Free said:
Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. For flesh and blood has not revealed this unto you, but my Father which is in heaven. < Is this a good enough source ?
Talk to a JW: What defines "Christianity?"
- Thread starter Mohrb
- Start date
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. For flesh and blood has not revealed this unto you, but my Father which is in heaven. < Is this a good enough source ?
That is a good source, yes. But as I have pointed out many times, it is but a small part of the whole.Mysteryman said:
Mysterman, sadly, I believe we have come to an impasse. We agree on other matters, and I hope that you will not transfer this disagreement to other areas. I will not. When I see things I agree with you on, I will support you.
Please understand, I'm NOT questioning your love for the Lord and the depths to which you have read and prayed over scripture. You exude faith.
I do know what I'm saying when I say Jesus is fully God. Christians and I make this statement in studying scripture, starting with His prophesy.
Isaiah 9:6 "For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." Since we know God the Father was never a child, this can't be speaking to Him. It was clearly speaking to the birth of Jesus.
And in the New Testament.
John 20:27-29 (NKJV) "Then He said to Thomas, "Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing." 28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!" 29 Jesus said to him, "Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
1 Timothy 3
16Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great:
He appeared in a body,
was vindicated by the Spirit,
was seen by angels,
was preached among the nations,
was believed on in the world,
was taken up in glory.
These are but a few examples of scriptural evidence, not intended to debate this point that I believe deserves its own thread, but to show you that I'm not, nor is Christianity, relying on "feelings".
I don't believe that I'm "in the habit of telling people who is and isn't a Christian". I've made that statement with yourself and Chris, who reject the core Christian understanding that Jesus is fully God. I can not, and have not, questioned your heart and love for God. But in stating that people can be Christians while not accepting His Divinity (in the sense of God), this broadens the meaning of the term that defines us to a point that it isn't intended to go. The board's Statement of Faith clearly demonstrates that the people who created it to represent this board's belief agree with me. You never commented on that.
But, please don't think that I'm attempting to peer into your heart. That is between you and the Lord. I'm just saying this is what we as Christians believe as testified in the Bible.
Be blessed,
Mike
Please understand, I'm NOT questioning your love for the Lord and the depths to which you have read and prayed over scripture. You exude faith.
I do know what I'm saying when I say Jesus is fully God. Christians and I make this statement in studying scripture, starting with His prophesy.
Isaiah 9:6 "For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." Since we know God the Father was never a child, this can't be speaking to Him. It was clearly speaking to the birth of Jesus.
And in the New Testament.
John 20:27-29 (NKJV) "Then He said to Thomas, "Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing." 28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!" 29 Jesus said to him, "Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
1 Timothy 3
16Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great:
He appeared in a body,
was vindicated by the Spirit,
was seen by angels,
was preached among the nations,
was believed on in the world,
was taken up in glory.
These are but a few examples of scriptural evidence, not intended to debate this point that I believe deserves its own thread, but to show you that I'm not, nor is Christianity, relying on "feelings".
I don't believe that I'm "in the habit of telling people who is and isn't a Christian". I've made that statement with yourself and Chris, who reject the core Christian understanding that Jesus is fully God. I can not, and have not, questioned your heart and love for God. But in stating that people can be Christians while not accepting His Divinity (in the sense of God), this broadens the meaning of the term that defines us to a point that it isn't intended to go. The board's Statement of Faith clearly demonstrates that the people who created it to represent this board's belief agree with me. You never commented on that.
But, please don't think that I'm attempting to peer into your heart. That is between you and the Lord. I'm just saying this is what we as Christians believe as testified in the Bible.
Be blessed,
Mike
Free said:
Hi Free
Very true, and I agree. But as I told Mike, the only reason I entered this thread was to show that division comes about by false doctrine. If one was to believe that Jesus was fully God , makes one a Christian. Then where in the scriptures does it tell us this ? I have not found it anywhere within scripture. So maybe someone can shine some light on this claim.
