The Early Christians were Sola Scriptura

[JRKH]

“Oral tradition” as express by the “proto-orhtodox” or as expressed by the “Ebionites”…or “Marcionites” or some of the various “Gnostic sects”…or do we ONLY allow “oral tradition” from the “proto-orthodox/catholic” sources which became the ECF’s? There were places in the Roman Empire and beyond that only had a “heretical” version of Christianity…so far removed from Rome, where the “proto-orthodox/catholic” groups first formed.

So…is “oral tradition” as found in some of the writings of the “heretics” reliable…or is the only “reliable” oral tradition found among the “orthodox/catholic” sects?

This is why we have the magisterium of the Church, with it’s collected knowledge of two millenia. to sort out these issues.

Peace
James

 

[Publisher]

This is why we have the magisterium of the Church, with it’s collected knowledge of two millenia. to sort out these issues.

Peace
James

And of course the “magisterium” rejects any of the “oral tradition” of the “heretics” that would conflict with their beliefs and “oral tradition”.

 

[JustaServant]

This line has been fed to me time and time again by people who claim that Sola Scriptura is “easily defended” by the Bible. Of course, the people that most often throw this at me have since learned that their favorite proof text from 2 Timothy doesn’t work because I easily refute it every time, so now they are saying that the early church prior to the fourth century was sola scriptura because they didn’t have a history of tradition to fall back on.

Protestants who assert this: please back this up. I am at a loss for this, because it defies logic to me. The earliest converts were Jews who had six thousand years of ritualized tradition and priestly law, etc. The converted Romans also had a history of traditional and standardized methods of worship. The Bible as we have it today didn’t even exist until the fourth century anyway, so how could the early Christians have been adherents to a doctrine that required the codification of the Bible prior to the codification of the Bible?

I am reminded of how many people will create words out of thin air, and then ask those to whom the word is aimed to prove their points.
Sola Scriptura is such a created word.
Because the list of canonical books is itself not found in Scripture – as the Ten Commandments or the names of Christ’s Apostles can be found – any list of Scripture, whether Protestant (as in Luther’s shortened canon) or Catholic (as in the canon of the original Bible that came from the Catholic Church) is from outside the Bible. This is knowledge from a source outside Scripture.
That makes Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone), upon which all of Protestantism is based, a very faulty foundation.
The word Sola Scriptura was unknown to Christianity prior to the 16th century, so the monkey is on their back to prove it, not yours.

 

[JRKH]

And of course the “magisterium” rejects any of the “oral tradition” of the “heretics” that would conflict with their beliefs and “oral tradition”.

As rightly they should.

The heretical issues were dealt with at the time and correct doctrine was developed to counteract the particular heresy. This began in the apostolic times and continued uninterupted down through the successive generations, each teaching guarded by the Holy Spirit, to today.
So today, anyone wishing to investigate the various issues, heresies, developments of doctrine, etc. can do so through the massive archives of documents contained within the Church.

Peace
James

 

[Cat_Herder]

And of course the “magisterium” rejects any of the “oral tradition” of the “heretics” that would conflict with their beliefs and “oral tradition”.

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 18:17[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

And of course the “magisterium” rejects any of the “oral tradition” of the “heretics” that would conflict with their beliefs and “oral tradition”.

Amen! Thank God for the magisterium and the leading of the Holy Spirit!!

 

[steve_b]

But I would argue, what was Paul’s preaching based from? another words, what did he preach from. Remember who Paul was and where he came from. He himself, claims to have been a pharisee among pharisee’s. He was a student of Gamaliel, who stood up in the earlier chapters of acts. He would have been required to memorize the first five books of the bible. He knew those books and was familiar with all of them. Paul taught from those books. and argued from them.

for clarification

• The Sadducees only believed in the (law) the1st 5 books. NOT the prophets, & NOT the resurrection of the dead. As the old joke goes, that’s why they were sad-you-see
• the pharisees of which Paul was one, believed in the law & the prophets & the resurrection of the dead.

ergo, Paul pulled from all the OT books.
c:

so the argument on both sides in Acts 15 was born from the same place. Just 2 different positions or understandings.

The problem at the 1st council came from the Judaizers who came from James. Peter settled that dispute.
c:

The other thought is about what we call knew testament scripture.

