The Early Christians were Sola Scriptura

[IHeartAquinas]

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?

 

[Nine_Two]

They may not have had 2,000 years of tradition to fall back on that early, but they also didn’t have a canon of scripture to fall back on.

 

[JohnDamian]

If they were Sola Scriptura how come they were allowed to write the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament… If only someone had been there to set St.Paul, St.James and all the others straight, what were they thinking – writing new scripture?

 

[JRKH]

Frankly I find the argument fails by the testimony of the Bible itself. The proof is in Acts 15 and the council of Jerusalem. If (existing) Scripture were the sole rule of faith, the council would have found in favor of the Judaizers. After all, the Jewish Christians had “Clear Scriptural passages” to support their position. The Gentile Christians on Antioch had only Paul’s Oral Preaching on the matter.

Peace
James

 

[cruisin]

Frankly I find the argument fails by the testimony of the Bible itself. The proof is in Acts 15 and the council of Jerusalem. If (existing) Scripture were the sole rule of faith, the council would have found in favor of the Judaizers. After all, the Jewish Christians had “Clear Scriptural passages” to support their position. The Gentile Christians on Antioch had only Paul’s Oral Preaching on the matter.

Peace
James

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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

 

[wisdomseeker]

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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

The Church found on the Apostles by Christ which the gates of hell do not preavail against according to our Lord Himself. the Church of the Creed. “and thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.”
zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m3/4mrkc.html

**“I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”
Saint Augustine (354-430), Against the Letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D…
**

 

[Nine_Two]

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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

The problem with the idea that those writtings were around even if they wern’t codified, is that there were hundreds of other writtings around which those who believe in Sola Scriptura don’t place any stock in. On what basis, for example, can one reject the authority of The Hypostasis of the Archons, or The Passion of Perpetua and Felicity, but accept The First Epistle to the Corinthians?

 

[lutherlic]

This is really such a bizarre assertion on the face of it.

Just think along all points of time. From the moment Jesus spoke to when it was recorded. Between the speaking and the recording it was tradition. Many things were not recorded. They are tradition. That everything must have been recorded to be true is ridiculous. The early Church had no such illusions. Also note that many heresies were recorded so exactly what scripture did the early Church allegedly believe?

Sola Scriptura should be strongly condemned for the heresy (denying tradition and the teaching authority of the Magisterium) that it is.

 

[Cat_Herder]

But I would argue, what was Paul’s preaching based from? another words, what did he preach from.

It wasn’t directly from Scripture as you know from his encounter with the Bereans and the Thessalonians. Paul came with the oral preaching of the good news of Christ–which was not in the Scriptures yet–and tried to convince both groups that Jesus was the Messiah according to the then-extant Scriptures: the Old Testament. The Thessalonians rejected the Gospel and the Bereans accepted the Gospel based on said preaching.

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.

They became authority once their authorship was proven to the satisfaction of the local bishop. Once they were canonized in the 4th century, then and only then did they have authority throughout the Church. This is not a tall tale, this is straight out of the encyclopedia.

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?

Mr. Akin and Mr. Staples get it from the teachings of the Church. Mr. Graham and Mr. Dobson speak on their own authority. Some like them also claim the authority of the Holy Spirit, and I think you know what the Bible says about that:

[BIBLEDRB]John 16:13[/BIBLEDRB]

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.

But some bishops accepted some writings and others didn’t.

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.

The ones that were divinely inspired were, of course, such from day one–but there was no unanimous opinion until the canon was decided in the 4th century.

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

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

Scripture: Divine inspiration, but this must be recognized.
Preaching: Scripture AND the Church, together.

 

[Hesychios]

"The Early Christians were Sola Scriptura"

This line has been fed to me time and time again …

Wow, those people don’t think these things through before speaking, apparently.

 

[cruisin]

This is really such a bizarre assertion on the face of it.

Just think along all points of time. From the moment Jesus spoke to when it was recorded. Between the speaking and the recording it was tradition. Many things were not recorded. They are tradition. That everything must have been recorded to be true is ridiculous. The early Church had no such illusions. Also note that many heresies were recorded so exactly what scripture did the early Church allegedly believe?

Sola Scriptura should be strongly condemned for the heresy (denying tradition and the teaching authority of the Magisterium) that it is.