Bless
I have made numerous posts on this in several threads, including here:Mysteryman said:
http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=47706
Mike said:
Hi Mike
Thanks for your reply, as I can see you gave your reply much careful thought.
Just a quick comment, if you don't mind. We Christians believe that God is God, and that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. The reason I just said this, was to show how easily it is to cause division. Which of course was not my intent, but just to show how easily we as mere men can say something that will cause division and envy and strife.
Like I have said before, I believe we are both Christians, because we first loved Christ. We love God, because he first loved us. He gave of his Son, and we have accepted this gift and sacrifice.
Bless you, in his service - MM
MM, thank you. It's nice to see that we can resolve this with meaningful . Given our differences, I'm thinking we will have other issues with which we take opposing sides. If we can both appreciate the other's passion for the Lord, we should be able to share in a positive spirit. And, clearly, you have passionate faith.
Be blessed,
Mike
Be blessed,
Mike
M
mamre
Guest
Mohrb said:
Mohrb,
By definition Christian is anyone that professes to follow Christ's teachings, no matter what spin one puts in it. So, it puzzles me that this thread is called 'Christians and other religions'. If JWs profess to follow the teachings of Christ, no matter how they interpret it, it stands to reason that they are Christians, there is no ifs or buts. Same goes to the Adventists, or whatever flavor of Christianity that comes along including those that believe in the concept of trinity.
Therefore, I have a proposal: Why don't we rename this as: "Trinitarian Christians and other denominations," reminding that the doctrine of 'three in one God' is also an interpretation. That would be much more accurate and save a lot of electrons
, as everyone that professes to follow the teachings of Christ is, by definition, a Christian. I guess in a sense I am agreeing with you.mamre
That is simply not true.mamre said:Mohrb said:
Mohrb,
By definition Christian is anyone that professes to follow Christ's teachings, no matter what spin one puts in it. So, it puzzles me that this thread is called 'Christians and other religions'. If JWs profess to follow the teachings of Christ, no matter how they interpret it, it stands to reason that they are Christians, there is no ifs or buts. Same goes to the Adventists, or whatever flavor of Christianity that comes along including those that believe in the concept of trinity.
Therefore, I have a proposal: Why don't we rename this as: "Trinitarian Christians and other denominations," reminding that the doctrine of 'three in one God' is also an interpretation. That would be much more accurate and save a lot of electrons
mamre
mamre said:By definition Christian is anyone that professes to follow Christ's teachings, no matter what spin one puts in it. So, it puzzles me that this thread is called 'Christians and other religions'. If JWs profess to follow the teachings of Christ, no matter how they interpret it, it stands to reason that they are Christians, there is no ifs or buts. Same goes to the Adventists, or whatever flavor of Christianity that comes along including those that believe in the concept of trinity.
Therefore, I have a proposal: Why don't we rename this as: "Trinitarian Christians and other denominations," reminding that the doctrine of 'three in one God' is also an interpretation. That would be much more accurate and save a lot of electrons
mamre
I don't understand. The name of this topic is "Talk to a JW: What defines 'Christianity'", and after almost 50 posts, it kind of wrapped up on its own volition. Why would you want to change the OP's title after all this time? Your suggested title doesn't ask a question let alone ask the original one. 
The question "What Defines Christianity?" could include much more than the difference between Trinitarians and non-Trinitatians. I agree that a topic with that kind of title (which poses some sort of stance or question) would be interesting to discuss. But the question, "What Defines Christianity?" is pretty straight forward, and it evoked an engaging discussion. I've appreciated Chris and his straight forward stance as a faithful Jehovah's Witness. He made a case for inclusion and it was discussed.
A Christian is a person who fallows Jesus Christ.
Mormons, Jehovah Wittiness, Muslims, etc are not Christians.
Then people say "but they believe in a guy named Jesus Christ, wouldn't that make them Christian" .
