The Early Christians were Sola Scriptura

[elvisman]

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.

These are ludicrous statements.
**Yet you claim that his information is more reliable than the Church.
John Dominic crossan denies the Resurrection and says that it was a myth.

If your religious beliefs do not impact what you believe about the formation of the NT - WHY do you believe that the NT is the inspired word of God?

 

[Nine_Two]

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

On what basis do they have credibility? They have degrees? Lots of people who disagree with them have degrees. Or does it have more to do with them agreeing with what you already thought?

Your lack of ability/desire to back up what you’ve said would indicate the latter.

 

[DingingDong]

LOL

 

[Todd520]

Why is the statement LUDICROUS?
If someone is a historian or a scientist, they should still be able to execute their research with appropriate science and discipline regardless of their faith, if they have integrity.

Faith may provide a focus for research, but it shouldn’t fudge the outcomes

These are ludicrous statements.

 

[elvisman]

Why is the statement LUDICROUS?
If someone is a historian or a scientist, they should still be able to execute their research with appropriate science and discipline regardless of their faith, if they have integrity.

Faith may provide a focus for research, but it shouldn’t fudge the outcomes

Because it’s ludicrous to claim to believe something - then to say that those who would try to debunk those beliefs have more credibility than the source of what you believe in the first place.

To say you believe in the Resurrection of Christ is one thing. To say that you also believe the statements of a guy like John Dominic Crossan who denies the Resurrection - is self-contradiction.

The reality of the Resurrection is based in faith - but it is also based on eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ appearing afterward to at least 500 people (1 Cor. 15:6).

 

[elvisman]

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

Did you even READ what you wrote?
Your last line is an exercise in contradiction. First, you say that you believe that the Early Christians were Sola Scriptura but that their “Scriptura” was based on Oral Tradition of one Gospel.

Sola Scriptura means that the WRITTEN word is our authority NOT Oral Tradition - even though there are many on these forums who espouse varying flavors of Sola Scriptura.

The reason that the Early Church was NOT Sola Scriptura - and that no thinking Christian CAN be - is that it is rejected by the Scriptures themselves. Sola Scriptura is a self-refuting novelty.

 

[JRKH]

It seems to me that Publisher’s post #18 and then everything from about post 30 and onwards which includes all of pages 3 and 4 of this thread are off topic.

Pubisher began this rabbit trail by bringing up the idea that the NT writings were not actual or factual…That is not the subject of this thread.

The Subject of this thread is whether or not the Early Christians relied entirely on written texts (scripted texts = scriptures) that had been authoritatively declared to be “God Breathed” (God inspired written text = Scriptures).

Or did they rely on Oral Traditions as well as on written texts.

Given what is contained within the Bible itself about how the early church functioned there can be little or no doubt but that the main reliance, especially in the first and second century was on a combination of both Oral tradition written Tradition, with Oral tradition at all times preceeding the written.

Why and how were people in Jerusalem, Antioch, Corinth, Thessalonia, Rome, Galatia, Ephesis, Philippia etc…converted? It was by the Oral preaching of the Apostles. The OT Scriptures were used to back up what was being taught, but the teaching was New and radical. It was both contained in the OT and still went well beyond the OT in it’s ramifications. It raised new questions for which the OT had no answers. The apostles had to give answers “on the fly”. Some wrote letters, and some letters were preserved. Later some wrote the gospel accounts, based ont ehoral traditions that had been handed down.
But always, at the center of this early movement was “The Church”, the Ecclesia, The Community of believers headed by the Bishop. The Church, teaching and preaching and evangelizing and ministering to the flock. The Church, holding and preserving The Truth as revealed and passed on through both Oral and written media, and protected by the teaching authority given to The Church by Christ Himself.

Those who hold to the idea that the early Church was “Sola Scriptura” are just as misguided as those who hold to an “invisible church” and “personal interpretation”.
They believe these things, and twist Scripture to fit, even though Scripture itself denies such beliefs.

