The First Christians were not Bible Christians

[Spiderman]

Inaccuracies in teachings of the Catholic church.

https://carm.org/list-of-roman-catholic-false-teachings

Not trying to brow beat Catholics.
Trying to expose the Catholic CHURCH for what it is.
PLEASE just google and find what YOU want.

So , in scripture there is a verse that says " by faith we are saved, not by works. " Another scripture says that " faith without works is dead. As the body without the soul is dead ,so is faith without works". This type of thing happens a lot.

So when there are two scripture verses that say the opposite , who do we turn to to know the correct explanation?

If so many Scriptures lead people to opposite conclusions, by what authority do you know you correctly interpret the verses used to attack the Church?

 

[Deeje]

Yes Sola Scripture , but also the fact that it was very rare for someone to be versed in Scripture at that that time (like extremely rare.)

Oh dear.....can I ask you who told you this?

The apostle Peter’s first inspired letter contains 34 quotations from ten books in the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms. In his second letter, Peter quotes six times from three books. Matthew’s Gospel has 122 quotations from Genesis to Malachi. In the 27 books of the Greek Scriptures, there are 320 direct quotations from Genesis to Malachi as well as hundreds of other references to the Hebrew Scriptures. In harmony with the precedent set by Jesus and followed by his apostles, when modern-day Christians make a topical study of a Scriptural subject, they quote from here and there in the whole Bible.

No one is at liberty to change what God inspired. (Proverbs 30:5, 6; Revelation 22:18, 19)

Also, the first Christians were not sure and quarrelled over which New Testament writtings were "God's Word".

I am sure you don't mean the apostles. There was no quarrel over what was scripture among them because the OT was all they had.
Even in the early days of Christianity, the writings of Paul and the other apostles were accepted as inspired. They were used to teach in the congregations.

If you mean the "first Christians" as in the "fathers" of the Catholic church, then yes, men came up with lots to quarrel about. Sadly, not much of it was worth the effort.

The first Christians had no Bible. It wasn't till 1450 that the first Bible was printed (in Germany.)

They did have scripture. If the writings of the apostles were accepted as inspired then they most certainly had old and new scripture to guide their faith.
What they didn't have was the Hebrew and Greek scriptures in one volume. The English word “Bible” comes through the Latin from the Greek word bi·bliʹa, meaning “little books.”
Since the writings of the Apostles were mostly letters, they really were "little books".

If you believe that the Bible is the word of God, then you have to realize that it came about by God's direction, not at the whims or choices of men.
God is the one who determined what was in it....not the Catholic Church.

 

[firedragon]

I only have access to a phone and so consequently it is a lot easier and quicker To say what I want to say and for you to better know where I'm coming from to just make a YouTube.

There are some questions I would like for Bible Christians to answer, but anyone is free to comment of course.

The First Christians were not Bible Christians, and that actually is not even up for debate. It is obvious both from a Biblical and Historical view that they were not, but is also very clear to anyone who has a basic ability to think rationally or reason.

Let me try and explain why your argument is not valid brother.
The bible is an evolving library of books. The early Christians were Jews. Like Jesus himself. They had the Tanakh. Thus, if you consider the bible at that time was the Tanakh, they had it.
I think you are talking about the NT. NT is not the "Bible".

No religion can claim that early Christian were Sola Scriptura. Because what they had was the older teachings, and Jesus himself. Paul started writing at least two decades after Jesus.

 

[Deeje]

So , in scripture there is a verse that says " by faith we are saved, not by works. " Another scripture says that " faith without works is dead. As the body without the soul is dead ,so is faith without works". This type of thing happens a lot.

So when there are two scripture verses that say the opposite , who do we turn to to know the correct explanation?

Since the Bible does not contradict itself, the answer is both are correct. All you need to do is adjust your focus and consider the context and the audience.

In the first instance Paul explains why he said what he did.....

Eph 2:8, 9:
"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God— 9 not the result of works, so that no one may boast."