No! Because they fallow a false Christ, a Christian is a person who is a follower of Christ & not of a false Christ. Example: If you started to hangout with a impostor of Brad Pitt & believed it really is Brad Pitt, does not make you friends with Brad Pitt, because the man who you are hanging out with is not the real Brad Pitt but an impostor.
Christ & the Apostles predicted false Christs, false gospels, & false prophets.
"...there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!" (Galatians 1:7-9)
"Many false prophets will arise and will mislead many" (Matthew 24:11)
"For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect." (Matthew 24:24)
Mormons, Jehovah Wittiness, Muslims, etc are not Christians.
Then people say "but they believe in a guy named Jesus Christ, wouldn't that make them Christian" .
No! Because they fallow a false Christ, a Christian is a person who is a follower of Christ & not of a false Christ. Example: If you started to hangout with a impostor of Brad Pitt & believed it really is Brad Pitt, does not make you friends with Brad Pitt, because the man who you are hanging out with is not the real Brad Pitt but an impostor.
Christ & the Apostles predicted false Christs, false gospels, & false prophets.
"...there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!" (Galatians 1:7-9)
"Many false prophets will arise and will mislead many" (Matthew 24:11)
"For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect." (Matthew 24:24)
Kevin Lowery said:
Hi Kevin
What you said is true, however, what you said is also false !
We are not talking about Brad Bitt. There are only two Christ's, the true Christ, who is the Son of God, and the anti-christ. The anti-christ is the imposter.
Now, if we were to get into scripture about the true Christ, you would find yourself between a rock and a hard place when it comes to making such a reference that JW's and Mormon's are talking about the anti-christ.
There is a difference between misunerstanding and a lack of knowledge. But you only cause envy and strife and division by claiming that our brethren are not christians, and that you are ! I would be careful my friend when that day comes and you and I stand before the judgement seat of Christ, and you see the Mormon's and JW's standing right next to you in wait for their opportunity to be judged , just like you and I are also going to be judged equally. That is if you or I even get to the judgement seat of Christ which is reserved for only those who have been chosen from before the foundations of the earth, to be holy and without blame in Christ, in love.
M
mamre
Guest
Mysteryman said:
Mysteryman,
It is an interesting argument. But, for it work you would have to prove that what the others follow are false Christs and only your interpretation of the Christ is true.
However, I will propose to you another argument. For example, lets say you belong to the Lutheran Church, Anglican Church, or Baptist Church, or Methodist Church, or Menonites, or Congregationalist, or Catholic, or JW, or Adventists, or Pentecostal, Assembly of God, or any other church like those. All these profess to follow Christs teaching. None of these however, and these are only a few, bear the name of Christ. They bear the name of a man, or the name of a concept, or of a nationality, therefore, one could easily argue that the people that belong and attend those Christian Churches are not Christians, because none of those church name bear the name of Jesus Christ. So, to follow a reasoning similar to yours, there are very few that could be considered Christians then.
As for false Christ, that will be a matter of interpretation. For one to know the true Christ he will have to go straight to the source of truth, which is God, and ask and receive a revelation like the one that was given to Peter in Matt 16, directly from the Father in heaven, and not from a man. So, you belong to a, purportedly Christian church, which has a good chance to have been formed by a man or a group of men that did it out of their on heads. How do you know that the church you belong to is the kingdom of God on earth? And how do you KNOW that it is the true church of Jesus Christ? How do you KNOW, that the doctrine you follow is the TRUE doctrine of Christ?
That is the problem of trying to brand people and classify them according to their beliefs. It only ends up showing one thing, that if we do that, we reveal our sectarianism. And acting like that shows you are placing your beliefs above all the others. Now, the true church of Jesus Christ is not sectarian, and consider that truth can be found anywhere. And no matter where truth is found, it comes from God, because God is the source of all truth.
So one that professes to follow Jesus Christ's teachings, is a Christian by definition, regardless of his/her interpretation of who is He.