If this is true, then why canonize anything? by what measuring stick does one decide what tradition to follow and which ones not to? Who then really has the authority?

By what measure does then the Magisterium get it’s authority? form Tradition or Scripture? which holds more weight?

If you say the magisterium has the authority then where does it get it’s authority, IF you say scripture gives the magisterium authority, then where does scripture get it’s authority to give the magisterium its authority?

which then is right and always true?

Tradition - which may or may not be written down and is dependent on fallible human to get it right

scripture- which is written down and closest to the source of the authority
or a combination?

If one wants to know why certain ones where chosen and some where not, then I guess a person would have to go back a take a look a at the measuring stick, the rules that where decided upon, that decided which letter got in and which ones did not.

If it is heresy to take scripture over the traditions of men and that tradition takes president over scripture in some cases, what was the purpose of canonizing the new testament letters in the first place?

All authority starts some where. Even tradition.

its essentially asking the age old question, which came first the chicken or the egg
or in this case the authority or the tradition?

I cannot disagree that there was some mouth to mouth teaching, Tradition as you would call it.
but I also think that the new testament evidence show that they where getting it wrong by the use of tradition, if the early Christians where getting it write through tradition(mouth to mouth teaching), there would have been no reason for Paul, as one example, to write the types of letters that he wrote. there would have been no problems and heresy shouldn’t have raised its head if tradition was as reliable as you claim to pass information from one generation to another.

 

[cruisin]

It wasn’t directly from Scripture as you know from his encounter with the Bereans and the Thessalonians. Paul came with the oral preaching of the good news of Christ–which was not in the Scriptures yet–and tried to convince both groups that Jesus was the Messiah according to the then-extant Scriptures: the Old Testament. The Thessalonians rejected the Gospel and the Bereans accepted the Gospel based on said preaching.

So Paul did not write a letter to the church at Thessaloniki? Because there was no Christians there, interesting?

So your claim is that the letters of Paul had no authority until the 4th century? If they carried no authority with the churches at Roman,Corinth and Thessaloniki, to Timothy, and Titus, then Why did Paul right the letters?

By what authority did he write those letters? I don’t see anything saying I Paul by the authority given to me by the Magisterium in 350 AD.

Which bishop approved the letters to the churches at Rome,Corinth and Thessaloniki, to Timothy, and Titus? can you give me the names?

 

[Todd520]

IHeart,
You’ve actually made a strong argument that ‘early christians’ should not have even been christian, that they were nothing more than pagans or Jews with a Jesus twist!
It’s an interesting argument.

I do agree they were in effect Sola Scriptura, and their Scriptura may have been limited to an oral tradition of just one Gospel I still think they were Christian

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?

 

[Cat_Herder]

So your claim is that the letters of Paul had no authority until the 4th century? If they carried no authority with the churches at Roman,Corinth and Thessaloniki, to Timothy, and Titus, then Why did Paul right the letters?

I didn’t say that. I said that the canonical status–i.e. the authorship–of the letters was in flux until the canon was closed. For example, some early Christians thought Paul wrote 3 Corinthians. Is 3 Corinthians in your Bible? No?

Who decided that 3 Corinthians was not written by Paul? You?

 

[JRKH]

You ask some good questions here and I see that some others have already attempted to answer them. I hope not to confuse things too much but will add my thoughts below.

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

It this is so, then I would ask you if you, using only OT Scripture, could convincingly argue against requiring circumcision for the Gentiles? And, if you say that youcould make such an argument, would it be so convincing that it would overturn, in council, the clearly defined laws already written in those books that Paul had memorized? What passages of the OT would/could Paul use to argue that God’s eternal covenant of circumcision was overturned?
Now - fast forward to today…those who hold to the view of Sola Scriptura, generally will not accept anything that is not in the bible, and if something IS clearly written in the bible there is no arguing them out of it. The Bible of Paul’s time was the OT Scriptures. Circumcision was clearly called out. If the Early Church was SS, then the circumcision party wins hands down.

Yes, Paul used Scripture to argue and to preach from. He did so in order to show that Christ was who He claimed to be. The Son of the Living God. The Savior promised of Old.

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.