Paul was saying that none of us can boast as if we have earned salvation by our own works. Salvation is offered as a priceless free gift that can never be earned, but that doesn't mean we can sin with impunity as if Christ has paid for our sin so we can do what we please. Some have a "once saved always saved" attitude. That is not what the Bible teaches. (Matt 24:13)

James 2 :18-26, on the other hand, was showing that "faith" must be demonstrated by "works." IOW if you profess faith but never show it by the way you live, then your faith is dead.
He uses the example of Abraham showing his faith by being prepared to offer his son. Faith of necessity must move one to action. A living faith must be demonstrated in word, deed and attitude.

There is no contradiction.

If so many Scriptures lead people to opposite conclusions, by what authority do you know you correctly interpret the verses used to attack the Church?

Bible knowledge is not just knowing what a few words in isolation say....it is knowing what the Bible as a whole teaches that answers our questions.

I don't understand your attitude PAD. It is the scriptures themselves that attack the church. If you can spend so much time researching Catholic doctrine without the answers to these very simple and basic questions you ask, then what good has the church been to you?

 

[Windwalker]

The early Christians went door to door carrying copies of the Septuagint under their arms printed by the Jerusalem Press at the time. Since there are no Christians who do this today, it's fair to say Christianity did not survive the 1st century.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Christianity has always been a living religion.
By that I mean it is interpreted by every generation by both Prior tradition and by inspiration received from God.
The First dozen or so generations received Christianity through Oral tradition, and perhaps a few writings and documents like the Didache.
But mostly from Wandering Prophets and teachers. The Bible as such was a late comer to the scene.
Proto versions of the various churches came into being at a very early stage. The Church of Rome came to dominate much of Christendom through the power of the Roman Empire. However it was never the only church. The Syrian, Ethopian. Orthodox and Coptic churches are as equally old.
The Protestant churches are all late comers... but perhaps no less inspired of God.

 

[Crypto2015]

First of all the Bible does not teach contradictory beliefs. It is obvious that the prohibition against carved images had the goal of preventing the worshipping of those images. There was nothing wrong with carving images in itself. Furthermore, the serpent that the Hebrews built while in the desert was not meant to be worshipped. Nobody worshipped neither bowed down to that serpent, they just looked at it. The problem with the Catholic church is that it teaches things that are completely and utterly against the Bible. So, if you think that God saves you, believe in the Bible and not in the Catholic Church. If on the contrary you believe that men can save you from the wrath of God, believe in the Catholic Church and be prepared for a major disappointment.

 

[Spiderman]

First of all the Bible does not teach contradictory beliefs. It is obvious that the prohibition against carved images had the goal of preventing the worshipping of those images. There was nothing wrong with carving images in itself. Furthermore, the serpent that the Hebrews built while in the desert was not meant to be worshipped. Nobody worshipped neither bowed down to that serpent, they just looked at it. The problem with the Catholic church is that it teaches things that are completely and utterly against the Bible. So, if you think that God saves you, believe in the Bible and not in the Catholic Church. If on the contrary you believe that men can save you from the wrath of God, believe in the Catholic Church and be prepared for a major disappointment.

The Catholic Catechism States clearly that it is a grave sin to give the Adoration that belongs to God Alone to what is less than God.

Therefore committing idolatry with statues is a big No-No..

if Jesus is so offended by Catholic artwork (crucifixes and statues), interesting that He and the apostles never said a thing about it.

So list a few of the Catholic beliefs that go against the Bible. Please let it be you and not a link.

Some of the Dogma like the Assumption of Mary cannot be found in the Bible, but it also doesn't go against the Bible.

 

[kepha31]

Inaccuracies in teachings of the Catholic church.

https://carm.org/list-of-roman-catholic-false-teachings

Not trying to brow beat Catholics.
Trying to expose the Catholic CHURCH for what it is.
PLEASE just google and find what YOU want.

Sorry, but Matt Slick is a liar, CARM constantly distorts and misrepresents Catholic teaching and when you refute his lies, you get banned on trumped up rule violations. Back to the topic.
The early Christians were not Bible Christians because there was no Bible. It's a no brainer. The Church did not come from the bible, the Bible came from the Church..
Constantine had NOTHING to do with the compilation of any part or parts of the Bible. That is a myth. He had no spiritual jurisdiction whatsoever.

