Early Christians and the New Testament

[VesselofMercy]

I know it is often thought that the early church did not have the New Testament, and they may not have had it in whole, but what do you think of the following verses from Scripture?

1 Thessalonians 5:27, “I put you under oath before the Lord to have this letter read to all the brothers.”

Colossians 4: 16, “And when this letter has been read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea.”

1 Timothy 5:18, "For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”

Here in the second part, “The labourer deserves his wages.” Paul is quoting Luke 10:7 and calling it Scripture.

and 2 Peter 3:15-16, "And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

In this one Peter’s writing tells us that not only has he read at least some of Paul’s letters, but that he considered them Scriptures.

 

[patrick457]

I know it is often thought that the early church did not have the New Testament, and they may not have had it in whole, but what do you think of the following verses from Scripture?

1 Thessalonians 5:27, “I put you under oath before the Lord to have this letter read to all the brothers.”

“All the brothers” in this of course referring to the Thessalonians.

Colossians 4: 16, “And when this letter has been read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea.”

I’ll be honest - I don’t quite understand what you’re implying with this quote.

1 Timothy 5:18, "For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”

Here in the second part, “The labourer deserves his wages.” Paul is quoting Luke 10:7 and calling it Scripture.

Depends on how you parse the sentence. You could also take “the Scripture” as referring only to the first quote (which is from Deuteronomy 5:24 LXX).

and 2 Peter 3:15-16, "And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

In this one Peter’s writing tells us that not only has he read at least some of Paul’s letters, but that he considered them Scriptures.

Well, to complicate things, many current scholars would claim that this passage from 2 Peter is actually proof that it is pseudepigraphical; i.e. Peter did not really write the letter, but someone else writing in his name, in a time after the letters of Paul had been collected and began to be considered ‘Scripture’ - in other words, well into the 2nd century. In fact, 2 Peter is often considered by them to be the last book of the New Testament to be written chronologically (well, if you believe this theory anyway): early-to-mid 2nd century. The same potentially goes for the 2 Timothy quote above.

In fact, the only undisputed (as in, ‘almost no one seriously questions it was written by St. Paul’) letter you quoted here would be 1 Thessalonians. Scholars are evenly divided on Colossians, and (to be frank) a majority would currently consider 2 Timothy and 2 Peter pseudepigraphical.

But then again, if one believes in the authenticity of these writings, it could very well be a Christian expansion of the definition of what ‘Scripture’ is.

 

[Abu]

VesselofMercy #1
I know it is often thought that the early church did not have the New Testament, and they may not have had it in whole

The Sacred Scriptures were not available for reading generally for well over a thousand years.
Thus very few copies would have been available, but individual parts would have been more accessible.

From the earliest times popes and councils, saints and scholars have encouraged Bible reading. Until some years after the printing press was invented, Bibles were scarce and expensive because copied by hand - so often there could be only one book in a town but, nearly everyone who could read could read Latin. Catholic monks faithfully copied the texts, and the production and use of translations, corrupted to support false teachings, was condemned. [See *What Catholics Really Believe, by Karl Keating, Ignatius Press, 1992, p 30-32].

Johann Gutenberg, a Catholic, produced the first printed Bible, with the Church’s approval, in 1455. Luther was not born until 1483. There were 18 German editions of the whole Bible before the Catholic monk Luther posted his 95 theses in 1517, and there were German, Flemish, Italian, Spanish, and Polish editions before Luther left the Church. The first English edition appeared in 1525. James I in England authorised the “King James” version only in 1604.

 

[tp3192000]

The Sacred Scriptures were not available for reading generally for well over a thousand years.
Thus very few copies would have been available, but individual parts would have been more accessible.

From the earliest times popes and councils, saints and scholars have encouraged Bible reading. Until some years after the printing press was invented, Bibles were scarce and expensive because copied by hand - so often there could be only one book in a town but, nearly everyone who could read could read Latin. Catholic monks faithfully copied the texts, and the production and use of translations, corrupted to support false teachings, was condemned. [See *What Catholics Really Believe

, by Karl Keating, Ignatius Press, 1992, p 30-32].

