Did anyone in Christendom, from 33 AD to 1000 AD, believe the holy bible to be the Christians only authority?

  • Thread starter Thread starter joe370
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

joe370

Guest
Non-Catholics, did anyone in Christendom, from 33 AD to 1000 AD, believe the holy bible to be the Christians only authority, as almost all protestants believe today? Examples would be much appreciated… If not then how can anyone claim that this particular belief is from Jesus?

Thanks in advance…🙂
 
Well , the majority of people couldn’t read (or even get there hands on a book) back then. So, they wouldn’t put all their trust in a book they couldn’t read or understand.
 
Of course… when the King James Bible fell from the sky in 33 A.D. everybody knew the bible is the inerrant word of God. Let me here an amen!
 
Heuchler said:
Well , the majority of people couldn’t read (or even get there hands on a book) back then. So, they wouldn’t put all their trust in a book they couldn’t read or understand.
Click to expand...
Well, the Bible wasn’t A BOOK. At least not normally. It was a collection of books, in the form of a codex or written on scrolls. Sometimes the Scriptures appeared as a single bound volume, but this would be found only in a Church library. Augustine was considered exceptional because he read silently. Most people HEARD Scripture read aloud by the minority who could read.
 
RobbyS said:
Well, the Bible wasn’t A BOOK. At least not normally. It was a collection of books, in the form of a codex or written on scrolls. Sometimes the Scriptures appeared as a single bound volume, but this would be found only in a Church library. Augustine was considered exceptional because he read silently. Most people HEARD Scripture read aloud by the minority who could read.
Click to expand...
Everyone knows what the Bible is I don’t think we have to specifically define it. And the question was if the Bible was the only authority so I meant to imply that it wouldn’t be seen as an authority since it was only a part of the mass and that they couldn’t read it. Sorry, if I phrased it badly and didn’t convey my meaning well. My bad.
 
joe370 said:
Non-Catholics, did anyone in Christendom, from 33 AD to 1000 AD, believe the holy bible to be the Christians only authority, as almost all protestants believe today? Examples would be much appreciated… If not then how can anyone claim that this particular belief is from Jesus?

Thanks in advance…🙂
Click to expand...
The Old Testament was memorized.
 
PbloPicasso said:
Of course… when the King James Bible fell from the sky in 33 A.D. everybody knew the bible is the inerrant word of God. Let me here an amen!
Click to expand...
Hey this is a no sarcasm zone. LOL…Seriously though I am just looking to have an amiable exchange, as well as answers from protestants, to the question at hand.

Peace brother…
 
Heuchler said:
Everyone knows what the Bible is I don’t think we have to specifically define it. And the question was if the Bible was the only authority so I meant to imply that it wouldn’t be seen as an authority since it was only a part of the mass and that they couldn’t read it. Sorry, if I phrased it badly and didn’t convey my meaning well. My bad.
Click to expand...
You make a good point. The liturgy was the focal point and of course and holy scripture was a critical part of the liturgy, but again the Eucharist was the Kernel and LifeBlood of Jesus’ Mystical Body, the church.
 
You guys are too funny! I can totally relate to the sentiment, though, and I was in churches like that for 20 years! PbloPicasso - 👍

Don’t know if you’ve gotten any Protestant responses here, joe370, but I can throw my oar in the water as a revert from evangelical-type churches, also a little mainline Protestantism. In general, at least in my experience, those years are pretty much not touched upon. I’m sure they would bring up questions hard to answer and topics difficult to discuss. After 20 years I don’t know myself what was believed about that time. I agree that “books” as we think of them, were unavailable, and only scholars, or the weathy who believed in being learned, could read for the most part. Kinda puts it on oral TRADITION to keep the faith true and growing… yikes! Now what do we do?! :eek: On a happy note here, many many converts - esp. ministers or clergy - list their discovery of the early Church fathers and the history of the Church as one of the big things that brought them Home, because there were no answers for their questions about that time without acknowledging the truth about tradition.

Just have to add:
The other big reason given for conversion is usually the Eucharist. I appreciate what you mentioned here and also in the Catholic to Protestant posting, joe370! It is pretty undeniable that the Eucharist, as well as ORAL teaching is what held the Church together for hundreds of years. One of my friends (yes, sadly, an ex-Catholic - but we have had some great discussions and I’m prayin’!) was criticizing Catholic sermons - not motivating enough, not enough teaching shared, etc. I kind of knew what she meant - not all priests main gift is public speaking, but that doesn’t negate the calling! So I told her as important as that is, however do you top God Himself appearing at your service every week and allowing you to partake of His very person? This is an ongoing discussion!

Have a wonderful rest of the weekend everyone. Lord bless you.
 
joe370 said:
Non-Catholics, did anyone in Christendom, from 33 AD to 1000 AD, believe the holy bible to be the Christians only authority, as almost all protestants believe today? Examples would be much appreciated… If not then how can anyone claim that this particular belief is from Jesus?

Thanks in advance…🙂
Click to expand...
Hi Joe, my good friend.
The answer is decidedly no.
A question in return; did any of them have to deal with a schism, where to patriarchs could not agree on what Sacred Tradition taught?

