The Bible didn't exist

  • Thread starter Thread starter Roblox84
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Roblox84

Guest
Yesterday at work I had a non-confrontational conversation with a co worker about religion. He is a protestant that goes to a Church that his friend started up which is a mix between “Assembly of God Churches” mixed in with other denominations, so I am not sure what they believe in as I am not familiar with this religion, but I know it is mostly a bible-only Church. During our conversation he mentioned that the bible has been around since the start of Christianity and that all IMPORTANT teachings our found in the bible. Also, all important oral traditions passed down by Jesus where also written in the bible. I didn’t want to start a heated debate with him, so i’m posting this here to see what everyone else thinks.

From doing a little history on the bible I realized that the bible was written or compiled a few hundred years after Christianity, so before the bible was even finished people had to have been worshiping Jesus some other way and not bible-alone. So my question is, why do bible-only Christians believe that the bible was around since the time of Jesus and why would they think that just because the bible was there, that it was ok to disregard hundreds of years of Church teachings. And please don’t tell me that the Church got filled up with unnecessary junk, or that tradition is prone to flaw because that isn’t the case, we can all look at historical documents and find that many of the traditions held today by some religions are unchanged when you compare them to the historical Churches in the times of the Apostles. I am also not aware of anything in the bible that say’s to disregard all that has been taught in the church and only pay attention to the bible. And since my friend thinks that the bible was always around, why would Jesus do all these things when he could have just said to read his bible because all that is to know is in there? This would have saved Christ a lot of time.

From reading some other articles, a lot of bible-only Christians cite 2 Timothy 3:16 which states “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness (NIV)” and Hebrews 4:12 says, “For the word of God is living and active. . .”. These passages are believed by all Christians literally, but what confuses me is that nowhere in these passages it states that the bible is the only or final authority or even that it is the foundation needed for salvation. It states that it is useful for teaching, but not the only thing useful for teaching. And I couldn’t find any passage that tells people to disregard Church teachings after the bible comes out. I also couldn’t find any passages in their that stated that ALL important oral traditions were written in the bible, so if someone can post them I would appreciate it. And I would like to here what people’s views are on those passages.
 
Going back to the earliest times, the epistles of the new testament and some gospels were copied and sent between churches.

COLOSSIANS 4:16 (50s AD)

16After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea.

THE EPISTLE OF POLYCARP TO THE PHILIPPIANS 4:13-15 (Polycarp 69 - 155 AD)
  1. You wrote to me, both you and also Ignatius, that if anyone went from here into Syria, he should bring your letters with him. I will take care of this as soon as I shall have a convenient opportunity, either by myself, or by him whom I shall send upon your account.
  2. The Epistles of Ignatius which he wrote to us, together with what others of his have come to our hands, we have sent to you according to your order, which are appended to this epistle.
  3. By which we may be greatly profited, for they treat of faith and patience, and of all things that pertain to edification in the Lord Jesus.
2 PETER 3:15-16 (60-80AD)

15Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

COLOSSIANS 1: (50s AD)

5the faith and love that spring from the hope that is stored up for you in heaven and that you have already heard about in the word of truth, the gospel 6that has come to you. 7You learned it from Epaphras, our dear fellow servant, who is a faithful minister of Christ on our[c] behalf, 8and who also told us of your love in the Spirit.
 
The majority of the Bible was cannonized on Melito’s list of Old Testament scripture and the Muratorian fragment list of New Testament scripture, both around 160AD to 170AD.

Whenever a cannon list was written, it describes that the majority of churches of the world were already accustomed to using the scriptures listed. That the scriptures were common to those churches, even what they would call the spurious letters of the time which include the following books on SOME lists: The Apocalypse of John, 2nd and 3rd John, Jude, 2 Peter, and James.

There were additional books that were important to early Christians that were mentioned on lists that I feel are still important and should be read and studied today, but that doctrine should not be made from them:

Shepherd of Hermas, The Apocalypse of Peter, The Wisdom of Solomon, The Epistle of Barnabas, and the Epistle of Clement.

If you would like further insight about the existence of the majority of scripture going back to the earliest churches, read the first couple chapters of Eusebius: The Church History, one of your Church Fathers.

Also, read the epistles and writings of Clement of Rome, Didache, Mathetes, Ignatius, Polycarp, Diognetus, epistle of Barnabas, Papias, The Shepherd of Hermas, Ireneaeus, Tatian, Theophilus, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, etc, etc, etc. to see virtually the entire contents of the New Testament extensively quoted at a VERY early date.

The Christian Church had the majority of New Testament books recognized as Holy Scripture going back to the earliest of times as seen in 2 Peter and many other sources and as recorded by Eusebius.
 
