Do you have the hope of going to heaven

[JehovahsWitness]

As one of Jehovah's Witnesses I do not have a hope of going to heaven (when I speak of "heaven" I mean the spiritual abode/realm where God lives).

- Do you personally entertain the hope of going to heaven to spend eternity with God when you die? (if this question is too personal I respect if you do not want to share this information)

- If so, do you believe such a literal spiritual realm exists?

- Do you believe that Jesus is presently in heaven where God exists?



* My question is for people that do believe that a God exists, since I presume that those that do not believe in God do believe he exists anywhere and therefore there is no "heaven" where God is.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 406 by JehovahsWitness]

This is interesting too. It is a good insight into why certain religions that deny the Divinity of Jesus resort to teachings like 'Paradise Earth'.



Go to 23 minutes in.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to onewithhim]

Whoa, where does scripture say that we are NOT to go by scripture alone but that we should also rely on tradition (that is---other than scripture)?

The Bible itself denies that it is sufficient as the complete rule of faith.

Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2)


“So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter. -2 Thessalonians 2:15

Now I commend you for remembering me in everything and for maintaining the traditions, just as I passed them on to you. -1 Corinthians 11:2

Apparently you have failed to understand that the "tradition" Paul referred to was, in fact, the scriptural tradition that had been being handed down to Timothy and others. He was referring to what was taught in the scriptures, and that would have been handed down to people who wanted to learn and serve Jehovah. Paul had explained to Jews and Gentiles how the Hebrew Scriptures related facts about the coming Messiah. That is the "tradition" that was being handed down.

[RightReason]

[Replying to onewithhim]

Apparently you have failed to understand that the "tradition" Paul referred to was, in fact, the scriptural tradition that had been being handed down to Timothy and others.

Sure, considering the Bible did not exist at the time of Timothy, but yeah sure that’s what he meant.

Does the irony in all of this really elude you? Sacred Scripture does not interpret itself. The irony being the idea that Scripture alone is our authority is unscriptural!


The Church gave us Sacred Scripture. You somehow accept the authority of the Church to decide what comprised the Bible, but then you said, but we don’t trust you enough to interpret it for us – we’ll take it from here. LOL! Why believe the church had the authority to give us the Bible and then think it wasn’t until 18 centuries later when a group of 5 guys came along and interpreted it correctly?

If your brother sins against you go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. . . . But if he does not listen, take one or two others with you. . . . If he refuses to listen . . . tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. (Matt. 18:15-17)

If he refuses to listen even to the church

Obviously, Scripture alone has no authority. It doesn’t say, “If he refuses to listen to Scripture� . . .

According to Scripture, the Church is the final court of appeal for the people of God in matters of faith, morals, and discipline.

The idea that Scripture alone is our authority is unscriptural!

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to onewithhim]

Whoa, where does scripture say that we are NOT to go by scripture alone but that we should also rely on tradition (that is---other than scripture)?

The Bible itself denies that it is sufficient as the complete rule of faith.

Really?



In any case Jehovah's Witnesses hold that scripture should form the basis for all religious teachings. This has protected us from being infected with non-biblical teachings.

We [Jehovah's Witnesses] recognize the Bible as God’s inspired message to humans. (John 17:17; 2 Timothy 3:16) We base our beliefs on all 66 of its books, which include both the “Old Testament� and the “New Testament.� Professor Jason D. BeDuhn aptly described it when he wrote that Jehovah’s Witnesses built “their system of belief and practice from the raw material of the Bible without predetermining what was to be found there.� *

While we accept the entire Bible, we are not fundamentalists. We recognize that parts of the Bible are written in figurative or symbolic language and are not to be understood literally.—Revelation 1:1.


*Truth in Translation p. 165

Source: https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesse ... s-beliefs/


Sola scriptura - Definition
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 773#343773

[JehovahsWitness]

... (Matt. 18:15-17) Obviously, Scripture alone has no authority. It doesn’t say, “If he refuses to listen to Scripture� . . .

QUESTION: Did Jesus place "church authority" above the written word of God?

In Matthew 18:15-17 we find Jesus is outlining congregational procedure in cases of personal grievances. He implied that those in a position of authority of the congregation should act as judges to decide such matters if the individuals cannot come to an amicable agreement alone. But were those judges authorized to act outside and above the limits of scripture? Since Matthew 18 makes no direct reference to scripture sincere seekers of truth are obliged to look to Jesus' statement elsewhere to try and understand the position scripture should play in relation to "the church".