Sorry to carry on so…But i am hoping we can get past this sideshow about publisher’s sources etc and get back to the topic of whether the early Christians were Sola Scripturists.

Peace
James

 

[Publisher]

On what basis do they have credibility? They have degrees? Lots of people who disagree with them have degrees. Or does it have more to do with them agreeing with what you already thought?

Your lack of ability/desire to back up what you’ve said would indicate the latter.

And wearing a “white collar” or black robe and having an “office” in the Catholic church gives them no more credibility than friend Crossan…or friend Borg…or friend Spong.

You may certainly believe what you will concerning my motives concerning my beliefs…it make no difference to me…you must live in the Light as you are guided.

 

[Publisher]

These are ludicrous statements.
**Yet you claim that his information is *more ***reliable than the Church.
John Dominic crossan denies the Resurrection and says that it was a myth.

If your religious beliefs do not impact what you believe about the formation of the NT - WHY do you believe that the NT is the inspired word of God?

That IS YOUR opinion and you are entitled to them friend.

Peace to you.

 

[Publisher]

It seems to me that Publisher’s post #18 and then everything from about post 30 and onwards which includes all of pages 3 and 4 of this thread are off topic.

Pubisher began this rabbit trail by bringing up the idea that the NT writings were not actual or factual…That is not the subject of this thread.

The Subject of this thread is whether or not the Early Christians relied entirely on written texts (scripted texts = scriptures) that had been authoritatively declared to be “God Breathed” (God inspired written text = Scriptures).

Or did they rely on Oral Traditions as well as on written texts.

Given what is contained within the Bible itself about how the early church functioned there can be little or no doubt but that the main reliance, especially in the first and second century was on a combination of both Oral tradition written Tradition, with Oral tradition at all times preceeding the written.

Why and how were people in Jerusalem, Antioch, Corinth, Thessalonia, Rome, Galatia, Ephesis, Philippia etc…converted? It was by the Oral preaching of the Apostles. The OT Scriptures were used to back up what was being taught, but the teaching was New and radical. It was both contained in the OT and still went well beyond the OT in it’s ramifications. It raised new questions for which the OT had no answers. The apostles had to give answers “on the fly”. Some wrote letters, and some letters were preserved. Later some wrote the gospel accounts, based ont ehoral traditions that had been handed down.
But always, at the center of this early movement was “The Church”, the Ecclesia, The Community of believers headed by the Bishop. The Church, teaching and preaching and evangelizing and ministering to the flock. The Church, holding and preserving The Truth as revealed and passed on through both Oral and written media, and protected by the teaching authority given to The Church by Christ Himself.

Those who hold to the idea that the early Church was “Sola Scriptura” are just as misguided as those who hold to an “invisible church” and “personal interpretation”.
They believe these things, and twist Scripture to fit, even though Scripture itself denies such beliefs.

Sorry to carry on so…But i am hoping we can get past this sideshow about publisher’s sources etc and get back to the topic of whether the early Christians were Sola Scripturists.

Peace
James

The early Christians used the Hebrew scriptures to seek to understand and explain the life of the man Jesus of Nazareth. It was from what they gleaned from the scriptures that they formed their “oral traditions”…all based on OT scriptures…coupled with the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

That first century believers were centered on the moral and ethical teachings of Jesus of Nazareth…the shift focused from what Jesus taught to what people believed about him being more important than his teachings. Instead of the “religion” of Jesus…by the second century the focus was on the “religious beliefs ABOUT Jesus”…two entirely different ideas.

The Didache congregations of the 1st century focused on his teachings ov love, mercy, compassion and caring for one another…when Christianity emerged from obscurity in the 2nd century…the focus was on building separations based on WHAT was believed about him…not on what he taught.

I do not argue for “sola scriptura”…as I do not believe in it…I sought to clarify that it was the OT scriptures which they went to in order to understand who they believed this man to be…it was then that the “Midrash” of Christianity was formed.

