The Bible Was Developing as the Church Developed

[Singinbeauty]

Do you agree with the title of this thread? Why or why not?

This is something that has been weighing on my heart as of late. Technically the bible was being written and developed as christianity was getting its start. The words that Jesus spoke, the letters that Paul and Peter wrote. These ARE the bible. Though it was not in the form that we have it today doesn’t mean it didn’t exist. So, does the Church outdate the bible? I am not so sure. I believe that both exist within the same time period and have evolved through the years.

Catholics and Protestants alike, please let me know what you think… But keep it clean and curteous! Thank you.

 

[lak611]

The Church started on Pentecost Day, but the first Gospel wasn’t written until at least A.D. 50, so the Church definitely existed before the Bible did.

 

[Singinbeauty]

The Church started on Pentecost Day, but the first Gospel wasn’t written until at least A.D. 50, so the Church definitely existed before the Bible did.

But the Bible also consists of Jesus’ Teachings… Christianity didn’t exist before Jesus so how could the bible not have the same age if not be older than the Church?

 

[YADA]

The Church clearly exists before the New Testament Scriptures. St Paul is writing to Christian communities that exist These communities have existed long enough for leadership to have passed from the original leadership to others. They existed long enough to have struggled with maintaining proper worship, divisions etc.

Another clear theme that comes throught the passages of scriptures is the passage of time. The first Christians clearly believed that Jesus was returning soon, within their lifetimes. Clearly, believeing Jesus was returning, they were less focused upon a written record to hand on the faith to future generations [or a formal Church Canon - the compendium of the llife/resurrection of Jesus, the core beliefs of Chriistianity and understandings] So what happenes as time passes ans believers die before His triumphant return? What happens when the eye witnesses and the followers of those eye witnesses begin to pass on? What about persucution? That is when the writings - Letters, followed by the Gospels begin to be formalized.

Like the Hebrew Texts the New Testament is the collective writtings *of a faith community for the faith community. *

These writings flow forth from a community that exists and has had time to relfect upon events and persons [and Jesus the Word Made Flesh - the fulfillment of God’s promise of salvation]. It cannot co-exist…but flows from…

 

[WBB]

But the Bible also consists of Jesus’ Teachings… Christianity didn’t exist before Jesus so how could the bible not have the same age if not be older than the Church?

That is an interesting way to think about it, but by definition, the bible consists of the written accounts of the life and teachings of Christ among other things )). Keep in mind that not everything that Jesus taught was written down, and what was written down wasn’t actually penned until decades after the fact.

Brian

 

[Singinbeauty]

That is an interesting way to think about it, but by definition, the bible consists of the written accounts of the life and teachings of Christ among other things )). Keep in mind that not everything that Jesus taught was written down, and what was written down wasn’t actually penned until decades after the fact.

Brian

True, the bible does consist of the WRITTEN accounts but what if they had had the technology of audio recorders back then? Would the bible as we know it be different? I think that the bible originally began as an audio bible. But as years and time went on and Christianity grew to be in other towns and countries there needed to be a way for the disciples to reach the outlying groups. That is why it was written down. The teaching of the bible existed way before it was written down. The evolution of the bible does not start with a pen…

 

[Mannyfit75]

No. The Bible is a collection of both Old Testament and New Testament.

Before the Church, there were only Manuscript of the Tanakh (Torah), and later the LXX aka Septuagint.

So the answer to the question is no.

If the Question was the OT before the Church? Then I would say yes.

The Bible no because like I said, the Bible is the collection of the Old and New Testment

 

[YADA]

Jesus taught many things and spoke both in public and private. He did not have a scribe, recording his every word. Nor did Jesus ever command the apostles to "write" any letters or books.

Jesus told his disciples to "Preach" the Good News of salvation. We know this because later followers wrote down what others had told them Jesus said [or did].

Luke tells us he is witing after the fact…

Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us,
2 just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us, 3 I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.

 

[Singinbeauty]

No. The Bible is a collection of both Old Testament and New Testament.

Before the Church, there were only Manuscript of the Tanakh (Torah), and later the LXX aka Septuagint.

So the answer to the question is no.

If the Question was the OT before the Church? Then I would say yes.

The Bible no because like I said, the Bible is the collection of the Old and New Testment

The collection, yes, but the items and information that make up that collection existed just as long as the Church if not longer. This is the point I am trying to make…

 

[Singinbeauty]

Jesus taught many things and spoke both in public and private. He did not have a scribe, recording his every word. Nor did Jesus ever command the apostles to "write" any letters or books.