Jon
 
JonNC said:
Hi Joe, my good friend.
The answer is decidedly no.
A question in return; did any of them have to deal with a schism, where to patriarchs could not agree on what Sacred Tradition taught?

Jon
Click to expand...
I do not have the answer to the question. This question begs the question that Sacred Tradition is the only authority. The question also implies that if Sola Scriptura was not taught, Sola Tradition was not taught or heeded to.

There was never Sola Tradition. There was Sola Magesterium, even in infant form in the Acts of the Apostles.
 
CopticChristian said:
I do not have the answer to the question. This question begs the question that Sacred Tradition is the only authority. The question also implies that if Sola Scriptura was not taught, Sola Tradition was not taught or heeded to.

There was never Sola Tradition. There was Sola Magesterium, even in infant form in the Acts of the Apostles.
Click to expand...
No, that wasn’t the point of my comment. I’m not mssing the history of the three legged stool, or claiming sola-Tadition. The point of my comment was that, ISTM, the rise of SS, as a practice of hermeunetics in the post-apostolic era, may have its roots in the innability of the Church to agree on Tradition, most notably the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

Jon
 
Hey brother…👍
JonNC said:
Hi Joe, my good friend.
The answer is decidedly no.
A question in return; did any of them have to deal with a schism, where to patriarchs could not agree on what Sacred Tradition taught?

Jon
Click to expand...
Thanks for the answer to my question Jon. 👍

Well you know, I always try to remain amenable to the idea that EOC’s and the CC will once again reunite, but I cannot betray what I now truly feel, in my heart to be true, which, as you know, I did not alway feel - which is:

The Catholic church is the one church established by Christ, built on Kepha, against which the gates of hell will never prevail - of course never to impugn any other church, as you know. With that said, sure the CC had to deal with heretical movements and schisms, even prior to the great east west schism of the 11th century, but the patriarchs of the CC, in spite of their fallen state in life, will always agree on what Sacred Tradition teaches for the simple fact that Sacred Tradition in Jesus’ church (His Body) - is forever safeguarded by Him, until the end of time.

For me, long ago, the big question was:

Could Satan (a fallen angel of Jesus’ creation) - prevent Satan’s creator (Jesus) - from guiding His Mystical Body, the Church, of which He is the Head and Savior, into all truth, until the end of time, especially in view of the fact that Jesus’ Mystical Body is comprised of nothing but fallible sinners?

Without a doubt the answer has to be a resounding NO!!!

Of course I surely respect and appreciate the opinion of anyone who disagrees… 👍
 
JonNC…
Click to expand...
.

Jon, if no one in Christendom, from 33 AD to 1000 AD, believed the holy bible to be the Christians only authority, then the same should be said today - right? rhetorical question, for I l now how you personally feel…

But sadly everywhere I turn, non-catholics, (excluding eastern orthodox Christians) - are echoing that very sentiment as if that notion was gospel itself. :confused:
 
joe370 said:
did anyone in Christendom, from 33 AD to 1000 AD, believe the holy bible to be the Christians only authority, as almost all protestants believe today?
Click to expand...
We don’t currently have the information to accurately answer that question. What we do have, is the evidence of the victors, and the history that they wrote.

For some groups, there is some ambigious evidence that suggests that they had a concept similar to Martin Luther’s concept of Scriptura Sola. An alternative reading of that evidence implies that what was being advocated was Scripture and Tradition, rejecting Priestly authority in general, and both Papal authority, and the Magisterium in specific.

Amber
 
amber_lux said:
We don’t currently have the information to accurately answer that question. What we do have, is the evidence of the victors, and the history that they wrote.

For some groups, there is some ambigious evidence that suggests that they had a concept similar to Martin Luther’s concept of Scriptura Sola. An alternative reading of that evidence implies that what was being advocated was Scripture and Tradition, rejecting Priestly authority in general, and both Papal authority, and the Magisterium in specific.

Amber
Click to expand...
Sounds great. What I am looking for, from folks like yourself, are proof-texts/citations from early church leaders or those outside the early church, to back up your claims? Otherwise, those are just empty words…
 
amber_lux said:
We don’t currently have the information to accurately answer that question. What we do have, is the evidence of the victors, and the history that they wrote.

For some groups, there is some ambigious evidence that suggests that they had a concept similar to Martin Luther’s concept of Scriptura Sola. An alternative reading of that evidence implies that what was being advocated was Scripture and Tradition, rejecting Priestly authority in general, and both Papal authority, and the Magisterium in specific.

Amber
Click to expand...
Wow, I cannot believe that you have always been Wiccan. This is a thoughtful response. I think I understand the “victors”. You lost me at “ambiguous evidence”. Evidence I understand, can you run the ambiguous by me so I can understand your perspective?:cool:
 
joe370 said:
You make a good point. The liturgy was the focal point and of course and holy scripture was a critical part of the liturgy, but again the Eucharist was the Kernel and LifeBlood of Jesus’ Mystical Body, the church.
Click to expand...
I have read that the New Testament began as a collection/redaction of sermons from the divine liturgy. Certainly “Hebrews” seems be one long homily.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top