IT IS WRITTEN

1 Peter 2:21 presents an important principle: Christ provides the "model" which all Christians (including church leaders) are to follow. So what was Jesus' attitude to scripture? Did he place scripture as the "final authority" on matters of faith?

Far from implying as some Catholics and others would, that scripture alone has "no authority", Jesus frequently referred to God's written word when teaching matters of faith. Indeed in Matthew 18 itself the requirement for "two or three witnesses" was a part of the Mosaic law (Deut 19:15). Most people are familiar with the occassion when Jesus was tempted by the Devil. Instead of refering to his considerable knowledge or even his rightful authority as the Messiah, Jesus repeatedly referred to scripture saying "it is written" (Mat 4:4, 7, 10). In his famous "sermon on the mount" Jesus again based his teaching on what was written in holy scripture rather than the oral traditions, indeed Jesus in that short sermon quoted 21 times from the Hebrew scriptures!(Exodus 3; Leviticus 2; Numbers 1; Deuteronomy 6; II Kings 1; Psalms 4; Isaiah 3; Jeremiah 1). When asked key questions about divorce, salvation, his own Messiahship, Jesus referred back again and again to God's written word. Indeed he was constantly in conflict with the religious leaders who attempted to place "church" tradition ABOVE scripture. Note Jesus stronge condemnation of such behavior in the following passage

MATTHEW 15: 3-9
In reply he said to them: “Why do you overstep the commandment of God because of your tradition? For example, God said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Let the one who speaks abusively of his father or mother be put to death.’ But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother: “Whatever I have that could benefit you is a gift dedicated to God,� he need not honor his father at all.’ So you have made the word of God invalid because of your tradition. You hypocrites, Isaiah aptly prophesied about you when he said: ‘This people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far removed from me. It is in vain that they keep worshipping me, for they teach commands of men as doctrines.’

Some might ask : Are not Catholics and others that place human traditions above God's divinely inspired scripture simply "modern day Pharisees"?

CHURCH AUTHORITY

As the promised Messiah, the Logos and the Son of God, Jesus of course had authority directly transmit new teachings from God to his disciples, which he (Jesus) did. He could delegate and commission which he did (notably the Apostle Peter and later to Paul) and give authority to whomever he wished... But he did NOT give anyone the authority to contradict him or God's revealed word written recorded inspired scriptrue . Indeed the limits of the church were implied in Matthew 28:20 were Jesus authorized his Apostles (and subsequently all disciples) to teach people to "observe all the things I have commanded you", not to each whatever you and Emperor Constantine have decided. Thus the "church" if it were to keep God's approval had to avoid stepping outside of the limits of it's authority which rested on Jesus and the divine revelation transmitted through him (The Word). By word and deed one of Jesus' fundamental teachings was the authority of scripture to stand alone on matters of faith (compare Mat 19:26-19)

CONCLUSION: Clearly Jesus did NOT give the church authority ABOVE scripture, indeed he explicitly taught that holding religious traditions (whether they came from a misapplication of scripture or from human traditions) which conflicted with God's word would invalidate faith. Far from teaching that scripture alone has "no authority" Jesus constantly referred to scripture as the final authority on matters and any authority he gave his Apostles and any subsequent congregation "leaders" would only be valid based on the constraints.

[RightReason]

The Bible itself denies that it is sufficient as the complete rule of faith.

This explains why you seem to avoid it so much . . .

Cute, but sooooo far off. I actually believe as St. Jerome did, “Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ.� Catholics read the WHOLE Bible as handed down to us from Christ’s Church – not an altered version that had to be changed to fit one’s theology.

The Catholic mass has readings from the OT, NT, and Gospel. All the liturgy in the mass is from Scripture. Within 3 years of attending mass, a Catholic can expect to have been presented with the ENTIRE Bible – not only the parts some churches like to emphasize.

Jehovah’s Witnesses hold that scripture should form the basis for all religious teachings. We have our position you have yours.

Actually, ironically, as I’ve shown, your position is unscriptural. How do you not realize your position is why there are thousands of off shoots that have broken off from Christ’s Church all teaching different things? That is a result of believing the Bible alone is our authority. Also, it does not appear you even believe that the Bible alone is your authority. JW motto is more like, “The Watchtower Society is my authority� – an earthly organization notorious for getting it wrong.


[quote

In any case Jehovah's Witnesses hold that scripture should form the basis for all religious teachings.

You say, “In any case� because you know the passage you cited above does not prove or say Scripture alone is our authority. The Catholic Church believes no teaching can contradict Scripture. Scripture is sacred.

This has protected us from being infected with non-biblical teachings.