Roblox84,

Yes, it is true that written Gospels and Epistles from various Apostles were circulated throughout the Christian communities from the earliest years of the Church. I mean, why would they not be? Anything that helps the individual believers to come into direct touch with the eye witnesses to the resurrection of our Lord is sacred.

However, that being said, there are also two facts which MUST be acknowledged by ALL Christians:
  1. The EXACT listing of all the letters and written accounts of Christ which could be UNIVERSALLY considered TRUEand RELIABLE was NOT arrived at until CENTURIES after the crucifixion. Any casual search of the myriad sources available on this theme will ALL confirm this. There were NUMEROUS bogus gospel accounts and spurious letters which were REJECTED by the Church Councils when the Canon was, finally, officially listed. THEREFORE, IT WAS THE CHURCH WHICH DEFINED AND GAVE ASCENT TO THE SCRIPTURES, AND NOT THE SCRIPTURES WHICH DEFINED THE CHURCH.
  2. While it is true that “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness”, it is NOT TRUE that the early Church relied ONLY upon scripture for instruction. Take BAPTISM for instance. There are few things more important to the Christian Church than Baptism; it’s the SIGN of our Covenant with Christ. And yet, **NOWHERE IN ALL OF SCRIPTURE DOES IT CLEARLY INSTRUCT US ON HOW TO BAPTIZE! **Why? Simple. The scripture PRESUPPOSES you are attending Mass every Lord’s Day and you have already WINESSED the procedure of Baptism in action! That is, the CHURCH and NOT Scripture is the TEACHER. It’s up to the CHURCH to define, illuminate and expound upon scripture… because if you let scripture define the church you will end up with THOUSANDS OF DIFFERENT CHURCHES!
I like to think of Holy Scripture as an approved family photo album. You will find a lot of useful information in it on the history of the family, but you won’t find a clear answer to everything the family did or WHY they did it. For instance, you probaly won’t find very much evidence of spanking in the family photo album…but that doesn’t mean spanking wasn’t important. To find out about things like that you have to talk to members of the older generations, like Uncle Benedict for instance! 😉
 
AngloCatholic1 said:
Roblox84,

Yes, it is true that written Gospels and Epistles from various Apostles were circulated throughout the Christian communities from the earliest years of the Church. I mean, why would they not be? Anything that helps the individual believers to come into direct touch with the eye witnesses to the resurrection of our Lord is sacred.

However, that being said, there are also two facts which MUST be acknowledged by ALL Christians:
  1. The EXACT listing of all the letters and written accounts of Christ which could be UNIVERSALLY considered TRUEand RELIABLE was NOT arrived at until CENTURIES after the crucifixion. Any casual search of the myriad sources available on this theme will ALL confirm this. There were NUMEROUS bogus gospel accounts and spurious letters which were REJECTED by the Church Councils when the Canon was, finally, officially listed. THEREFORE, IT WAS THE CHURCH WHICH DEFINED AND GAVE ASCENT TO THE SCRIPTURES, AND NOT THE SCRIPTURES WHICH DEFINED THE CHURCH.
  2. While it is true that “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness”, it is NOT TRUE that the early Church relied ONLY upon scripture for instruction. Take BAPTISM for instance. There are few things more important to the Christian Church than Baptism; it’s the SIGN of our Covenant with Christ. And yet, **NOWHERE IN ALL OF SCRIPTURE DOES IT CLEARLY INSTRUCT US ON HOW TO BAPTIZE! **Why? Simple. **The scripture PRESUPPOSES you are attending Mass every Lord’s Day and you have already WINESSED the procedure of Baptism in action! That is, the CHURCH and NOT Scripture **is the TEACHER. It’s up to the CHURCH to define, illuminate and expound upon scripture… because if you let scripture define the church you will end up with THOUSANDS OF DIFFERENT CHURCHES!
I like to think of Holy Scripture as an approved family photo album. You will find a lot of useful information in it on the history of the family, but you won’t find a clear answer to everything the family did or WHY they did it. For instance, you probaly won’t find very much evidence of spanking in the family photo album…but that doesn’t mean spanking wasn’t important. To find out about things like that you have to talk to members of the older generations, like Uncle Benedict for instance! 😉
Click to expand...
So my question is where in this whole process did someone say that once the canons of the bible were complete, we are no longer to obligated to obey the Church and that now the bible takes precidence because it is finally complete? Out of the passages I listed on this thread, none of them give precidence to the bible over the Church, they just proclaim that the bible is a useful too for teaching. So basically, bible-only religions say that the people a thousand years ago got everything wrong in their worship and since now we have the bible, the truth is only found in there, correct?
 