Notice that after the Apostle were killed, there were many flavors of Christianity developed during the first 400 years. One those flavors became predominant and stamped out all the others because it won the favor the Roman Empire. But before they were stamped out, they were all considered Christians.
Have a great day,
mamre
mamre said:
Hi mamre:
Those who follow a man, follow THEM according to what the Apostle Paul said here in - I Corinth. 3:1 - 9.
Those who follow a concept, follow that concept. None of them claim to follow the anti-christ, not one !
Each has its own perspective, be it right or wrong. Mostly because of a lack of knowledge. We have way too many who claim they are christian by their doctrine, and that others are not christians because they don't follow their doctrine to the letter. Some claim core beliefs, whatever that means ? !
Others, like myself are walking in the Spirit, who have the Spirit of His Son in our hearts, crying Abba Father. Those people are the one's who abide by what it says in Romans 8:9 - 17.
This does not mean that anyone associated with any of these groups, does not have the Spirit of Christ in them. It means for the most part, that they tend to follow the traditions of men instead of walking by the Spirit of/from God. Sons of God are led by the Spirit of God - Romans 8:14.
The body of Christ is the body of Christ, and it does not have a denominational figure head over the door, or a creed or concept over the door either.
The building is the foundation of truth, which is built upon the Apostles, Prophets and Jesus Christ himself as the chief corner stone. In whom all the building fitly framed together -- groweth -- unto an holy temple in the Lord. In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
In order to grow, one can not live by a traditional concept, nor man made traditions. One must be free from any bondage, in order to grow in the Lord.
Who is a Christian and who has Christ in them the hope of glory, is up to God himself and not other man, nor man made doctrines. Man made doctrines, as well as traditions of men, cause division, and envy and strife.
Mysteryman said:
Hervey, I can't speak for Kevin, so I'll only say I "believe" you are making the same mistake with him that you did with me. You talk about Judgment Day, but I never implied that anyone is going to going to be judged and punished with eternal separation from God. Ad I'm not sure Kevin is. We do agree that one day there will be judgment and there will be eternal separation. I could not possibly get inside God's Grace and say He will decide this or that. The premise of my entire argument rests on the identification, the conclusion that one draws, from the declaration that someone is a Christian. When someone says that they are a Christian, my conclusion is that (at the very least) they accept that Jesus was and is fully God. This is what I assumed you held (and you kept that pretty close to the vest) when we first started sharing. You've made great points about how our faith needs to be personal, and you're right. But, the name of Christianity has some implications. A very central one is that Jesus was who the writers of the NT collectively said he was...God.
We've shared a lot...been there, done that. I don't mean to drudge up old material. You've cited verses, I've cited verses, and yet we disagree. My reason for posting here again was to say I'm not saying you or anyone else in particular will be condemned to hell. As Kevin said, embracing the fullness of God, God in all His Glory, is important. You, Chris, Kevin...all very faithful, passionate people. You're definitely NOT luke warm! If you were to ask (and I know you're not) what I believe you should do and why, I would say, "Fall down on your knees and claim Jesus Christ as your Lord, Savior, and yes, God. And you will begin living eternity today. (the why)
I'm not condemning anyone to hell. I've no place to say. I know it upsets you when you see me as running around point the finger at people saying they aren't Christians. My faith is personal. I personally depend on God for every breath. Even the name of "Christianity" doesn't define my relationship. It's a term used to define the Body of Believers who recognize Jesus for Who He is. To the degree that it would water down the inference of that name, I can not say that JW's, Mormons, or anyone who does not acknowledge Jesus as God in the flesh. I also can not say how they will be judged.
Mike
Mike said:
Hi Mike:
Let me make myself as clear as possible. This is not about going to hell and being judge in that manner. This is about the wrong concept, which causes envy and strife and division. Going around and telling our brethren that they are not a christian because ------ is just wrong !
The reason I am not a SDA (mormon) is because I do not believe in their concept. But I would never tell them that they are not a christian. The same goes with JW's. They likewise are my brethren.