I am afraid the very opposite is true. Five men taking the Bible (as handed down to them by my Church) and coming up with their own translation is what has brought about many false Biblical teachings like soul sleep, paradise earth, Jesus an angel, etc. Not to mention it has invented unnecessary rules and obligations on its people like not celebrating birthdays, refusing blood transfusions, and not being able to join the military.

And explain to me again how believing that Scripture alone is our authority prevents one from teaching non-biblical teachings? Your Protestant brothers and sisters believe as you do regarding Scripture and yet their teachings differ greatly from yours. Clearly, your system that “all you need is the Bible� is not effective.

Quote:
We [Jehovah's Witnesses] recognize the Bible as God’s inspired message to humans. (John 17:17; 2 Timothy 3:16) We base our beliefs on all 66 of its books, which include both the “Old Testament� and the “New Testament.� Professor Jason D. BeDuhn aptly described it when he wrote that Jehovah’s Witnesses built “their system of belief and practice from the raw material of the Bible without predetermining what was to be found there.� *

While we accept the entire Bible, we are not fundamentalists. We recognize that parts of the Bible are written in figurative or symbolic language and are not to be understood literally.—Revelation 1:1.


*Truth in Translation p. 165

There is absolutely nothing in that statement that I disagree with. Almost every Christian denomination would say the same thing and yet all Christian denominations teach different things. This mission statement is incomplete. The Catholic Church believes Christ gave us Sacred Scripture AND Sacred Tradition – that is the only system that makes sense. One without the other is not having the fullness of the faith.

Some might ask : Are not Catholics and others that place human traditions above God's divinely inspired scripture simply "modern day Pharisees"?

You misrepresent what the Church teaches. We do not believe the Church can contradict Scripture. You also misrepresent the Scripture warning us to not get caught up in the traditions of men – a common misunderstanding from the anti-Catholic crowd <sigh>

[onewithhim]

[Replying to onewithhim]

Apparently you have failed to understand that the "tradition" Paul referred to was, in fact, the scriptural tradition that had been being handed down to Timothy and others.

Sure, considering the Bible did not exist at the time of Timothy, but yeah sure that’s what he meant.

Does the irony in all of this really elude you? Sacred Scripture does not interpret itself. The irony being the idea that Scripture alone is our authority is unscriptural!


The Church gave us Sacred Scripture. You somehow accept the authority of the Church to decide what comprised the Bible, but then you said, but we don’t trust you enough to interpret it for us – we’ll take it from here. LOL! Why believe the church had the authority to give us the Bible and then think it wasn’t until 18 centuries later when a group of 5 guys came along and interpreted it correctly?

If your brother sins against you go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. . . . But if he does not listen, take one or two others with you. . . . If he refuses to listen . . . tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. (Matt. 18:15-17)

If he refuses to listen even to the church

Obviously, Scripture alone has no authority. It doesn’t say, “If he refuses to listen to Scripture� . . .

According to Scripture, the Church is the final court of appeal for the people of God in matters of faith, morals, and discipline.

The idea that Scripture alone is our authority is unscriptural!

The Bible---the part known as the Hebrew Scriptures (the Old Testament)---DID exist in the time of Paul. His scriptural "tradition" was based on those Scriptures, which Christ fulfilled.

What does the "church" base its decisions on? Not any traditions thought up by men, but the SCRIPTURES.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 388 by JehovahsWitness]

So what was Jesus refering to when he said earth?

What was Jesus referring to when he said the word "heaven"?

Would it be a different heaven to that which he referred to where The Father is (our "Father who art in heaven")? Are they both refering to the same thing?

What is your reading to the opening lines here of the Lord's Prayer?

I pray the Our Father every day. The prayer says, “Our Father who art in heaven hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come thy will be done on earth and as it is in heaven.�

I have always understood this to mean God obviously resides in heaven (yes, of course He is everywhere, but you know what I mean) and He is our King and we are professing our belief that we know and believe His Kingdom is to come to fruition at some point, when we can all be together. And we are proclaiming that His will be done, here, now on earth, today for us, for all of mankind just like His will is done in heaven. We are essentially professing that we desire things to be done as He would want them to be done – not our will but His. By reciting the “Our Father� I am declaring that I want what He wants. I am acknowledging that not only does He reign in heaven, but I relinquish all control to Him for me here, now, today in my earthly life. By praying the “Our Father� I am begging Him that I be strong enough to accept His will in my life and of course the prayer goes on to request that God gives us what we need to be capable of following His will. “Give us our daily bread� we ask Him. Give us all that we will need for today.