In order for Protestants to exercise the principles of sola Scriptura they first have to accept the antecedent premise of what books constitute Scripture - in particular, the New Testament books. This is not as simple as it may seem at first, accustomed as we are to accepting without question the New Testament as we have it today. Although indeed there was, roughly speaking, a broad consensus in the early Church as to what books were scriptural, there still existed enough divergence of opinion to reasonably cast doubt on the Protestant concepts of the Bible's self-authenticating nature, and the self-interpreting maxim of perspicuity. The following overview of the history of acceptance of biblical books (and also non-biblical ones as Scripture) will help the reader to avoid over-generalizing or over-simplifying the complicated historical process by which we obtained our present Bible.

TIME LINE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON
​

Sources for the New Testament Canon Chart (all Protestant):
1) J. D. Douglas, ed., New Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 196), 194-198;F.L. Cross and E.A. Liivingstone, ed., The Oxford Dictionary of the
2) Christian Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983), 232, 300, 309-310, 626, 641, 724, 1049, 1069; Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix,
3) From God To Us: How We Got Our Bible (Chicago Moody Press, 1974), 109-112, 117-125.

Explanation of Symbols:
* Book accepted (or quoted)
? Book personally disputed or mentioned as disputed
x Book rejected, unknown or not cited

New Testament Period and Apostolic Fathers (30-160)

Summary: The New Testament is not clearly distinguished from other Christian writings.

Gospels: Generally accepted by 130
Justin Martyr's "Gospels" contain apocryphal material
Polycarp first uses all four Gospels now in Scripture
Acts: Scarcely known or quoted
Pauline Corpus: Generally accepted by 130, yet quotations are rarely introduced
as scriptural
Philippians, 1 Timothy:x Justin Martyr
Hebrews: Not considered canonical; not even quoted
x Polycarp, Justin Martyr
James: Not considered canonical; not even quoted
x Polycarp, Justin Martyr
1 Peter: Not considered canonical
2 Peter: Not Considered conaoninical, nor cited
1,2,3 John: Not considered canonical
x Justin Martyr
Revelation: Not canonical
x polycarp

Iranaeus to Origen (160-250ad)

Summary: Awareness of Canon begins toward the end of the second century
Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria first use the phrase
"New testament"

Gospels: Accepted
Acts: Gradually Accepted
Pauline Corpus: Accepted with some exceptions
2 Timothy: x Clement of Alexandria
Philemon: x Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria
Hebrews: Not canonical before the fourth century in the West
? Origen
* First accepted by Clement of Alexandria
James: Not canonical
? First mentioned by Origen
x Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria
1 Peter: Gradual acceptance
* First accepted by Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria
2 peter: Not Canonical
?First mentioned by Origen
x Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria
1 John: Gradual acceptance
* First accepted by Irenaeus
x Origen
2 John: Not Canonical
? Origen
x Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria
3 John: Not cononical
? Origen
x Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria
Jude: Gradual Acceptance
*Clement of Alexandria
x Origen
Revelation: Gradual acceptance
* First accepted by Clement of Alexandria
x Barococcio Canon, c.206
Epistle of Barnabas: * Clement of Alexandria
Shepherd of Hermas:*Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Clement of Alexandria
The Didache:* Clement of Alexandria, Origen
The Apocalypse of Peter:*Clement of Alexandria
The Acts of Paul: *Origen
* Appears in Greek, Latin Syriac, Armenian, and Arabic translations
Gospel of Hebrews: * Clement of Alexandria
Muratorian Canon (c.190)
Excludes Hebrews, James, 1 peter, 2 Peter
Includes the Apocalypse of Peter, Wisdom of Solomon

Origen to Nicaea (250-325)

Summary: The "Catholic epistles" and Revelation are still being disputed

Gospels, Acts, Pauline Corpus: Accepted
Hebrews: * Accepted in the East
x,? Still disputed in the West
James: x, ? Still disputed in the East
x Not accepted in the West
1 Peter: Fairly well accepted
2 Peter Still disputed
1 John: Fairly well accepted
2,3 John, Jude: Still disputed
Revelation: Disputed, especially in the East
x Dionysis

Council of Nicaea (325)
Questions canonicity of James, 2 peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Jude

From 325 to the Council of Carthage (397)

Summary: St Athanasius first lists our present twenty-seven new testament books as such in 367. Disputes still persist concerning several books, almost right up until 397, when the Canon is authoritatively closed.