AngloCatholic1 said:
However, that being said, there are also two facts which MUST be acknowledged by ALL Christians:
Click to expand...
It is at this point that you loose me. The only thing that must be acknowledged by Christians is the need to confess our sin and the need to accept Christ’s sacrifice as our payment of our sin.

The rest is all opinion.
 
Jon_Hus said:
It is at this point that you loose me. The only thing that must be acknowledged by Christians is the need to confess our sin and the need to accept Christ’s sacrifice as our payment of our sin.

The rest is all opinion.
Click to expand...
NO. Simply accepting that Christ’s sacrifice was payment for your sin is NOT enough. Suppose that someone DOES exactly this, and then just goes on sinning over and over again, day after day. Suppose also that he NEVER reflects upon his sin in the light of the teachings of Christ. Suppose he NEVER repents (“turns back”) from the error of his ways. Suppose he treats his neighbour, family and friends in a very selfish and often cruel manner, KNOWINGLY… but all the while simply BELIEVES that Christ’s attoning sacrifice will be enough to “cover” his sins and “get him into” heaven. Will THAT indeed be ENOUGH?

Jesus said “NO!” We must ABIDE in His love, by which we bear witness to works of righteousness. He said in John 15:

“I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. Every branch in me that bears no fruit he cuts away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes to make it bear even more. You are clean already, by means of the word that I have spoken to you. Remain in me, as I in you. As a branch cannot bear fruit all by itself, unless it remains part of the vine, neither can you unless you remain in me. I am the vine, you are the branches. Whoever remains in me, with me in him, bears fruit in plenty; for cut off from me you can do nothing. Anyone who does not remain in me is thrown away like a branch – and withers; these branches are collected and thrown on the fire and are burnt.”

Now does THAT sound like ALL we have to DO is believe that what He did will be enough to “get us into” heaven? If you still think so, you have NOT “ears to hear”.

And in Matthew 5 He told us:

“'You are light for the world. A city built on a hill-top cannot be hidden. No one lights a lamp to put it under a tub; they put it on the lamp-stand where it shines for everyone in the house. In the same way your light must shine in people’s sight, so that, seeing your good works, they may give praise to your Father in heaven.”

That’s right, JESUS said we are to do GOOD WORKS.

And St. Paul tells us 8 TIMES in Romans 2 that we will be held accountable for the WAY WE LIVE OUR LIVES. He also clears up this whole controversy in Ephesians 2:8-10

“Because it is by grace that you have been saved, through faith; not by anything of your own, but by a gift from God; not by anything that you have done, so that nobody can claim the credit. We are God’s work of art, created in Christ Jesus for the good works which God has already designated to make up our way of life.”

And THAT, my Christian friend, is the MINIMUM of what it means to be a Christian.
 
just for curiosity, what dates do bible-only Christians ascribe to each of the 4 gospels being committed to writing. If it is later than c.33 AD then the entire NT cannot have been possessed by the earliest Christians who were certainly active by 50 days after the Resurrection. By the same token, to what year do they assign a date that Paul and the other epistle writers produced those letters. Unless they imagine Paul sat down on a long weekend and wrote all of them at once, the earliest as in 1st & 2nd generation Christians could not have been in possession of the entire written NT. If they possessed the entire Bible in one volume, as commonly published today (which would certainly be landmark discovery in the field of ancient mss) then why were individual letters being circulated as related in those very epistles.
 
Jon_Hus said:
It is at this point that you loose me. The only thing that must be acknowledged by Christians is the need to confess our sin and the need to accept Christ’s sacrifice as our payment of our sin.

The rest is all opinion.
Click to expand...
Seems very convenient. No need for the Church, no need for the Bible! Just accept Christ’s sacrifice!
 
Having a Bible in hand would not have helped the majority of the Christians in the first century because they did not read or write. The Old Testament was written by hand on scrolls and even if you could read it, it would have been extremely expensive to own. Paul probably didn’t write his first letter to 50-51 A.D. so the Church’s only scriptures were the Old Testament for nearly the first twenty years of its existence. It took awhile for Paul to write all his letters, and it took a while for them to circulate between the various Church communities. The first Gospel in the form that we have today in our N.T. may not have been written until the 60’s A.D. But even without these scriptues the Church flourished and expanded. Most of the teachings about Jesus were done orally and were memorized by the people and passed on through oral tradition. These traditions were later written down in the form of scrolls. The N.T. in the form that we have today first apprears in about 367 A.D. from St. Athanasious. It seems the choice of scriptures for the first two centuries was very fluid depending upon the Church community. The Church came before the N.T. which was written and assembled by the Church (over a period of about 50 years) and was used within the liturgy, and was later canonized by the Church.
 