How and when did those letter become authority. Did they become authority only when they where put together in what we call today the bible? or where they being used before as authority.

Apostolic writings had authority immediately, as did their oral teaching as well, that were NOT written down. These are 2 sides to Tradition [2 Thes 2:15] and they are both authoritative. The bigger question is how and when did those writings become scripture?
c:

Lets translate that into todays world. by what authority do men like Jimmy Akin. Tim Staples, James Dobson, Billy Graham, preach, teach, & write books. Who gives them that authority, and where do they get the information they put into there books and speak on stage? Do that get that authority from the publisher, church, or the audience?

James Dobson and Billy Graham are Protestants. By definition they oppose the fullness of faith and truth. So you are correct to ask, who gives THEM the authority to preach the faith?
c:

The letters of the new testament where meant to be written from authority, but did they ( the writers) expect their letters to be compiled into a book a couple of centuries later, be called a canon, and used to spread the gospel around the world? That I cannot say, but we do know those very letters where copied spread around and read over and over by the early church.

The Church not only read certain letters as authoritative, but also just as importantly, rejected certain writings that were NOT to be read, ergo NOT authoritative or maybe even condemned.
c:

Did the authority given those new testament letters ( that we call scripture today) actually come from the men who decided they should be canonized in 350AD or was the authority already given to them by the recipients of those letters because of who wrote them? Did everyone who read/ listened to those letters being spoken, except them as authoritative? probably not.

There is true authority, and there will always be those who think they can pick and choose and reject who/what is their authority.
c:

What really makes a book, letter, lecture, speech, thought, etc… authoritative?

just throwing out some thoughts and questions. not saying I have the answers.

• Many writings are authoritative, but it doesn’t mean they are scripture.
• Scripture doesn’t identify itself as scripture.
• For writings to be authoritative, and writings to be scripture, requires an authority outside those sources to call them what they are and have that declaration unimpeachable.

 

[steve_b]

While those first Christians did not have the New Testament of course…they did have the Hebrew Bible available to them. The writers of the gospels used the Hebrew scriptures as a “template” to “flesh out the life of Jesus”…they “retold” some of the Hebrew stories using Jesus as the focus and fleshed out his life using such stories.

A few paralles between stories…which were…“reworked” which caused the belief that the similarities between the NT and OT was that the OT “prefigured” the NT…

Joseph was a dreamer of dreams…in both Old and New.

Joseph in both testaments ended up in Egypt

The song of Hannah sounds very similar to the Magnificat of Mary.

The angelic announcment of “special births”…Samuel…Sampson…I’m sure there are others.

Many of the OT passages were “appropriated” by New Testament writers and gave a basic framework to use when writing their gospels and letters.

It has been put forth…and to me this makes tremendous sense, the writers of the New took Old Testament stories and “blended” the life of Jesus into them…the Gospels are “Jewish Midrash”…now the “heros” of the stories is not Moses, Joshua, Samuel, Jospeh, David or Daniel…but Jesus and NT characters.

Paul and the writers of “James” and “Peter’s” letters used extensive OT references to “formulate” their “new Judaism”.

The NT was compiled long after the original apostles died…we know very little of the apostles…at the closing of the NT…the apostles “disappear”…most of the apostles are never mentioned again once listed in the gospels other than an oblique reference in Acts.

All the stories we have come down to us through “tradition”…“nature hates a vacuum”…and so do “believers” it seems…the true history and fate of the apostles is really unknown…“Christianity” faded into the background until it “reemerged” in the second century in all of it’s various forms…and the “struggle” between the various sects of Christianity to claim to be the “authentic” Christianity began…with the “orthodox” gaining pre-eminence and eventually staking it’s claim as “authentic” and all others “heretical”.

Where did you get this version?

 

[Publisher]

Where did you get this version?

From scholars and authors you would not have read most likely…this statement was not intended to infer anything about your education, religious or secular…it’s just that most conservative believers shy away from these types of books.

John Dominic Crossan
Bart Erhman
John Spong
Marcus Borg
Hyam Mcoby
Burton Mack

among a few others…the New Testament is Midrash…Jesus is portrayed as the New Moses, New Joshua, New Son of David, New Prophet who is like Moses.