Gospels, Acts, Pauline Corpus, 1 Peter, 1 John: Accepted
Hebrews: Eventually accepted in the West
James: Slow acceptance
Not even quoted in the West until around 350!
2 Peter: Eventually accepted
Revelation: Eventually Accepted
x Cyril of Jerusalem, john Chrysostom, Gregory Nazianzen
Epistle of Barnabas: * Codex Sinaiticus- late fourth century
Shepherd of Hermes: *Codex Sinaiticus- late fourth century
1 Clement, 2 Clement: *Codex Alexandria-- early fifth century

​

 

[rstrats]

metis,
re: " Some others involved quite a bit of controversy, such as Revelations and Hebrews."


Any particular reason for adding an "s" at the end of Revelation?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Many Protestants call themselves "Bible Christians" so it's them I'm referring to, but Catholicism is actually more Biblical.

They both have issues, IMO.

 

[metis]

metis,
re: " Some others involved quite a bit of controversy, such as Revelations and Hebrews."


Any particular reason for adding an "s" at the end of Revelation?

Ya, the reason is I didn't type it right. Thanks for the heads-up and I'll now correct it.

 

[Mooba]

To the first Christians the Word of God was not the Bible as we know it today.

To them the Word of God was the Bread of life that came down from heaven and returned to heaven.

It was/is the flow of God's Light, Grace, Spirit, Voice/Word/Sound that flows from the "kingdom of heaven" down to the lowest realms, and then returns back.

The first Christians caught the returning wave of the Word of God, maintained their consciousness, faith, hope, love there, and entered the kingdom of heaven here and now while yet on earth.

To the first Christians Yahshua (Jesus in Hebrew) was the Word of God made flesh, made tangible to the weak human mind and emotions, but when conveyed by word of mouth or put in writing the Word is easily misunderstood (using reason and logic) when not understood intuitively from the level of the "divine seed of the kingdom" within our innermost being.

Nonetheless the fullness of the Godhead (and His Word) dwelt in Yahshua bodily.

The light and glory of the Word was veiled in Yahshua....and only those who had/have ears to hear and eyes to see caught/catch the everlasting Word of God and follow His Voice/Word/Sound/Light/Grace/Spirit to the Father of lights.

That is what Yahshua meant when he said He is the only way to the Father.

Yahshua said the Father was greater than he (yet they were/are One in intent and purpose.)

Yahshua said he was with the Father before the world was created (he existed before anything, including angels, were created), and through Yahshua God created all things.

It can be said Yahshua was/is the personal manifestation of the Father even before the world was created.

He was/is the Word of God personified.

To true Christians he is the Living Word not written on paper.

When the Word of God came to Moses and the prophets it was in a sense veiled to accommodate weak human mentality such as giving God a gender, and making Him seem like a magnified human that loved and hated, forgave and held grudges, had forgiveness, mercy, and demanded worship and threatened etc. He fed his people literal manna that fell from the sky as they followed a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of light by night etc.

These things came to be written in the Bible, but people totally misunderstand it all when reading it from an intellectual/logical level.

They come up with an image of God created in their own image and likeness, and they worship a god of their own creation.

And then they proceed to use reason, logic, emotions and willpower to imitate written moral codes and ceremonies all the while being ignorant of the law of the Spirit of life which frees from the law of sin and death.

The early Jews ate the literal manna but are dead. It did not give them eternal life. Yahshua is the Manna that came from heaven, and if we eat this manna we will live forever.

