Can YOU prove that the Church existed *before* the NT was written?

[grndslm]

Seems like a pretty self-explanatory title.

People always say things like “the Church existed before the NT books were written by Paul, et al.”

Well… can you PROVE that? Obviously, you cannot use sacred scripture to prove this sacred tradition.

I’ve got a hunch that all sacred tradition is derived from sacred scripture anyway, but this thread will help me find out if I’m right or wrong!!

BONUS

I’d actually read somewhere that C.S. Lewis believed that “Christianity was far from a myth” (in Mere Christianity perhaps?). Does anybody know what C.S. Lewis’ reasoning was for believing that Christianity was NOT a myth?

 

[FCEGM]

Seems like a pretty self-explanatory title.

People always say things like “the Church existed before the NT books were written by Paul, et al.”

Well… can you PROVE that? Obviously, you cannot use sacred scripture to prove this sacred tradition.

I’ve got a hunch that all sacred tradition is derived from sacred scripture anyway, but this thread will help me find out if I’m right or wrong!!

BONUS

I’d actually read somewhere that C.S. Lewis believed that “Christianity was far from a myth” (in Mere Christianity perhaps?). Does anybody know what C.S. Lewis’ reasoning was for believing that Christianity was NOT a myth?

The author always precedes his text.

 

[SonofMonica]

Seems like a pretty self-explanatory title.

People always say things like “the Church existed before the NT books were written by Paul, et al.”

Well… can you PROVE that? Obviously, you cannot use sacred scripture to prove this sacred tradition.

I’ve got a hunch that all sacred tradition is derived from sacred scripture anyway, but this thread will help me find out if I’m right or wrong!!

BONUS

I’d actually read somewhere that C.S. Lewis believed that “Christianity was far from a myth” (in Mere Christianity perhaps?). Does anybody know what C.S. Lewis’ reasoning was for believing that Christianity was NOT a myth?

Um, it’s sort of self-evident from reading scripture. Paul directs his letters to the Church at Corinth, for example. If the Church did not exist, how could Paul be writing to it and addressing it as such? I know you mean well, but this is not a serious challenge to anyone here. If you have actually read the scripture, it is readily apparent, and is not in dispute among any Christians; it’s just that some folks have never thought about the implications of it and the consequences thereof. That’s why we Catholics like to point it out; it’s not that the contention is in dispute; it’s that people haven’t thought about what flows from the acceptance of it.

 

[Tomster]

Seems like a pretty self-explanatory title.

People always say things like “the Church existed before the NT books were written by Paul, et al.”

Well… can you PROVE that? Obviously, you cannot use sacred scripture to prove this sacred tradition.

I’ve got a hunch that all sacred tradition is derived from sacred scripture anyway, but this thread will help me find out if I’m right or wrong!!

BONUS

I’d actually read somewhere that C.S. Lewis believed that “Christianity was far from a myth” (in Mere Christianity perhaps?). Does anybody know what C.S. Lewis’ reasoning was for believing that Christianity was NOT a myth?

Tradition, both active and passive, came before Scripture in point of time, for the Church, instructed and guided by the living word of the Apostles, already existed before Christ’s revelations were consigned to inspired books. At least forty years were to pass between the writing of the first and the writing of the last of the books of the New Testament. Thousands of people became Christians through the work of the Apostles and their aids, and Christianity had become a world religion before ever they saw or read, or possibly could or read, a single sentence of inspired Writ from the New Testament. (Graham: “Where We Got the Bible”)

Actually, grndslm, the New Testament is Catholic oral Tradition which has been written down.

 

[grndslm]

SonofMonica… the point is to “prove that the Church existed before the NT was written”.

If you use the NT as proof of anything, you are actually failing at a very simple request.

If people say things like the Church existed before scripture… and tradition existed before scripture… HOW CAN YOU PROVE IT WITHOUT SCRIPTURE?!?