As someone else already mentioned, wrtings would have authority when The Church recognized their authority. Initially this would be the local bishop. He would base his decision on what he knew of the origin of the writings and on whether he believed the writings to be true and orthodox to the Sacred deposit of faith handed to him by his predecessors and guided by the Holy Spirit.
As the Church spread, there came more writings, and more writings, Some widely accepted, some not so widely, but all claiming apostolic authority and all accepted by at least some of the bishops of The Church. Eventually there were 200 to 300 such writings.
Once the faith was legalized in the Roman empire, The Church had teh opportunity to really review these writings make determination for the universal Church as to which were fully authentic. These were compiled into the NT as clearly “God breathed” Scripture.

I should like to make a note here on this process that is often lost. The Church did not outright reject many of the texts that did not make it into the NT scripture. It was not a black and white decision. The 27 texts included were seen as completely True, but those excluded were not, and are not, seen as completely false. These writings contain and preserve some very interesting and widely held traditions of the Early Church and are studied even today by Scholars in The Church.

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?

I’m not sure that I grant any of these people ANY authority in so far as governing what Christians believe. I do know that Mr’s Akin and Stapes, teach in accordance with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, while Mr’s Dobson and Graham do not, relying more heavily on their own (Spirit guided?) interpretation of the Bible alone.

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.

Yes they were copied and spread, along with many other writings that ultimately did not make it into the canon.
Frankly, I don’t think the writers expected there to be a need for such a compilation because most of them expected Chrsit to return sooner rather than later. Some of this expectation can be seen in the letters themselves.

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.

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

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

The Question of Authority is complex. I don’t have all the answers either. I do know that Christ founded a Church, not a book. He gave Authority to that Church to bind and loose. He promised to be with and guide His Church into all Truth.
So ultimately, authority is transmitted from the Christ our King, through the Holy Spirit, to The Church which is all of us together as one and not each alone with a bible.

Peace
James

 

[lutherlic]

If this is true, then why canonize anything? by what measuring stick does one decide what tradition to follow and which ones not to? Who then really has the authority?

By what measure does then the Magisterium get it’s authority? form Tradition or Scripture? which holds more weight?

The authority was given by Christ to the Apostles and their successors. Guided by the Holy Spirit, they decide.

They are of equal “weight” and not contradictory. The NT is simply recorded tradition, but not all of it.

If you say the magisterium has the authority then where does it get it’s authority, IF you say scripture gives the magisterium authority, then where does scripture get it’s authority to give the magisterium its authority?

Jesus , not scripture, gave the Magisterium its authority. Scripture does however record this fact.

which then is right and always true?

Tradition - which may or may not be written down and is dependent on fallible human to get it right

scripture- which is written down and closest to the source of the authority
or a combination?

Tradition that is “written down” is scripture.

Your argument against tradition is an argument against the teaching form of Jesus.

If one wants to know why certain ones where chosen and some where not, then I guess a person would have to go back a take a look a at the measuring stick, the rules that where decided upon, that decided which letter got in and which ones did not.

If it is heresy to take scripture over the traditions of men and that tradition takes president over scripture in some cases, what was the purpose of canonizing the new testament letters in the first place?

All authority starts some where. Even tradition.

Agree with your last statement and the answer is Jesus.

its essentially asking the age old question, which came first the chicken or the egg
or in this case the authority or the tradition?

Authority came from Jesus and was known only by tradition until it was recorded in scripture. There is no “chicken or the egg” dilemma posed.

I cannot disagree that there was some mouth to mouth teaching, Tradition as you would call it.
but I also think that the new testament evidence show that they where getting it wrong by the use of tradition, if the early Christians where getting it write through tradition(mouth to mouth teaching), there would have been no reason for Paul, as one example, to write the types of letters that he wrote. there would have been no problems and heresy shouldn’t have raised its head if tradition was as reliable as you claim to pass information from one generation to another.

By the very authority given by Jesus Himself and protected by the Holy Spirit, the canon of the Holy Bible was infallibly determined. That authority did not end at that moment nor does Holy Scripture say it did.