They follow the best way that they know how at this paticular juction in their lives. Let us let God judge who is and who is not a Christian. It is not for man to judge ! Because God put the Spirit of His Son in the hearts of those whom he chose. All others are followers, and this is why we call them our brethren. Praise God for this Mike ! Let us not put them down and make them feel like they are following the anti-christ, when they indeed are not doing so !
Let us not forget, that there will be false brethren among us, and we just have to accept this truth. We need to stop grouping ourselves according to our doctrines and seperating others as if they do not love God. They do love God, but I believe they need some help in a fuller understanding. Allowing God to open up the eyes of their understanding. This goes for you as well as myself my friend. I also believe that you need your eyes to be enlightened as well. All of this calling each other not being a christian is for the bird(s), the adversaries of God. We need to embrace one another, instead of causing strife and envy and division. Teach and reprove, yes, but not in such a manner as this !
Encourage, don't discourage !
Bless
Mysteryman said:
No, it's not wrong, It's the truth. If you believe that Jesus Christ is a created being who is only a mere angel, you are not fallowing the true Christ but a Lie created by man & Satan. If you believe in a Jesus who was only a prophet & never died on a cross nor resurrected, you are not fallowing the true Christ but a Lie created by man & Satan, If you believe in a Jesus Christ who was one of many Hindu Avatars who were once humans than reached full enlightenment, you are not fallowing the true Christ but a Lie created by man & Satan etc. Therefore you are not fallowing the true Christ, but a lie, therefore you are not a Christian, because a Christian is a follower of the true Jesus Christ & not a lie.
It's not wrong or condemning or judging to tell someone who believes in a false Christ that they are not Christian, then preach the true gospel of Christ to them, thats what we are called to do.
Mysteryman said:
Yes we are to be kind & gentle when preaching the word of Christ...
"The Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth,
and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will" (2 Timothy 2:24-26)
"but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence"
(1 Peter 3:15)
But the truth is if you are believing in a lie created by Satan, and are deceiving others to believe that lie, you are doing the work of Satan & man, not God. It's not mean, it's just the Biblical truth.
Mysteryman said:
Like I said earlier, they are believing in a lie created by Satan. They do not believe in the true God but a false God. And especially religions such as Mormonism, Jehovah Wittiness, & Islam are built on doctrine witch is completely blasphemous against God & his Holy Name. They are not brethren in Christ but lost soul, deceived by Satan & the doctrine of men, who need to be saved. They have no love for God, because they don't even know God. And if we don't do our jobs as Christian to preach to these people who are just as we were before, they will be the ones God will say to on judgment day.
"...I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME..." (Matthew 7:23)
So, Hervey, let me ask you this. At some point, I have to believe even you would say a person is not a Christian. Let's take the extreme obvious. An atheist is not a Christian. I hope (and assume) you'd agree. A devout Buddhist? Yes, I'm using extremes. What about a person who thinks that there is a higher intelligence and that Jesus was a "good teacher"? I know you believe Jesus was specially sent, but what about the person who believes He was nothing more than a mere man with noble moral lessons? Let's take someone who worships the Father devoutly, who practices as an Orthodox Jew. Not that they would, but could they claim Christianity without an argument from you? If each of these people declared that they were a Christian, would you agree to "encourage them"? If you would, then I would submit that the name doesn't mean much to you. The name of Christianity has no value.
If you would say they are not, then I would ask what a person on a very basic level should hold to call himself a Christian. You've never answered the question of this topic yourself, that I can recall.
So, if you believe everyone can say they are a Christian, then there is nothing special about the name. But, if you don't, then you too draw a line somewhere yourself. In this case, we simply have different criteria. I know you love the Lord. And, while I don't understand how you can have someone who isn't God live in your heart, I know you are passionate about Him too. You have as much passion for Him as anyone I've met here or in person. And you are fierce with your faith. This has never been a question to me. I just believe a person who does not hold that Jesus is and was God in the flesh would go by a different name. In saying this, I don't think I'm throwing you into the Lake of Fire.