Johann Gutenberg, a Catholic, produced the first printed Bible, with the Church’s approval, in 1455. Luther was not born until 1483. There were 18 German editions of the whole Bible before the Catholic monk Luther posted his 95 theses in 1517, and there were German, Flemish, Italian, Spanish, and Polish editions before Luther left the Church. The first English edition appeared in 1525. James I in England authorised the “King James” version only in 1604.
Imagine, 400 to 600 years ago so very few people had access to the written bible. I think that in our day, so far removed from the historical presence of Jesus on Earth, we have the resources available to us to know more about Jesus than his earliest followers. We are fortunate to live in the times that we do.

 

[CalCatholic]

I know it is often thought that the early church did not have the New Testament, and they may not have had it in whole, but what do you think of the following verses from Scripture?

1 Thessalonians 5:27, “I put you under oath before the Lord to have this letter read to all the brothers.”

Colossians 4: 16, “And when this letter has been read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea.”

1 Timothy 5:18, "For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”

Here in the second part, “The labourer deserves his wages.” Paul is quoting Luke 10:7 and calling it Scripture.

and 2 Peter 3:15-16, "And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

In this one Peter’s writing tells us that not only has he read at least some of Paul’s letters, but that he considered them Scriptures.

The First Letter to the Thessalonians was probably the first of our current 27 books of the NT to be written. Most scholars today believe that it was written about 50/51 A.D. So after the death and resurrection of Jesus (approx 30 A.D.), that left a Christian Church expanding and evangelizing all over the Roman Empire for 20 years before the ink was dried on Paul’s first letter. And after Paul started writing letters to the various churches, it took a while before those letters were collected and copied as scripture. So the point is that there was a thriving Christian Church well before there was a NT.

 

[Bballer32]

I mean, to put it in simpler terms for your question, Paul told those (Timothy, Titus, Thessolonians etc.) to read the letters to the faithful. However, they were not considered New Testament until 393. The early Christians were never without the writings of the apostles, as can be proven by one of the requirements for a book to be divinely inspired (the writing must be read widespread among the Christian Faithful).

God Bless,

Bballer32

 

[Abu]

Bballer32 #6
The early Christians were never without the writings of the apostles, as can be proven by one of the requirements for a book to be divinely inspired (the writing must be read widespread among the Christian Faithful).

Who read what among “the faithful” was not a “requirement” by the Catholic Church in exercising Her mandate from Christ to teach, rule, sanctify and declare what writings are the inspired Word of God.

 

[Bballer32]

Who read what among “the faithful” was not a “requirement” by the Catholic Church in exercising Her mandate from Christ to teach, rule, sanctify and declare what writings are the inspired Word of God.

The Four Criteria for Canonicity:

Apostolic Origin
Universal Acceptance
Liturgical Use
Consistent Message

 

[Abu]

Bballer32 #8
Your ideas are Protestant:
“Many modern Protestants point to the following four “Criteria for Canonicity” to justify the selection of the books that have been included in the New Testament—though these ideas aren’t isolated to Protestant theology, but extend to or are derived from other Christian traditions:”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

The criterion of inspiration (less correctly known as the criterion of canonicity)
“Its sole absolute criterion, therefore, is the Holy inspiring Spirit, witnessing decisively to Itself, not in the subjective experience of individual souls, as Calvin maintained, neither in the doctrinal and spiritual tenor of Holy Writ itself, according to Luther, but through the constituted organ and custodian of Its revelations, the Church. All other evidences fall short of the certainty and finality necessary to compel the absolute assent of faith.”
newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

So we find that Protestants generally leave out seven O.T. Books by rejecting Christ’s foundation of His Church to teach, rule and sanctify for all of mankind, and thus fail to understand the requirement of Purgatory for a multitude of those who are saved.

 

[Mystophilus]

I know it is often thought that the early church did not have the New Testament, and they may not have had it in whole

The Early Church did not have “the New Testament” only in so far as the first three centuries did not have a fixed canon (set) of the texts: they still had the NT texts, and a few others.

 

[Digitonomy]

The Early Church did not have “the New Testament” only in so far as the first three centuries did not have a fixed canon (set) of the texts: they still had the NT texts, and a few others.

If you look at the Church around the year 300, that’s certainly true. If you consider the Church around the year 35, your statement is not so accurate, as I don’t think any of the books were written yet, much less reproduced and distributed.

 

[Ignatius]

I know it is often thought that the early church did not have the New Testament,
.