 

[JRKH]

?
I cannot disagree that there was some mouth to mouth teaching, Tradition as you would call it.
but I also think that the new testament evidence show that they where getting it wrong by the use of tradition, if the early Christians where getting it write through tradition(mouth to mouth teaching), there would have been no reason for Paul, as one example, to write the types of letters that he wrote. there would have been no problems and heresy shouldn’t have raised its head if tradition was as reliable as you claim to pass information from one generation to another.

I think that one can ask the opposite question about Pauls letters. If paul had been present to deal with problems personally, would he have bothered to write down the answers?
Indeed we can find examples of this in Pauls letters themselves. To Timothy he writes,
I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
The implication being that, if Paul was there in person he would not have needed to write down these instructions to Timothy.

Secondly, regarding the idea of getting it wrong via “tradition”. You say above that:
the new testament evidence show that they where getting it wrong by the use of tradition…there would have been no problems and heresy shouldn’t have raised its head if tradition was as reliable as you claim to pass information from one generation to another.
Let’s examine this. Catholicism with it’s realiance on the three legged stool of Scripture, has maintained unity for nearly 2 millenia. This, in spite of the many heresies that have arisen from the early days. Granted there was the split in 1064 between east and west, but even in this, the integration of the three legs was not lost. In fact, while there were some doctrinal issues, the main reason for the split was more political than doctrinal.
Then came the Reformation after a millenia and a half of Church unity under the Scripture/Tradition/Magisterium model. This reformation removed, first the teaching authority, (magisterium) and then removed Tradition. The result??
Those who hold to Sola Scriptura have splintered into thousands of different sects in less than 500 years. In fact, the SS group was unable to present a united front even from the beginning with the “fathers of the reformation”, each going their own way.

So where you say, “heresy shouldn’t have raised its head if tradition was as reliable as you claim…”, I say, heresy shouldn’t have raised its head if The Bible Alone was as reliable as you claim to pass information from one generation to another.

So then one must ask oneself. Which system is better able to preserve, protect, defend and pass on the Truth of the Gospel?

Peace
James

 

[Publisher]

They may not have had 2,000 years of tradition to fall back on that early, but they also didn’t have a canon of scripture to fall back on.

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”.

 

[Nine_Two]

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”.

Actually it would have been the Septuagent, not Hebrew Scriptures that they used for the most part.

While you can argue “similarities” between events which happened, if you’re trying to use it as evidence that it is all made up then you’re going to have to apply that to reality. While you may just be a deist, repetition is not proof against anything.

Tell me more about Joseph and Egypt and how they’re exactly the same… two men, both named Joseph (a very common Hebrew name), both ended up in Egypt at one point in their lives… tell me more about how one story is clearly based on the other.

You can claim that nothing is known before the second century because we have no extant writings, however on that basis a significant portion of accepted history is called into question. The fact that we have 2nd century manuscripts puts that writing much closer to the source than any other historical event from that era and indicates the writings had already been disseminated throughout the empire.

In addition to that, by outright ignoring oral tradition you are engaging in an act of Cultural Supremacy. You’re saying that because it was not written down whatever was said is worthless. I suggest you look into some of the research which has been done on orality. Simply because you live in a culture which has “advanced” to the point where individuals don’t have to remember anything at all - and therefore do not - does not mean that oral tradition is unreliable.

 

[Publisher]

Actually it would have been the Septuagent, not Hebrew Scriptures that they used for the most part.

While you can argue “similarities” between events which happened, if you’re trying to use it as evidence that it is all made up then you’re going to have to apply that to reality. While you may just be a deist, repetition is not proof against anything.

Tell me more about Joseph and Egypt and how they’re exactly the same… two men, both named Joseph (a very common Hebrew name), both ended up in Egypt at one point in their lives… tell me more about how one story is clearly based on the other.

You can claim that nothing is known before the second century because we have no extant writings, however on that basis a significant portion of accepted history is called into question. The fact that we have 2nd century manuscripts puts that writing much closer to the source than any other historical event from that era and indicates the writings had already been disseminated throughout the empire.

In addition to that, by outright ignoring oral tradition you are engaging in an act of Cultural Supremacy. You’re saying that because it was not written down whatever was said is worthless. I suggest you look into some of the research which has been done on orality. Simply because you live in a culture which has “advanced” to the point where individuals don’t have to remember anything at all - and therefore do not - does not mean that oral tradition is unreliable.

“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?