth through the lineage of Abraham - a constriction. He required circumcision, and now requires faith in Christ (and perhaps baptism) to be accepted - constrictions. Moses gave the Mosaic Law, and all were to follow him and the Levite priests - a constriction. In the apostolic days, the people had to follow the apostles (there are many Biblical examples of people being condemned for disobedience to the apostles). While Peter's vision opening the work to Gentiles eased some restrictions, it also imposed new restrictions upon Gentiles to leave their old faith and follow the apostles.

The Bible actually DOES show a reporting to a central authority. Phillip baptized in Samaria, and then Peter and John came up later to give the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. Paul did not just tell the Gentiles to not worry about circumcision, but he went to Jerusalem to lay the case before the apostles. While they had some local autonomy, they still had some centralization of authority.

Only after the death of the apostles did things begin to drastically change. As for Acts 10, you'll notice that those who were baptized without the proper authority (or given the Holy Ghost) were rebaptized in the proper manner by Paul. This totally disagrees with your assessment.

[Jamie123]

Both of which were Jewish.

There were other sects that rejected Him as well. All people, even those that believed in a coming Messiah, rejected Him if they did not get baptized and follow Him. There were not many ways to follow Him... just one. It doesn't matter if they claimed to believe in Him or not. The true followers of Christ attended His sermons or those of His appointed servants. They didn't recognize people as members of His church (or Kingdom as Traveler points out) that attended other meetings, even if they claimed to believe in a Messiah. They were just different.

It really baffles me how Christians can think it doesn't matter where you attend church and it doesn't matter what doctrine you teach as long as you believe in Christ. Churches that teach different doctrine cannot be one body of Christ. For example, the Catholic Church, Baptist Church, and LDS Church cannot all be the Church of Christ just because they all teach and believe in Christ. Either one is right and the others are wrong, or all are wrong. They can't all be right if they teach different things.

It's like saying McDonalds, 7-11, and Krispy Kreme are the same. Yes, they all make and sell food, but they are not the same. Many people seem to think just because they sell food they are the same. I'm hungry so I'll just pull in anywhere and get some food. But, if you want a hot, fresh Krispy Kreme donut, you can't go somewhere else to get it. You may be able to get donuts at the other places, but they are not the same.

Why don't those 3 companies just merge and all have the same name? It would be impossible to tell what's inside, or what you can buy, by the name on the outside. The name suggests what's on the inside. You pull into McKrispy-9 and you don't have any idea if you're getting burgers, slurpees, or donuts.

I had a little fun with my example, but the princile I'm trying to get across is there.

I think especially in early NT times, the primitive Church would have been recognizable as a single denomination (as we currently understand that word). However, those days are gone; history has muddied the waters, and many denominations now exist. Contrary to what many people believe, denominational differences do not always correspond to theological differences, and many denominations have internal theological divides. For example, both Methodists and Baptists are (and have always been) divided internally on the question of predestination. A core belief in salvation through Jesus Christ alone (not just "a coming/already-come Messiah") holds them together, and holds groups of churches together in common fellowship.

LDS members will challenge this, but I believe that the original Church of Jesus Christ still exists. It just doesn't exist as a single visible denomination. It exists rather as the body of all true believers - the "Communion of Saints" or "Holy Catholic Church". This is why the McDonalds/Krispy Kreme analogy doesn't really work: Firstly different restaurant chains may sell different foods, but they are all fit (hopefully!) for human consumption and may even be made from ingredients from the same suppliers. Secondly people who eat at McDonalds are not "McDonalds Members" who think people who eat at Krispy Kreme are apostates.

Denominations are all man-made structures, but that doesn't stop God's Spirit working within them.

Edited July 8, 2009 by Jamie123

[Justice]

My point is most people have missed or forgotten the authority issue.

The truth is authority does not come by being baptized, by going to school, or by studying the scriptures. Authority has alweays come by being called of God by those in authority who then lay hands on a person and give them authority.

You have proven my analogy true. You think food is food, whether it be the one true food or one that just nourishes, and that it doesn't make any difference where you go to get it.

I don't see how churches who teach different paths to Jesus can all be right. Christ taught one way. I don't suppose there's a way to see eye to eye on this.

[Justice]

I think especially in early NT times, the primitive Church would have been recognizable as a single denomination (as we currently understand that word). However, those days are gone; history has muddied the waters, and many denominations now exist.

You have gone a long way toward justifying the need for a restoration. To those who do not believe in a restoration, it's obvious you have to hold your view. But, that does not mean a restoration did not happen.