The fallen physical creation reflects the pure spiritual creation darkly and veiled almost as though the physical is a counterfeit or weak imitation of the spiritual just as there is counterfeit righteousness, a counterfeit born again experience, a form of godliness without power etc..... and now there are false concepts about the Word and misunderstandings about who Yahshua really is.

As for Yahshua, the living Word, and his birth in the flesh 2000 years ago etc....He left his place in the kingdom of heaven (where he was already the Son of the Father before the world was created), and the Holy Ghost over-shadowed Mary and she conceived, and Yahshua ha Mashiach (Jesus the Christ) was born without human intervention.

In a way Mary was a surrogate mother that carried the divine seed which was born as Yahshua whom did not have corrupted human blood. Hence he was referred to as the Lamb without spot.

Yahshua had no karma or past lives. He came direct from the Father.

He was the Word and Lord, the King of kings from heaven through whom the Father created the physical creation, and invisible realms above it leading to the pure spiritual realm of the kingdom of heaven, through whom he created angels, spirits, souls, people etc....so though he is God and everlasting Father, and Savior, and Wonderful Counselor etc. to us, yet he is subject to the Father (the Supreme Being, Father of lights) who is All in all....And as we follow his Word/Light/Voice/Sound/Grace/Spirit he will show us the Father...he and the Father will manifest their self to us.

He was the second Adam (who is spiritual), the beginning of a new spiritual and restored race.

And so it is all that Yahshua accomplished 2000 years ago (birth, life, suffering, death, resurrection) planted the divine seed of the kingdom, a spark from the Father, in all so that all are put in a capacity of salvation with the potential to "wake up" and return to the Father, but the choice is ours.

The hard ground of the heart needs to be broken up (through genuine repentance) so the Word/Voice/Sound/Light/Spirit emanating from God as the out-flowing current of the Word can reach the spiritual seed/spark in us from which spring the genuine love, faith, revelation, knowledge, holiness etc.

Holiness and purity and love that proceed from the level of the spiritual seed of God in us (where we that are born of God naturally obey the inward law of the Spirit of life) is not the holiness or self-righteousness or vanity that proceeds from the intellect and emotions trying to copy and imitate written moral and ethical codes and ceremonies.

And as we identify with the aspirations emanating from the spiritual seed in us, obeying and following the everlasting Word (the law of the Spirit of life), we ride the returning wave/current of the Word back to the Father like a returning prodigal child.....and our youth is renewed like the eagles as we abide in the secret place of the Most High being born again not of the written word, but born again of incorruptible seed...born of the Word of God which re-creates us back into the image and likeness of the Father so that we see with new eyes and hear with new ears, and understand and love from a spiritual level of consciousness...and the truth/Word sets us free to fly as eagles...

 

[Deidre]

Inaccuracies in teachings of the Catholic church.

https://carm.org/list-of-roman-catholic-false-teachings

Not trying to brow beat Catholics.
Trying to expose the Catholic CHURCH for what it is.
PLEASE just google and find what YOU want.

I think that I'd have less trouble with the Catholic Church, if it weren't divisive. It tends to paint itself as the moral compass for all Christians, which is fine. But, to promote itself as a necessary conduit in order to grow closer to Christ, is where I have an issue. No one needs the Catholic Church or any church, to have a relationship with Christ. Experiencing a personal relationship with Jesus, and the Bible are all you need. All the pomp and circumstance is just smoke and mirrors...and distracts from the main focus of the faith, which is Jesus. Just my opinion.

 

[Robert Landbeck]

I only have access to a phone and so consequently it is a lot easier and quicker To say what I want to say and for you to better know where I'm coming from to just make a YouTube.

There are some questions I would like for Bible Christians to answer, but anyone is free to comment of course.

The First Christians were not Bible Christians, and that actually is not even up for debate. It is obvious both from a Biblical and Historical view that they were not, but is also very clear to anyone who has a basic ability to think rationally or reason.