I prayed the Our Father every day, too, when I went to school, and I never gave thought to what "thy kingdom come" meant. It was only when I encountered JWs that I was made aware of what it means. You don't seem to have any idea what it means. Your church apparently hasn't told you. I don't think even the pope understands what it means, or, if he does, he isn't telling you. It would damage his position with the world's governments to say that Jesus is going to rule the earth some day.

We pray for God's kingdom to come so that his will may be done on earth, as it is done in heaven. His will will never be carried out completely over the earth without the intervention of the Kingdom---a real government with Christ as the head.

Let's see what your Catholic Bibles say about this government by Christ.

"For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us [Jesus Christ], and the government is upon his shoulder....His empire shall be multiplied, and there shall be no end of peace: he shall sit upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom; to establish it and strengthen it with judgment and with justice, from henceforth and for ever: the zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this." (Isaiah 9:6,7, Holy Trinity Edition of the Catholic Bible, 1951)

"For there is a child born for us, a son given to us and dominion is laid on his shoulders....Wide is his dominion in a peace that has no end, for the throne of David and for his royal power, which he establishes and makes secure in justice and integrity. From this time onwards and for ever, the jealous love of Yahweh Sabaoth will do this." (The Jerusalem Bible; Imprimatur: John Cardinal Heenan, 1966)

"For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, and the government is upon his shoulder....His empire shall be multiplied and there shall be no end of peace. He shall sit upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom: to establish it and strengthen it with judment and with justice, from henceforth and forever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this." (New Catholic Edition, Imprimatur: Francis Cardinal Spellman, 1949-1950)

The New Jerusalem Bible and the New American Bible say the same things.

So apparently your Catholic Bibles agree with JWs that God's Kingdom is a real government and Christ will be the King. I wonder why that doesn't get taught in your churches. In fact, why would a priest tell me, when I asked him what God's kingdom was, that he didn't know? Something may be amiss, wouldn't you say?


[/u][/b]

[RightReason]

[Replying to onewithhim]

The Bible---the part known as the Hebrew Scriptures (the Old Testament)---DID exist in the time of Paul. His scriptural "tradition" was based on those Scriptures, which Christ fulfilled.

Is that why even after Christ’s Resurrection, people went to the Church for answers and clarifications? Maybe the early Christian followers did not get the memo that Sacred Tradition was only to refer to Hebrew Scriptures. Too bad you weren’t there to explain it to them.

What does the "church" base its decisions on? Not any traditions thought up by men, but the SCRIPTURES.

You have a misunderstanding of what Sacred Tradition refers to. Don’t worry it is a common mistake.

*************************************************

In the Protestant view, the whole of Christian truth is found within the Bible’s pages. Anything extraneous to the Bible is simply non-authoritative, unnecessary, or wrong—and may well hinder one in coming to God.


Catholics, on the other hand, recognize that the Bible does not endorse this view and that, in fact, it is repudiated in Scripture. The true "rule of faith"—as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly.


In the Second Vatican Council’s document on divine revelation, Dei Verbum (Latin: "The Word of God"), the relationship between Tradition and Scripture is explained: "Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.

"Thus, by the light of the Spirit of truth, these successors can in their preaching preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and reverence."


In this discussion it is important to keep in mind what the Catholic Church means by tradition. The term does not refer to legends or mythological accounts, nor does it encompass transitory customs or practices which may change, as circumstances warrant, such as styles of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, or even liturgical rubrics. Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.


They have been handed down and entrusted to the Church. It is necessary that Christians believe in and follow this tradition as well as the Bible (Luke 10:16). The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph. 3:5), who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26, 16:13).



Paul illustrated what tradition is: "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . . . Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed" (1 Cor. 15:3,11). The apostle praised those who followed Tradition: "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).


The first Christians "devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching" (Acts 2:42) long before there was a New Testament. From the very beginning, the fullness of Christian teaching was found in the Church as the living embodiment of Christ, not in a book. The teaching Church, with its oral, apostolic tradition, was authoritative. Paul himself gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35).


This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul. Indeed, even the Gospels themselves are oral tradition which has been written down (Luke 1:1–4). What’s more, Paul does not quote Jesus only. He also quotes from early Christian hymns, as in Ephesians 5:14. These and other things have been given to Christians "through the Lord Jesus" (1 Thess. 4:2).


Fundamentalists say Jesus condemned tradition. They note that Jesus said, "And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?" (Matt. 15:3). Paul warned, "See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ" (Col. 2:8). But these verses merely condemn erroneous human traditions, not truths which were handed down orally and entrusted to the Church by the apostles. These latter truths are part of what is known as apostolic tradition, which is to be distinguished from human traditions or customs.