Going back to the earliest times, the epistles of the new testament and some gospels were copied and sent between churches.

And? That in no shape or form proves the Bible is the only and final authority. Tell me what Bible was being used in the year 90 A.D.? How many books did the bible contain in the year 90 A.D?
 
The answer is simple.

THE HOLY GHOST - COUNSELOR.

The counselor was given right after Jesus’ ascension. He is the one who taught the disciples. Personally, clearly, directly.

Or do you think Jesus’ makes empty promises? The disciples received the Holy Spirit as promised and spoke in tongues and also exhibited gifts of the Holy Spirit.

muslimsopenyoureyes.blogspot.com

.
 
Roblox84 said:
During our conversation he mentioned that the bible has been around since the start of Christianity and that all IMPORTANT teachings our found in the bible. **Also, all important oral traditions passed down by Jesus where also written in the bible. **
Click to expand...
Emphasis is mine.

Addressing the assumption that ALL the important oral traditions passed down by Jesus were also written in the Bible, I have to wonder how much common sense is applied to a statement like that.

Christ’s ministry was approximately 3 years, yet we can read everything He spoke in the four Gospels. If one were to sit down and read them, straight through, how long would it take? Let’s be liberal with an estimate and say, 24 hours. Can we read all Christ’s teachings in 24 hours…48, 72 or a full week?

John tells us, twice, in his Gospel:

**Joh 20:30 Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book.
Joh 20:31 But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing, you may have life in his name.

Joh 21:24 This is that disciple who giveth testimony of these things and hath written these things: and we know that his testimony is true.
Joh 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did which, if they were written every one, the world itself. I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written. **

‘…if they were written every one, the world itseld, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.’

Why does Jesus say the Holy Ghost will ‘teach you all things’, if all His ‘oral tradition’ had been written down?

Joh 14:26 But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.

‘…he will teach you all things AND bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.’

Christ never wrote anything, nor did He order anything scribed. He commissioned them to go out and PREACH the Gospel.

**Mar 16:15 And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world and preach the gospel to every creature.

Luk 9:2 And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God and to heal the sick.**

If one reads the words of Christ, as recorded in the Gospels, you will see, everytime He says ‘preach’ or ‘teach’ He is speaking to His disciples, men He appointed. He never spoke to the multitudes and told them to ‘preach’ or ‘teach’, nor did He ever appoint the multitudes. There is clearly a ‘teaching’ authority in His words; those He chose and appointed.

Some one else used the following passage, but let’s take a close look at the message.

2Pe 3:15 And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation: as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you:
2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.
2Pe 3:17 You therefore, brethren, knowing these things before, take heed, lest being led aside by the error of the unwise, you fall from your own steadfastness.

‘…in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.’ ‘…take heed, lest being led aside by the erro of the unwise, you fall…’

‘…unlearned and unstable…the error of the unwise…’ This very well supports the authority of appointed teachers.

2 Timothy 3:16 can be taken literally, if read in context of who the letter was written too. Paul wrote his letter to Timothy, who he had appointed himself. He was giving a teaching authority instructions.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice:

‘…is profitable…’ or ‘…is useful…’ either of which is not complete, or ‘final’.

I can agree that the letters and epistles could have very well been circulated. What does this mean? There was clearly one message given to all the Churches. The Churches were ONE; one Church in many locations. There were not many ‘different’ Churches as compared to the many denominations of today.

Letters were read to other Churches. Could all read and write? There were 11 of the original Apostles, who walked, talked and lived with Jesus, during His ministry. How many of them ‘wrote’ scriptures? Matthew, John, Peter, James and Jude, wrote 9 ‘books’ of the New Testament. Where did those who wrote the other 18 books of the New Testament receive their knowledge? From the Church Christ established, through the oral tradtion and not New Testament scriptures.

Why didn’t the other 6 Apostles write any scriptures? We know Christ chose men, some of whom were not educated, yet they were Apostles, who PREACHED the Gospel. I’ll admit, it’s some speculation, but there is still the question; why didn’t the other 6 Apostles write any ‘scriptures’? Of those 6, there are some writings that could have possibly been written by them, yet they are not in the canon. Why weren’t they ‘God breathed’ or ‘inspired of God’ as described in Paul’s letter to Timothy? At the time Paul wrote the letter to Timothy, there was no New Testament. Paul was writing about the scriptures Timothy had known since his ‘infancy’. Paul was writing about Old Testament scriptures.

Christianity was already started, yet the Bible, as we know it today, was not around.
 
I’m not saying the Bible is lacking, however we do know from the Bible itself that in all probability there are lost Pauline Epistles. Just something to think about.

Peace,
T
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top