To use the expression 'Bible Christian' is something of an oxymoron. First, the Bible itself is no more than a selected group of scriptural material taken from a much larger collection and called 'canonical' by an early roman church to impose 'theological' orthodoxy, often by force, and impose it's claim to speak for Christ. A claim that was underpinned at the time by the authority of a secular emperor, Constantine. Prior to this, there were a considerable number of competing Christian 'constructs' doing the rounds. It is unlikely that anyone knows for certain if any theological Christian claim has anything to do with Christ or God. And history and faith hasn't yet delivered a satisfactory answer to that mystery!

 

[Spiderman]

Sorry, but Matt Slick is a liar, CARM constantly distorts and misrepresents Catholic teaching and when you refute his lies, you get banned on trumped up rule violations. Back to the topic.
The early Christians were not Bible Christians because there was no Bible. It's a no brainer. The Church did not come from the bible, the Bible came from the Church..
Constantine had NOTHING to do with the compilation of any part or parts of the Bible. That is a myth. He had no spiritual jurisdiction whatsoever.

In order for Protestants to exercise the principles of sola Scriptura they first have to accept the antecedent premise of what books constitute Scripture - in particular, the New Testament books. This is not as simple as it may seem at first, accustomed as we are to accepting without question the New Testament as we have it today. Although indeed there was, roughly speaking, a broad consensus in the early Church as to what books were scriptural, there still existed enough divergence of opinion to reasonably cast doubt on the Protestant concepts of the Bible's self-authenticating nature, and the self-interpreting maxim of perspicuity. The following overview of the history of acceptance of biblical books (and also non-biblical ones as Scripture) will help the reader to avoid over-generalizing or over-simplifying the complicated historical process by which we obtained our present Bible.

TIME LINE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON
​

Sources for the New Testament Canon Chart (all Protestant):
1) J. D. Douglas, ed., New Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 196), 194-198;F.L. Cross and E.A. Liivingstone, ed., The Oxford Dictionary of the
2) Christian Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983), 232, 300, 309-310, 626, 641, 724, 1049, 1069; Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix,
3) From God To Us: How We Got Our Bible (Chicago Moody Press, 1974), 109-112, 117-125.

Explanation of Symbols:
* Book accepted (or quoted)
? Book personally disputed or mentioned as disputed
x Book rejected, unknown or not cited

New Testament Period and Apostolic Fathers (30-160)

Summary: The New Testament is not clearly distinguished from other Christian writings.

Gospels: Generally accepted by 130
Justin Martyr's "Gospels" contain apocryphal material
Polycarp first uses all four Gospels now in Scripture
Acts: Scarcely known or quoted
Pauline Corpus: Generally accepted by 130, yet quotations are rarely introduced
as scriptural
Philippians, 1 Timothy:x Justin Martyr
Hebrews: Not considered canonical; not even quoted
x Polycarp, Justin Martyr
James: Not considered canonical; not even quoted
x Polycarp, Justin Martyr
1 Peter: Not considered canonical
2 Peter: Not Considered conaoninical, nor cited
1,2,3 John: Not considered canonical
x Justin Martyr
Revelation: Not canonical
x polycarp

Iranaeus to Origen (160-250ad)

Summary: Awareness of Canon begins toward the end of the second century
Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria first use the phrase
"New testament"

Gospels: Accepted
Acts: Gradually Accepted
Pauline Corpus: Accepted with some exceptions
2 Timothy: x Clement of Alexandria
Philemon: x Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria
Hebrews: Not canonical before the fourth century in the West
? Origen
* First accepted by Clement of Alexandria
James: Not canonical
? First mentioned by Origen
x Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria
1 Peter: Gradual acceptance
* First accepted by Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria
2 peter: Not Canonical
?First mentioned by Origen
x Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria
1 John: Gradual acceptance
* First accepted by Irenaeus
x Origen
2 John: Not Canonical
? Origen
x Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria
3 John: Not cononical
? Origen
x Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria
Jude: Gradual Acceptance
*Clement of Alexandria
x Origen
Revelation: Gradual acceptance
* First accepted by Clement of Alexandria
x Barococcio Canon, c.206
Epistle of Barnabas: * Clement of Alexandria
Shepherd of Hermas:*Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Clement of Alexandria
The Didache:* Clement of Alexandria, Origen
The Apocalypse of Peter:*Clement of Alexandria
The Acts of Paul: *Origen
* Appears in Greek, Latin Syriac, Armenian, and Arabic translations
Gospel of Hebrews: * Clement of Alexandria
Muratorian Canon (c.190)
Excludes Hebrews, James, 1 peter, 2 Peter
Includes the Apocalypse of Peter, Wisdom of Solomon