I submit that those days, though once gone, are back.

[prisonchaplain]

Can you give me an example where someone is spiritually influenced into heresy? I believe it is possible that Satan can have spiritual influences but even he quoted scripture to his own end. I am not sure if this or something similar is what you had in mind.

If this is where you are going - I think I disagree with your understanding of spiritual. I do not believe that being seduced by an unclean spirit is prevented by scripture. I believe two things are necessary. One being in the heart of man to prepare (which scripture can be an element of preparation but there is much more). The other being the gift of the Holy Ghost. I believe that it is a bilateral covenant solution – not a unilateral solution.

The Traveler

I simply mean that not every "prophetic word," that is ended with "Thus saith the Lord," is from the Lord. Sometimes it's not even directly from the Enemy. It can simply be "flesh." For example, have you never heard someone bear a testimony that included a thought you found questionable? Then, the speaker concludes that the Holy Spirit has given her confirmation that what was spoken is true?

[prisonchaplain]

Jesus did not call it a church but a "kingdom". Those that understand the ancient law of a "kingdom" know well that the citizens are not divided especially those that are sent in the name of the Suzerain or King. Paying tax to anyone that said they collected such offerings in the name of the king without proof was an act of sedition and treason. Which, interesting enough is what Jesus was accused of in his trial.

Jesus did teach a method to ascertain who really was a disciple and someone sent by him and it was not that they taught would agree with scripture.

The Traveler

Judas was one of the 12, and yet when his disciples told Jesus that there were others preaching in his name, Jesus said that if they were not against him, they were for him--so leave them be. I like your notion of kingdom vs. Church. A kingdom can have many provinces. It can be that the kingdom is divided INTO these provinces. Likewise, would it be so odd to say that Christ's kingdom is divided INTO many denominations, but that these denominations are UNITED in Christ?

[prisonchaplain]

Both of which were Jewish.

It really baffles me how Christians can think it doesn't matter where you attend church and it doesn't matter what doctrine you teach as long as you believe in Christ. Churches that teach different doctrine cannot be one body of Christ.

Let's take this point and see if there is some wiggle room. For the sake of argument, we will contend that the Assemblies of God is the correct church. It's Statement of Faith is inspired of God, and it's church governance is exactly as God intended his kingdom to be organized. There's this other group out there--the Church of God Cleveland TN. It's doctrine, worship style, content of sermons, etc. is identical to the Assemblies of God. HOWEVER...:::GASP!!!:::...their pastors are appointed centrally, rather than the congregations chosing them individually. So what? Spiritually speaking, do we throw them under the bus, condemning them for having missed God's intentions? Well, we don't. We speak at each other's meetings, and with permission, can preach from one another's pulpits. There's plenty of room in God's kingdom for both denominations, both "provinces."

For example, the Catholic Church, Baptist Church, and LDS Church cannot all be the Church of Christ just because they all teach and believe in Christ. Either one is right and the others are wrong, or all are wrong. They can't all be right if they teach different things.

What if all three have errors? How wrong do you have to be before you get tossed under that spiritual bus?

It's like saying McDonalds, 7-11, and Krispy Kreme are the same. Yes, they all make and sell food, but they are not the same. Many people seem to think just because they sell food they are the same. I'm hungry so I'll just pull in anywhere and get some food. But, if you want a hot, fresh Krispy Kreme donut, you can't go somewhere else to get it. You may be able to get donuts at the other places, but they are not the same.

And yet all three are authorized to sell food, all three sell pastries, and given enough hunger, all three will satisfy a sweet tooth.

[Traveler]

Judas was one of the 12, and yet when his disciples told Jesus that there were others preaching in his name, Jesus said that if they were not against him, they were for him--so leave them be. I like your notion of kingdom vs. Church. A kingdom can have many provinces. It can be that the kingdom is divided INTO these provinces. Likewise, would it be so odd to say that Christ's kingdom is divided INTO many denominations, but that these denominations are UNITED in Christ?

I can go along with some of what you say if you agree that no two provinces service the same citizens or that citizens can pick and choose among several provinces. That kind of thinking defeats the purpose of a king and his chosen vassals and creates a level of anarchy and confusion as to who is in charge. It is a strong notion among the LDS that the L-rd’s house (kingdom) is a house or order and not confusion. There are never two masters to serve and learn from.

The Traveler

[Dr T]

I just want to point out that Romans chapter 4 talks about belief in God vs. works and it's all about the belief in God and NOT the works.