 

[grndslm]

Tradition, both active and passive, came before Scripture in point of time, for the Church, instructed and guided by the living word of the Apostles, already existed before Christ’s revelations were consigned to inspired books. At least forty years were to pass between the writing of the first and the writing of the last of the books of the New Testament. Thousands of people became Christians through the work of the Apostles and their aids, and Christianity had become a world religion before ever they saw or read, or possibly could or read, a single sentence of inspired Writ from the New Testament. (Graham: “Where We Got the Bible”)

ok… so… PROVE IT!!

Will check out the “Where We Got the Bible” bit, tho. Gracias!

Actually, grndslm, the New Testament is Catholic oral Tradition which has been written down.

If you say so… I say that all there is is scripture, and you can’t prove it otherwise. If all your tradition now comes from scripture… then there is no “sacred tradition”. It is long gone.

 

[JimG]

the New Testament is Catholic oral Tradition which has been written down.

That’s pretty much my understanding as well. Christ commanded his Apostles to preach the gospel to all nations. Nowhere did he direct them to write anything.

And they did preach far and wide, as the Acts of the Apostles demonstrates. We find the offices of bishops, priests, and deacons already apparent. (episcopos, prebyteros, diakonos). The earliest Church expected Christ’s return to be fairly soon, so they went and preached. Only when the preaching became so widespread and the Second Coming seemed to be not imminent, did it become apparent that a written summation of the gospel–i.e. the four Gospels was needed.

 

[SonofMonica]

SonofMonica… the point is to “prove that the Church existed before the NT was written”.

If you use the NT as proof of anything, you are actually failing at a very simple request.

If people say things like the Church existed before scripture… and tradition existed before scripture… HOW CAN YOU PROVE IT WITHOUT SCRIPTURE?!?

Okay, maybe I misunderstand you. Are you starting with the presumption that the New Testament cannot be trusted? Most people who breach this subject start with the presumption that the New Testament is true. I assumed that’s what you were starting with, otherwise I wasn’t sure why you would be asking the question. So my answer was (assuming the NT is true) the NT refers to the Church as being in existence and is actually written to the Church in existence; ergo, the Church precedes the Bible. Now, if you want to completely disregard the New Testament, I suppose you would be looking for other forms of evidence. However, keep in mind, if you don’t want to believe any sort of writing, you’re going to be looking for other forms of proof. I assume you know when scripture was written, so here’s evidence of a church that predates the time of scripture: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7446812.stm

Is this the sort of thing you’re looking for?

 

[Tomster]

SonofMonica… the point is to “prove that the Church existed before the NT was written”.

If you use the NT as proof of anything, you are actually failing at a very simple request.

If people say things like the Church existed before scripture… and tradition existed before scripture… HOW CAN YOU PROVE IT WITHOUT SCRIPTURE?!?

Tradition enjoys greater independence than Scripture. For the credibility of Tradition and the truth of doctrines therein contained can be determined by infallible judgment independently of Scripture, once you grant that the successors of Peter and the Apostles enjoy the protection of the Holy Spirit. Scripture in all its parts cannot be known as a source of revelation without the witness of Tradition, and therefore depends on it. It is source of never failing wonder to Catholics that so many Protestants cannot understand this.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

Christians have existed since at least The Annunciation. So, yes, the church predates 45 AD when the first NEW Testament Scripture was written by some 50 years.

Now, whether any denomination predates that is a whole other matter. There is no clear evidence that ANY denomination existed before the 4th century (I’ll let others fight over whether that was the OO or the EO or the CC or some proto to them all - that’s moot).

.

 

[Tomster]

ok… so… PROVE IT!!

Will check out the “Where We Got the Bible” bit, tho. Gracias!

If you say so… I say that all there is is scripture, and you can’t prove it otherwise. If all your tradition now comes from scripture… then there is no “sacred tradition”. It is long gone.

All of the books of the Bible were not determined and collected until 397 A.D., when the Council of Carthage settled the canon, or collection of New Testament Scriptures, as they are known today and sent them on to Rome for confirmation

 

[MarcoPolo]

If you say so… I say that all there is is scripture, and you can’t prove it otherwise.

So what you are looking for is a text written between 33-45 A.D. that isn’t Scripture that speaks of the Church. That’s pretty much all you are willing to accept, no?

