And these are now contained in a book that we can read and from which we can learn all we need to know about the son of God.
Where does the Bible claim this about itself? The idea of Sola Scriptura cannot be found anywhere in the Scriptures. And in fact, St. Paul exhorts the Thessalonians to "
keep the traditions you were taught, whether by word or by our epistle". We can only properly understand the written part of the Apostolic Tradition in conjunction with the oral tradition; otherwise, we're getting only a small part of what the Apostles said and taught, and we're interpreting the Bible outside of the context in which it was written--that is, outside the context of the rest of the Apostolic Tradition.
These teachings have existed since the apostles wrote them. Just because they are "now" included in the Bible doesn't alter the fact they were always there. Their contributions were written between 41-98 C.E.
Nothing written after the last apostle (John) died is classified as scripture.
Then what about the story of the adulterous woman, which wasn't part of the original Gospel of John, but was rather inserted by a scribe decades later?
Same point. It isn't like someone just plucked words out of thin air and called it the Bible. The teachings existed before they were included in the canon is all.
Yes, the teachings existed first as oral tradition, and weren't written. Nor does the Bible contain everything the Apostles did and taught; we're talking about over 60 years' worth of teaching here! That's not going to fit into a bunch of short works and letters.
Compiling works that are already written is hardly something for which the church can take credit. It is God's word after all. Not one single word of scripture was written by a Catholic or any other denomination for that matter. The apostles were simply Christians.
Actually, not everything was written by the Apostles; the authorship of various works is uncertain. The criteria for including works in the Bible isn't Apostolic authorship alone (or else we would likely see the Epistle of Barnabas included in the Bible today), but also what was in accordance with the Apostolic teaching.
Which ignores the fact that Christianity was based on the writings that became available later in a single book. Bi′blos is the Greek term for book"
...it is a library of smaller single books collected together in one form.
How can Christianity (founded in 33 AD on Pentecost with the descent of the Holy Spirit and the proper birth of the Church) be based on writings that wouldn't exist until decades after the founding of the Church?
The Christian Church got along just fine for 30 years without any writings, Gospels or epistles. If what you say is true, then we wouldn't have seen the birth of Christianity until after the New Testament was written. Islam is based off of Scriptures, not Christianity.
See what Papias wrote regarding how the Christian faith was passed down:
[The writings of Papias in common circulation are five in number, and these are called an Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord. Irenæus makes mention of these as the only works written by him, in the following words: Now testimony is borne to these things in writing by Papias, an ancient man, who was a hearer of John, and a friend of Polycarp, in the fourth of his books; for five books were composed by him. Thus wrote Irenæus. Moreover, Papias himself, in the introduction to his books, makes it manifest that he was not himself a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles; but he tells us that he received the truths of our religion from those who were acquainted with them [the apostles] in the following words:]
But I shall not be unwilling to put down, along with my interpretations, whatsoever instructions I received with care at any time from the elders, and stored up with care in my memory, assuring you at the same time of their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those who spoke much, but in those who taught the truth; nor in those who related strange commandments, but in those who rehearsed the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and proceeding from truth itself. If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings,what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lords disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice.
It's worthy to note that back in the days of the early Church, the written word
was not trusted. Anyone can write anything in a book and slap someone's name on it; we saw this very often with the Gnostic writings which all claimed to be from the Apostles,
but in fact were not. Rather, people learned the witness of the Apostles, first of all through those who had sat at the feet of the Apostles. If one doubted what they were hearing from one
presbyteros or
episkopos, then they could simply go to someone else who had learned from the Apostles and see what they said. Learning
oral tradition through lineages of teachers
was more reliable in the ancient world, because one could always trace the chain of teachers to its source, or cross-reference one student with others and therefore find out what their teacher really taught.
And another thing: Where in the Scriptures do we have teachings of Thomas or Phillip or Andrew? Nowhere. Rather, these teachings were passed down orally from the Apostles and by the clergy, and were never written down.
What is IN the Bible was the basis of the Christian faith,
Yes, the Bible contains much of Christian truth, and it is a tool to teach it.
in spite of the fact that the church went off with its own traditions, adopting pagan traditions and practices what were unknown to the first Christians. Just like the Pharisees had done in Judaism, 'weeds' of apostasy steadily grew until the church no longer resembled the one Jesus began.
I believe you know my disagreement with that, and we don't need to go down this hole about whether the Church apostasized or not.
But to keep this discussion at least somewhat on-topic, none of you have yet been able to prove or demonstrate that Christmas (as in the Nativity of Christ, not the holiday with jolly red fat men from the North Pole on sleds driven by reindeer), Easter (as in Pascha, not with bunnies), birthdays or All Saints' Day (differentiating from Halloween, since commercialization has secularized it hard) are pagan and not Christian..
I strongly disagree. The foundation of Christianity was already laid in Jesus Christ, faithfully carried on by the apostles (available in written form) and eventually compiled into a single work, which was indeed a tool to be used to great advantage
Now you're getting warmer... The foundation of Christianity is Jesus Christ, and the Apostles' witness to Him (whether by word or by epistle, 2 Thess. 2:15)
in the times when it was wrested from the hands of the self appointed custodians who kept it from the common people for centuries.
You should note that it was only the Romans who thought that the Scriptures shouldn't be read by the common people. This problem never existed in the East, where the Bible was always open for all.
I'm sorry, but the church has proved to be anything but a pillar and ground for the truth.
Then the Scriptures contain falsehood. St. Paul flat-out lied to Timothy. The gates of Hades prevailed against the Church, which Jesus promised will never happen. Are you okay with the idea that Paul, Jesus and the Bible are wrong about the nature of the Church?
What is the state of "the church" today?....what is "the church" anyway? How do you define that term in view of the terminally fractured state of Christianity today?
The Church is the body of believers that has preserved without subtraction and without addition and without change the Faith and Tradition of the Apostles for the last 2,000 years. This is the Holy Orthodox Church. (This is me speaking as an Orthodox Christian-hopeful; I know my Catholic brothers and sisters will beg to disagree with me on this point.) We can tell which is the true Church by seeing what Christians have taught and believed throughout the centuries, tracing the unbroken line of teaching right down to the present day. The ecclesiastical body that teaches the same thing as what was believed in the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, etc. centuries, is the true Church founded by Christ.
Do you see Jesus returning as a pope-like figure extending his hand of friendship to those who regularly break his Father's laws?....those who entertain all manner of celebrations and beliefs extracted from paganism, that honor neither God or his Christ in any way? (Matt 7:21-23)
Likely not. So it's a good thing that no mainstream Christian body, whether Orthodox, Catholic or Protestant, does that.
That's a matter of logistics, not faith.
