Jesus without the Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mo3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mo3

Guest
Can Evangelicals conceive of teaching and believing in Jesus without the Bible? How is the history of Evangelical theology taught? If the bible did not exist for hundreds of years after Christ’s death, then how do Evangelicals explain how early Christians knew of the total teachings of Jesus Christ without the Bible?

The Catholic Church started without the Bible. Sacred scripture (the Bible) became part or our sacred tradition. The logic is simple and the truth follows (or maybe visa versa).
 
While the Bible itself didn’t exist as a book for several centuries, there were letters and copies of letters from Paul, other Apostles, and various early Christian leaders.

Early Christians knew of the teachings of Jesus Christ through these early letters, and the teachings of the “pastors” at all the various house churches that were founded by the Apostles, and their Apostles, and their Apostles… etc.
 
Kerwin said:
Early Christians knew of the teachings of Jesus Christ through these early letters, and the teachings of the “pastors” at all the various house churches that were founded by the Apostles, and their Apostles, and their Apostles… etc.
Click to expand...
Are you sure this is Evangelical teaching? It sounds like Catholic teaching.
 
Kerwin,I am in NO way very knowledgable about scripture,BUT the part of about the early letters teaching about Christianity cant possibly stand up.

St. Paul wrote many of his letters to ESTABLISHED churches for the purpose of CORRECTING misunderstandings and strengthening their already Existing faith.

To my limited understanding, First came the Oral Teaching and THEN the written.
 
St. Paul wrote many of his letters to ESTABLISHED churches for the purpose of CORRECTING misunderstandings and strengthening their already Existing faith.
Click to expand...
To my limited understanding, First came the Oral Teaching and THEN the written.
Click to expand...
Well, I’d say first came eyewitnesses, then came Oral, then came written. If I were an early Christian, I think I’d prefer to have Peter or Paul giving a sermon, rather than reading their letters. So, yes the Oral most definitely came before the written, but the Oral was coming from the eyewitnesses. Once the eyewitnesses left the scene, if they didn’t write it down, or have someone very intimate with their teachings write it down (ie. Luke traveled with Paul, Mark with Peter), then how accurate would it be.

Look what happened, even in the early church. Paul tells them about the Christ, goes away for a few years, and hears that they are now changing the message that Paul gave them. So, he writes his letters to CORRECT their understandings.
 
I guess the only point I was trying to make was that Christian teaching took place BEFORE it was committed to ink, not the other way around.

As stated, I am a 3 year convert with much to learn. Kinda why I am here:thumbsup:
 
mo3 said:
If this is Evangelical teaching, then they believe in the authority of Apostolic Tradition. If this is true, what is their line of succession to Peter?
Click to expand...
succession= to follow
Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI follow in Peter’s footsteps and Peter was an apostle and I know a lot of Evangelicals who follow the Pope like Catholics do. I am not saying all Evangelicals feel this way, but some do.
Anyway, why are we trying to point out each others flaws and differences, instead of trying to find similarities and grow closer together.
 
awantz said:
succession= to follow
Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI follow in Peter’s footsteps and Peter was an apostle and I know a lot of Evangelicals who follow the Pope like Catholics do. I am not saying all Evangelicals feel this way, but some do.
Anyway, why are we trying to point out each others flaws and differences, instead of trying to find similarities and grow closer together.
Click to expand...
In order to grow closer, we must truly understand each other. We must clarify what we believe. I am so surprised by your statements. Help me understand. I have never heard that Evangelicals believe in Apostolic Tradition and follow the Pope. You are right, we need to grow closer.
 
mo3 said:
In order to grow closer, we must truly understand each other. We must clarify what we believe. I am so surprised by your statements. Help me understand. I have never heard that Evangelicals believe in Apostolic Tradition and follow the Pope. You are right, we need to grow closer.
Click to expand...
Hi,
As an evangelical I have never heard of following the Pope:confused:

I agree with the satements that we agree with the CC. If the CC had reformed from within before the reformation we would probably all still be catholics:thumbsup:
 
ALLFORHIM said:
Hi,
As an evangelical I have never heard of following the Pope:confused:

I agree with the satements that we agree with the CC. If the CC had reformed from within before the reformation we would probably all still be catholics:thumbsup:
Click to expand...
Just wondering ~~~ If your statement is true about “probably still being Catholics”, what stops one, post reformation, from returning to the Catholic Faith and especially (sigh) the blessings and grace of the sacraments?
 
Just from a very practical standpoint I don’t think it’s possible to last very long without the Bible or scriptures. The Bible is so rich and alive that it teaches anew every time it is read.

Having experienced this I really feel that scripture texts would have been of immense value to the Christian communities. Of course literacy and other issues come up but there must have been a few who were literate. However the oral tradition was very strong in those times I would imagine.

Writen or Oral … the Bible is the original “Vision & Mission Statement” that has ever been writen.

👍
 
StevenS said:
Just wondering ~~~ If your statement is true about “probably still being Catholics”, what stops one, post reformation, from returning to the Catholic Faith and especially (sigh) the blessings and grace of the sacraments?
Click to expand...
Hi,
Can I list the reasons without any backlash?
The two main reasons is I don believe the CC is the One and only True Church and I feel the CC misintrepreted the Scripture referring to Peter as Pope hence all the Apostolic Succession.