Jesus told his disciples to "Preach" the Good News of salvation. We know this because later followers wrote down what others had told them Jesus said [or did]…

So in essence what the bible is made up of existed just as long if not longer than the Church, right?

 

[YADA]

Singingbeauty,

Your definition of the “Bible” pre-existing the pen [or being written down] is a form of oral tradition. This is a wonderful testimony to what the Church teaches. There are three legs to the Christian stool, The Church, Tradition, and Scripture [the Bible].

First comes Jesus and His followers, then comes the tradition, the first experiences and the internalizing of those experiences, then comes the written reflection. That is the human process, we are limited in space and time…

Of course as I noted in earlier posts this applies to the distinctly Christian writings, as the earliest Christians come forth from a faith tradition what also had compiled a set of written texts [what we call the old Testament]

 

[Mannyfit75]

True, the bible does consist of the WRITTEN accounts but what if they had had the technology of audio recorders back then? Would the bible as we know it be different? I think that the bible originally began as an audio bible. But as years and time went on and Christianity grew to be in other towns and countries there needed to be a way for the disciples to reach the outlying groups. That is why it was written down. The teaching of the bible existed way before it was written down. The evolution of the bible does not start with a pen…

Here is some Bible history 101 for you.

I admire your love of Scripture. I love the Scriptures myself so much I like reading how it was developed.

The Church did came before the Bible.

Wikipedia defines the Bible as the following;

The word “Bible” also refers to various collections of books considered both sacred. Christians may also refer to their versions of the Bible as the Holy Bible, Scriptures, or Word of God. It is divided into two parts, the Old Testament and the New Testament.

The Catholics have 7 more OT thank the Protestant KJV though earlier version of the KJV did contain those 7 OT books.

Anyways, during the time of Jesus Christ, the most common Scripture that was used is the Hebrew Text and the Septuagint. These were written in manuscript from papyrus. They are very fragile and can break.

The Gospels and the Epistles did not came into written form until 20 or so years after the Jesus ascended into Heaven. The Gospel was preached by the "word of mouth’ by the Apostles, who spread the Good News of Salvation.

As we both know, Christianity grow. Soon the Gentile Christians outnumber the Jewish Christians, and the Christians. By 90 A.D, the Jews fearing the rise of Christianity decided to not used the LXX book and use the Hebrew Text instead.

The Christian community and the Church continue to use the LXX and the Hebrew Bible. Finally, there were more books claimed to be written by the Apostles, which were not. These books were the Gospel of THomas, Acts of Peter. By 382 A.D, the Council of Rome compiled a list of books that would be used to Liturgical worship. These books include both the Hebrew and LXX books.

Some Christians at the time didn’t want to add Rev, Epistles of James, Epistles of John, but the Church decided the matter.

It was not until the Protestant Reformation, the authority of the Church was put into question. The Protestants remove the LXX and only used the Hebrew Text, they kept the 27 NT books.

To this day, the Protestants have 66 OT, 27 NTs, the Catholic Church has 73 OT, 27 NT in their Bible, and Orthodox has 75 Books of the OT, and NT in their Bible.

That is why we got the Bible. So the Bible came out from Church.

LXX is the Septuagint.

A little background of the Septuagint. It is translated by 70 Helenistic Jews from Alexandria, Egypt around 300 B.C. It was widenly used by Helenistic Jews and in even in Palestine. It’s a Greek translation of the OT.

 

[WBB]

True, the bible does consist of the WRITTEN accounts but what if they had had the technology of audio recorders back then? Would the bible as we know it be different? I think that the bible originally began as an audio bible. But as years and time went on and Christianity grew to be in other towns and countries there needed to be a way for the disciples to reach the outlying groups. That is why it was written down. The teaching of the bible existed way before it was written down. The evolution of the bible does not start with a pen…

The flaw in your argument is that you can conceive of the bible as apart from the Church. It only exists because of the body of Christ and for the body of Christ. Without the Church, the bible would never have existed, however we cannot say that without the bible the Church would never have existed.

I understand what you are saying, essentially that the bible and the Church came into existance simultaneously. To a degree you are right, but here is the difference: not everything Jesus did and said was written down, and certainly the Church’s understanding of the scriptures or the lens through which the meaning of the scriptures is focused was not written down, which is why St. Paul says for the members of the Church to hold fast to the traditions either written or spoken.

Oh, and one other thing. We can’t speculate about audio recorders because they simply didn’t exist.

Brian

 

[YADA]

Singngbeauty,

There was no comic flash that simultaneously created the Church and a deposit of fath. Jesus taught and created the foundations of the Church. The Church had to experience the faith before it could write about it. Jesus did not write any thing down. Nor did any of the original apostles.