Consider Matthew 15:6–9, which Fundamentalists and Evangelicals often use to defend their position: "So by these traditions of yours you have made God’s laws ineffectual. You hypocrites, it was a true prophecy that Isaiah made of you, when he said, ‘This people does me honor with its lips, but its heart is far from me. Their worship is in vain, for the doctrines they teach are the commandments of men.’" Look closely at what Jesus said.


He was not condemning all traditions. He condemned only those that made God’s word void. In this case, it was a matter of the Pharisees feigning the dedication of their goods to the Temple so they could avoid using them to support their aged parents. By doing this, they dodged the commandment to "Honor your father and your mother" (Ex. 20:12).


Elsewhere, Jesus instructed his followers to abide by traditions that are not contrary to God’s commandments. "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice" (Matt. 23:2–3).


What Fundamentalists and Evangelicals often do, unfortunately, is see the word "tradition" in Matthew 15:3 or Colossians 2:8 or elsewhere and conclude that anything termed a "tradition" is to be rejected. They forget that the term is used in a different sense, as in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15, to describe what should be believed. Jesus did not condemn all traditions; he condemned only erroneous traditions, whether doctrines or practices, that undermined Christian truths. The rest, as the apostles taught, were to be obeyed. Paul commanded the Thessalonians to adhere to all the traditions he had given them, whether oral or written.

https://www.catholic.com/tract/scripture-and-tradition

I prayed the Our Father every day, too, when I went to school, and I never gave thought to what "thy kingdom come" meant.

Yes, unfortunately many born into a faith take certain things about their faith for granted or were never properly explained what certain things mean. This is a shame. I am sure you would agree a person could be born into the JW faith and never explained the true meaning of some of your teachings. I know there are many of stories of JW’s that came door to door knocking who were unable to explain their own faith.

It was only when I encountered JWs that I was made aware of what it means.

I know that is what you think, but I am afraid the JW’s got it wrong and you have been deceived.

You don't seem to have any idea what it means.

Since your understanding of ‘thy kingdom come’ is wrong, you are unable to see the truth in ours.

I don't think even the pope understands what it means, or, if he does, he isn't telling you. It would damage his position with the world's governments to say that Jesus is going to rule the earth some day.

Wow, spoken like a spokesman from a true cult. And spoken from such an utter misrepresentation of the Pope and the Church. JW’s read more like a sinister secret society than the Catholic Church.

We pray for God's kingdom to come so that his will may be done on earth, as it is done in heaven.

Uuuh . . . exactly what I said.

His will will never be carried out completely over the earth without the intervention of the Kingdom---a real government with Christ as the head.

Jesus is not political. He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords by right of His divinity. He has no need to be reduced to some earthly king just like they tried to do to Him when he was crucified (labeling him ‘king of the Jews’). God is in no need of a government in the supernatural realm to ‘rule’ us.

[quoteSo apparently your Catholic Bibles agree with JWs that God's Kingdom is a real government and Christ will be the King.

Ha,ha,ha . . . Like I said, we Catholics have no problem calling Jesus our King. I do so daily. But the literalness of an earthly paradise government is NOT established in those verses.

I wonder why that doesn't get taught in your churches.

Those passages are taught all the time. They simply do not mean what you mistakenly conclude them to.

In fact, why would a priest tell me, when I asked him what God's kingdom was, that he didn't know? Something may be amiss, wouldn't you say?

No, I wouldn’t.

One, the priest might have been unsure how to communicate properly what is meant by God’s kingdom – maybe you’re right he didn’t know his faith (Unfortunately, it can happen) or two, he was trying to explain to you that no one knows with certainty – just like Scripture tells us – exactly what heaven will be like (“eye has not seen� . . . ). He was probably annoyed at your shoddy interpretation and was trying to be gentle in his response to you. He probably also knew from experience that there is often not a lot of reasoning with JW’s. They tend to not be open to hearing alternative explanations regarding Scripture and he knew it would be better to not get into a heated debate with you, but then went off and prayed for you (which is really often the best thing to do).

[Monta]

[Replying to post 419 by RightReason]


"Is that why even after Christ’s Resurrection, people went to the Church for answers and clarifications? Maybe the early Christian followers did not get the memo that Sacred Tradition was only to refer to Hebrew Scriptures. Too bad you weren’t there to explain it to them. "

There wasn't a Church after Christ' ressurction.
People met, got togather and talked about amazing things that had happened.

Jesus said, my words are spirit and they are life; there's no more sacred scipture than that.