Minor reasons:
Marion doctrines
praying to dead saints
purgatory
salvation message(actually that would be a big one)
confesssion

and since being on this forum I notice many difference in itrepretation of Scriptures.😦 I was disappointed in this because I though we had more in common.
 
AllForHim,
Thanks for your response. I hear them and understand, at least somewhat, your prespective.

I’ve had the privelege of being in some good ND study groups. I suspect through these experiences I’ve come to appreciated first hand some people’s misgivings. When you don’t know someone very well, it’s much easier to “throw stones”, and even easier when it’s across an internet message. Please don’t read my comments as such.

There’s no one “answer” I can give you or anyone, but a common reaction to authority, is to question where does this authority come from? Especially when it comes to matters of faith --and personal faith at that! We know where the CC claims its authority as you’ve indicated, but were (are) they correct? I think this is one of the major reasons people object to the CC. Is this one of your primary issues?

When I read Acts, I see that from very early on there was a body of authority and some type of hierarchy already in existence. Is this how you read Acts 15?

As for differences in interpreting Scriptures, is this not the case wherever we go? Isn’t this why, when we find a good teacher or preacher (whom WE decide is good based on how WE interpret the Scriptures) we are more apt to heed them/their messages and directions? Pick any church, join a study group and your apt to get significant differences in interpretation. Doesn’t this again speak to the need of some type of leadership and authority? From my experience, the more I study, the more I learn and the more I discover I don’t know very well at all. :confused:

My pespective is that God, knowing us, intended to leave us, and did leave us, with shepherds, leaders, and some earthly authority.

God Bless you
Steve
 
mo3 said:
Can Evangelicals conceive of teaching and believing in Jesus without the Bible? How is the history of Evangelical theology taught? If the bible did not exist for hundreds of years after Christ’s death,
Click to expand...
But it did.
then how do Evangelicals explain how early Christians knew of the total teachings of Jesus Christ without the Bible?
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church started without the Bible.
Click to expand...
That’s blasphemy. The Apostles would tear their clothes if you suggested this. They venerated the OT Scriptures and would never have said that they could exist without them.

True, the NT was originally oral proclamation and later written down. What of it? The question is whether any apostolic preaching was not written down. And your post here is irrelevant to that question.

Edwin
 
While the Bible itself didn’t exist as a book for several centuries, there were letters and copies of letters from Paul, other Apostles, and various early Christian leaders.
Early Christians knew of the teachings of Jesus Christ through these early letters, and the teachings of the “pastors” at all the various house churches that were founded by the Apostles, and their Apostles, and their Apostles… etc.
Click to expand...
This may be true to some extent, but how many letters were there? Which of these letters did the “pastors” use and how did they know they were true? Who had the Epistle of Barnabas, or the Gospel of the Egyptians, the Gospel Q, the Gospel of Peter, etc., etc. Also how were these letters distributed and passed on since there was no Kinko’s to go make copies and distribute them all over the place? Did Paul make duplicates of his letters for all to read? Besides, how many of the faithful could actually read?
 
Contarini said:
But it did.
Click to expand...
I am sorry but the Bible, which consists of OT and NT did not exist for early CHRISTIANS! In order to be a Christian, you would need more than the OT. The term “Bible” was not used during the time of the Apostles. But if you want to make the distinction that the OT was called or considered the “Bible”, I will accept it for future posts on this thread. Remember the question was about teaching and believing in Jesus Christ. The OT does not have the total teachings of Jesus Christ.
Contarini said:
That’s blasphemy. The Apostles would tear their clothes if you suggested this. They venerated the OT Scriptures and would never have said that they could exist without them. Edwin
Click to expand...
The Apostles were taught directly by Jesus Christ, and therefore they would not think it was blasphemy. They didn’t need a Bible to learn about Jesus. It is usually understood that “Early Christians” means those who were taught by and came after the Apostles, not the Apostles themselves. But if you want to make this separation, I can accept your definition for future posts on this thread. The question is How did early Christians (those after the Apostles) know the total teachings of Jesus Christ without the Bible? The answer is through Oral Teachings over 95% of the time. Sacred scriptures were a small percentage of the method of teaching used by the Apostles.
Contarini said:
True, the NT was originally oral proclamation and later written down. What of it? The question is whether any apostolic preaching was not written down.
Click to expand...
That is not the question of this thread. However, there are apostolic teachings not detailed in the NT. How about starting another thread? I am just trying to find out what Evangelicals believe.
I appreciate your post!
 
ALLFORHIM said:
StevenS;1590033:
The more I study the bible the more I realize I dont know :confused: My central authority is the Holy Spirit and I trust him to guide me to the truth. I do also trust my ministers to teach biblical truth and they invite anyone to question them because they are also teachable. They also do not know all there is to know. My goodness–there is SOOOO much to learn in the bible you really cant learn it all in a lifetime.:eek: They study the bible for a living so of course they know more than me:D I totally agree:thumbsup:
God Bless
AFH
Click to expand...
These are excellent points. Most people (more than 99% and myself included) can’t learn enough about the teachings of Jesus without the help of others. This is why I trust the Catholic Church since they have been studying His teachings for 2000 years. Learning from a church or minister that has only studied for 50 or 60 years doesn’t make sense for me. God bless.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top