Luke was a disciple [student of] St. Paul. St. Paul did not have first hand experience of the man Jesus only the resurrected Jesus. The Church existed before Paul became a Christian. Paul testifies to this as he was a persecuter of the Church!

 

[Spirit_Driven]

I think it is more likely, that Church Doctrine developed, and this predudiced, the way the Bible was translated from the written words of the original Authors of the Scriptures, into other languages.

The New Testament…from Greek into Latin… From Latin into English as example.

Interpretation as opposed to Translation.

God does watch over his word however, enough of it survives intact to contradict Church Doctrine… enough for any lay student of the Bible to go in search of the truth… because God does not Lie… and God NEVER contradicts himself.

Peace

 

[I_Leatherman]

The words that Jesus spoke, the letters that Paul and Peter wrote. These ARE the bible. Though it was not in the form that we have it today doesn’t mean it didn’t exist.

You have answered your own question.
Sts. Peter and Paul did not just write letters all day long, neither did they confine their thoughts to just the few letters that the Church has preserved.

Both spent the remainder of their lives teaching **the Church **everything they knew, and establishing new communities - insisting that all should follow the same doctrines they had been taught.

All of this oral preaching and teaching is called Sacred Tradition.
Sacred Scripture are those parts of Sacred Tradition that were written down as letters or other accounts.
Because the Catholic Church is historically continuous ALL Tradition, both the written and oral Tradition, was preserved.

If a church could preserve a letter which was written 2000 years ago it could *easily *preserve the oral Sacred Traditions of the Apostles for 100 or 200 years until they in turn were commited to paper by the growing Church as its teachings were spread across the world.

 

[RNRobert]

I think the title of the poll is somewhat misleading. It should ask whether the New Testament was developing as the Church developed. Obviously, the Old Testament was already in existence at the time of Pentacost. But it only foreshadowed the coming of Christ. It did not tell of His life or teaching.
The thing you have to remember is that the society in the first century church was primarily an oral culture. In our era of widespread literacy and easy access to the written word, we forget that in that era, books were written by hand and thus very expensive, plus most people were illiterate.
Christianity is not a “religion of the book” like Islam. Mohammed wrote a book and basically told his followers to “read and heed.” Jesus taught by word of mouth, and so did his disciples. As time when on, they wrote letters to specific communities (who had already learned the faith from oral preaching) to address specific problems. They were never intending to write an exhaustive catechism of the faith.

 

[Zooey]

I think a lot depends on how we define our terms…If we are thinking about the Bible as a written document, or whether we see it as the words of Christ passed on orally to the apostles, passed on to their contemporaries…
The church was born on Pentecost. The question is, are we calling what came before that the Bible, or does the Bible have to be written down, for it to be the Bible…
You know,this is not just something that is looked at differently by Catholics & Protestants (not to mention Orthodox!!); it is something that is understood differently within faith traditions…My fundamentalist cousins would say that the Bible came first. I don’t see how they figure that, but they do, & God bless them; they are often better Christians than I am or ever will be…but I think they are wrong here.
To me, it seems as though the 2 things were happening all at once. But I can, in fact, also see that there is truth in the statement that the church came first. Because, it was the church that did the actual making of the various texts into the Bible.
What I can’t accept is the opinion of my aforementioned cousins; as I say, I can’t even understand how they reach that conclusion…
But then, as a Methodist, I accept tradition as a part of God’s revelation of Himself. I accept the ECFs. Those things are part of my beliefs too.

By the bye: Great idea for a thread!

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

None of the above.

The Old Testament of course existed before the Christian Church. The New Testament Scriptures began to be written about 25 years after the foundation of the Church and continued for another 50 years until St. John wrote his Gospel and died a few years later. The small individual collections of letters and Gospels making up the New Testament continued to be copied, shared among the Churches and gathered together into what we today call the “Bible”. This collection began to be defined in the 200’s and was for the most part in the late 300’s, being definitively defined at the Council of Trent.

 

[Mannyfit75]

None of the above.

The Old Testament of course existed before the Christian Church. The New Testament Scriptures began to be written about 25 years after the foundation of the Church and continued for another 50 years until St. John wrote his Gospel and died a few years later. The small individual collections of letters and Gospels making up the New Testament continued to be copied, shared among the Churches and gathered together into what we today call the “Bible”. This collection began to be defined in the 200’s and was for the most part in the late 300’s, being definitively defined at the Council of Trent.

I differ on this opinion. The Bible consist of both OT and NT.

Indeed it is a fact that the OT came before the Church. So the Church did came before the Bible.

The later statement on your post is factual though that it was the Church the collected the Scripture both old and new testment to make what we call the Bible today.