 

[Vicki_Leigh]

Hello Everyone,
For those of you trying to explain Church tradition and the problems with Sola Scriptura to Protestant friends, I thought I’d offer this information. I’m a Protestant who has only recently started studying the teachings of the Catholic church, so I understand this issue. In order to help your Protestant friends understand Church tradition, you really have to try to put yourself in the position of not only never having been properly taught about the history of the Catholic church, but also probably having a lot of misconceptions about it. You have to start at the beginning and explain (not argue!) about the early Church. I only started understanding Church tradition and history when I read about the early Church fathers and early church teachings. When Protestants hear the words “tradition”, they usually think of non-doctrine matters. They don’t equate “tradition” with oral teaching, nor do they make the connection that oral teaching is what Jesus did. At least, I never made these connections. So, you have to explain this matter-of-factly (not by arguing with them). Just offer to explain what the Catholic church teaches rather than try to “convince” them of something. If you provide the information they are missing, you can leave it to the Holy Spirit to convict them. I hope this information is helpful.

 

[thevoiceofone]

It seems to me that Publisher’s post #18 and then everything from about post 30 and onwards which includes all of pages 3 and 4 of this thread are off topic.

Pubisher began this rabbit trail by bringing up the idea that the NT writings were not actual or factual…That is not the subject of this thread.

The Subject of this thread is whether or not the Early Christians relied entirely on written texts (scripted texts = scriptures) that had been authoritatively declared to be “God Breathed” (God inspired written text = Scriptures).

Or did they rely on Oral Traditions as well as on written texts.

Given what is contained within the Bible itself about how the early church functioned there can be little or no doubt but that the main reliance, especially in the first and second century was on a combination of both Oral tradition written Tradition, with Oral tradition at all times preceeding the written.

Why and how were people in Jerusalem, Antioch, Corinth, Thessalonia, Rome, Galatia, Ephesis, Philippia etc…converted? It was by the Oral preaching of the Apostles. The OT Scriptures were used to back up what was being taught, but the teaching was New and radical. It was both contained in the OT and still went well beyond the OT in it’s ramifications. It raised new questions for which the OT had no answers. The apostles had to give answers “on the fly”. Some wrote letters, and some letters were preserved. Later some wrote the gospel accounts, based ont ehoral traditions that had been handed down.
But always, at the center of this early movement was “The Church”, the Ecclesia, The Community of believers headed by the Bishop. The Church, teaching and preaching and evangelizing and ministering to the flock. The Church, holding and preserving The Truth as revealed and passed on through both Oral and written media, and protected by the teaching authority given to The Church by Christ Himself.

Those who hold to the idea that the early Church was “Sola Scriptura” are just as misguided as those who hold to an “invisible church” and “personal interpretation”.
They believe these things, and twist Scripture to fit, even though Scripture itself denies such beliefs.

Sorry to carry on so…But i am hoping we can get past this sideshow about publisher’s sources etc and get back to the topic of whether the early Christians were Sola Scripturists.

Peace
James

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. I’m guilty myself of following the way of “the sideshow,” as you put it. Sorry about that.

The answer to the original question is basically, no, the early Christians were not sola sciptura, not by any means.

Chances are, most of the new Christian Churches that were established didn’t even have a scroll or a codex of the the OT, even. They were based upon the new oral tradition. They were taught and raised in the faith by the Church elders (priests and deacons, and bishops). The earliest elders were taught by the apostles. The apostles were taught by Christ. Some of the early Churches would eventually have the highly coveted letters that would become the NT a couple hundred years later. We know the letters (epistles) and Gospels were copied and passed around, but the limited number of eligible (educated and/or wealthy) individuals able to do this kept these writings rather scarce up until the Middle Ages when the printing press was invented. That’s a historical fact that can only be denied by the ignorant and sadly mislead people who want to have a religion that suits themselves, instead of following the one Church that was established by Christ.

 

[Nine_Two]

And wearing a “white collar” or black robe and having an “office” in the Catholic church gives them no more credibility than friend Crossan…or friend Borg…or friend Spong.

You may certainly believe what you will concerning my motives concerning my beliefs…it make no difference to me…you must live in the Light as you are guided.