The text in your quotes did not exist until nearly half a century after Jesus’ ascension. Further, they do not demonstrate that the entire New Testament existed at that time. We know that the Gospel of John was not even written until around A.D. 100. How could they have the NT before all of the NT books were written?

.

 

[dronald]

I know it is often thought that the early church did not have the New Testament, and they may not have had it in whole, but what do you think of the following verses from Scripture?

1 Thessalonians 5:27, “I put you under oath before the Lord to have this letter read to all the brothers.”

Colossians 4: 16, “And when this letter has been read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea.”

1 Timothy 5:18, "For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”

Here in the second part, “The labourer deserves his wages.” Paul is quoting Luke 10:7 and calling it Scripture.

and 2 Peter 3:15-16, "And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

In this one Peter’s writing tells us that not only has he read at least some of Paul’s letters, but that he considered them Scriptures.

Here’s my favorite that is often overlooked by Catholics:

1 Corin 4:6 I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.

7 For who sees anything different in you? What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?

8 Already you have all you want! Already you have become rich! Without us you have become kings! And would that you did reign, so that we might share the rule with you!

 

[CalCatholic]

Here’s my favorite that is often overlooked by Catholics:

1 Corin 4:6 I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.

7 For who sees anything different in you? What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?

8 Already you have all you want! Already you have become rich! Without us you have become kings! And would that you did reign, so that we might share the rule with you!

If Paul is writing this letter in approx. 56 A.D. then the things that he is referring to as “what is written” is referring to the Old Testament and a few of his previously written letters. We are not to go beyond that???

 

[Ignatius]

Here’s my favorite that is often overlooked by Catholics: 1 Corin 4:6 I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written

The text in your quotes did not exist until half a century after Jesus. The Church existed for nearly a century before the NT Scriptures were all written. We know that the Gospel of John was not even written until around A.D. 100 so Paul could not have been referring to the New Testament because that erroneous interpretation of Cor 4:6 would put nearly all of the NT Scripture outside of “what was written” since the rest of the New Testament would not be written for another half century. Clearly that is an erroneous interpretation. Jesus Christ founded His Church and instituted it with His Apostles to lead it and pass on to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also. It was The Church that Jesus Christ founded the passed on His Faith for nearly a Century before those faithful men who were commissioned had written New Testament Scripture.

The Church came first and it was His Church that produced The New Testament Scripture.

 

[steve53]

The text in your quotes did not exist until half a century after Jesus. The Church existed for nearly a century before the NT Scriptures were all written. We know that the Gospel of John was not even written until around A.D. 100 so Paul could not have been referring to the New Testament because that erroneous interpretation of Cor 4:6 would put nearly all of the NT Scripture outside of “what was written” since the rest of the New Testament would not be written for another half century. Clearly that is an erroneous interpretation. Jesus Christ founded His Church and instituted it with His Apostles to lead it and pass on to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also. It was The Church that Jesus Christ founded the passed on His Faith for nearly a Century before those faithful men who were commissioned had written New Testament Scripture.

The Church came first and it was His Church that produced The New Testament Scripture.

You should qualify that assertion as being contentious. There is every evidence that the Synoptic Gospels and Acts were written before the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

I know it is often thought that the early church did not have the New Testament, and they may not have had it in whole, but what do you think of the following verses from Scripture?.

It depends on what timeframe we are talking about. Even 30-50 years without the Gospels is a very long time. Johns was perhaps even more. Think of how old you are and imagine not having the scripture for all those years. And then only having a single copy even though the faith spread far and wide.

Mt. 2:23 - The prophecy “He shall be a Nazarene” is oral tradition. It is not found in the Old Testament.

Acts. 20:35 - Paul uses oral tradition to cite Jesus saying “it is better to receive than to give”. It’s not found in the Gospels.

2Thess. 2:15; 3:6 - Under the new covenant, Paul instructs the Church to hold fast to the traditions they were taught.

1Cor. 11:2 – Paul tells the Church to hold fast to the traditions which God handed down to them from the apostles.

