A co-worker claims to have the original, 1st Century Christianity, Using ONLY scripture, no creeds, no councils, no additions. It’s all there in the New Testament.
He argues that the true Christians knew which books were inspired in the 1st century and that the later council simply re=-affirmed what true Chritians knew but then created a false religion.
Can’t seem to get anywhere with him on this. Any ideas?
Oh, I have a number of ideas…
The Enoch & Jude Challenge
Ask your co-worker whether or not the
Book of Enoch should be considered Sacred Scripture. Although the text version is dated to approximately the 2nd Century B.C., many ancient Jews and Christians believed it to be authentic inspired prophetic teachings, stemming from a much older oral tradition.
Within this text we read…
“And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones
To execute judgment upon all,
And to destroy all the ungodly:
And to convict all flesh
Of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed,
And of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.” (Enoch 1:9)
(
source)
We see this actually quoted in the NT’s Epistle of Jude:
“It was of these also that Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied, saying,
‘Behold, the Lord came with myriads of his holy ones,
to execute judgment on all,
to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness
which they have committed in such an ungodly way,
and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him’.”
(Jude 1:14-15)
Although Jude does not record what he personally thinks about the Book of Enoch, the fact that he quoted it is evidence that at least some Ancient Christians accepted it as divinely inspired, and still others may have come to believe it to be so for the simple fact that Jude included it in his epistle.
Of course, Catholics do not accept the Book of Enoch as Sacred Scripture because later Church councils discerned that it should not be included in the Canon of Scripture. But seeing as your co-worker does not accept the rulings of Church councils, show him where the Book of Enoch is quoted in Jude and then ask him whether or not he should accept Enoch as being divinely inspired.
If he says, “No” then ask him why not. Keep in mind that he has to answer this without appealing to a ruling of a Church council (so he can’t simply say, “Because it’s not in the Canon of Scripture.”)
Moreover, if he says that Enoch should not be in the Bible because 1st Century Christians knew that it wasn’t supposed to be included, ask him why Jude elected to quote something (as a prophetic authority) that everyone knew was not divinely inspired.
If he says, that Enoch is divinely inspired then ask him why it was left out of the Bible. Such a situation contradicts his position that 1st Century Christians knew what was supposed to be in the Bible and that later councils only reaffirmed this knowledge.
The Septuagint / Deutercanon Challenge
Does your co-worker accept the books of the
Deuteroncanon? These are the books found in Catholic editions of the Old Testament that Protestants do not use. They were included in the Septuagint, which was the version of the OT primarily used by 1st Century (and later) Christians. So ask your co-worker if he believes such books as Wisdom, 1&2 Maccabees, Tobit, etc. are divinely inspired.
If he says, “No” then point out that the 1st Century Christians believed that they were. Moreover, you can point out that later Church councils affirmed that the books of the Deuterocanon belonged in the Canon of Scripture, so if he says they aren’t supposed to be in the Bible then he has contradicted himself. After all, he has stated that the councils simply reaffirmed what 1st Century Christians believed regarding what books belonged in the Bible, so based on that he
ought to accept the Deuterocanon.
The History of Debates Over the Canon
Your co-worker seems to have little or no knowledge of the long-running debates over the first few centuries of the Church regarding what was, and what was not, Sacred Scripture. Many theologians, for example, did not think Revelation ought to added to the Canon of Scripture. I am away from my personal library at the moment, so I can’t provide quotes from credible Scripture scholars regarding this, but this information is “out there.” The business of the Church councils was not to simply reaffirm a general consensus regarding the Canon, but to settle the various debates as to what was and was not Sacred Scripture.
The Challenge Concerning the Authenticity of Copies of the Bible
We do not have the original copy of any book of the Bible, but only copies of copies of copies and so forth. For example, if my memory is correct, the earliest surviving example of a NT text dates from the 4th Century, so that’s as close as we can get to what the 1st Century Christians had. In light of this, ask your co-worker why he accepts the version of Scripture in his Bible as being an authentic representation of the original books. After all, it is the Church which tells us that such modern day Bibles are valid representations. But if your co-worker says that Church councils do not have the God-given ability to determine what is and is not Sacred Scripture, then why believe the Church has the ability to tell us that the ancient copies of biblical texts are authentic representatives of the original texts?