Mike
If you would say they are not, then I would ask what a person on a very basic level should hold to call himself a Christian. You've never answered the question of this topic yourself, that I can recall.
So, if you believe everyone can say they are a Christian, then there is nothing special about the name. But, if you don't, then you too draw a line somewhere yourself. In this case, we simply have different criteria. I know you love the Lord. And, while I don't understand how you can have someone who isn't God live in your heart, I know you are passionate about Him too. You have as much passion for Him as anyone I've met here or in person. And you are fierce with your faith. This has never been a question to me. I just believe a person who does not hold that Jesus is and was God in the flesh would go by a different name. In saying this, I don't think I'm throwing you into the Lake of Fire.
Mike
This type of thinking is deeply flawed. To profess to follow Christ's teachings presumes that one actually understands what he says, and this includes everything he says of himself.mamre said:
To profess to belong to Christ one must also believe in his name, that is, everything who he is. One cannot separate belief or faith in Christ from belief about Christ, like you are trying to do. That is impossible. Who Jesus is is absolutely central to salvation and the gospel message, and as such, in determining those who truly are his followers and those who are not.
M
mamre
Guest
Mysteryman said:
I have seen a lot of people giving this argument as to justify the profusion of churches revolving around the New Testament concepts and imply that, despite the difference in denominations, they are the body of Christ. So, if it is the body of Christ, then why are there no unity amongst the so many churches? Can it be that they don't have a 'head,' and each one have their own idea of what the church of Christ should be? Even some that claim not to follow any church?
Even thought there is a vast number of churches, people claim that they still belong to a "body of Christ." And they claim that that body of Christ is the true church. But it is hard to believe that because if they all truly belonged to the 'body of Christ,' there would not be any difference in doctrine. There would not be so many denominations. There would be literally and truly: One Lord, one faith, one baptism, Eph. 4: 5 (Emphasis added).
However, what we see today is the opposite: There are many "Lords" (different concepts of who the Lord is), there are an increasingly vast number of faiths (lots of different concepts of how and what people should believe and worship), many forms of baptisms: by immersion, by sprinkling, and other forms (and there are even those that deny that baptism is a condition to enter the kingdom of God). Some denominations don't accept the baptism performed by some other that they deem not Christians.
Jesus Christ, however, prayed that: "...keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are." John 17:11 In other words, if all these churches and denominations are not one, they are not of Christ.
The fact that there are so many churches means only one thing. It is exactly what Paul said and you have quoted. See if this is familiar: Some are of Roger Williams (Baptists), some are of Menno Simons (Menonites), some are of John Wesley (Methodists), some are of Alexander Campbell (Campbellites), some are of the King of England (Anglicans) some are of Russel and Rutherford (Jehovah Witness), some are of George Fox (Quakers), some are of Helen White (Adventists), others say I follow my own interpretation of the scriptures, and so one and so forth.
So, as much as some want to believe that there are many churches but some or most compose the 'body of Christ,' that can't be because all we see is a big mix of divergent beliefs and doctrines that is far from being "one" as Jesus prayed.
Mysteryman said:
How can you build something upon the apostles if they are long gone. There is no "Christian" church with the organization that includes apostles who can produce scriptures like the apostles of old.
Also, it is confusing to say "foundation of truth." Does the truth need foundation? Doesn't all truth come from Father in Heaven?
The apostles were the ones that lead the true original Church of Christ after He ascended. The apostles were the ones that had been ordained by Jesus therefore they held the authority to produce scripture and to lead the church. The apostles were persecuted and killed, therefore the source of authority disappeared with them. No more revelation. Therefore, to have the true Church of Jesus Christ upon the earth today we would need for Christ to call new apostles so they can give direction and administer the affairs of the kingdom.
Have a great day
mamre