**3Jn. 1:13 **- John emphasizes his preference for oral tradition even though he was a skilled writer.

**Jn. 21:25 **– John says everything could not be written in scripture. Therefore the rest was transmitted orally.

“The apostles at that time first preached the Gospel but later by the will of God, they delivered it to us in the Scriptures…”
St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies (A.D. 180)

“Whenever anyone came my way, who had been a follower of my seniors, I would ask for the accounts of our seniors: What did Andrew or Peter say? Or Phillip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew, or any of the Lord’s disciples? I also asked: What did Aristion and John the Presbyter, disciples of the Lord say. For, as I see it, it is not so much from books as from the living and permanent voice* that I must draw profit.”*
Bp. St. Papias of Hieropolis, Sayings of the Lord (A.D. 115-140)

“We do not take our scriptural teaching from the parables but we interpret the parables according to our teaching.”
Tertullian, Purity (A.D. 200)

“But they, safeguarding the true tradition of the blessed teaching, which comes straight from the Apostles Peter, James, John and Paul and transmitted from father to son have come down to us with the help of God to deposit in us those ancestral and apostolic seeds”
St. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata (A.D. 205)

 

[dronald]

If Paul is writing this letter in approx. 56 A.D. then the things that he is referring to as “what is written” is referring to the Old Testament and a few of his previously written letters. We are not to go beyond that???

There’s nothing he could have been speaking of but Scripture. The books we have now are Scripture and we are not to go beyond that; if we do it will cause us to get puffed up as Paul says.

How else can we become “puffed up” by “going beyond what is written” unless he is speaking of everything that would be penned or dictated by the Apostles themselves? This combined with the OP’s quotes are compelling enough for me, that Sola Scriptura is truly in the Bible; something that Catholics always claim to the contrary.

The text in your quotes did not exist until half a century after Jesus. The Church existed for nearly a century before the NT Scriptures were all written. We know that the Gospel of John was not even written until around A.D. 100 so Paul could not have been referring to the New Testament because that erroneous interpretation of Cor 4:6 would put nearly all of the NT Scripture outside of “what was written” since the rest of the New Testament would not be written for another half century. Clearly that is an erroneous interpretation. Jesus Christ founded His Church and instituted it with His Apostles to lead it and pass on to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also. It was The Church that Jesus Christ founded the passed on His Faith for nearly a Century before those faithful men who were commissioned had written New Testament Scripture.

The Church came first and it was His Church that produced The New Testament Scripture.

The Church came with the New Testament Scripture, which is what we ought not to go beyond. Paul was not writing to just a certain people for a certain time frame; in fact it’s your interpretation that is erroneous because it’s ridiculous that Paul only wanted one Church in Corinth to obey this letter for a couple years and never after that.

Paul wanted his letters to be read to the whole Church, and accepted as Scripture. Peter himself calls Paul’s letters Scripture, and in on of them Paul says “Don’t go beyond what is written” and then gives reason! Yet the entire Catholic Church ignores this and consistently goes beyond what is written.

So if you’re going to stick with your assertion, then you have to explain how long this command was authoritative for? Was it only authoritative until his second letter to the Corinthians? Until somebody penned Hebrews? Until Matthew was penned? Until Revelation? After? When did Paul’s claim to not go beyond what is written otherwise it will cause puffery invalidated?

 

[dronald]

Mt. 2:23 - The prophecy “He shall be a Nazarene” is oral tradition. It is not found in the Old Testament.

And you only know this because it was jotted down.

Like everything else in the New Testament; you could not claim that the oral words “He shall be a Nazarene” were authoritative without it being written down by someone close to Jesus. If you didn’t have this quote here, you’d never know that it was in oral tradition; unless you can show me somewhere else where this oral tradition was recorded?

Acts. 20:35 - Paul uses oral tradition to cite Jesus saying “it is better to receive than to give”. It’s not found in the Gospels.

He sure did. Therefore you have another red letter sentence in the Bible as penned by Paul. And yet you cannot find one single word spoken by Jesus outside of the Bible that you know for certain was said.

Again, the only reason you know that this was said is because Paul penned it as Scripture. If you want to refute this then please show me something else Jesus said, and the Church believes He said, and yet was not recorded in Scripture.

See what I mean? Even Paul quoted our Lord word for word; and yet the Catholic Church cannot present one sentence by Jesus outside of Scripture. Why?

2Thess. 2:15; 3:6 - Under the new covenant, Paul instructs the Church to hold fast to the traditions they were taught.