Origen to Nicaea (250-325)

Summary: The "Catholic epistles" and Revelation are still being disputed

Gospels, Acts, Pauline Corpus: Accepted
Hebrews: * Accepted in the East
x,? Still disputed in the West
James: x, ? Still disputed in the East
x Not accepted in the West
1 Peter: Fairly well accepted
2 Peter Still disputed
1 John: Fairly well accepted
2,3 John, Jude: Still disputed
Revelation: Disputed, especially in the East
x Dionysis

Council of Nicaea (325)
Questions canonicity of James, 2 peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Jude

From 325 to the Council of Carthage (397)

Summary: St Athanasius first lists our present twenty-seven new testament books as such in 367. Disputes still persist concerning several books, almost right up until 397, when the Canon is authoritatively closed.

Gospels, Acts, Pauline Corpus, 1 Peter, 1 John: Accepted
Hebrews: Eventually accepted in the West
James: Slow acceptance
Not even quoted in the West until around 350!
2 Peter: Eventually accepted
Revelation: Eventually Accepted
x Cyril of Jerusalem, john Chrysostom, Gregory Nazianzen
Epistle of Barnabas: * Codex Sinaiticus- late fourth century
Shepherd of Hermes: *Codex Sinaiticus- late fourth century
1 Clement, 2 Clement: *Codex Alexandria-- early fifth century

This totally!

And once again I see that those who claim the church is unbiblical use unbiblical explanations of scripture to attack the Church.

 

[Spiderman]

I think that I'd have less trouble with the Catholic Church, if it weren't divisive. It tends to paint itself as the moral compass for all Christians, which is fine. But, to promote itself as a necessary conduit in order to grow closer to Christ, is where I have an issue. No one needs the Catholic Church or any church, to have a relationship with Christ. Experiencing a personal relationship with Jesus, and the Bible are all you need. All the pomp and circumstance is just smoke and mirrors...and distracts from the main focus of the faith, which is Jesus. Just my opinion.

Yes, I agree that one can have an extremely strong relationship with Christ and have no Catholic sacraments or Mass, and that a relationship with Christ is what matters most.

I find the sacraments assist me in growing closer to God and having a stronger walk and relationship with him. If they didn't do that for me , I would see them as pointless.

But do they need a Bible? For more than 1,000 years the average Christian never had one.

Don't get me wrong. Of all things to read that will bring the heart and soul closer to God, Scripture has preeminence ,and the church recognizes that, but is it necessary?

In the time of Christ he was very upset with a lot of the people that were versed in Scripture. They used scripture to attack Jesus and His followers, because they all believe him to be very unscriptural.

He hung out with Sinners who did not know their Bible well at all , and those were the ones who accepted him.

The Apostles were very uneducated simpletons. There are plenty of examples in the Gospels of how knowledge of scripture can also distance a person from God.

 

[kepha31]

I think that I'd have less trouble with the Catholic Church, if it weren't divisive. It tends to paint itself as the moral compass for all Christians, which is fine. But, to promote itself as a necessary conduit in order to grow closer to Christ, is where I have an issue. No one needs the Catholic Church or any church, to have a relationship with Christ. Experiencing a personal relationship with Jesus, and the Bible are all you need. All the pomp and circumstance is just smoke and mirrors...and distracts from the main focus of the faith, which is Jesus. Just my opinion.