The NT story of Jesus is OT stories “retold” by making Jesus the main character…identifying Israel’s past with the new Christian movement as the legitimate expression of Judaism…especially after the destruction of the Temple.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Publisher, how exactly can you claim to be a Quaker while citing as authoritative a group of scholars who deny the divinity of Jesus? Is there such a thing as an atheist Quaker or a Jewish Quaker or a pantheist Quaker?

I ask because the only Quakers I’m aware of are Protestants and oatmeal.

 

[Nine_Two]

“Oral tradition” as express by the “proto-orhtodox” or as expressed by the “Ebionites”…or “Marcionites” or some of the various “Gnostic sects”…or do we ONLY allow “oral tradition” from the “proto-orthodox/catholic” sources which became the ECF’s? There were places in the Roman Empire and beyond that only had a “heretical” version of Christianity…so far removed from Rome, where the “proto-orthodox/catholic” groups first formed.

So…is “oral tradition” as found in some of the writings of the “heretics” reliable…or is the only “reliable” oral tradition found among the “orthodox/catholic” sects?

An argument that would be valid and deserving of an answer if it were actually on topic. As it is it seems a tacit admission that the Early Church utilized tradition in its teachings, and therefore was not based on Sola Scriptura.

 

[Nine_Two]

The NT story of Jesus is OT stories “retold” by making Jesus the main character…identifying Israel’s past with the new Christian movement as the legitimate expression of Judaism…especially after the destruction of the Temple.

Why do you repeat this claim after being asked to back it up?

 

[Nine_Two]

Publisher, how exactly can you claim to be a Quaker while citing as authoritative a group of scholars who deny the divinity of Jesus? Is there such a thing as an atheist Quaker or a Jewish Quaker or a pantheist Quaker?

I ask because the only Quakers I’m aware of are Protestants and oatmeal.

I’m pretty sure Quakers are allowed to believe anything they want, but you’re right, strange to have one citing authorities.

 

[thevoiceofone]

From scholars and authors you would not have read most likely…this statement was not intended to infer anything about your education, religious or secular…it’s just that most conservative believers shy away from these types of books.

John Dominic Crossan
Bart Erhman
John Spong
Marcus Borg
Hyam Mcoby
Burton Mack

among a few others…the New Testament is Midrash…Jesus is portrayed as the New Moses, New Joshua, New Son of David, New Prophet who is like Moses.

The NT story of Jesus is OT stories “retold” by making Jesus the main character…identifying Israel’s past with the new Christian movement as the legitimate expression of Judaism…especially after the destruction of the Temple.

Good grief, man! You are correct in seeing the similarity between the New and the Old Testaments, but to claim they just took the old stories and rewroked them with new heroes is quite ridiculous. The Old foreshadowed the New, indeed. But, besides Paul and his helpers preaching to the Gentiles, the rest of the apostles were mostly trying to convert the Jews. Do you really think they tried to convince them by changing the old stories? No, they preached “Christ, and Him crucified.” They certainly had to make peace with what some of the Jews would have seen as an attack on their tradition, but they did it by showing that Christ had fulfilled the Old Testament. They didn’t borrow the old stories anymore than the Jews borrowed from the Epic of Gilgamesh to write (pass down orally to begin with, of course) the Old Testament.

The Gospels are the stories passed down by the eye-witnesses to Christ’s work. A lot of the words of Christ were copied from Mark’s Gospel, or the legendary Q, but the stories only differ in the point being made to the writers’ respective audiences. Paul’s letters were written to keep the churches he founded in check during his absence, basically. But, his letters are filled with authoritative teaching, that authority being given to him thru Christ and confirmed by Peter.

The history of the codification of Scripture is really quite simple. There’s really no mystery to it. The intent of the canon was to determine what could be used liturgically, mostly, but to define what books were unquestionably authoritative (and inspired) otherwise. The Didache, for example, is believed to be older than the letters of Paul, and it is without fault, but it’s not considered an inspired work, so it was not included in the canon. It’s a shame that it wasn’t, because it would have cleared up a lot of questions concerning Baptism, among other things questioned by Protestants. Anyhow, there are several writings by the early Church fathers to disprove your claim that “Christianity fell into the background” during the first century. It only kept growing and getting better established, more popular, and more formalized. Heresies were continuously beaten down until Henry VIII made his great selfish blunder.