Yes. Things that were said by the Apostles. Oral Tradition would have been, “Paul said [do this/don’t do that]” Unfortunately we don’t have any Oral recitations that Paul would have said. Paul was clearly speaking of his teachings and his writings that we can actually know he said. Can you please cite for me something outside of the NT that Paul or any Apostle said? What ECF quoted Paul word for word as an oral Tradition that you to this day accept as true words of Paul, yet not contained in Scripture?

1Cor. 11:2 – Paul tells the Church to hold fast to the traditions which God handed down to them from the apostles.

One of them being (in the same letter) to not go beyond what is written…

Or claim that “I follow Paul/Apollos/Cephas which will lead to division” but I guess that’s for a different thread.

**3Jn. 1:13 **- John emphasizes his preference for oral tradition even though he was a skilled writer.

This was a personal letter, and he didn’t even say that.

**Jn. 21:25 **– John says everything could not be written in scripture. Therefore the rest was transmitted orally.

Again, you’re stretching what the text actually says.

In fact, an oral tradition did start that didn’t end up in Scripture right before what you quoted:

23 So the saying spread abroad among the brothers that this disciple was not to die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?”

So even “the brothers” believed this and spread it; yet John corrects it with Scripture.

 

[Abu]

dronald
The Church came with the New Testament Scripture, which is what we ought not to go beyond. Paul was not writing to just a certain people for a certain time frame; in fact it’s your interpretation that is erroneous because it’s ridiculous that Paul only wanted one Church in Corinth to obey this letter for a couple years and never after that.

1. No one would have a N.T. without the Catholic Church who defined and canonised it – exercising the faithful mandate from Christ Himself.
2. St Paul emphasises: the Church is “the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Tim 3:16).” St. Paul says also, “through the Church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places (Eph 3:10).” The Church teaches even the angels! This is with the authority of Christ!
   No one can teach Christ and His Church!
3. “And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.’ (Jn 21:25).
   a) Never did Jesus command any of His Apostles to write anything, but to go and teach under the Primacy of St Peter.
   b) It is only through His Church that everyone can have the Sacred Scriptures to mangle or to lead him to Christ’s Church.
   c) The result of private interpretation like the poster has been tens of thousands of differing and confused “interpretations” among those outside of His Church. Those errors proliferated 1500 years after Christ established His Church.
4. St Matthew, 28:16-20:
   “And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And seeing him they adored: but some doubted. And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.”
   Does the poster know the meaning of consummation: (=completion) or “end” (=finish/termination)?

How could these commands be fulfilled if Peter or his successors could TEACH error? Do you think that the Christ lied in His promise? The cavalier disregard of Christ’s mandate is the explanation of a preoccupation with their own distortions and thus neglect of Christ.

How can Christ’s Church be the same as many thousands of differing sects in Protestantism, when the Catholic Church is that which Christ founded with His Magisterium? The faithful “remained faithful to the teaching of the Apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread, and to the prayers.” (Acts 2:42). So, as Jesus commanded, His Church has the Eucharist (Holy Mass), His seven sacraments, the Magisterium in the primacy and infallibility of the Pope, Her Tradition and Her Sacred Scriptures. Where else can you find this?

If there is dissent from any of the teaching of Christ’s own Church then those so afflicted are unable in the area of their infidelity to help others to the truth. The information is flawed – the formation is flawed. They will be disinformed, malformed, without clear direction – strong and vibrantly wrong.

Christ said, “If a man will not hear the Church, let him be as the heathen and a publican.” (Matt. 18:17). Our Lord could never have commanded men to obey two conflicting authorities. That would spell chaos. So it is high time that the malformed gave up trying to please two masters – Christ and those in error. “You cannot serve God and mammon.” (Lk 16:13).

Those who refuse to listen to Christ through His Church may be in the same boat as His Apostles in earlier days – to His own Apostles, “whom He loved to the end” Jesus exclaimed: “Have you no sense, no wits, are your hearts dulled, can’t you see, your ears hear, don’t you remember?” (Mk 8:17-18) (Frank Sheed, Christ In Eclipse, Sheed & Ward 1978, p 40). "With individuals He was very much the doctor with a duty not only to tell them what was wrong with them, but to make sure they realized it.” (Ibid. p 40-41).