4. Catholicism isn't formally divided and sectarian (Jn 17:20-23; Rom 16:17; 1 Cor 1:10-13).
7. Catholicism avoids an unbiblical individualism which undermines Christian community (e.g., 1 Cor 12:25-26).
15. Protestant individualism led to the privatization of Christianity, whereby it is little respected in societal and political life, leaving the "public square" barren of Christian influence.
One Hundred Fifty Reasons I'm Catholic

Robert Landbeck said:

To use the expression 'Bible Christian' is something of an oxymoron. First, the Bible itself is no more than a selected group of scriptural material taken from a much larger collection and called 'canonical' by an early roman church to impose 'theological' orthodoxy, often by force, and impose it's claim to speak for Christ. A claim that was underpinned at the time by the authority of a secular emperor, Constantine. Prior to this, there were a considerable number of competing Christian 'constructs' doing the rounds. It is unlikely that anyone knows for certain if any theological Christian claim has anything to do with Christ or God. And history and faith hasn't yet delivered a satisfactory answer to that mystery!

Revealed truth cannot be imposed. It can only be proposed to those who are disposed to receive it. "Often by force"??? Provide primary source documentation. Forced conversions have never been accepted by the Church. Constantine did not legislate Christianity onto the empire, that is Protestant propaganda. An honest look at the laws he passed, specifically the Edict of Milan, show an end of persecution and return of confiscated property, it says nothing about forcing people to be Christians. By then, most of the Roman senate had already converted and the existing laws were redundant. The Edict was NOT a religious law, it was a civil law.

"competing Christian 'constructs'" were quickly identified as heresies: Gnosticism (1st and 2nd Centuries), Montanism (Late 2nd Century), Sabellianism (Early 3rd Century), Arianism (4th Century)
"...And history and faith hasn't yet delivered a satisfactory answer to that mystery!" The rise of the Church is a greater miracle than the resurrection itself, and after 2000 years, the essence of doctrines handed down from the Apostles has not changed.

 

[sojourner]

No, nobody knew precisely what the New Testament was and almost nobody was versed in Scripture or owned them.

If the Bible was to be the sole rule of Christian theology , how odd that Christ never left the early church with such a book.

Your argumentative flaw is that the bible was never meant to be the sole rule of Christianity. That's a fallacy of sola scriptura.

 

[Maya Kaath]

I only have access to a phone and so consequently it is a lot easier and quicker To say what I want to say and for you to better know where I'm coming from to just make a YouTube.

There are some questions I would like for Bible Christians to answer, but anyone is free to comment of course.

The First Christians were not Bible Christians, and that actually is not even up for debate. It is obvious both from a Biblical and Historical view that they were not, but is also very clear to anyone who has a basic ability to think rationally or reason.

If by that you mean that the Bible as it exists today in one of its various forms and numbers of books. Well, yeah, that's pretty obvious. There was the Torah, of course, and the Talmudic writings—which are more commentaries on Scripture. The early Epistles—letters from apostles to their congregations—were hand-copied and passed around, but the teaching work was done mostly through recitation and storytelling.

There are, of course, Christians who don't stop to consider things like that. A Baptist friend of mine told me of an older lady from his church that he was in a Bible study with. They were discussing different translations and the woman said, "I use the King James Bible, because it's the Bible Jesus used."

My friend said, he opened his mouth, to correct her, then realized there was no point.

I asked a couple of Baptist youth who came to my door which Bible they used and they said the King James because it was Authorized. "By whom?" I asked. "Was it authorized by Christ or one of His disciples?" Obviously, the answer was that no, it was authorized by an English king in 1611, which I have always wondered at. Why would the authorization of an English King mean anything in this context?

Anyway, I think it's important to recognize not only the extreme range of time periods during which the Biblical books were written and compiled, but also the type of books they are. The Old Testament/Torah contains books of law, prophecy, history (of a sort), poetry, philosophy, proverb and allegory. They are not all prescriptions for living. Jesus, too, treats different subjects in His "sermons"—many of them are prescriptive. IMO, if we paid more attention to those and less to the more miraculous and prophetic segments of those Scriptures, the world would be a better place than it is.