L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
They did have one - ACTS 15
We don’t have the transcripts of everything said or discussed, just what is recorded in scripture, which is very little.
- Status
We don’t have the transcripts of everything said or discussed, just what is recorded in scripture, which is very little.
M
Michael68
Guest
Yes, remember Jesus gave us a Church not a book
L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
Right, Church (singular)
S
susanlo
Guest
I was referring specifically to a council to determine what was Scripture.
I have heard the meeting described in Acts 15 and Galatians 2 called a council. In a way it was, however I don’t know if it is the same as later councils where all church leaders are formally invited. Paul wrote that he and Barnabas went to Jerusalem where those “held in high esteem” were because of a revelation. But, that is a different topic. My point is that they knew what Scripture was without a council to determine Scripture (1 Tim 5:18/Luke 10:7 and 2 Peter 3:15-16)
S
susanlo
Guest
Who gave us the Bible/Scriptures?
J
JMM1957
Guest
I’m sure the vast majority of the writers felt authoritative, but think some of them were looking to preserve the historicity of the Jesus story when they wrote, after all, even they surely realized that eyewitness accounts and first generation apostles, disciples, were the most reliable to record events accurately for future generations.
J
JMM1957
Guest
Seems we’re going in circles here. Church councils debated and rubber stamped the final canon. Yes, initially before any councils, some writings were understood to be Scripture by the original congregations because it was easier to document authenticity because many of them had direct contact with the twelve Apostles and Paul. Reliability certainly wasn’t an issue with “some” early writings.
M
Michael68
Guest
The Church
R
rcwitness
Guest
It’s kinda like asking who Saul persecuted, huh?
L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
Right, how do we know scripture was not discussed? We don’t because we don’t know how much is recorded from that council. Sometimes diferent issues are discussed at the same council.
And yeah the apostles knew their gospels were going to be in use for the duration of the Churchs’ life. But email didnt exist then, neither did cars or planes. So the pic we have is a very primitive and illiterate society. If a “gospel” came into circulation it had to given it’s due consideration until it was confirmed one way or the other and that can take a very long time in that era as many people attempted to cause confusion. Local canocity(2 or 3 letters ) were the norm then and these churches were likely on the edge of their seats in anticipation of another book coming their way. Would be very easy for Churches to start accepting and teaching from gnostic work, which is exactly what happened in some cases. Hence, why you need a Church and councils to make things official and break bad habits.
And one final point on the gnostic work…just because it’s not inspired work does not mean it does not contain any truth. Many of these book did contain facts so they had to be considered, unless they looked utterly ridiculous. Nobody was attempting to circulate green eggs and ham lol.
R
rcwitness
Guest
In his history of the Church, which is an interesting read, Eusebius mentions the “succession of the ecclesiastical writers” as the author at I’ve source for his conclusions regarding what is Scripture and what is not.
newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm
newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm
R
rcwitness
Guest
Sorry, it was suppose to read, “… as the authoritative source for his conclusions…”
Anyway, it was mentioned in chapter 25.
What I find amazing about these early fathers, is the effort that must have gone into this research. Now we can sit on a computer and eat snacks while searching information. Eusebius and them must have had to work very hard to get this much knowledge. And no, Protestants… he didn’t just go ask the Bishop of Rome and hear all this stuff thundering at him with an eerie echo!
D
dawid
Guest
Dear susanlo here are some links:
As you can imagine, the early Church members were in shock - against their expectations, Jesus was not the military king messiah like David.
They had to make sense of what Jesus taught and what happened.
Although it developed over the centuries, doctrine cannot be changed.
Christianity in the first century was anything but simple as they had to consider what was relevant.
There was much discussion to resolve this. The Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit developed concepts that were accepted as doctrine such as the holy Trinity; not requiring new members of the Church to adhere to the Mosaic requirements for eating; and circumcision, etc.
There are requirements where doctrinal decisions are made. These require the authority of Peter’s successor, the bishop of Rome. The other bishops assist and support in this process, but Rome is the arbiter.
You my find this link on the matter to be interesting reading: rtforum.org/lt/lt29.html
You are correct in that God is the final authority!
After the burning bush, when Moses speaks to the Israelites, he speaks to them with God given authority. He has been appointed their ruler, not by any secular power, but by God Himself. Moses received and conveyed the revelations he received. He had therefore the authority to establish Scripture. Subsequent prophets etc were also given authority to add to Scripture.
In the same way Jesus spoke of the authority of the priests and rabbis as being seated on the chair of Moses.
In turn Jesus changed Simon bar Jonah’s name to Kephas (Peter in Greek) and gave him authority. Scripture has several examples of God giving significant people new names (eg Jacob/Israel, Abram/Abraham, etc).
This authority is only applied when needed where there are matters of uncertainty (eg discontinuation of circumcision).
Peace to you
D
dawid
Guest
Dear susanlo
God’s revelation to Moses and his successors is the source of sacred Scripture. Moses and his successors were given authority to develop a canon of Scripture within Judaism.
In the same way the NT was developed within the early Church. When there was uncertainty, it was resolved by the Magisterium.
I trust this answered your question
P
Peter_J
Guest
No, I don’t. But I do think that Protestantism would be difficult, if not impossible, without a canon.
L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
Considering the problems we have had and eastern Churches especially, had getting everyone on the same page canon wise…ponder for a moment what our faith looks like if the early church was not authoritative. Had it been operated like modern day protestantism, with all this individualism, gnostic texts and no referee to oversee it all.
R
rcwitness
Guest
But Susan’s point is that the Protestant churches could have came up with their canon without the authority of the Church. I say, we can’t really know that, but perhaps. They would still have to rely on the tradition of the “succession of ecclesiastical writers”. And what was the faith like of these men?Considering the problems we have had and eastern Churches especially, had getting everyone on the same page canon wise…ponder for a moment what our faith looks like if the early church was not authoritative. Had it been operated like modern day protestantism, with all this individualism, gnostic texts and no referee to oversee it all.
R
rcwitness
Guest
In other words, the Catholic Church did confirm the Bible (Canon of Scripture). Thanks be to God, in His Sovereignty, He used His Church to do so. There is no need to reinvent the wheel.
L
Lenten_ashes
Guest
Right, but with no real centralised body and authority figure i am picturing a absolute disaster. New age scientology type “churches” everywhere.
I think a Luther type figure could have eventually pieced it all together, but i seriously doubt that orthodox christendom would be as widespread as it is now. I think with the lack of technology and transportation, there’s no telling how many fires would need to be extinguished before the dust actually settles here.
It’s difficult to accept the book and yet reject the vehicle that brought you the book, sacred tradition/councils. You have to have some sort of foundation imo. Without it i dont know what the church would look like today.
I’m glad things happened the way they did. As that required a ton of dedication and bloodshed to keep the message moving to all ends of the earth.
B
benhur
Guest
Yet I wonder Peter, for all kinds of folks still debate canon, just as before Trent or the fourth c council. Well not exactly as before but still debated, between 66 or 72 or 73 or others claiming a few other gospels/writings etc.
- Status