Evidence...

[Subduction Zone]

There's only one church. It consists of all true believers.
When the creed was written, how many denominations existed? Think about it.

There may have been more than one even then. That was an attempt to make all non-Catholic churches void. It would still apply to Protestantism. You want it both ways again. You cannot say that you follow the creed when you follow a church that broke off from the Catholic church.

There is an out for you.

 

[metis]

And is still a cult.

A "Jesus cult".

"Apostolic succession" is well established fact that even Luther admitted as the Apostles made appointees that have continued on through to today and beyond: Apostolic succession - Wikipedia

After all, Jesus said that he would guide his Church through the end of time, so you believe him, right? However, it is not just the Catholic Church that is a by-product of this process.

 

[metis]

There's only one church. It consists of all true believers.

Sorry, but that's clearly not the case.

Jesus set up an organization that first consisted of the Twelve, and then he gave them powers of leadership. This was crucial as there was no NT for decades and, as a matter of fact, it wasn't until the 4th century that the Catholic Church chose the canon most currently use, and that process took half a century and involved over 1000 bishops. At no point from Jesus on was it ever a position that anything goes.

When the creed was written, how many denominations existed? Think about it.

The creeds in general were wrtten to combat heresies as there were groups taking positions contrary to what was believed by the organization Jesus created, and they typically used different books that we collectively call "pseudepigrapha".

 

[Wildswanderer]

A "Jesus cult".

"Apostolic succession" is well established fact that even Luther admitted as the Apostles made appointees that have continued on through to today and beyond: Apostolic succession - Wikipedia

After all, Jesus said that he would guide his Church through the end of time, so you believe him, right? However, it is not just the Catholic Church that is a by-product of this process.

I don't know what your point here is. That was a major problem with the gnostics...they had no apostolic support.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Sorry, but that's clearly not the case.

Jesus set up an organization that first consisted of the Twelve, and then he gave them powers of leadership. This was crucial as there was no NT for decades and, as a matter of fact, it wasn't until the 4th century that the Catholic Church chose the canon most currently use, and that process took half a century and involved over 1000 bishops. At no point from Jesus on was it ever a position that anything goes.

The creeds in general were wrtten to combat heresies as there were groups taking positions contrary to what was believed by the organization Jesus created, and they typically used different books that we collectively call "pseudepigrapha".

Agreed. I never said anything goes?

 

[Sheldon]

There's only one church. It consists of all true believers.

No true Scotsman fallacy.

 

[metis]

I don't know what your point here is. That was a major problem with the gnostics...they had no apostolic support.

They had some different teachings, different leaders, different texts, etc., so it should be logical why the Church didn't support them. Any other approach would have led to "anything goes".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, but that's clearly not the case.

Jesus set up an organization that first consisted of the Twelve, and then he gave them powers of leadership. This was crucial as there was no NT for decades and, as a matter of fact, it wasn't until the 4th century that the Catholic Church chose the canon most currently use, and that process took half a century and involved over 1000 bishops. At no point from Jesus on was it ever a position that anything goes.

The creeds in general were wrtten to combat heresies as there were groups taking positions contrary to what was believed by the organization Jesus created, and they typically used different books that we collectively call "pseudepigrapha".

Are you sure about that? I know that some of the books in the Bible are also pseudepigraphic. Some of the letters of Paul in the New Testament were not written by him. Almost all scholars think that II Peter was not written by Peter and now many do not think that I Peter was written by him either.

Pseudepigrapha - Wikipedia

From my understanding pseudepigrapha are books that were not written by the person that they were attributed to.

 

[metis]

Are you sure about that? I know that some of the books in the Bible are also pseudepigraphic. Some of the letters of Paul in the New Testament were not written by him. Almost all scholars think that II Peter was not written by Peter and now many do not think that I Peter was written by him either.

Pseudepigrapha - Wikipedia

From my understanding pseudepigrapha are books that were not written by the person that they were attributed to.

"Pseudopepigrapha" has a different meaning: spurious or pseudonymous writings, especially Jewish writings ascribed to various biblical patriarchs and prophets but composed within approximately 200 years of the birth of Jesus Christ.

According to the British theologian William Barclay (Anglican), there's roughly 3000 "books" that qualify.

However, you are absolutely correct in that authorship of some of the books is highly conjectural, and this problem even existed in the 4th century when the bishops decided the canon.

 

[rational experiences]

Really? So you accept the fact hat Genesis is largely mythical. That is nice to hear.

Thesis is first stories visionary and mythical. Science.

The topic a God theist who sacrificed human life by built temple science.

Is just a summation also visionary yet the occurrence caused and gone occurred.

So when you assess information the status allows the category what is assessed to be reasoned also.

If DNA is gone then it is not traceable is it.

If a man says I can time shift mass he knows it's by consuming.

If he experiments to time shift mass first.

If an article is smaller than mass as mass shifts earth mass is displaced not the article. Earth shifts it's position in its space.

As nuclear shift is already a designed forced cooling doing the human forced time shift then mass was already shifting.

Making man feel powerful by thesis design reaction compared to the god planet.

Science in new machine just removed nature's cooling to gain an effect that they were not rationally first causing by their new machines.

Common sense was never a scientists logic.

If science said I was time shifting mass before and killed off all life on earth he meant it.

Confessed agreed allowed caused then re agreed assessed rebuilt.

Title destroyer.