Given that I never argued that a church office gives someones words credibility in and of itself, that’s a non-sequitor.

I question your motives because you insist on making pronouncements without backing them up.

 

[Todd520]

Elvis,

I will repeat my thoughts for you.
Many initial congregations must have relied on maybe just one gospel. They may have had ‘scripture’ or may have shared it through oral tradition.
Their limited exposure to the gospel would be unacceptable by today’s standards. And at this time they were considered a Jewsih sect instead of a brand new religion.

Since all the people had was Jewish tradition and their limited exposure to the Gospel, by today’s definition they would have a sola scripture on the new Gospels (including oral in the definition)

This is more of a fact than a justification for ‘only scripture’ . I believe interpretation by experts uplifts all christians in their knowledge of Christ.

 

[Nine_Two]

Elvis,

I will repeat my thoughts for you.
Many initial congregations must have relied on maybe just one gospel. They may have had ‘scripture’ or may have shared it through oral tradition.
Their limited exposure to the gospel would be unacceptable by today’s standards. And at this time they were considered a Jewsih sect instead of a brand new religion.

Since all the people had was Jewish tradition and their limited exposure to the Gospel, by today’s definition they would have a sola scripture on the new Gospels (including oral in the definition)

This is more of a fact than a justification for ‘only scripture’ . I believe interpretation by experts uplifts all christians in their knowledge of Christ.

They also had the oral teachings of the apostles.

 

[Publisher]

Given that I never argued that a church office gives someones words credibility in and of itself, that’s a non-sequitor.

I question your motives because you insist on making pronouncements without backing them up.

Ahhh…I am offering opinions I hold in relation to the topic…I do not demand nor do I need for anyone to agree with me…I respect your beliefs…if you have no desire to further study the subject from the “other side”…which I find much more credible than the “conservative side”…and more specifically the mythology developed over centuries finally coming to a head with the establishment of the Catholic/Orthodox churches sometime in the 2nd century through the writings and teaching of the ECF’s…that’s ok with me…I do not believe the ECF “mythology” of “apostlic succession”…they were no more taught by the apostles than was Buddah.

The ECF’s were much better organized and more in touch with those congregations who embraced their teachings than were the “heretics”…most of the “heretics” had little use for a “magisterium” or “teaching authority”…some of the “heretics” claimed to have been taught directly by the apostles too…but such a claim is denied by the “orthodox/catholic” groups…one group of Christians making claims over another group of Christians does not proove the victors in the struggle for the dominance of Christian thought were correct and their opponents wrong…it simply means the victors of this struggle employed tactics and made alliances that these other groups refused to do.

The ECF’s and their “competitors” were all seeking to gain dominance and establish their version of the Christian myth. The scholars I referenced are not seeking to establish a “faith tradition” nor are they seeking to “confirm” another’s faith…they are seeking to outline historical development of Christianity…not a “faith story”. To me that is the difference.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Publisher, do you or do you not believe that Jesus Christ is God?

If you don’t that would explain a lot.

 

[elvisman]

That IS YOUR opinion and you are entitled to them friend.

Peace to you.

It’s my opinion that Crossan denies the Resurrection?
It’s a fact - not an opinion.

The fact that you agree with his views on matters concerning Christianity speaks volumes about what you believe . . .

 

[Publisher]

Publisher, do you or do you not believe that Jesus Christ is God?

If you don’t that would explain a lot.

I believe that God entered our world in the person of Jesus of Nazareth…“though he existed in the form of God, he did not see equality with God a thing to be grasped, but he emptied himself, and became a servant”…“In the beginning was the Word…and the Word was God.”…“In him dwells the fullness of the Godhead bodily”.

Do my statements “explain” anything?

 

[Todd520]

It’s my opinion that Crossan denies the Resurrection?
It’s a fact - not an opinion.

The fact that you agree with his views on matters concerning Christianity speaks volumes about what you believe . . .

Elvis, An insult was the only thing introuced in your post.
why must you resort to insults as your primary debate tactic?