“Sola Scriptura” was never in effect until the heretics invented it.

The Bible comes from the Tradition, not the other way around. Anyone denying that just doesn’t know their history.

 

[steve_b]

From scholars and authors you would not have read most likely…this statement was not intended to infer anything about your education, religious or secular…it’s just that most conservative believers shy away from these types of books.

John Dominic Crossan
Bart Erhman
John Spong
Marcus Borg
Hyam Mcoby
Burton Mack

among a few others…the New Testament is Midrash…Jesus is portrayed as the New Moses, New Joshua, New Son of David, New Prophet who is like Moses.

“scholars”? sheesh

 

[aquabatix]

The funniest part about this argument, is that many adherents to “Sola Scriptura” that I speak to have never heard of the books of “scripture” that were excluded from the canon. When I challenge them as to why the Gospel of Mary or Thomas or Phillip was not included, they do not know why. If they had access to them, would the follow the Gnostic belief that in order for a woman to gain eternal life she needs to be made into a man? It’s right there, written plainly…

But I guees the CC was wrong to use her authority to save a Bible reader almost 2000 years later from trying to discern this on his/her own.

 

[elvisman]

While those first Christians did not have the New Testament of course…they did have the Hebrew Bible available to them. The writers of the gospels used the Hebrew scriptures as a “template” to “flesh out the life of Jesus”…they “retold” some of the Hebrew stories using Jesus as the focus and fleshed out his life using such stories.

A few paralles between stories…which were…“reworked” which caused the belief that the similarities between the NT and OT was that the OT “prefigured” the NT…

Joseph was a dreamer of dreams…in both Old and New.

Joseph in both testaments ended up in Egypt

The song of Hannah sounds very similar to the Magnificat of Mary.

The angelic announcment of “special births”…Samuel…Sampson…I’m sure there are others.

Many of the OT passages were “appropriated” by New Testament writers and gave a basic framework to use when writing their gospels and letters.

It has been put forth…and to me this makes tremendous sense, the writers of the New took Old Testament stories and “blended” the life of Jesus into them…the Gospels are “Jewish Midrash”…now the “heros” of the stories is not Moses, Joshua, Samuel, Jospeh, David or Daniel…but Jesus and NT characters.

Paul and the writers of “James” and “Peter’s” letters used extensive OT references to “formulate” their “new Judaism”.

The NT was compiled long after the original apostles died…we know very little of the apostles…at the closing of the NT…the apostles “disappear”…most of the apostles are never mentioned again once listed in the gospels other than an oblique reference in Acts.

All the stories we have come down to us through “tradition”…“nature hates a vacuum”…and so do “believers” it seems…the true history and fate of the apostles is really unknown…“Christianity” faded into the background until it “reemerged” in the second century in all of it’s various forms…and the “struggle” between the various sects of Christianity to claim to be the “authentic” Christianity began…with the “orthodox” gaining pre-eminence and eventually staking it’s claim as “authentic” and all others “heretical”.

And you believe these guys?

 

[Publisher]

And you believe these guys?

LOL…seems “more” credible than “you guys”.

 

[elvisman]

LOL…seems “more” credible than “you guys”.

**Let me get this straight - you believe these guys to be credible? **

John Dominic Crossan, who believes that not only was Jesus NOT resurrected, but Jesus was eaten by wild dogs that roamed Calvary?

You don’t believe that Jesus rose from the dead?
To deny the Resurrection is heresy - plain and simple.

 

[Publisher]

Let me get this straight - you believe these guys to be credible?

John Dominic Crossan, who believes that not only was Jesus NOT resurrected, but Jesus was eaten by wild dogs that roamed Calvary?

You don’t believe that Jesus rose from the dead?
To deny the Resurrection is heresy - plain and simple.

John Dominic Crossan’s religious beliefs do not impact his scholarly work concerning Early Christian origins…nor do they impact his scholarly work on the formation of the New Testament scriptures.

My religious beliefs do not impact what I believe about the formation of the NT either.

I believe Jesus was raised and lives more surely than you or I do…he is with his Father.