 

[Cristiano]

I wonder what his definition of early Church is. Would an account from Plinius talking about Christians be sufficient?

 

[Tomster]

ok… so… PROVE IT!!

Will check out the “Where We Got the Bible” bit, tho. Gracias!

If you say so… I say that all there is is scripture, and you can’t prove it otherwise. If all your tradition now comes from scripture… then there is no “sacred tradition”. It is long gone.

The other source of revelation is Sacred Scripture, which the Magisterium infallibly interprets, as it does Tradition. The Catholic, therefore, knows no hostility between Tradition and Scripture, such as Protestants often conceive there to be. Both are subjected to the same living word of God, the teaching office of the Church.

 

[SonofMonica]

It is a matter of historical and readily ascertainable fact that there were Christian churches set up by the apostles all over Greece and Africa and the Middle East before the year 100. Much of the new testament was not written yet. Maybe I’m not sure what sort of proof you are looking for or even the contention you’re trying to prove?

Maybe it would behoove you to learn a little bit of history and geography from a perspective other than a Christian one? Try something a bit introductory from a reputable source, such as amazon.com/Geography-Religion-Where-Lives-Pilgrims/dp/B000CC49WQ

 

[Incomplete]

I’ve got a hunch that all sacred tradition is derived from sacred scripture anyway

I’m getting the idea your beef is with Tradition, though I’m not sure.

One Tradition, as someone earlier pointed out, is Scripture. Now, you may say all of our Tradition is scripture-derived, but nowhere in Scripture does it say that the Bible, the inspired Word of God, should contain 73 books. That is part of our Tradition. Though the Church determined the canon, it was through the Holy Spirit, and since it was God-given, we cannot change it.

Protestants would disagree. They removed some books. And Orthodox added some.

But we hold by the original, Holy-Spirit inspired decision of the Church.

Read the NT all you want, you’ll find no reference to what books belong in it. The fact that there are 73 was not scripture-inspired. It is Tradition. It won’t change.

 

[Joe_5859]

Well… can you PROVE that? Obviously, you cannot use sacred scripture to prove this sacred tradition.

Why are you imposing this artificial restriction? It’s like asking someone to prove that 2+2=4 without appealing to mathematics.

Certainly, if a text mentions an entity, then that is evidence that the entity precedes the text, is it not? How could it possibly be the other way around? If it were, then one would expect to find absolutely no mention of the Church in Scripture. That is obviously not the case.

 

[Julian0404]

Without using the New Testament, the best source of proof is archeology, which has, and this is searchable, discovered the tomb of Ananias (spelling) the Chief Priest at the time of Jesus trial. Writings that reference King David and most of the cities named in the Old Testament. And through the centuries, and especially in the last decade has made historical connections to the many of the people and places named in the NT and OT, thus bridging the gap and making the connections between the stories and the realty.

Now, if your honest in your search for the truth, you will begin an archeolgical pursuit of the above information.

 

[Tomster]

I’m getting the idea your beef is with Tradition, though I’m not sure.

One Tradition, as someone earlier pointed out, is Scripture. Now, you may say all of our Tradition is scripture-derived, but nowhere in Scripture does it say that the Bible, the inspired Word of God, should contain 73 books. That is part of our Tradition. Though the Church determined the canon, it was through the Holy Spirit, and since it was God-given, we cannot change it.

Protestants would disagree. They removed some books. And Orthodox added some.

But we hold by the original, Holy-Spirit inspired decision of the Church.

Read the NT all you want, you’ll find no reference to what books belong in it. The fact that there are 73 was not scripture-inspired. It is Tradition. It won’t change.

grndslm “might” have a beef with Catholic Tradition. However, I think it is pretty safe to say that he does not have a beef with his own personal traditions which he is beginning to disseminate.

 

[Deconi]

Some folk prefer Holy Writ to look like this:

!?"!"??(!.)??

All we know is there was an 'author" of the ‘marks’ but all within it has to be substantiated before it can make it into Holy Writ!