Actually, most protestants accept many of the doctrines of the councils as well. For example, nowhere in the Bible does it claim that the Holy Spirit is God, yet most accept that. It is interesting when people claim to be Christians and believe in the Trinity yet believe that everything they believe is written in the Bible.
I would assume the New Testament was either started to be written or dictacted after Pentecost, if not before. We may not have the documents of the early days but they were continued to be written and translated for a few decades after Christ died. I also presume that all the Apostles were involved with spreading the Word. It’s just that the Church chose to include only a selected few which they felt would be able to conver the message to all Christians down the line.
Actually, we don’t know the exact year. While a number of people think that April 3, 33 is a plausible date from an astronomical viewpoint, and while some scholars today prefer somewhere around 30, we can’t be too certain. All we know for sure is that Jesus was crucified under the prefect Pontius Pilate, who is generally reckoned to have ruled around 26-36. The earliest book of the New Testament is usually reckoned to be 1 Thessalonians, dating from the early 50s. All the same, your point is still valid.
Who said the New Testament was written in 50 AD?
Nowadays it is generally estimated that the earliest book in the New Testament to be written was composed at that time.
Not exactly. It isn’t a guess as much as historical evidence points to this range. They didn’t stamp the Bible with dates, unfortunately.
Where does the historical evidence come from?Not exactly. It isn’t a guess as much as historical evidence points to this range. They didn’t stamp the Bible with dates, unfortunately.
Are we talking Gospels or letters from Paul?
1 Thessalonians, which is usually reckoned to be the oldest book in the New Testament, the concensus dating it from AD 50 to 52. The dating is estimated from internal evidence: for one the letter starts off with a greeting from “Paul, Sylvanus, and Timothy,” ‘Sylvanus’ being believed to be Silas, who accompanied Paul on his second missionary journey (ca. AD 49-51; but see below). Timothy also joined the second missionary journey early on (Acts 16:1); however, Silas apparently did not accompany Paul on the third missionary journey, and this trio are not mentioned together again. Therefore, the greeting appears to come some time during their second missionary journey, which would be after they visited Thessalonica and established a church there (Acts 17:1-4). The letter is generally believed to have been composed by Paul somewhere during his first visit to Corinth (Acts 18:1-18), just shortly after Claudius issued an edict evicting Jews from Rome (v. 2; cf. Suetonius, Claudius 25), which the 5th century author Paulus Orosius (Historia 7.6.15f) has dated to Claudius’ fifth regnal year, i.e. around AD 49.
Gospels.
winner winner, chicken dinner! Yes, the gap between the Ascension and the time when writings began was not void of teaching, it was related orally!
…further… Scriptures attest that Apostolic Teaching was not limited to the various Epistles, the 4 Gospels, and the Old Testament Writings… the very development of the Church demonstrate that Sacred Tradition was the original and constant mode of Teaching/Preaching the Gospel… and the Epistles themselves were geared to expand on the Oral Teachings (Tradition) by augmenting and solidifying Christian Doctrine–and the very text of the Epistles demonstrate that there were Traditions being passed in the Sacred Oral form that did not make it into the textual form found in Apostolic Writings… the only source of sola Scriptura is sefl-proclamation and disobedience of the Church’s Authority!
…actually, St. Peter does state it at least twice: for you have not lied to man, but to God (the Holy Spirit)–Acts 5:3-4, and for no prophecy has come by man but men of God were inspired by the Holy Spirit–2 St. Peter 1:21.
…the problem with that assumption is that it would make any writing gospel and any disciple an inspired writer… would that not make the Bible a billion volumes and counting?
Not only that but our understanding of the Trinity is based on Greek philosophical terms. Nowhere in scripture or Jewish philosophical thought are there terms like substance and essence. Yet the majority of protestants accept the Catholic Church’s understanding of the Trinity. Those who do not are modalists who were condemned over 1500 years ago as heretics.
The word “essence” I believe partially comes from the Jewish Priest-Sect the Essenes, who certainly believed in an afterlife and that the “essence” of God existed in every man. Clearly described in Josephus.
But the Trinity doctrine uses “essence” to mean substance. Jesus is “consubstantial” with the Father or of the same essence. Different than the understanding of the “essence of God” which corresponds more with our idea of charism or ‘grace’.